The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Not particularly a huge problem nor particularly surprising given how the industry got degraded in the UK.

AFAIK design speed is 30+ knots, considering we have NFI how large that + is then can't really say how good or bad it is.

IIRC when the first indications came out the RN quoted the speed as 20+, considering the RN typically undercut their actual capabilities by a good chunk I would expect the speed to be in the region of 25kts+, which is roughly the design speed of our new capital ships.

EDIT: Would imagine these design changes for boat 4 onwards (IIRC the gearbox arrangement came up as an issue before) could be installed on boats 1-3 when they hit a more major refit period.
 
RobWilliams said:
Not particularly a huge problem nor particularly surprising given how the industry got degraded in the UK.

AFAIK design speed is 30+ knots, considering we have NFI how large that + is then can't really say how good or bad it is.

IIRC when the first indications came out the RN quoted the speed as 20+, considering the RN typically undercut their actual capabilities by a good chunk I would expect the speed to be in the region of 25kts+, which is roughly the design speed of our new capital ships.

EDIT: Would imagine these design changes for boat 4 onwards (IIRC the gearbox arrangement came up as an issue before) could be installed on boats 1-3 when they hit a more major refit period.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's a significant problem and I don't share your optimistic view of a 25 knot capability. The original reports when this first surfaced said the vessels could make 22 knots and an RN friend who is an Engineer on one of our SSBN's told me that was right. That makes them slower than many of the platforms they will need to operate with but far more importantly slower than many of the threats they may have to counter.

Where we agree completely is over the need to look at whether the improvements to the later boats that might restore performance can be back fitted. It is disappointing though to have to spend more of our scarce defence budget to get our brand new SSN's to match the speed of the 30 year old designs they are replacing.
 
25 knots is the figure that's been chucked around and the RN is going with "in excess of 25 knots" so that's all we've got to work with to be honest.

If they're struggling to get 22 knots,we're in a spot of bother :(

I'd say we go buy an 8th one...but I'd say that if they all did 34 knots :)
 
spsun100001 said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's a significant problem
Click to expand...

I was on about more in a sense that it's probably a situation we can deal with if we throw the money at it rather than dealing with it operationally/

spsun100001 said:
and I don't share your optimistic view of a 25 knot capability. The original reports when this first surfaced said the vessels could make 22 knots and an RN friend who is an Engineer on one of our SSBN's told me that was right.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, people i've talked too at Devonport who have worked on the T & V-boats gave me the impression that it's a problem that can be dealt with. Sure, it sucks it needs to be dealt with, but as long as it can be dealt with then that's some comfort. It's what happens when sub building becomes irregular.

spsun100001 said:
That makes them slower than many of the platforms they will need to operate with but far more importantly slower than many of the threats they may have to counter.
Click to expand...

True, true.

spsun100001 said:
Where we agree completely is over the need to look at whether the improvements to the later boats that might restore performance can be back fitted. It is disappointing though to have to spend more of our scarce defence budget to get our brand new SSN's to match the speed of the 30 year old designs they are replacing.
Click to expand...

Agreed

Although i'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea that RN engineers on our ballistic missile submarines seem fine with the idea of releasing performance figures like that about submarines, especially for a service renowned for being 'tight lipped' about what they do.
 
Glimpse of a part of the future of the UK-Fr CJEF

Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer HMS Daring attached to French Aircraft Carrier Strike Group

HMS Daring worked alongside FS Charles De Gaulle for a week this month, a CVN with Super Etendards & Rafales + Horizon DDG + Daring DDG. Throw in a QEC + F35B's and that's the core of Europe's naval striking force. Add in SSN's, frigates with cruise missiles etc.

Overall, not a bad package. A more flexible Europe than before IMO.

EDIT: Although i'd imagine that a peacetime CJEF consisting of

  • 1 x CdG
    • ~20 strike fighters
    • 2 x E-2C
  • 1 x QEC
    • 12 F35B
    • 4 rotary AEW
  • 1 x Type 45
  • 1 x Horizon DDG
  • 1 x Type 26 FFG
  • 1 x FREMM FFG
  • 1 x Astute/Trafalgar SSN
  • 1 x Rubis/Barracuda class SSN

... in terms of strike potential could be comparable to 1 US CBG.
 
Last edited:
I think we'd have a few more miles to go before we could get within sight of a US battle group in most respects. However, accepting there's a long gap between first and second place, we're looking at the sort of capability could generate considerable international influence. And I'm sure the US will be looking for the UK and France to pick up the slack as carrier numbers dwindle during the next few years as the Ford construction program fails to overlap with decomissioning.
 
StobieWan said:
I think we'd have a few more miles to go before we could get within sight of a US battle group in most respects.
Click to expand...

Like the the Growler, there's a really interesting piece in Combat Aircraft Monthly this month about the US carrier force, the air wing and how all the components work together and it really spelled out exactly what the Growler can do

StobieWan said:
However, accepting there's a long gap between first and second place, we're looking at the sort of capability could generate considerable international influence. And I'm sure the US will be looking for the UK and France to pick up the slack as carrier numbers dwindle during the next few years as the Ford construction program fails to overlap with decomissioning.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing things like Ellamy, Serval, conflicts which are right there for Europe, which are able to be tackled by Europe. That's what I imagine.
 
RobWilliams said:
Glimpse of a part of the future of the UK-Fr CJEF

Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer HMS Daring attached to French Aircraft Carrier Strike Group

HMS Daring worked alongside FS Charles De Gaulle for a week this month, a CVN with Super Etendards & Rafales + Horizon DDG + Daring DDG. Throw in a QEC + F35B's and that's the core of Europe's naval striking force. Add in SSN's, frigates with cruise missiles etc.

Overall, not a bad package. A more flexible Europe than before IMO.

EDIT: Although i'd imagine that a peacetime CJEF consisting of

  • 1 x CdG
    • ~20 strike fighters
    • 2 x E-2C
  • 1 x QEC
    • 12 F35B
    • 4 rotary AEW
  • 1 x Type 45
  • 1 x Horizon DDG
  • 1 x Type 26 FFG
  • 1 x FREMM FFG
  • 1 x Astute/Trafalgar SSN
  • 1 x Rubis/Barracuda class SSN

... in terms of strike potential could be comparable to 1 US CBG.
Click to expand...
I regards to the QE and CDG numbers I have a feeling that you have low balled the UK and given the French carrier battle group a few to many as both the cut to overall aircraft numbers and the retirement of SEM means that the last tour CDG had all of 9 Rafales, so if the French can manage two squadrons worth of aircraft the RN should easily manage the same in a post 2020 environment. I would have thought another 4-5 NH90s and EH101 would be par the course for these sorts of ops and training exercise.
 
Last edited:
Right now CdG is exercising with that number (10 rafale 10 SE) AFAIK so I took that as the base, then with respect to the UK I decided to go with Hammonds figure of 12 for routine deployment

These days the term squadron doesn't really mean a whole lot, it doesn't necessarily mean the deployment of 12 aircraft anyway as was the case with op ellamy

Il reply properly later as I'm in lectures right now
 
Hi Conte di Cavour,
I suppose the Royal Navy has been facing budget cuts just like many other armed forces in the EU. I agree with you 100% on your observation!
 
RobWilliams said:
EDIT: Although i'd imagine that a peacetime CJEF consisting of...
Click to expand...
You can probably sub in a standby amphibious contingent as well, centered around one or two helo carriers (including a Apache/Tiger rotary attack group). At least that's been the case with the COUGAR deployments of the RFTG in recent years.
 
For the UK, the QEC will be our helicopter carriers as well as strike carriers. AFAIK it's pretty typical for peacetime deployments of ~4 Apache's to be deployed for the UK so add on the French equivalent onto one (or two) of their LHD's.
 
[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/105998866/US-Department-of-the-Navy-Falkland-Island-Lesson-Learned"]US Department of the Navy - Falkland Island Lesson Learned[/ame]

Quite an interesting document, it's a document that the USN published in Feb 1983 which is a 'lessons learned" about the Falklands.

Couple of points

  • Lack of defence in depth - lack of AEW and sustained long range CAP
  • Lack of ship self defence systems (both hard and soft kill)
  • Smaller ships lack sustained combat power
    • Carriers lacked the ability to launch 'high performance' aircraft
    • Lacked the ability to hold many of them
    • Lacked fuel/munitions/stores bunkerage for sustained operations
  • SSK's can be bloody devils to track when operated properly

So it leads into when people comment about why the QEC are as big as they are, and the direct answers are directly from those 'lessons learned' effectively.

One other point is that the document reckons that in a similar position the US would have thrown 2 carriers plus a Marine amphibious brigade.

In other news, Cammell Laird begin work on RFA Fort Victoria's major year long refit, probably seeing her remain in service until well into the next decade

Insider News North West

HMS Daring has returned from her voyage around the world (9 months), vaguely recall someone here saying that Daring is the first Type 45 due to get Harpoon fitted so that'll be interesting to see happen

Praise from the Philippines as HMS Daring arrives home at last - Portsmouth News

As an aside, here's the link to the ACA flikr photostream if anyone wants to see the build progress of HMS Queen Elizabeth, her forward lift is due to be installed imminently.
 
Fantasy I know but just imagine the Batch 3 Broardswords updated with Artisan and Sea Ceptor. It wouldn't be that hard or expensive to have done and would have resulted in a leap in self defence capability for one of the most versatile platform n the fleet.

Also weren't the forts designed with space and weight for Sea Wolf? How hard or expensive would an Artisan / Sea Ceptor upgrade be for them?
 
Imagine the CBG of Future Force 2020 in it's place . . .

Anyway, I wasn't too sure so did a bit of Google-fu (briefly) and it's a bit cloudy, some areas saying the potential capability is there and others saying that as a requirement it got removed due to the nature of the Type 23 evolving. If the margins are there, then given the nature of CAMM then it shouldn't really be a problem on that end, can't really speak to ARTISAN though although i'd imagine it should be possible.

But apart from that, defence of RFA vessels seems limited to 30mm guns, miniguns and some Phalanx mounts. Well, I say "limited", in terms of armament that's roughly equivalent in scale to what the QEC will be "armed" with in a sense.

Can't wait to get some cruise missile capability on our surface ships, our SSNs do a good job in that role, but i'd prefer that when push comes to shove and there is a proper surface/subsurface threat that the strike element be delivered from the surface fleet and the subs stick to hunting.

It's fine if we're chucking Tomahawks at opposition like Libya or whatever, but i'd like some kind of redundancy.
 
Volkodav said:
Fantasy I know but just imagine the Batch 3 Broardswords updated with Artisan and Sea Ceptor. It wouldn't be that hard or expensive to have done and would have resulted in a leap in self defence capability for one of the most versatile platform n the fleet.

Also weren't the forts designed with space and weight for Sea Wolf? How hard or expensive would an Artisan / Sea Ceptor upgrade be for them?
Click to expand...

If you take a look at the pictures below you will see right in the middle of the ship what looks very much like a vls:

victoria3.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....jpg/480px-RFA_Fort_Victoria_MOD_45152856.jpg

I've seen better more definitive pictures but can't find one at present, all the hatches are there, so maybe they got the exterior hatching without it all being wired up.
 
Originally the Forts were designed as the centre piece of a formation with very low spec Type 23's backing them with ASW and the Fort doing the local area defence - that died a death post Falklands lessons so yes, the space for missiles and some of the cabling got installed.

I don't believe it ever progressed further than a test firing however.

In an emergency, for a fair while, it would have been easy to fit SeaWolf and have it up and running quite quickly. Now SeaWolf is going end of life, that's out of the window and you'd have to revisit with Sea Ceptor/Artisan in mind.

Having said that, Artisan is a light weight set with an undemanding cooling and power requirement, Sea Ceptor is easy to place due to it's low impulse launch profile.

If you wanted to do it, it'd be less of a challenge than Sea Wolf.
 
Fwd aircraft lift now in place (picture in ACA update) and some good shots of the ski ramp

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance....nce/2014-weekly-comms/weekly-comms-030314.pdf
[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/12902275973/in/photostream/"]HMS Queen Elizabeth Ramp | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]

All folding into place. AFAIK the more major parts left to lift onto the ship are the rear aircraft lift and the flyco structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top