The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[FORBIN]

The current load out just doesn't require 16 tubes so why go to the expense of building a longer sub to accommodate something we won't use ? The program is already very expensive so going with a layout of 12 tubes seems sensible.

Edit - I know historically the Vanguards were built around 16 tubes but the warhead stock has been run down to save money and currently I believe the job can be done with 12 tubes.

I am sure you understand my question i don't ask for current load but for the maximum the Dreadnought would have 3 modules distributed in width considering a little more long than Vanguard 3 m possible room for a 4th SSBN module ?
http://www.hisutton.com/images/Dreadnought_SSBN2000.jpg
http://www.hisutton.com/images/SSBN_Vanguard1800.jpg

 

[beegee]

Leander Frigate - General purpose Frigate

I know 250m quid doesn't buy much these days, but that is an underwhelming ship. Only 25 knots top speed, two low powered engines (sacrificing speed for range) and only 12(!) Sea Ceptor cells. I assume the 117m length version is the one they're pitching for the T31e, since that's the specs they're publishing? Not sure. I find it hard to call it a frigate. Light frigate at best.

 

[swerve]

Ship class inflation. Back in the days when the RN had 50-odd frigates, they were smaller than that. Type 21, Leander, Rothesay . . . all smaller. We're not building frigates which are big even for destroyers from when I was young, more like cruisers. The RAN & RNZN have frigates built in the 2000s which are the size of the Leander project.

I don't find it all hard to call it a frigate.

 

[beegee]

Class inflation or deflation, it doesn't make sense to me that a 117m 3600t vessel have the same classification as a 150m 7000t vessel with vastly superior firepower and capabilities.

 

[Volkodav]

Ship class inflation. Back in the days when the RN had 50-odd frigates, they were smaller than that. Type 21, Leander, Rothesay . . . all smaller. We're not building frigates which are big even for destroyers from when I was young, more like cruisers. The RAN & RNZN have frigates built in the 2000s which are the size of the Leander project.

I don't find it all hard to call it a frigate.

Exactly. In fact sail frigates were pretty much the first Cruisers and at times, i.e Hms Warrior, where larger and more powerful than any ship of the line. Cruisers were cruising ships and included frigates, sloops and corvettes. Destroyers started out as torpedo boat destroyers, very specific response to a specific threat which then evolved into other roles, including torpedo attack, which resulted in the development of destroyer killing light Cruisers, which were more destroyer than cruiser, to screen the battle fleet.

 

[ASSAIL]

Ship class inflation. Back in the days when the RN had 50-odd frigates, they were smaller than that. Type 21, Leander, Rothesay . . . all smaller. We're not building frigates which are big even for destroyers from when I was young, more like cruisers. The RAN & RNZN have frigates built in the 2000s which are the size of the Leander project.

I don't find it all hard to call it a frigate.

I think we have to compare the capabilities of previous frigates with the threats of the era.
When the T12s were built the most significant threat they faced was from conventional attack subs and their most potent weapon was the Mk 10 Limbo mortar.
The air threat was from basis subsonic air launched weapons.
Naturally, upgrades occurred over their time in service but they always lacked competent AAW defences.
All the ships you mention were found wanting during the FI campaign and their demise was hastened.
The threat today is much more sophisticated and ships need to have comparable defences to counter that. What I fear about the T31 programme is that they may slip back into that RN scourge of being fitted “for but not with”

We can only hope that the lessons of the South Atlantic have been learned and that the so called options to fit in the T31 programme are not left as options

 

[swerve]

Class inflation or deflation, it doesn't make sense to me that a 117m 3600t vessel have the same classification as a 150m 7000t vessel with vastly superior firepower and capabilities.

True. But to me, the problem is that big ships are now being put into classifications that used to be for small ships, not that some ships are still being classified as what they might have been a few decades ago.

 

[MrConservative]

True. But to me, the problem is that big ships are now being put into classifications that used to be for small ships, not that some ships are still being classified as what they might have been a few decades ago.

And some right whoppers like the two new JMSDF Maya Class guided missile destroyers are now over 8000t standard and 10000t full load or in other words what would once be classified as a light Cruiser.

Japan launches next-generation destroyer carrying latest version of the Aegis anti-missile system | The Japan Times

Sugoi

 

[ngatimozart]

I think somebody mentioned this before, but would it not be better to classify all ships by what they do rather than by size as in the days of sail and wooden hulls. For example today CV and CVN are all aircraft carriers regardless of size; the only difference in this class being propulsion. SS are subs with sub class classifications for SSBN, SSGN, SSN & SSK again regardless of size. So why can't the CC, DD and FF classes be the same? It would surely simplify a lot of things.

 

[MrConservative]

The tender for the Type 31 is back on. GBP1.25B for 5 vessels.

GB-Bristol: SHIPACQ182 - Defence Online

Looks like they will cross deck from the Type 23 to the Type 31e but official confirmation will come no doubt. This means that export versions will be more expensive.

 

[ngatimozart]

Seems the RN has got something very right with the QE CVs. The Senior Rates mess have a proper genuine pub called the Queens Head in which will be served a Carrier Ale amongst the ales and other alcoholic beverages.

 

[StobieWan]

Along with the usual whining comments from the wider public about the matter


Seems very civilised to me.

 

[ASSAIL]

Seems the RN has got something very right with the QE CVs. The Senior Rates mess have a proper genuine pub called the Queens Head in which will be served a Carrier Ale amongst the ales and other alcoholic beverages.

Well that’s certainly not the usual fitted for but not with (sorry for the one liner mods)

 

[seaspear]

The U.K did have the ability with the Vulcan bomber to deliver nuclear weapons was there any consideration to developing a land launched system as the Americans Russians and previously French have and how do the costs of these systems compare to submarine launched weapons ?

 

[StobieWan]

Britain did indeed operate a land based missile called Thor briefly - the issue with the UK is how much land we have to base anything in - we're a very small island which is densely packed with population centres.

Land based systems are always cheaper to maintain and operate than air or submarine based weapon systems, but unfortunately in the case of the UK, they're very simple to knock out in a first strike situation.

Land based systems aren't viable against a near peer threat - they'd be fine for shooting at a state actor with a limited capability but otherwise, not so much.

 

[Systems Adict]

Looks like they will cross deck from the Type 23 to the Type 31e but official confirmation will come no doubt

Can I have a go on the implement you are using to smoke, whatever concoction you are inhaling & where can I buy some to sell to the rest of the UK population ?

Joking aside, nowhere in the link you posted does it say ANYTHING about utilising equipment from T23 for T31e.

The systems that ARE cross-decking are heading for T26, as T26 has been designed to accept them as straight fit / bolt on. The bid /tender document states 'NEW BUILD', not rehash of equipment that is 20+ years old. T31e has to be 'compatible' with the rest of the RN fleet, so any software / system architecture for running OEM software/equipment, MUST be compatible with what is being used on River Class, Batch 2, T26 / Carrier / LPD, otherwise NEW ships wouldn't make sense...

SA

 

[Volkodav]

I think somebody mentioned this before, but would it not be better to classify all ships by what they do rather than by size as in the days of sail and wooden hulls. For example today CV and CVN are all aircraft carriers regardless of size; the only difference in this class being propulsion. SS are subs with sub class classifications for SSBN, SSGN, SSN & SSK again regardless of size. So why can't the CC, DD and FF classes be the same? It would surely simplify a lot of things.

That's what the RN tried to do post WWII. Basically as I understand it destroyers were meant to be first rate at air defence, antisubmarine and anti surface, sloops were second rate at each main function, while frigates were first rate at one function and second or third rate at the others.

 

[PeterCrisp]

I'm sorry if this should be elsewhere but I didn't think it required a dedicated topic but I have a short question.

How do friendly surface ships communicate with or avoid firing on ultra stealthy friendly subs?
This may seem obvious but surely any communication method from the sub would give them away and if we can track them by conventional methods then we should assume the enemy can as well so are surface ships just warned that a friendly sub is in the vicinity?

 

[Systems Adict]

I'm sorry if this should be elsewhere but I didn't think it required a dedicated topic but I have a short question.

How do friendly surface ships communicate with or avoid firing on ultra stealthy friendly subs?
This may seem obvious but surely any communication method from the sub would give them away and if we can track them by conventional methods then we should assume the enemy can as well so are surface ships just warned that a friendly sub is in the vicinity?

In fairness, this is a very technical / specialist & very secretive technology. Speaking about specifics in open fora would be detrimental to sovereign nations security.

However, it may be more prudent to look at the bigger picture & some of the mechanics of the actual act.

I started with everyone's friend, Google. I entered the following query :

"How do warships communicate with submarines ?"

...& wikipedia provided what I would consider to be logical & credible data that is deemed 'open source'

Communication with submarines - Wikipedia

From a personal opinion, I'd take it that ANY surface combatant during peacetime or wartime, who discovered ANY submarine, would treat it as hostile. I'm sure that specific nations have very specific codes to differentiate friend from foe, no doubt including communication with 'home base' to get confirmation if one of their own subs was in close proximity to their area of operation.

I's also recommend reading 'fiction' by the likes of Tom Clancy, such as "The hunt for Red October", as this used to be mandatory reading for submariners. I'm led to believe that is was not just because the volumes Mr Clancy has written / co-authored are great reading while submerged for months at a time, but because some of the technical content within them was considered to be 'trade-craft', giving the submariners specific insight on the scenarios laid out in the books.


SA

 

[swerve]

Can I have a go on the implement you are using to smoke, whatever concoction you are inhaling & where can I buy some to sell to the rest of the UK population ?

Joking aside, nowhere in the link you posted does it say ANYTHING about utilising equipment from T23 for T31e.

The systems that ARE cross-decking are heading for T26, as T26 has been designed to accept them as straight fit / bolt on. The bid /tender document states 'NEW BUILD', not rehash of equipment that is 20+ years old. T31e has to be 'compatible' with the rest of the RN fleet, so any software / system architecture for running OEM software/equipment, MUST be compatible with what is being used on River Class, Batch 2, T26 / Carrier / LPD, otherwise NEW ships wouldn't make sense...

SA

If we don't cross-deck from T23 to T31e, then what do we do with the 13 sets of T23 kit (including Artisan & CAMM still being fitted) & three partial sets of new kit that we've bought? We're only getting eight T26s. Do we discard the eight spare sets we'll have, & buy something else instead? I can understand that for the late T26s (Artisan will be getting long in the tooth, unless heavily upgraded), but the first T31e is supposed be complete in five years.