The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

t68

Well-Known Member
Depends on if they envisage those ships supporting a UK CVBG, in that case they'd need solid endurance and speed requirements. I'd imagine that would be the case considering the UK is buying 3 OPVs and just ordered 2 more so in terms of patrol tasks the RN should hopefully be well catered for.
I too was under the impression they are able to escort CVBG just not undertake the ASW aspect to reduce costs.

That's not to say they could not prosecute a submarine contact it woul just be depended on helicopter operations and possabilty CEC in the future.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think that was the original intension of Type 26 of becoming the Commonwealth Frigate, I know we had some people on the inside of the planning program not sure of the Kiwis or Canadians tho
I think we were watching what was happening, I don't think Australia had any input on the project.

What Australia wants and what everyone else wants seem to be two different things. Time frames and now a further split means it was a good decision not to put all the eggs in one basket IMO.

Shame really, having the same class of ships would accelerate poaching of crews by RAN. Err, I mean benefit everyone in in terms of training and logistics.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I think we were watching what was happening, I don't think Australia had any input on the project.

What Australia wants and what everyone else wants seem to be two different things. Time frames and now a further split means it was a good decision not to put all the eggs in one basket IMO.

Shame really, having the same class of ships would accelerate poaching of crews by RAN. Err, I mean benefit everyone in in terms of training and logistics.
I think your right, it may have just meant putting in our 2 cents worth on our own needs regards CEAFAR/CEAMONT
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think your right, it may have just meant putting in our 2 cents worth on our own needs regards CEAFAR/CEAMONT
It was a worthwhile project to put eyes on. The UK might have come up with several innovations that we might want on our ships in the future or be specing for systems and features we aren't yet interested in. However, I doubt they were ever very interested in what the RAN wanted (at least at this stage, given it was always a bit of stretch for the RAN to look at the Type 26 as a serious contender). Obviously if we did want in having people up to speed on the project means that can be done quickly.

I don't think the requirements of CEAFAR and CEAMONT are that burdensome. I would imagine they could still be fitted to export builds if someone wanted them.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't think the requirements of CEAFAR and CEAMONT are that burdensome. I would imagine they could still be fitted to export builds if someone wanted them.
BAE and CEA collaborated to create a modular mast design which could incorporate CEA technology.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Me too. What is so special about a Type 45 that the ship needs to be more or less dismantled to remove the GTs? Why can't the WR21s be partly dismantled in situ & removed through a fairly modest hole? As far as I can see, the main engine room can be accessed through the side of the hull.
T45 does have a facility to remove 'major components' of the engines through a vertical trunk between the engine rooms & the top of the funnel, that has bolted 'soft patches'.

However, I believe that the "remedial work" that's required, is such that they are effectively taking the whole GT out, along with the associated pipework systems. NO easy task the way the engines spaces are crammed to full !(If like me, you've had the privilege of being in one of the main engine spaces on any of the T45's you would understand that that is truly the case !)

In larger commercial ships, they might consider dry docking the vessel & cutting it into two to carry out the task. NOT something that the RN or any Naval Arc would consider with a modern warship.

Yes, I know that ships such as the stretch T22's had holes cut in the side of them to fleet in new / uprated systems into them in the 1980's, but the proposals & the R&D on how this is going to be dealt with are (I THINK) still at an early stage.

It might have been better if this 'issue' was actually 'leaked to the press', just as the ship entered dry dock for the work to commence, I.M.H.O.


SA
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
T45 does have a facility to remove 'major components' of the engines through a vertical trunk between the engine rooms & the top of the funnel, that has bolted 'soft patches'.

However, I believe that the "remedial work" that's required, is such that they are effectively taking the whole GT out, along with the associated pipework systems. NO easy task the way the engines spaces are crammed to full !(If like me, you've had the privilege of being in one of the main engine spaces on any of the T45's you would understand that that is truly the case !)

In larger commercial ships, they might consider dry docking the vessel & cutting it into two to carry out the task. NOT something that the RN or any Naval Arc would consider with a modern warship.

Yes, I know that ships such as the stretch T22's had holes cut in the side of them to fleet in new / uprated systems into them in the 1980's, but the proposals & the R&D on how this is going to be dealt with are (I THINK) still at an early stage.

It might have been better if this 'issue' was actually 'leaked to the press', just as the ship entered dry dock for the work to commence, I.M.H.O.


SA
After carrying out FCDs on the Collins class, including major work on diesels (replacement of the crank), generators and main motor (rewinding) for over a decade, earning multiple engineering awards for their innovative "keyhole" surgery/engineering solutions, they finally started cutting the hull permitting major items to be craned straight out, intact, and worked on outside the hull.

With the Collins if you don't cut the hull anything you pull out has to be broken down to fit thought the MGR hatch aft, the conning tower (difficult to access as its in the fin), forward accommodation hatch and the torpedo loading hatch forward, plus the garbage ejector in the keel. Equipment worked on insitue often couldn't be accessed until other equipment was removed, meaning that equipment couldn't be worked on until refitted and adjacent equipment couldn't be accessed for any work either. No surprise submarine maintenance is so expensive.

Anyway, after years of pushing for the hulls to be opened up for FCDs, the Principle Naval Architect, supported by the new, engineering heavy, management team under Steve Ludlum and his successors, finally got their hull cut in the form of a "sun roof" over the Main Generator Room. This is a massive improvement but still not the ideal full cut where the entire 100 section where the main motor is housed would be cut off permitting the entire machinery raft top be withdrawn and potentially replaced by a new fully assembled, activated and tested raft prepared before the Boat even docked for FCD.

IMO there is a need to get away from designing to the minimum displacement possible and then keeping the resulting too small platform in service for 30 plus years and get back to larger for but not with platforms and limit their service life to 16-24 years. The RN is close to this than many other navies, introducing new platforms with proven systems (where possible) that are replaced at about mid life, these systems then find their way into the next generation platform.

The Type 45 was a new platform with new propulsion / power generation systems and combat system, probably too much to hope to do all at once without some issues arising. I am surprised there weren't more issues but believe had they built at least eight ships in two batches but preferable twelve in three, they could have mitigated many of the issues, restricting them to the first batch. Having extra hulls would have permitted them to take some extra time and remedy them thoroughly and efficiently.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Not so much the project planning as the constant political decisions to delay, delay & delay. It's going to be the most-designed ship ever when they finally cut metal.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
IMO very much a case of poor political decision making, short term cost saving wrecking naval and strategic shipbuilding capability while driving up long term costs. The same stupid, short sighted cycle has been going on for decades.

Just imagine if something, anything had followed the Type 23s the Type 45 project would have run better, if another pair of them been ordered would the OPV have been needed. On the OPVs, what is their cost verses the supposedly unaffordable premium of building the Tides in the UK?

I know its not as simple as some make out but as we have seen over and over again in Australia life extending, instead of replacing existing ships can often end up costing you more than continually renewing your fleet. Four or more Batch II Darings (that could have been cheaper and simpler) may have worked out cheaper than life extending all of the Dukes and building OPVs. Even a modern class of Amazon equivalents, a UK LCS even, being built now instead of the OPVs using systems intended for upgrading the Type 23s could have been better value. Just imagine five light GP frigates with Artisan and Sea Ceptor being built now instead of the OPVs to serve along side eight modernised Type 23.
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
IMO very much a case of poor political decision making, short term cost saving wrecking naval and strategic shipbuilding capability while driving up long term costs. The same stupid, short sighted cycle has been going on for decades.

Just imagine if something, anything had followed the Type 23s the Type 45 project would have run better, if another pair of them been ordered would the OPV have been needed. On the OPVs, what is their cost verses the supposedly unaffordable premium of building the Tides in the UK?

I know its not as simple as some make out but as we have seen over and over again in Australia life extending, instead of replacing existing ships can often end up costing you more than continually renewing your fleet. Four or more Batch II Darings (that could have been cheaper and simpler) may have worked out cheaper than life extending all of the Dukes and building OPVs. Even a modern class of Amazon equivalents, a UK LCS even, being built now instead of the OPVs using systems intended for upgrading the Type 23s could have been better value. Just imagine five light GP frigates with Artisan and Sea Ceptor being built now instead of the OPVs to serve along side eight modernised Type 23.
The French seem to have a better grasp on ship building, maintaining a costant with the Leygues class then the Floreal class, then the La Fayette class and the Horizons, leading into the FREMMs. Throw in the export orders, they don't seem to have the same problems. Even though the Floreals are little better than OPVs they at least kept the line moving. The UK could do worse than follow Australia with a continuous ship building plan.
 

the concerned

Active Member
I just hope they use the opv's properly like stationing 1 or even 2 in the south of the united states to permantly do anti narcotics patrols rather than sending more useful warships there.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The French seem to have a better grasp on ship building, maintaining a costant with the Leygues class then the Floreal class, then the La Fayette class and the Horizons, leading into the FREMMs. Throw in the export orders, they don't seem to have the same problems. Even though the Floreals are little better than OPVs they at least kept the line moving. The UK could do worse than follow Australia with a continuous ship building plan.
Australia has yet to achieve a continuous build and will suffer another blackhole before anything else starts. The last chance to avoid that was the AOR program and before that a fourth AWD, neither the current or the previous government applied ink to paper so no work so yet another blackhole that will add cost and risk to the next project.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Damn good question.
Bigger issue with Tides however rather than OPVs. The cost implications - while true - weren't the biggest problem & it made the most sense to go over to the ROK.

IIRC first ship in class is due to come over here imminently for final fitting out.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Bigger issue with Tides however rather than OPVs. The cost implications - while true - weren't the biggest problem & it made the most sense to go over to the ROK.

IIRC first ship in class is due to come over here imminently for final fitting out.
Although both the UK and Australia have better cases for local build the decision for the Tides was a no brainer IMO. The same case could be made for Australia's future AOR needs. The best example of how to minimize capability by building locally is Canada. The JSS/AOR horror show has morphed into 2 Berlin class ships that will cost 3billion (likely more when finished). The AOPVs (DeWolfe class) are cheapened redesigns of Norways Svalbard class OPVs yet the Canadian built versions will cost at least 3 times as much to build. I have serious doubts about whether the successful Halifax build can be duplicated for the future Canadian surface combatant program. The program is now projected to drop from 15 to 11 ships.:(
 

spsun100001

New Member
I just hope they use the opv's properly like stationing 1 or even 2 in the south of the united states to permantly do anti narcotics patrols rather than sending more useful warships there.
The OPV's would be no use for that mission as anti-narcotics operations require an embarked helicopter. In fact, any mission you might need a naval vessel to undertake outside territorial waters needs an embarked helicopter to be undertaken effectively (maritime rescue, anti-piracy, surveillance, humanitarian relief etc.).

We already have enough OPV's for missions in territorial waters. These new vessels which can only lily pad a helicopter are probably the biggest waste of money in the history of UK naval shipbuilding. Worse still, they will suck up manpower the Navy needs to put on ships that are of some actual use.

We should have ordered a fifth Tide vessel and built it in Scotland. The fact the Tides do have a helicopter allows them to be used in secondary roles such as those I listed and would have represented better capability than several hundred million and a few dozen billets to take a 30mm gun to sea.
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The British govt. seems to have made a decision to convert one of the Queen Elizabeths for use by the Royal Marines?
This seems an extraordinary waste of a capital ship.
Is this because it's the only way to keep both ships in commission?
Sorry, no links but heard from a Brit friend.
 
Top