The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
swerve said:
Three countries other than the UK got into carrier aviation because of the Harrier, & a fourth went for Harriers on carriers when its old cat & trap carrier & aircraft combination became too obviously obsolete (& the aircraft were wearing out). That was feasible for many countries which didn't bother. I'm not sure how many new shipborne fighter users the F-35B might produce. So far, one new user (Japan) has gone for it - & two have given up either their Harriers, or their carrier, without replacement. Another has gone for STOBAR on its new carriers.
Click to expand...
There are very few possible Carrier born F-35B customers really.
Japan has the ships and is planning on doing so.
South Korea has some Ships, though size maybe an issue but building newer bigger Ships could be a possibility.
Australia has the Ships to a limited capability but has no intention at all at present
Turkey is building a Ship but has been cut off from any chance of getting F-35Bs due to politics
Spain has one capable ship but affordability is an issue.
Brazil would probably like to but affordability is an issue.
Singapore is getting F-35Bs and is looking at the possibility of a LHD.
Really can’t see anyone else at present building a 30,000t through deck Ship(Carrier or LHD) that would have access to the F-35B.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
The value of the f35b is not just in providing aviation to small navies ,an advantage of the Harrier during the cold war was it could be despersed away from vulnerable airfields and still be able to respond to Warsaw pact forces ,how that plays out in Europe today with the bulk of the airforces using those airfield that may be targeted by very fast missiles having an aircraft that can be deployed elsewhere may offer some continuance of an airforce ,
Explaining Singapore’s Interest in the F-35B
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
seaspear said:
The value of the f35b is not just in providing aviation to small navies ,an advantage of the Harrier during the cold war was it could be despersed away from vulnerable airfields and still be able to respond to Warsaw pact forces ,how that plays out in Europe today with the bulk of the airforces using those airfield that may be targeted by very fast missiles having an aircraft that can be deployed elsewhere may offer some continuance of an airforce ,
Explaining Singapore’s Interest in the F-35B
Click to expand...
Singapore is nearly the perfect example of how versatile a fleet of F-35Bs could be, they can disperse them and operate them off Freeways and the shorter Combat radius compared to the As and Cs is not such a big deal.
F-35Bs for Singapore comes close to being a no brainer.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
OldNavy63 said:
A fine article from the ‘Save The Royal Navy’ website on upgrading options for the RN’s Batch II River class OPVs.

Enhancing the Royal Navy’s batch II OPVs | Save the Royal Navy

Slightly larger than the RAN’s Arafura class OPV, the options depicted could free up the RN’s (too few), major combatants for employment in higher threat areas.

The Scheibel S-100 Camcopter can be fitted with 2 x LMM Martlett missiles (a future option for the RAN). The OPV Plus suggestion includes 2 x 30mm Automated Small Calbre Guns which could also be fitted with 5 x LMM.
Click to expand...
The RNs batch II River class OPVs certainly appear to be a step forward from the Batch I, increase in length by 11m and all of the other improvements too.

But I do think the RN did miss the boat (pun intended) by not performing a more major redesign of the rear/flight deck area.

Now I'm not suggesting that a hangar should have been included, but rather raising the height of the flight deck and inserting a dedicated mission deck below, something along the lines of the RAN Arafura class (and the same as the other contenders for the RANs new OPV class).

sea 1180 contenders - Google Search

Having a raised flight deck with a mission deck below would appear (to me at least) allow for much more flexible use of the available space at the rear of the ship, basically doubles the usable deck area too.

Anyway, just my opinion of course too.

Cheers,
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
John Newman said:
The RNs batch II River class OPVs certainly appear to be a step forward from the Batch I, increase in length by 11m and all of the other improvements too.

But I do think the RN did miss the boat (pun intended) by not performing a more major redesign of the rear/flight deck area.

Now I'm not suggesting that a hangar should have been included, but rather raising the height of the flight deck and inserting a dedicated mission deck below, something along the lines of the RAN Arafura class (and the same as the other contenders for the RANs new OPV class).

sea 1180 contenders - Google Search

Having a raised flight deck with a mission deck below would appear (to me at least) allow for much more flexible use of the available space at the rear of the ship, basically doubles the usable deck area too.

Anyway, just my opinion of course too.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

repeat with me, River Batch II was just a way of keeping BAE employed.

It had nothing to do with building ships the RN wanted or needed.

Got it ?

Now, chant with me...

Seriously, terms of business agreement with BAE guaranteed BAE some work or some money - then the indecision over funding and approving Type 26 sprang up and it was either pay BAE money to do training and uh..stuff or build ships.

Tada..Batch II

Given 26 hadn't been ordered or funded in full yet, would you have worked very hard on the batch II Rivers or just waved them through in the hope they never ended up looking too much like frigates to be included in the total ship construction for the TOBA ?
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
StobieWan said:
repeat with me, River Batch II was just a way of keeping BAE employed.

It had nothing to do with building ships the RN wanted or needed.

Got it ?

Now, chant with me...

Seriously, terms of business agreement with BAE guaranteed BAE some work or some money - then the indecision over funding and approving Type 26 sprang up and it was either pay BAE money to do training and uh..stuff or build ships.

Tada..Batch II

Given 26 hadn't been ordered or funded in full yet, would you have worked very hard on the batch II Rivers or just waved them through in the hope they never ended up looking too much like frigates to be included in the total ship construction for the TOBA ?
Click to expand...
Stobie, mate! Yes fully aware of the politics behind the Batch II River class, was a political Fu*k up.

It's probably what us Aussies would call a work for the dole program, eg, keep the workers busy (doing something, anything!!) and keep them off the unemployment list numbers!

Putting all that aside, if the RN had actually wanted Batch II in the first place, then I still stand by my opinion that a more thorough re-design of the flight deck area to include a mission deck below would have been the smarter option.

Yes I know I'm dreaming, comes under the same category as: if the Queen had balls she'd be the King!

Cheers,
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
John Newman said:
Stobie, mate! Yes fully aware of the politics behind the Batch II River class, was a political Fu*k up.

It's probably what us Aussies would call a work for the dole program, eg, keep the workers busy (doing something, anything!!) and keep them off the unemployment list numbers!

Putting all that aside, if the RN had actually wanted Batch II in the first place, then I still stand by my opinion that a more thorough re-design of the flight deck area to include a mission deck below would have been the smarter option.

Yes I know I'm dreaming, comes under the same category as: if the Queen had balls she'd be the King!

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Oh, if you'd have planned it, you'd have retired Batch 1 in favour of Batch 2, which would have had a helo deck and all that good stuff. Heck, if you'd known that type 31 would have been in the offing, you'd have specified 57mm for the main armament because it's a good gun.

I get that :)

But that's not what happened.

Heck, if you'd planned it, first in class of Type 26 would have been the output, not some Batch II OPV.s
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
StobieWan said:
Oh, if you'd have planned it, you'd have retired Batch 1 in favour of Batch 2, which would have had a helo deck and all that good stuff. Heck, if you'd known that type 31 would have been in the offing, you'd have specified 57mm for the main armament because it's a good gun.

I get that :)

But that's not what happened.

Heck, if you'd planned it, first in class of Type 26 would have been the output, not some Batch II OPV.s
Click to expand...
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, the story of RN procurement for the last few decades (or more), very sad actually, and that's looking from the outside in (as an Aussie that has closely followed RN procurement as closely as RAN procurement for many, many, many decades too).

But of course politics and politicians always get in the way.

Someone once said to me many decades ago: "what we need is a dictator, a benevolent dictator, we give them a 10 year plan, their job is to ensure that the 10 year plan is completed, then at the end of 10 years, you take them out the back, shoot them (don't want them to become too comfortable), put the next benevolent dictator in power and repeat as necessary!"

If only.....
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
John Fedup said:
Italy’s navy is a F-35B player I believe.
Click to expand...
Yes. Italy's main aircraft carrier was designed with F-35B in mind, though it only has Harriers shared with the older, smaller (& retiring) carrier so far, & the new LHD (afloat but unfinished) has also been designed to operate it. And F-35B is on order.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As it's been quiet on here for some time, so here are some news headlines of events from the RN fleet...

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

HMS Tamar makes her Portsmouth debut

HMS Tamar has arrived in her home port of Portsmouth for the first time, becoming the fourth of five new offshore patrol vessels to be delivered from Glasgow shipyards and the most environmentally friendly since the age of sail.
www.royalnavy.mod.uk www.royalnavy.mod.uk

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

HMS Audacious arrives at Clyde home

HMS Audacious, the fourth of the Royal Navy’s Astute-class submarines, has arrived at her new home at HM Naval Base Clyde.
www.royalnavy.mod.uk www.royalnavy.mod.uk
 
T

the concerned

Active Member
I hope people understand this could apply to any naval thread but always wondered about VLS systems. If a munition hit a VLS area would all of the weapons within that area explode or are there features in place to stop that. Just thought people on here with that experience could explain
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The VLS tubes themselves are quite solid and heavy and armoured to protect them if they were hit.

They are designed to direct missfires and what not. If they were hit while the doors were shut they would likely be damaged, but unlikely to explode. If they doors were open and missiles inside then significantly more damage would occur but most likely directed out away from the ship.

There was recently a failure of SM-2 missile in a German ship.
Photos after the incident.
www.popularmechanics.com

A German Warship Was Scorched By Its Own Missile

The American-made SM-2 air defense missile failed to clear its own silo.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com

Modern heavy missiles would do quite a lot of damage to a modern ship, so if one hit the ship would likely be a complete mess, but I don't think the VLS would significantly add to that. Most VLS are located in the middle of the ship, so unlikely to be hit directly.
 
K

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
Modern heavy missiles would do quite a lot of damage to a modern ship, so if one hit the ship would likely be a complete mess, but I don't think the VLS would significantly add to that. Most VLS are located in the middle of the ship, so unlikely to be hit directly.
Click to expand...
I thought on most modern ships the VLS were located in front of the bridge. The ANZAC's has them stupidly located up high in the middle but that's far from standard practice.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
KiwiRob said:
I thought on most modern ships the VLS were located in front of the bridge. The ANZAC's has them stupidly located up high in the middle but that's far from standard practice.
Click to expand...
Most do, but some have them split with the heavier VLS fo'rd and lighter on abaft the bridge and main mast. The VLS in the ANZAC class are the 8 cell Mk-41 Self Defence variant having the shortest of all the Mk-41 cells. In hindsight they probably should've inserted a plug fo'rd of the bridge during the design stage and installed 24 Mk-41 VLS cells there.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
StingrayOZ said:
The VLS tubes themselves are quite solid and heavy and armoured to protect them if they were hit.

They are designed to direct missfires and what not. If they were hit while the doors were shut they would likely be damaged, but unlikely to explode. If they doors were open and missiles inside then significantly more damage would occur but most likely directed out away from the ship.

There was recently a failure of SM-2 missile in a German ship.
Photos after the incident.
www.popularmechanics.com

A German Warship Was Scorched By Its Own Missile

The American-made SM-2 air defense missile failed to clear its own silo.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com

Modern heavy missiles would do quite a lot of damage to a modern ship, so if one hit the ship would likely be a complete mess, but I don't think the VLS would significantly add to that. Most VLS are located in the middle of the ship, so unlikely to be hit directly.
Click to expand...
Hmm not so sure. Modern missiles can be programmed to target specific parts of a ship. You don't necessarily have to sink a ship to render it useless in combat. A missile hit on the VLS area will basically render that area useless. The hit may well ignite the propellant in the missiles causing uncontrolled burn. It could also cause one or more warheads to explode. Such a catastrophe could result in the sinking of the ship. Either way in the ongoing fight it's going to be about as useful as an electric coat hanger.
 
M

Massive

Well-Known Member
KiwiRob said:
The ANZAC's has them stupidly located up high in the middle but that's far from standard practice.
Click to expand...
Interesting that the Type-31e has its VLS "high in the middle" as well.

Doesn't make sense given the RAN's experience with the ANZAC's.

Regards,

Massive
 
R

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
KiwiRob said:
I thought on most modern ships the VLS were located in front of the bridge. The ANZAC's has them stupidly located up high in the middle but that's far from standard practice.
Click to expand...
I see both advantages and disadvantages to this location. the disadvantage is the higher likelihood of a hit and less space between the silo's and the outer skin giving a little less protection. The advantages are that being in the superstructure any explosion in this area will vent to atmosphere and is far less likely to structurally damage the hull and unlikely to have a significant effect on other weapon systems or the bridge.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Massive said:
Interesting that the Type-31e has its VLS "high in the middle" as well.

Doesn't make sense given the RAN's experience with the ANZAC's.

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
The Type 31e is a far larger ship with quite a bit more displacement and stability to play with. The OMT F370 was designed with a significant amount of weapons capability in that position. Where the RAN ran in problems with the ANZAC class was when after the ships were in service, they installed the 8 Harpoon box launchers on 1 deck behind the 5 in gun and then added the CEAFAR radars etc. That moved the ships c of g higher, increased displacement and negatively impacted upon stability. Not good on a ship because it increases the risk of them turning turtle and joining the submarine service. Reckon they'd roll like hell on wet grass now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top