The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[deepsixteen]

There is an intense debate going on the future of RN SSBN.

My own idea would be why not build 11 boats alike each carrying 8 ICBM's and the rest being conventional missiles like Tomahawk.The advantages are:

1. Since it is 11 instead of 4 the chances of hunting down All 11 wil be considerably less

2. Uniform design means fewer design constraints as opposed to having two separate designs and also the procurement and throughlife support costs can be calculated more realistically

3. 11 hulls intead of 4 may also reduce the procurement and maintenance costs

On the down side we need more security since compromising even 1 will have serious consequences.But then again even trying to sabotage an astute class submarine is close to impossible.

Hi
Resolute, just to give some context to what the guys are saying and help you understand the costs just two of the additional systems required on an SSBN are the hover and missile compensation systems.

Hovering a 16000 ton boat at launch depth in any weather is a none trivial task which has a system all of its own, computers sensors tanks control valves hull valves pump etc.Missile compensation systems are similar and imagine a system sized to cope with ripple firing trident missiles.

Remember it’s not just about purchasing the systems it’s the whole life cost of maintaining them you should also think about the cost of propelling the extra tonnage around with respect to getting the balance right between reactor life/size/power.

Finally BN’s stay out of harms way as far as possible but from an SSN point of view you have massively increased the number of hull valves many very much larger than critical whole size.

Deepsixteen

 

[Resolute]

Total non-starter, as you'd have to build a fleet of 16Kt size boats, all equipped with common missile compartments.

I am not suggesting building 11 16000 ton boats.
My suggestion is try and build 11 boats no greater than 10000 tons and push the design as much so that each boat carries only 8 icbms and the rest being conventionals.

 

[StevoJH]

I am not suggesting building 11 16000 ton boats.
My suggestion is try and build 11 boats no greater than 10000 tons and push the design as much so that each boat carries only 8 icbms and the rest being conventionals.

Think of it this way.

A submarine is a cylinder, that cylinder needs a much larger diameter if it is going to be carrying vertically launched SLBM's than it would if it was launching (for example) either vertically or horizontally (torpedo tube) launched Tomahawk missiles and Torpedoes.

SSBN's tend to run larger reactors than SSN's, whether that is due to increased generation requirements or the ability to run the reactor at reduced load to reduce cooling pump requirements I don't know.

Now lets say that we are starting with an Astute class submarine, and lets assume that its PWR2 will have sufficient generating capacity to handle additional load. An Astute class Submarine has a surfaced displacement of 7,000t to start with, with a length of approximately 97metres. The Vanguard class are approximately 150 metres (~15,000). Since the Vanguards have 16 tubes, lets split the difference and give the astute class a 25 metre hull plug in the middle. thats a 25% increase in length, the submarine *might* just displace less than 10,000t surfaced, however it wont move as quick, it wont accelerate at the same rate, it cannot dive, surface or maneuver at the same rate.

The increase in price per submarine is going to be over 25% however, due to the cost of the electronics required to control the missiles. You also put the deterent at risk everytime you send the submarine somewhere visible, limit the number of ports at which it can be docked and raise the spectre of nuclear war whenever it is deployed operationally.

The current SSBN's on the other hand, are kept carefully tucked away in the middle of nowhere out of site and out of mind, but always available should it ever be necessary to remind an enemy power of their existance. (i'm sure its amazing the kind of response the showing of stock footage of a Vanguard leaving port could do.....as long as they believe you would use it if needed)

 

[Systems Adict]

Posted a 'story of interest' in this thread(see link below), that is sorta related to this thread, without getting TOO political....

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/argentinian-meko-espora-broken-sudafrica-12295/


SA

 

[RobWilliams]

Good progress on HMS Queen Elizabeth

Rolls-Royce installs world's most powerful marine gas turbine into new aircraft carrier - Rolls-Royce

Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has this week successfully completed the installation of the first MT30 gas turbine into the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, at Babcock’s Rosyth shipyard in Scotland.

The MT30, at 36 megawatts (around 50,000 horsepower), is the world’s most powerful marine gas turbine. Two MT30s will be installed in each ship and will provide two thirds of the 109 megawatts needed to power the 65,000 tonne ships – enough energy to power a town the size of Swindon.

The MT30s are installed as part of a Gas Turbine Alternator (GTA) which also includes an alternator and gas turbine enclosure, weighing a total of 120 tonnes.

The foreward island is due to be shipped up next month and due to be integrated the month after that, she'll be looking more like a proper aircraft carrier then.

 

[Seaforth]

QE LB04 attached to main block

Up to date overhead image - looks massive
[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/8426229753/in/photostream"]Panorama of HMS Queen Elizabeth | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]

Bow coming along nicely
[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/8427320746/in/photostream"]View from the head of the dock, January 2013 | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]

 

[RobWilliams]

The bow picture particularly emphasises the size, good picture, never properly understood just the sheer size of her.

Just a nice bit of speculation, HMS Edinburgh is due to come back from the South Atlantic on her final deployment in March. HMS Dragon's first deployment is down to happen in March, I reckon she's going down south too personally.

Just think, by the end of the year HMS Queen Elizabeth will be structurally complete.

 

[Systems Adict]

Video clip to accompany the stills pics above...

UK's Largest Warship Starts To Take Shape

SA

 

[RobWilliams]

Cracking video.

Here's one fresh out today, bit of stuff about the inside of the bridge, but there's a bit in the article that caught my attention

Workers are preparing the final piece of HMS Queen Elizabeth to be made in the city before it leaves for Rosyth next week.

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Not long now, and from the following video the island will be lifted on at the start of March, moving along quite nicely now.

BBC News - Aircraft carrier nears completion in Portsmouth

EDIT: Nice link about Ambush and Westminster conducting ASW trials

HMS Ambush left the Fleet’s No.1 submarine hunters in awe as HMS Westminster tested her mettle against the newest boat in the Royal Navy’s arsenal.

Ambush was joined by the Portsmouth-based frigate for the latest stage of her trials: speed runs on and below the surface.

While Ambush was being thrown around, Westminster was doing her utmost to track her – tricky on the surface because of Ambush’s speed, much trickier below because of her innate stealthiness.

With her gas turbines at full power, Westminster gave chase – and for good measure sent her Lynx Mk8, ‘Rosie’, from 815 Naval Air Squadron, into the air to keep pace with Ambush.

“Ambush proved to be a truly invisible adversary and a swift one at that,” said Lt Cdr ‘Mickey’ Rooney, Westminster’s weapon engineer officer.

“Under the waves Ambush came into her own. With an impressive turn of speed and her signature proving to be whisper-quiet, she is living up to the investment made in this next generation of technology.”

In the NAO major projects report released some time ago, it accepts that Astute boats 1 - 3 won't meet a "key performance measure". If that measure is speed, then I totally can't see how a Type 23 frigate had trouble tracking Ambush on the surface because of her speed? Looking at Wiki (I know, I know) the 'top speed' (Although another made one +30knots but IIRC it was favourable conditions) of a Type 23 is 28knots.

I dunno, could all easily be over emphasised rubbish, could just be an attempt to try get it put out that the first 3 won't be as slow as people think. But there's a remarkable lot about how decent Ambush performs in terms of speed.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/6935

EDIT#2: Should also note that at the time of writing, HMS Astute hadn't yet conducted full power speed trials and the particular label is the speed trials had been "deliberately constrained", so the problem may not be as bad as the RN quoted speed of 29+kts to 20+kts may suggest.

 

[RobWilliams]

Nice picture from the ACA showing the fwd island on the barge getting ready for the voyage up to Scotland, IIRC it'll take 4 days to get up there & she's due to be lifted in early March.

https://twitter.com/QEClassCarriers/status/297357090018713600/photo/1

Also as a side note it's interesting to note that HMS Dragon has her Phalanx CIWS fitted, so that's 3 Type 45's we know for sure that have Phalanx - Daring, Diamond & Dragon. They seemed to skip over Dauntless for her South Atlantic deployment a while back.

 

[H-D]

More Type 45s for RN?

Am I to understand from the latest media release, that the Royal Navy is going to get another 6 Daring Class destroyers?

 

[deepsixteen]

Am I to understand from the latest media release, that the Royal Navy is going to get another 6 Daring Class destroyers?

Hi

In a word no, It’s a vague badly written document that you are referring to that is supposed to give a good steer to industry and is very uncommitted regarding most of the numbers which a cynic might say means the politicians will not be held to account when they fail to deliver.

I suggest you read what the various defence bloggers have to say for a good insight, I suggest UK armed forces commentary for a decent informed opinion or perhaps think defence.

Deepsixteen

 

[StobieWan]

Am I to understand from the latest media release, that the Royal Navy is going to get another 6 Daring Class destroyers?

As Deepsixteen has said, sadly, not I think part of the confusion is that the document includes a stack of running costs for the various bits of kit as well as the purchase and program costs. We're still looking at a surface fleet of six Darings, 13 frigates, two CVF built and commissioned with a decision to be made on whether both will be used and in what manner.

So, no, another half dozen Daring's ain't happening

 

[charlesgrey999]

I know our ships are potent but ....

When did our fleet get so darn tiny? It seems as if whenever A new generation of tech comes in ships, planes whatever we get a significant reduction in numbers, My question is does the tech upgrade really make up for the reduced numbers, or are we becoming irrelevant in the military arena?

 

[StobieWan]

When did our fleet get so darn tiny? It seems as if whenever A new generation of tech comes in ships, planes whatever we get a significant reduction in numbers, My question is does the tech upgrade really make up for the reduced numbers, or are we becoming irrelevant in the military arena?

We're still fifth or sixth largest Navy in the world, nothing to see here, move along Everyone else is in the same position and while there are some things that can be done to reduce the cost of fielding newer ships, like picking common systems, re-using components, pooling design work etc, ultimately, the cost of the systems going into the metal bit far outweigh the panel beating and welding bit of construction.

Defence spending as a chunk of the GDP has dropped steadily over the years, from nearly 40% in wartime to around 2%

Spend more and we'll get more ships.

 

[RobWilliams]

IMO the future of the RN in any sort of major operation would be heading up amphibious ops & associated group defence.

A future peacetime RFTG will consist of a QEC aircraft carrier, 1 x Bay class LSD, 1 x Point class RoRo, 1 x Albion class LPD, 1 x Tide class tanker (the nubers of the following is an assumption) - 1 x Type 45, 1 x Type 26 & in all probability an Astute class SSN.

I base my assumption of 1 each on that the last time the group was deployed, there was no AWD and they had 2 frigates.

That's a task group ready to move at 5 days notice, you can rest assured that more assets would be pulled together if they were required. Then factor in the rapid response units from other sectors like 16 Air Assault Brigade.

In terms of numbers, the author of UKAFC - a rather nice blog I have to say - did a piece specifically about the UK's amphibious forces not too long ago

UK Armed Forces Commentary: amphibious

In terms of numbers

for the UK at the state we talk of the ability to put ashore 1800 men or, in a major war scenario and with Ships Taken Up From Trade, a brigade of 5200 or more, with armored vehicles, artillery, helicopters and, when necessary, a number of main battle tanks as well.

 

[Padfoot]

When did our fleet get so darn tiny? It seems as if whenever A new generation of tech comes in ships, planes whatever we get a significant reduction in numbers, My question is does the tech upgrade really make up for the reduced numbers, or are we becoming irrelevant in the military arena?

If you had to fight the Falklands War, would you prefer the RN of 1982 or that of 2020? I think it's a very easy decision.

Comparing the number of destroyers that Jellicoe had with today's numbers is silly. But that's the sort of thing the UK media does. The quality of debate about Britain's armed forces is extremely poor, and the media really have to take the blame for that.

 

[spsun100001]

If you had to fight the Falklands War, would you prefer the RN of 1982 or that of 2020? I think it's a very easy decision.

Comparing the number of destroyers that Jellicoe had with today's numbers is silly. But that's the sort of thing the UK media does. The quality of debate about Britain's armed forces is extremely poor, and the media really have to take the blame for that.

I take your general point about the spurious nature of such comparisons but we couldn't fight the Falklands with today's fleet as we have no aircraft carriers.

Of course, that doesn't much matter in the specific case of the Falklands today as we have an airbase there but it does illustrate that a key capability has been lost.

Hopefully that capability will return to the RN by 2020 as you imply but I really would not put it past the government in the coming round of defence cuts that had Cameron back flipping in the press if they decided to put the carriers up for sale or into mothballs to avoid the running costs, enable them to drop procurement of the F35 and avoid the modification costs for enabling Merlin to operate in the AEW role.

Edited for omission

 

[RobWilliams]

Every time I see someone talk about putting the carriers up for sale, the question I always ask is to who?

India - no, building 2 indiginously and put a lot of money on their Soviet carrier. Have their future doctrine based around 3.
Brazil - no idea if they yet will get back into the game, but rest assured they'll want a home built one or at least heavy Brazilian input.
China - won't sell it to them
France [just incase people think about getting one to fill in for PA2] - No angled deck, heavy mods for CATOBAR and not nuclear propulsion AND no home nation input.

No market means no sale, IF (and i stress IF, Hammond has already demonstrated he believes operating the second to be VERY good value) they're got rid of, it won't be a foreign sell.

Hammond is a big proponent of these carriers, he believes they represent brilliant value for money including a second build, do you honestly see the Government ditching the pair of them? I know it's not set in stone, but i'll eat my hat if they get rid of either of them, that's the price we supposedly payed for the F35B.

If the defence minister is on board (and he is, in a BIG way) & the Chief of Defence Staff believes the RN needs expansion I don't see the carriers being a target. Type 26 numbers seems most likely to be picked at.

 

[H-D]

Thanks for the feedback, deepsixteen.

I admit, I got a little excited at the thought of another 6 Type 45s. Obviously this is not to be.

In saying that, my Dad being an ex-Navy man, says the latest warships are so much more capable than what they are replacing - just one highly capable ship can cause the enemy to have heart palpitations . He was referring to the havoc created by the German pocket battleships during WWll.

RobWilliams, I don't know whether we can compare a Daring class destroyer with a WWll German pocket battleship, but maybe 6 is enough. The mere inclusion of one of these destroyers in any Royal Navy task force should be of concern to any future opponent.

Padfoot and spsun100001, I would hope that the Royal Navy of 2020 would be far more capable than anything Britain could throw together in 1982.