The MoD tweeted a few images of the latest Type 26, the BBC and Portsmouth News run the story and we have all gone bonkers with anticipation.
Except the images don’t look that different from the last time BAE Systems released a video
The BBC link has a nice little CGI animation which has been released by the MoD as well
Here they are
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73614187@N03/7868356802/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73614187@N03/7823684822/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73614187@N03/7823399736/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73614187@N03/7868359038/
And for a trip through the recent archives on the Type 26, the most recent post on the subject is here complete with over 700 comments!
This is nothing really surprising, just programme continuation with a confirmation of an earlier design iteration.
Good stuff of course, the Type 26 is a modern but conventional and low risk design that makes maximum use of mature systems either already in service with the RN, about to be in service with the RN before the Type 26 build or in service with other nations. This conservatism is no doubt a good thing because the programme has to be achievable within a well defined ‘cost envelope’ to use the latest trendy buzzwords.
The MoD released a news story on the news story including a helpful reference to how many double decker buses its length will be the equivalent of.
More from BAE
The intention is to get 13 in service and the next phase will get down to detailed design and specification work.
Does anyone know of any major projects in recent history that have achieved their initial/planned quantities and/or specifications by the way?
Just read the current specifications, it all sounds pretty great.
Swap out the intended small calibre guns for a naval 40mm CTA and Sea-hawk Sigma fit and id be a very happy chappy!
As TD rightly pointed out the big challenge now is for the costs to be kept down and by extension the 13 ship target to be preserved.
I want to be optimistic, but given the track record….
If you don’t aim for the stars you’ll never reach heaven: 24 new ships for me, please.
echoing Gabbie – get 13.
In answer to the question on initial quantities and spec, I give you (the RAF buy of) C17.
In answer to the answer of C17, I wish you good luck floating in that.
NaB, I could add one or two others but my point is that it is indeed a rarity and most definitely even rarer for a development item
So let me re-phrase the question
How many major projects in the last couple of decades that have been developed and not purchased as a MOTS or modified MOTS delivered the same quantities and/or specifications as postulated in the early stages?
Is it fair to use the River class programme as an example? Five vessels completed including one export?
They were being leased so arguably, it was in the contractors interests !!
My point is this, the RN has a fight on its hands to control the Type 26 spec and build quantity and using history as a guide suggests it should plan for less
The answer to the re-phrased question has got to be somewhere between f8ck and all!
History should indeed point towards less – the only “plus” point is that unlike T45, there is next to no developmental kit on T26. However that’s also the case with QEC and look what happened there, albeit more to do with inter-service politicking than anything else.
Chris – what is this fifth River?
Elephants! In all seriousness though, as soon as the specs are finalised the contract should be written in such a manner that BAE are to provide x ships at y cost. Penalty clauses on both sides should be horrific to prevent BAE trying to pull a fast one and to tie in any future Government.
Publially planning for less would be a huge mistake as it would simply invite the Government to cut. obviously internal TS planning docs will be drawn up but they should go nowhere near anyone who is not a Senior RN officer and I include MOD civil servants in that.
On the Phalanx part of the video. Since Phalanx is not fitted on T23 whatever CWIS is decided upon will need to be bought. Will The US still be using Phalanx in 2020? I think they have put a Phalanx representation on the video to illustrate plans for 2 CWIS.
Personally I would like a 57MM in place of the forad one and a RAM launcher aft, please. The remote weapon mounts will almost definitely be the 30MM ASCG mounts transferred from the T23.
What we are seeing in the South China Sea, the Arctic, and around those islands is really an indicator of where global security concerns will be focused in the coming decades. Paddling about littorals will be important but not as important as blue water or operations off distant mainly unpopulated shores; blue water operations like interdicting Chinese movements in the Indian Ocean and the seas around Australia and New Zealand. (The presence of humanity in large numbers drives the speculation of need for littoral capabilities.) Though that will be a job mainly for SSNs I would hope that the West still wants to aim for a degree of sea control which means operating ships.
I want all sea going T26 have both hull and towed sonars. I want them to have to have the 127mm Oto Melara gun with Vulcano ammunition. And a anti-ship missile, well two actually, one screwed to the deck and the other for Merlin. Let’s not forget that the purpose of a navy is to inflict violence on the enemy not just block its electronic signals.
“I want all sea going T26 have both hull and towed sonars. I want them to have to have the 127mm Oto Melara gun with Vulcano ammunition. And a anti-ship missile, well two actually, one screwed to the deck and the other for Merlin. Let’s not forget that the purpose of a navy is to inflict violence on the enemy not just block its electronic signals.”
Absolutely agree X.
What other competition is there in the export market for a 5,400t Frigate? FREMM, F125? Independence/Freedom LCS?
How do these solidifying T26 specifications match up against the competition and who are the likely export/development partners?
Tight contract writing probably served the CVF program and the RN well. (unlike the MRTT PFI contract). One of the issues is unrealistic expectations, another is Bae’s stranglehold.
Lets hope all parties considered each other’s interests and that at least 13 affordable platforms are built. Being realistic needs to be at the forefront of everyone’s minds. Most of our platforms have been fairly competitive compared to the alternatives.
I would still only go with 6, OK, 8
The spend the spare loot on other stuff
If the final decisions aren’t to be taken until the 2015 defence review what do people think the chances are of more than 13 ships being ordered?
I think the possibility is so slim it’s pretty much zero, but id be interested if anyone else thought differently.
i always thought we’d lose one, and go to 18 escorts total, but that is just my cynicism.
@TD You cannot have another 50 Typhoons!
I think we will end up with 12. It is going to be a long programme. Events will drive or preserve the need for T26 numbers. And even accelerate spending on bringing T45 into line equipment wise with its European peers.
I can also see the number dropping to 12 due to a cost increase.
However if they do what it says on the tin then I still think they would represent a formidable capability.
From the BAE link: ” A key feature is the ship’s flexible mission space, which can accommodate up to four 12 metre sea boats, a range of manned and unmanned air, surface or underwater vehicles or up to 11 20ft containers or ‘capability modules’. This delivers improved Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting and Reconnaissance capability and ensures the ship is future-proofed against further technology developments” – Hmmmm, ‘capability modules’; will they be doing MCM? Is the budget for MHPC for hulls, capabilities or both?
I’m sure one of the proposals at least for MHPC involves T26 hulls as the Platform.
I never understood the rational behind 13 other than desperately trying to get every hull you can. If labour come back in in 2015 then 12 is a given to keep both yards on the Clyde. If the SNP win or the Tory’s come back in then all bets are off.
Many contracts have reached their initial target but I can’t think of one involving BAE. I still think the monopolies and mergers commission should have a look at breaking them up.
@Challenger – “what do people think the chances are of more than 13 ships being ordered?” – To quote the great Don King: “You have two chances – fat and slim – and slim just left town.”
I would like to see at least a couple more built fitted out as AAW frigates to supplement the T45s, but would settle for 2 of the 13 fitted as such.
@ Swimming Trunks – MCM was to be a capability of the T26 from day one. The idea is to give the fleet at least an austere capability even when operating beyond the range of conventional MCM vessels. Interestingly on the video the boat access door on the port side seems to have been removed.
@ Wise Ape – Not sure what the AAW version would look like. Could not afford a SAMPSON and the prospect of developing the SAMPSON lite is probably too much for just two vessels. I suppose the Herakles from FREMM may be an option but that’s not too cheap either.
I would say the money would be better spent on giving the fleet CEC and fitting Aster 30 to the T26.
From what I can see, for the ship, you’d have
1x 4.5 Inch
1x CIWS
2x 8-cell small VLS? (L/R of the CIWS)
1x 24-cell VLS behind the CIWS
and
2x Miniguns L/R above the hanger bay.
Not sure if there is a CIWS above the hanger, I have my doubts, the LOS is severely blocked for that position by the miniguns.
Pretty decent throw weight.
Edit: I stand corrected, there IS a 2nd CIWS above the hanger.
I’m encouraged by the lack of change since the last video, we don’t want any CVF-like vacillation. Is a mission deck under the flight deck still part of the design?
@APATS – big gun up front :-)
@Martin – “I would say the money would be better spent on giving the fleet CEC and fitting Aster 30 to the T26.” – actually that’s what I had in mind; put Aster 30 in the “strike tubes” rather than Tomahawk etc.
So where will this “flexible mission space” be?
Observer,
Think the 2 VLS Silos forad of the 24 cell silo are 12 cell? Difficult to count. There is also the strange thing to port of the Ffrad funnel. The main gun significantly is not portrayed as a 4.5. Seems to be a CWIS forad and another above the hanagr. Portrayed as Phalanx but as the system will have to be purchased who knows. The mounts Port and Stbd on the hangar roof are I believe meant to be the ASCG 30MM remote mounts currently on T23. They would be better further forward.
ST Must be forad of hangar looking at the doors on stb side.
@ST
It’ll be incredibly amusing if they loaded in a missile payload module with no external exit through the ship. :)
Was playing with the horizon calculator from the other post and was very surprised to find that radar range from a surface object to another is so limited. Airborne sets really are a must.
As for the T-26, time will tell, time will tell.
@ Swimming Trunks – the Flex space is suppose to be in the centre of the super structure behind the hanger. It was suppose to be accessible by roller doors on both port and starboard but looks to me like its gone.
martin, think access is from Stbd side only now. Looking at the variety of door type panels on the stbd side. This will of course save money and it may be the space does not go all the away across but makes evolutions where access is required alongside tricky.
Need to put things ashore from mission bay STBD side to. Want to then put a boat in the water? Aghh slight problem, wind ship anyone?
Fitted for, but not with, flexible mission space.
“Does anyone know of any major projects in recent history that have achieved their initial/planned quantities and/or specifications by the way?”
The Swedes can pull this off quite easily.
IIRC the Norwegian and Spanish AEGIS mini destroyer projects went well as well.
I think he meant UK projects……
Oh noooooo….. Another post about ruddy floaty little boats. That’s me scuppered for another 700 comments.
To be positive, how the hell do you run around the outside of the boat, the only legal onboard activity that is any fun? Running laps of the small baseball court behind the garage door (and typically, BAE have forgotten the baseball hoop above the door, no doubt it will be an expensive option) is going to result in having to count into the hundreds before even a bead of sweat appears. Where are the Andrew’s priorities?
EDIT: TD, could you increase the rations of the hamsters powering the TD servers, or give them an energy drink or something? It’s taking about 3 minutes for the site to open any post, then another 3 minutes to upload a comment. The rest of the web on the trusty old Mac is working at normal speed.
@Red Trousers – “how the hell do you run around the outside of the ship” – magnetic boots?
Baseball hoop? Ruddy spellcheck trying to take over. Clearly, the software coder for the spell checker in OSX was never entranced as a child by the Harlem Globetrotters, and instead prefers Septic Rounders.
@ WiseApe, if they are marketing this as a slightly stealthy design, I’d assume it’s going to be made of plastic****. Otherwise that much slab metal is going to be lighting up the radar screens – looking at the slope angle it is going to appear perpendicular at anything from about 10,000 feet at 20 miles to 40,000 feet at 80 miles, and that surely is in the sweet spot of most airborne radars? Anyway, magnetic boots sound heavy and that’s not good when you slip and fall into the briny. If magnetic boots is indeed the design solution, BAE seem to have missed off the safety rail.
(I’m rather hoping these entirely pertinent and indeed sensible suggestions will derail this thread from yet another techno-porn discussion of boats, interspersed with financially unfeasible suggestions to have ever more of them at the expense of everything painted green, because apparently 1,487% of our trade arrives by sea and needs full time protection)
;)
**** “Steel is cheap and air is free – but plastic is even cheaper and we live in times of austerity, so we’ll go for the plastic option, thank you” – the RT take on what should be spent on the Andrew… better put in a few more :) ;) :) ‘s
Damn it, TD has me doing it. I keep reading it as the Global Container Ship…
@APATs
Don’t those things come in sets of 8?
Observer, Silos? Yes the normal arrangement is 4×2 or a variation. Those could be 3 rows of 4 singles or an error in the animation. Def looks like 12 cells though.
@Red Trousers:
“looking at the slope angle it is going to appear perpendicular at anything from about 10,000 feet at 20 miles to 40,000 feet at 80 miles, and that surely is in the sweet spot of most airborne radars? ”
I have log have had the suspicion that the whole polygonal stealth fashion of warships since the USS Arleigh Burke is a response to missile radars, not bomber radars.
Bombers capable of looking down will be able to even bow waves of ships faster than about 5 kts. MPAs furthermore have SAR and GMTI nowadays, that means they can even identify a ship by its shape from great distances, probably more than 100 km.
Sea skimmer missiles on the other hand have a very poor vantage point (shared with sea skimming fighter bombers such as ’82 Super Entendards or Cold War German navy Tornado IDS) and supersonic AShMs have almost no time window.
@ RT re cheap plastic boats.
Per ton the Sandown’s, a plastic boat, were the most expensive ship the RN had purchased up to that point…..
FWIW magnetic boots won’t work on plastic hulls.
“That’s me scuppered for another 700 comments.”
If that was unintentional its the best pun I’ve seen in a while….otherwise yuk, yuk, yuk.
“To be positive, how the hell do you run around the outside of the boat, the only legal onboard activity that is any fun?”
Beauty of being at sea, specially in the warmer climes, is that one is not obliged to get ones exercise onboard. A pipe of ‘hands to bathe’ is followed by copious amounts of good old fashioned exercise in the deep end. If the boss thinks the ships company could stand a challenge he simply passes down a few discrete engine orders when everyone is at a safe distance!.
@x:
“FWIW magnetic boots won’t work on plastic hulls.”
They wouldn’t on austenitic steels either, and those may be employed as protection against magnetic fuzes.
@ SO
That had occurred too, but I thought it was a bit too complex for him. :) ;)
Jonesy,
re the ship buggering off while the hands are swimming. I’ve got a photograph of myself standing on top of Out Stack Rock, some several hundred metres to the north of Muckle Flugga, the most northern point of Britain. Taken by the co-pilot of a Lynx which was taking me and the boss around the Scottish coast over 4 days to conduct an aerial audit of the state of the concrete pads that in Cold War time were there for AD defences and radars. How I laughed when the Lynx buggered off for 10 minutes – far enough away to no longer be visible – as a joke. There’s little you can do in that sort of situation, perched on top of a 50 square metre chunk of granite that’s covered in bird shite and nothing else, apart from wonder whether the Lynx had some genuine emergency needing it to return to Sullom Voe, or if the boss was having one of his periodical fits of humour. Having established that the boss didn’t really want me to be killed, a couple of hours later I asked to be put down on top of the Old Man of Hoy, because I wanted that photo as well (framed up nicely, in the downstairs bog and always attracts a comment from any visitors). And a day later, we dropped in on the family distillery on Islay unannounced, which was good for a tour and the General Manager there thinking he’d better stuff a couple of cases of 18 Year Old Malt into the back of the Lynx to ensure no negative repercussions at the next AGM.
Got to be said I’d be perfectly willing to stand a watch or two on top of some solitary and desolate lump of Scotland if there was a case of 18yr old at the end of the journey!.
Just got to stress for the uninitiated, as my writing was less jocular than intended, that the screws wouldnt be turned with people in the water owing to the very great danger and stupidity of such an action. Poor attempt at humour gratefully rescued by RT!
Leaving people on top of rocky Caledonian columns could be considered perfectly acceptable….cap doffed!. The term ‘mincing stokers’ usually doesnt involve the ships screws though!!.
Air is free, steel is cheap, so make the hangar big enough for 2 Merlin. Do not need to operate 2, but the option is then there in an emergency.
Copy the liner QM2 & use 50% thicker steel on the hull. only adds a couple of million to a £350 m ship, but adds a decade of service life & enables operations near the Polar regions.
Erm, what happened to the ramp at the back for launching small boats? Wasn’t that one of the great new features, that it was going to be able to conduct small boat operations at much greater speed etc?
Davits on the side through the side hanger doors by the looks of it.
Or clever RN ploy to ensure MHPC which does have a rear ramp……..who knows. It’s simpler and less risk I suspect which is the point of T26.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREMM_multipurpose_frigate
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f125-frigate/
I think mmoomin is right there Chris, Type 26 is very purposely designed to be as low risk as possible which I guess isn’t a bad thing
Anyone got any predictions?
Mine is for 8 with the remainder cash (if any, defence inflation is a bitch) going in to MHPC, which funnily enough is exactly what I would do
Any takers?
@ Swimming Trunks re FREMM
What are you insinuating young Gareth? That we have paid BAE to reinvent the wheel?
@x You may very well say that, I couldn’t possibly comment…
Just a thought, given the steel is cheap and air free line Chris B puts across.
Why are not all frigates built rather larger, with well deck*** and accommodation for several hundred passengers on board, but fitted out for a primary role as a frigate with the sexy sonars? No rule on God’s earth that says such a ship should always be fully laden with passengers and landing craft, but criminy, it would make the “frigate” so much more useful for the 99% of the time it is not actively pursuing submarines. Yes, it would need more juice to push through the water, but over a lifetime, that would still be cheaper than buying up Ocean and Albion replacements.
I’m thinking something like Wasp, or JC or anything similar, maybe with half a flight deck for hosting 2-4 helos at once, and the rest of the internal space given over to a modular fit out for mass accommodation, or ISOs of disaster relief, modular hospital, UAV operations.
How much more would that cost? Frigate ASW capability in a biggish boat, mostly empty as SOP, but when the call comes, hugely flexible?
*** I like well decks because you can launch ISO carrying LCs from them. But if a well deck is too much, how about some internal “tube” through which you can launch a RIB or seaboat or whatever the Andrew call them by launching downwards into the wash // wake, and into which the RIB can self-recover (ever seen the USMC do that back into a Sea Knight helicopter’s rear door – good stuff). Should be enough space to fit such a tube in between the propellor shafts of such a boat, and it should do as well for the towed array. Probably need a chain winch mechanism inside the tube for recovery, but a lot simpler than the whole davits operation.
Low risk maybe, but then all we’re talking about is a ramp and a door, which was on all the early design stuff. The USCG has basically got that method of deployment down so it shouldn’t be that hard.
@ST
Are those two like for like with the type 26, how much do those two classes cost each if we were to buy 12, roughly ?
I realise this may be raking over old ground for many here, but would anyone care to enlighten me on why we chose to go it alone on designing our future frigate rather than partnering France and Italy on FREMM or Germany on F125 (btw, I know it shouldn’t matter, but those German ships have been soundly beaten with the ugly stick!).
@Red Trousers – noisy, but plenty of room to run about on.
@TD Be years before we see any outcome to that bet. However the feeling is very much that both the Service Chiefs and the Govt are serious about getting this right and a lot of lessons have been learnt. It is a low risk design with a lot of kit transferring from the T23. BAE quite happily seem to fulfill other contracts. Sow whilst i may not bet on their being 13, there will definitely be more than 8 and the number specified on the contract when signed will be the number obtained.
A reduction to 14 escorts would mean that the RN had lost more than 75% of its FF/DD hulls since 1990. Given the fact that MHPC is very theoretical and the current requirement for escort tasks which will increase with the arrival of the Carrier I am extremely confident we will see more than 8.
RT About double.
F125 were £400 million a pop when ordered in 2007.
FREMM about £380 million.
Chris B stern ramp deployment and recovery of Rhibs is not difficult. the question becomes how would it interfere with both the operation and storage of a towed body? Then does it offer advantages large enough to make any risk worthwhile?
@ Swimming Trunks re wheel 2.0
I think I have said it several times before myself. Given what we wanted on paper (Merlin capable, range, habitability, the 127mm gun, etc) T26 was going to turn out very similar to FREMM. Then again the RN know better than all the other worlds navies so perhaps there is some subtle aspect we mere mortals are unaware. Of course all the old arguments would come out about retaining skills etc. which I suppose are valid. But it smells a funny colour. I suspect the wages bill and sundry costs (some new 3H pencils etc) for the design came nowhere near £127million. I bet we could have bought FREMM, had the advantage of ship in the water to run a rule over, and still found something for BAE to design such as an Ocean replacement or a new barge to move SeaViper.
@ APATS, re “about double” for my suggestion of a bastard love child of a sleek sexy frigate and a north sea ro-ro. Thanks for that.
About double whatever T26 is going to cost. Given that you remove the need to replace Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, and have 13 such multi-capable hulls, is that looking good or poor VFM over the service life of about 30 years? (Honestly, no bloody idea at all – just punting an idea)
Why boat ramps are not a panacea: http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/Boat%20Launch%20and%20Recovery%20%E2%80%93%20A%20Key%20Enabling%20Technology%20For%20Flexible%20Warships.pdf
Can somebody explain to me what the fascination is with about launching RIBs? It is a bit like having a thread about new Ferrari and being obsessed with which air freshener should we hang off the mirror.
@ APATS
Cheers, roughly how much does a Type 26, at the moment aim to be? Or are there no public figures yet?
@Chris.B. August 20, 2012 at 20:37
“Low risk maybe, but then all we’re talking about is a ramp and a door, which was on all the early design stuff. The USCG has basically got that method of deployment down so it shouldn’t be that hard.”
The “National Security Cutters” (NSC) and LCS have them,as does the French L’Adroit, but the new large Coast Guard offshore patrol cutters will not. A stern ramp was explicitly excluded by the specification. Can’t help but suspect the vertical movement of two vessels of very different size might cause a problem. I’ve gotten feed back that that might be true.
http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2011/11/09/no-stern-ramp-for-boats-on-the-opc-mistake/
On the NSC it also resulted in having two separate steering gear rooms on either side of the ramp. (that might be a good thing?)
Chuck Hill said “On the NSC it also resulted in having two separate steering gear rooms on either side of the ramp. (that might be a good thing?)”
There are lots of little extra costs with NSC. The cruise ship evacuation tunnel for me was the WTF? moment for me. No wonder it costs an arm and leg per copy. Nice though. Pretty too.
Topman, The aim is between 300 and 350 million I believe. Hopefully closer to £300 million. Costs being driven down by the transfer of equipment from the T23 flotilla as they leave the service. 997, 2087, 30Mm ASCG, Sea Ceptor. Possibly even ESM, Command systems and Bridge outfit/nav radars could be transferred. So you are paying for a hull, propulsion, hotel services, new main gun (hopefully), CIWS, Silo installation and any new missile systems required.
@Anixtu August 20, 2012 at 20:45
Why boat ramps are not a panacea: http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/Boat%20Launch%20and%20Recovery%20%E2%80%93%20A%20Key%20Enabling%20Technology%20For%20Flexible%20Warships.pdf
Thanks, I can use this.
Does anyone know exactly what the £127m get us?
Is it to this point or does it include the next detailed design work stage for example
I like the overall look of the design though I wonder if there is any concern with turbulent air over the flight deck with the two gun sponsons sticking out at the back of the hanger. Could said guns be upgraded to 40mm cannons for some commonality with the army would that improve the ciws discussion further. 127mm gun would be an important update a must. I do wonder if the end of the deicated surface to surface anti ship missile is drawing close. Perhaps the Norwegian missile JSM could be used on ship helicopter and jet as a strike missile. Or some further development of the sea skua replacement. An rn esg type task group should be the RN striking force not individual ships as death stars.
I have a feeling the future mphc maybe more systems orientated rather than ship orientated which may mean an entirely opposite direction to tds type 26 numbers suggestion a lot will depend on cost.
@TD It had blasted better! If £127million buys us any less than a finalised design completely agreed by both parties and a contract signed for x hulls at y price with massive penalty clauses then someone should be shot!
Selling raffle tickets to pull the trigger would probably pay for the design costs.
Everything i have read says that BAE have been given £127 million and 4 years to “fully design” the T26. so hopefully it includes the detailed design work once the prime movers, weapons and sensors have been finalised.
@ Apats
Thanks, assuming the German design that someone popped on earlier is similar in design then that’s a fair bit cheaper. But like has been mentioned sticking to that budget will be the hardest thing for the project.
What state is all that equipement that will robbed off the T23s be in? I assume it will all have to be overhauled/repaired before fitment?
The F125 is a strange beast. it is designed as a land attack and stabilisation frigate. It is 148M long yet weighs 7,200 tonnes. Has a phased array radar but only RAM launchers for AAW. Has no sonar at all. In the anti surface role it will carry the 127Mm Oto melara and 2 remote 27Mm guns and 4 remote 50cals plus other manned mounts. It can also carry 2 NH90 helos and will eventually carry a Swedish designed anti ship/land attack missile. At £400 million pound plus each that seems expensive for such a niche capability.
Kit of the T23 will need to be refurbished, checked and may need to be replaced or upgraded earlier during the life cycle of the T26 than would otherwise have been the case.
X,
surely RIBs give you an option somewhat less final than letting rip with even the smallest weapon on board, the option to do boarding work, etc. Seems like a bargain to me given that some of the sideways mounted popguns typically installed on naval craft are pretty useless in either high end war fighting (spray and pray mode), or in low end patrolling (ROE), and lets face it, are operated by matelots who have literally zero idea in how to use MGs effectively****, and no cultural willingness for the ambush (all of that graduated response of chasing a pirate ship, then shouting at it on the radio, then a loudhailer, then shots across the bow rather give away the ambush factor).
You can put Royals onto a RIB, which makes it / them quite potent, or you can put sailors onto a RIB, which makes you look like HMS Cornwall, so they are still a bit of a double edged sword and need to be thought about in their deployment.
**** Truly pathetic performance on Bristol when I asked for the GPMGs to be got out for a bit of rubbish sack shooting in the Baltic. Not only had none of the crew been taught how to properly deliver ranging or killing bursts, there was some “instructor” who had done a “course” at a shore establishment who did not even know about gas plug settings and adjustments based on the Mark One hand temperature gauge of barrel heat. No wonder the ruddy things kept jamming, and even then none of the sailors could clear a perfectly normal gas plug setting stoppage and had to wait until the “instructor” arrived alongside to clear it for them. Total waste of time.
RT,
There were Royal marines on the RHIBS during the Cornwall incident. The boarding team was a combined RN/FPGRM team. All I can say about Bristol is oh dear but yes it is something that used to be an issue and has been massively worked upon in the last decade. At the end of the day though the effectiveness of the individuals involved will be down to the training given and amount of exercises undertaken.
I reckon that the spare Harpoon, or perhaps the JSM will provide an initial ‘bolt on’ anti ship capability, with the strike length silo’s utilising TLAM if it’s affordable.
I then think that by the early 2030’s we will see initial deep maintenance and refit replacing both systems with something rather advanced and futuristic like Perseus.
Anyone else agree?
Looks a sound ship to replace T23. A new main gun and decent fit out of silos for seaceptor and strike length silos for other stuff, even if not filled until crisis. I hope the phalanx CIWS and 30mm cannon mounts are placeholders only. Both will be way behind the times when the first of these ships hits the water. Those platforms for the 30mm are decent size so something like a 40mm cannon or the 30mm sigma thing would seem more appropriate nearer the time. Put the T23 30mm cannons on RFAs / CVFs to bolster close in defences if they are servicable and spare – or mount forward on T26s if room. Maybe there will be an upgraded phalanx by then but assuming they have to be bought anyway, there may be other options, eg a 57mm fore at least and a sea ram aft. The T26 would be very well placed ot go in harms way, just short of an offensive AshM to make it a true all rounder. I hope we get at least 12 built in batches of 4 for continuous improvement. All 2 should have TAS. Its a future decision as to whether to switch to another MHPC design or possibly build a few more T26s with slightly more austere, but upgradable fit out (eg 76mm gun) and then just an ‘MH’ class
@x:
“Can somebody explain to me what the fascination is with about launching RIBs?”
Man over board drills, inspection of vessels without use of helicopter are the obvious examples.
There are certain reasons from a countermeasures point of view as well, especially concerning both infra-red and radar decoying and the issue of home-on-jam modes of missiles. MCM drones could also be employed instead of RIBs.
I think we can easily consider most of those strange rigid inflatables as placeholders and the internal space spent for them as a equipped_for,_but_not_with thing in regard to countermeasures.
A few thoughts on T26 vs. FREMM, since this is coming up a fair bit:
– FREMM is a pure-bred frigate, with sleek hull lines and a lot of effort put into stealth (waterline diesel exhausts and very angled superstructures). Designed to be a very slippery customer in a high threat environment. Limited modularity despite the “M” in its name.
– T26 shares Absalon’s portly genes, with a very “fat” bow. This allows the main gun and superstructure to be moved forward, maximizing volume at the expense of speed & seakeeping.
– T26’s waterline length is only ~4-5m longer than FREMM, so 5,400t standard displacement seems dead on. The extra length is used to lengthen the helicopter deck (Chinook capability).
– Since T26 is therefore only marginally larger than FREMM, not surprisingly the modular payload bay isn’t all that big. It’s more accurate to think of it as a multifunction reconfigurable hangar/boat area, rather than an additional dedicated payload bay as on LCS… i.e. what’s novel isn’t so much the size of the mission area as much as the fact that BAE have figured out a way to make the internal superstructure reconfigurable.
– There doesn’t seem to be any space reserved for traditional (non-VLS) ASM launchers. Since neither Harpoon nor any of the current MBDA missiles are VLS compatible, this is either a huge leap of faith or indicates a high degree of confidence that something like CVS 401 Perseus will be funded on at least one side of the Atlantic.
@H-K
Looking at the new images I believe their is space for ASM launchers between the radar mast and funnel, or perhaps further back if some of the small calibre guns are moved around a little.
I’m not saying they will definitely have ASM installed, but it seems that allowances have been made for them in the design.
As I said earlier, I’m willing to bet that the initial load out will be a Harpoon/TLAM mix, followed by an eventual dual role missile like Perseus.
One more thing:
Stealth doesn’t seem to be as much of a primary design requirement aboard T26, what with the more vertical sides, raised siloes forward, lack of waterline exhausts, longer superstructure, more sharp angles etc. Basically stealth is being (somewhat) sacrificed in order to maximize internal volume.
I’m guessing that the Black Swan philosophy is starting to percolate, i.e. “it’s the payload, stupid, not the platform”.
H_K< Just wondering how you came to your conclusions? Absalon is 137M with a beam of 19.5M and displaces 6,200Tonnes. FREMM is 142M long with a 20M beam and displaces between 5,800-6,000 tonnes dependent upon variant.
As far as we know T26 will be 148M long with a beam of 19.5M and displace 5,400 tonnes. longer slimmer and lighter hardly lead to a conclusion of portlier? I as lucky enough to spend a day at sea on the Carlo Bergamini a few months ago and she seemed like a really nice ship but not sure I would describe her as any more slippery than numerous other designs. See pics at link.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=“Carlo+Bergamini”+frigate&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1327&bih=914&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=bmilz2VrCWymoM:&imgrefur
Concur on the non portrayal of an ASM missile but there is plenty of room to place one. i think that the portrayal of a Phalanx and lack of an ASM is simply down to the fact that nobody has decided what they will be yet. Norgies NSM/JSM may be made silo compatible on back of JSF orders.
These anti ship missiles. Unless they are fired in salvoes and with digital brains that allow the little beasts to communicate with each other mid-flight****, to encircle a target and to swarm in from all sides at once to overwhelm local defences, presumably the assumption is that they are going to be shot down one by one by an OPFOR CIWS / RAM etc, and thus turn into sunken ironmongery at some significant cost per missile fired? If so, why the fascination? If not, who is not slapping the Whitehall “thinkers” around the chops and inviting them to join the 21st century?
**** If we really let dstl do what they are best at, we’d have a NEC firing solution for all sorts of ship-, land-, and air-launched missiles (some launched on demand, some loitering) doing a bit of racing in under the radar and spearing in from great height all at once while chattering away to each other. That would be a bit of a bugger to deal with all at once if you are OPFOR, especially the Chinese and certainly Carlos Fandango. CEC – a great programme that somehow got canned.
@APATS
You’re right about the weapons fit.
Pretty much everything except CAMM will be off the shelf purchases that can be decided at a later date.
RT, CIWS is a last resort. the first part of any successful surface engagement is Surface Picture Compilation. Having a missile with a range in excess of 100Nm is fabulous but bloody useless if you do cannot find something 100Nm away. So other surface assets, a Helo, MPA,Sub or satellite are handy to find the target.
Then you have to engage it bearing in mid it may have moved since you found it it and launched. does your missile have a data link to update target info as it closes? does it rely upon sheer speed. does your missile attack from above or sea skim? Does it pop up and activate radar x miles out before beginning terminal phase manouvre? Does it accelerate in the terminal phase? Does it need to go active at all?
Is the target alerted or not. Your average radar guided anti ship missile will be detected by a Ship when it pops up and goes active, revealing a threat radar down a bearing, intel and research prescribes reactions. A high flying fast but active missile will be detected further out.
Something like the Norwegian NSM that is sea skimming, sub sonic stealthy and non active (utilises an Infra red scanner and target database) yet is capable of mid course data link updates is far harder to detect.
Defence against most anti ship missiles is, own ship missiles, e.g Sea Ceptor or aster, soft kill, IR, jammers, Active decoys, chaff etc. Then CIWS, when a PWO ssts a CWIS system to auto it really si time for 2p 50p onboard.
@ mickp and H K – ” I’m guessing that the Black Swan philosophy is starting to percolate, i.e. “it’s the payload, stupid, not the platform”.” – ” Its a future decision as to whether to switch to another MHPC design or possibly build a few more T26s with slightly more austere, but upgradable fit out (eg 76mm gun) and then just an ‘MH’ class”
What about the austete Type 26 as the full MHPC? It will be quiet already, and the idea is to have UV’s do the mine hunting and mapping. Could the Type 26 hull perform high end escort and “sloop” roles? How many of these hulls would we need? How many could we afford?
I suggest this as devils advocate – I quite like the Black Swan/BAM/VLR Corvette idea but what would be the pro’s and Con’s of a single common hull?
All politicians, sorry I wasn’t clear. I was comparing FREMM(FR) and T26, based on top view images available online, drawn to the same scale… I wasn’t thinking of FREMM(IT) which is a different beast.
Once you put them side-by-side, T26 has a much more “snub nosed” bow and vertical sides, hence my comments about volume being the priority over stealth, seakeeping & speed.
The top view of FREMM(FR)can be found here: http://www.meretmarine.com/objets/12409.jpg (actually, this is FREMM(GR), but who cares!)
re; T26 and small boats,
Wasn’t that touted as one of the key upgrades of this vessel over just being another Type 23 by BAE? Because it was going to be sooooo much better at launching and recovering small craft, safer, in a wider range of sea conditions and a greater envelope of speeds.
Looking at the odd arrangement of three stacks, it makes more sense if the propulsion is hybrid or fully integrated electric propulsion, like the Type 45.
The diesel generators might be physically well separated from the gas turbine.
If an integrated electric system, might the gas turbine be in the superstructure, perhaps even in the stack itself? That would eliminate an awful lot of ducting and make changing out turbines a lot easier.
It appears the after uptakes preclude a two bay hanger, but perhaps there is a door between the hanger and the “garage” that would permit at least UAS to move between the two.
I notice one of the doors in the starboard side appears abeam the forward stack. Does that mean the garage is below the stack?
@H_K says:
August 20, 2012 at 23:03
“- There doesn’t seem to be any space reserved for traditional (non-VLS) ASM launchers. Since neither Harpoon nor any of the current MBDA missiles are VLS compatible, this is either a huge leap of faith or indicates a high degree of confidence that something like CVS 401 Perseus will be funded on at least one side of the Atlantic.”
Apparently there is a VLS compatible anti-ship and land attack missile already available that has a 900 mile range and a two way UHF SATCOM data link for cuing and updating, the block IV Tactical Tomahawk. http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/08/back-to-future-targeting-new-tasm.html
Having a single missile that can hit both ships and land targets will add to the ships’ flexibility and if it hits a target only 100 miles away, the unspent fuel will just add to the fire.
RE “Everything i have read says that BAE have been given £127 million and 4 years to “fully design” the T26. so hopefully it includes the detailed design work once the prime movers, weapons and sensors have been finalised.”
– me, too
– but what has happened with timing? At the capabilities level the trade-offs were frozen in November, supposedly giving hull size, propulsion choice and target size of crew/ other accommodation
– this was supposed to have been worked into detail by about Easter, for detail design then to start putting it all together (after a further go-ahead, after reconfirming no deviation from budget)
– does it take the propaganda department to the end of summer to get anything out?
It looks like the USN may be getting ready to replace harpoon with a TLAM re design to give it an interim capability until something more advanced comes along. There is great debate on the effectiveness of harpoon now against any type of modern vessel.
I am still dubious whether or not we will see some form of strike length VLS on T26. The fact that these have not been put on T45 yet says to me the treasury is un happy at the prospect of the RN having the capability to launch anything but a small contribution to an opening barrage with million dollar missiles.
In terms of working with the Germans and French I think we would gain very little and risk way too much. If T26 comes in at the £350 million mark with the systems we want then we are getting a hell of a lot of bang for our buck compared to FREMM or German designs. With no need to develop costly radars or missiles as with PAMMS I just don’t see a need for joint development.
The frigate export market is so small that spreading the handful of orders likley around three of four countries would be a waste of time.
Frigate export market so small?
These are global numbers by Bob Nugent, presented in a very recent RUSI fleet planning conference
As the copy-paste destroyed the table formatting, including losing column headers altogether, I ‘ve added a comment to the last figure (% change, to indicate the trend)
20-Year Global Market Forecast: Number of Ships
AMI International /
Cruiser 2 14 -12 -85.7% Dying out altogether, the two on order must be the Zumwalts, which are more akin to battle ships
Destroyer 146 145 1 0.7% Holding on, but the destroyer/ frigate borderline varies (AMI int’l if anyone knows how to make it like-with-like when comparing)
FAC 298 242 56 23.1% (growing, but are there many exports?)
Frigate 281 243 38 15.6% (with OPVs, the growth market, but when you add value as a dimension becomes the most important)
MCMV 103 210 -107 -51.0% Dying out as a specialist breed, not as a function
OPV 272 234 38 16.2% (affordable frigate substitutes, similar growth)
When you look outside the surface combatants, the stellar growth is in amphibs
Hi Mickp, RE
” I hope the phalanx CIWS and 30mm cannon mounts are placeholders only. Both will be way behind the times when the first of these ships hits the water. Those platforms for the 30mm are decent size so something like a 40mm cannon or the 30mm sigma thing would seem more appropriate nearer the time. Put the T23 30mm cannons on RFAs”
I agree that the 30mm alone is not much. But put it in as the remote-controlled Seahawk with CAMM on the same turret… then we are talking
– against a swarm attack you would prefer a faster firing cannon than the 40mm CTA?
Interesting about the Phalanx as a place holder: RAM is unlikely to be acquired, but the USN says they hope to have the laser gun working in 4 years’ time… when was it again that we will get the first T26?
Martin,
I am still dubious whether or not we will see some form of strike length VLS on T26. The fact that these have not been put on T45 yet says to me the treasury is un happy at the prospect of the RN having the capability to launch anything but a small contribution to an opening barrage with million dollar missiles.
I still think T45 was an interim stop-gap solution. She’s the most expensive and advanced AAD in the world… which is somewhat needed if your government fancies the idea of retiring your interceptors early ;-)
I don’t think T45 was ever designed to be a strike capable ship, we have Astute to do that much more sneakily and (eventually) CVF.
However, I do agree with you in that I doubt we’ll have strike-length VLS on T26 – I simply don’t see the point. What would they ever get used for? When would T26 ever launch them without a full task force? I think it’s more likely (and cheaper?) to see Hellfire/Brimstone on Wildcat/Merlin as a shore-based aggressor neutralisation system.
The T26 looks like a reasonable design but the UK hasn’t been too sucessful exporting warships for the last decade or 3. One of the major reasons is that the UK produces very integrated designs which cannot readily accept other peoples equipment.
Just how flexible will the T26 design be?
The RAN will about mid decade kick off the competition to replace the 8 ANZAC frigates and the T26 pretty much fits the thumb nail sketch issued so far (bigger than an ANZAC/ASW-GP role).
The big but however is that the RAN is welded at the hip to the USN and will want to stuff the ship full of US compatible weapons and equipment as well as local equipment for good and logical reasons. Will the T26 design allow that without costing a fortune? That goes to how the ship is designed. Does it matter to the UK, well spreading class cost over several users might be the difference between gettin 12, and getting 8.
ACC,
So if you add your ship numbers together you see that the numbers are actually decreasing – i.e. an investment in smaller numbers of larger ships, which is the current trend is it not?
There should always be a market because of the ~1000 ships you mention about 30 need replacing every year. The trouble I see is that most countries can build their own. They have access to the Internet too. There a precious few secrets on how to build a 5000t escort ;-)
@ ACC – The problem is now that most nations who consider buying new want to build it themselves. I can’t think of a new build major surface combatant built in the UK since we sold T42 to Argentina. I think the T26 may be able to generate foreign orders but it will never be more than a handful.
@ Simon – Not sure what a strike ship is but T45 has space for 16 strike length silos between the A50 launchers. Each silo only cost around 500 K so the fact that these have yet to be fitted suggest to me there is additional pressure from the Treasury. We only keep a stock of around 60 TLAM’s and the contingency budget pays for any used.
The treasury is quite happy for us to fire a few on the first night so we can grab the headlines of British and American warships firing TLAMS but they don’t want us making a real contribution.
You are correct that T26 will probably only ever launch these as part of a task force but if that task force does not contain US vessels then we may not have the ability to launch enough missiles for SEAD or other opening night missions.
I am all for Brimestone or Hellfire on Lynx but it’s no substitute. I think being able to launch a barrage of 100 missiles on the opening night as with Libya is a capability we should aspire to. It really would not cost very much especially if we put the launchers on the T26 and T45.
@ Aussie – I think you are right about previous UK designs but I think the T26 make a real change. The RAN needs ASW capabilities and its a field the US has all but abandoned. I can see the RAN buying LCS or Burke. The ability to use Mk41 VLS on the T26 means that it can take any US weapon. It would probably be relatively easy for BAE Australia to build it as well. I am still surprised Australia has not signed up as a joint development partner but I think this is more to do with budget reasons than operational issues.
RE: Strike length tubes on T45,
Am I right in thinking that the Anti-Ballistic Missile version of Aster will need strike length VLS tubes? If so, then presumably we will see some or even all of our T45’s get strike length VLS tubes and software update to perform thearte ABM.
Hi Simon,
The Indian T45 equivalent (with sensors/ weapons MOTS from Russia and Israel) is already way above the T45 cost, because they believed in “have access to the Internet too. There a precious few secrets on how to build a 5000t escort”
– I agree that when you go a bit down on the ladder (large OPVs)then the statement holds true
– even then STX seems to have cornered the market, in many cases appeasing the political decision makers by building them in-country
At Tubby – Yes if there ever is an Aster 45 or the like we would need the A70 Launcher. I still can’t see us getting ABM capability any time soon other than what we already have in the Aster 30 for terminal intercept.
@ ACC – Maybe T45 is not so expensive after all. Given what they are I don’t think you can find anything better for cheap any where in the world.
Martin, I think you are right here “. We only keep a stock of around 60 TLAM’s and the contingency budget pays for any used.
The treasury is quite happy for us to fire a few on the first night so we can grab the headlines of British and American warships firing TLAMS”
If you take the wider context, the defence budget is all the time being quoted as “about to touch” 2% of the GNP, when all in it is more like 2.7%
– when 20% is spent in this way, no wonder that the services will try to get under that sail by all possible means
@ ACC – not sure how we would change this. I do think its ridiculous that we lack the stored ordinance to fight even a short limited campaign with out immediate re supply from either the USA or NATO.
This is the real fur coat no knickers issue of HM armed forces.
@ Admin – “Mine is for 8 with the remainder cash (if any, defence inflation is a bitch) going in to MHPC, which funnily enough is exactly what I would do”
I doubt it will drop to anything like that.
I can quite see a ninth TAS equipped T26 being used as an excuse to blag the capability uplift as justification for the loss of a single T26(GP), for a total run of twelve, but i really don’t see it being less than that.
@ Wiseape – re: why not FREMM/F125
Because the DIS considers complex warship building as a strategic industry, so we must therefore retain the ability to [both] design [and] manufacture said vessels.
Type 45 is an AAW specialist – the class is designed to help achieve air superiority and missile control over a wide area using a combination of SAMPSON, the Sea Viper (PAAMS) weapon system and a plethora of other sensor and ECCM equipment.
This capability should not, as discussed in other comment sections, be confused with an Air and Missile Defence capability as embodied by Sea Ceptor (CAMM(M)).
The Block II Aster 30’s have ballistic missile defence capability and these fit within the existing A-50 containers.
Aster 45 development appears to have gone quiet since MEAD (proposed Patriot replacement) hit the scene. Regardless of form, fitting an A-70 sized launcher to AAW specialist of Type 45’s alleged calibre and adding an Intercontinental Ballistic defence capability is a different kettle of fish, politically, to Block II Aster 30 squeezed into an A-50 sized VLS. Russia will find it harder to complain about defending against Iranian (comparatively) short range Ballistics when their own ICBM’s are comparatively safe, for now, as an example. The space on the T45, and by extension a Threat, from the UK is there however.
With regards hull length and beam of the Type 26, it’s not about the bigger numbers, it’s about the ratios. A longer, and thereby narrower ratio hull form (usually) means a faster boat. You also want a length and beam to accommodate the wave-length of the likely sea states you’re operating in. It’s fluid dynamics we’re dealing with rather than aerodynamics, focus on the waterline and subsurface lines. The higher freeboard is likely to mean a dryer fore deck too.
Type 26 certainly has more range, at least on paper, than contemporariness. A combination of fuel capacity, engine efficiency and hull form at work.
With regards to stealth, always remember that unless you’re going to the extreme that these features are intended to work with countermeasures, with less focus towards avoiding detection. You want your chaff, flares and other soft kills to be more attractive than your vessel.
With Satellite/UAV/CROWSNEST/etc detection, Sea Viper and F-35 CAP providing a dome against Airborne acquisition, T26 should be able to perform ASW operations without going active in the EM bands.
F-35, SSN, T26 and T23’s (until replaced) should also be available for Strike whether via stand-off munitions (TLAM, loitering, etc) or providing NGS (100km effective range with Vulcano?).
Peace-time operations should see a T26 able to slot into the role of a T23. Longe range, single vessel cruises. Helicopter, Small Craft launched from Davits, space on board for some equipment.
Who says we can’t squeeze a second helicopter further inside?
I’d be really interested to see how the “mission deck” is configured with regards loading equipment and power/water/sewage systems for containers.
“If you take the wider context, the defence budget is all the time being quoted as “about to touch” 2% of the GNP, when all in it is more like 2.7%”
Isn’t that due to national governments conflating operational spending with core defence budgets, whereas the NATO commitment is interested in only the latter?
p.s. isn’t nato also concerned with GDP rather than GNP insofar as the 2.0% guideline is concerned?
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85966.htm?mode=pressrelease
[edit]
just noticed in the pdf linked that britain is pegged at 2.6% for 2011 (estimate).
that either means i’m wrong above or there are big drops ahead!
@ Jedi – NATO target is based on GDP not GNP. I suppose the issue with the contingency budget is its only temporary. Doubt we will be getting another war the last 14 years any time soon.
Martin, the simplest example is radar, the RAN since the 60’s has had a policy of fitting long range air search radar to all frigates. The Dutch LW02 initially and more recently the US SPS-49. This makes perfect sense out here (and in the Indian ocean/Pacific generally) because of the distances and the likelyhood of dispersed operations. UK frigates since the T21 have omitted long range radars. This is also true of the T26. You only have to look at the rotation rate of the Artisan radar to realise it is set up for short to medium ranges. The unknown is how difficult would it be to change the radar given the single mast setup and what it would take to interface different sensors with the combat system.
The risk with the T26 is that the UK will offer a solution, rather than a series of options. Time will tell I guess.
The mast on the Type 26 concepts suggest an I-Mast approach to sensors (if not an actual I-Mast).
Johnno said: “UK frigates since the T21 have omitted long range radars.” – thats an interesting point. One of the capabilities of the leander class which is often overlooked was its long range radar.Similarly the Type 41/61 and Type 81 had long range radars – the diesel escorts for their AAW roles and the “Sloop” for the reason Johnno said, dispursed individual opetations.
Another Leander capability was its communication set up.
” HMS Achilles, the Leander Class was a superb maid of all work, one of their less obvious attributes was their ability to act as a communications centre with extensive MF/HF/UHF radio systems which would be augmented with satellite communications in later years”
http://www.leander-project.homecall.co.uk/Type%2012i.html
We may want a cheap patrol vessel but the capabilities a modern “Cruiser” role vessel requires may be that of a high end escort, or even in some areas better.
@ Aussie John – The T26 is supposed to have an AAW version however the question would be what radar to fit. The USA is virtually out of the game of anything other than large fixed arrays. The LCS uses the Sea Giraffe from SAAB which is nearly identical to Artisan 3D. Rotating Phased arrays like SAMPSON are two heavy for anything other than a 7,000 t destroyer. Something like Heracles’ or the proposed SAMPSON light should fit on to a T26.
Unless the RAN follows S Korean and Japan and starts building something very much like a Burke I think they will eventually be forced to move down a more European style sensor fit. Given the lack of ballistic missile threat to Australia I just don’t see the RAN building anything like a Burke. If they fit European sensors they may choose to use European missiles such as CAMMS and Aster. The US seems to preoccupied with land attack capabilities and ABM capable ships. Most of it sensors and weapons are 30 + years old and while they were revolutionary at the time they are starting to look dated when put up against modern threats like BRAHMOS.
Maybe an Australian built T45 or FREMM is the best option for the RAN. However given the tight budgets and the need for more vessels I think T26 is a better option. Equipping it with Sea Ceptor and Aster 30 would still give a far better AAW capability than the current set up even if the Radar is not that great.
@ The Other Chris
Is there a long range survalance radar in the I mast family? I can’t think of one.
@martin
The principle behind the I-Mast isn’t the sensor(s) specifically, it’s the structure, position, infrastructure and architecture that supports the sensor. The intention is to make it easier for you to fit and refit your own choices.
@ The Other Chris
Yeah I get that but I was wondering if nay one had developed a long range radar that could go on it. At the moment Artisan seems to be the longest range radar I can find that can be used on it.
martin,
Australia already has an AAW class in the pipeline with the Aegis equipped Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyer. If they look at T26 it will be as an Anzac class replacement.
Ozzie, Concur ref radars Artisan is a medium range 3D conventional radar. Looking out to approximately 120NM with declared detection ranges of 100Nm for aircraft and 26Nm for missiles. Based on MOD requirements vis height and RCS. Obviously normal limitations apply.
A more sensible solution than the 2 radar approach for the RAm would be to fit a multi purpose Phased array radar. One of the things coming out of the 45 is that the S1850 is almost superfluous given the range and capability of Sampson. A Phased array radar would also get rid of requirement for Fc radars, lose the long rage search radar. Therefore helping pay for itself and free up space on the upperdeck whilst allowing Standard missiles to be carried if required.
@ Anixtu – The three Hobarts give the RAN a decent AAW capability so I don’t see a big radar as an issue for Australia in choosing T26. However going back to AJ’s point the the RAN is joined at the hip to the USN and will choose a US fit for political reasons, I just don’t see a US based solution for the RAN in replacing the ANZAC’s unless the RAN considers LCS which would be insane. The USN has left the small warship sensor space with even the LCS using a SAAB radar.
If the RAN wants a big air survalance radar I think they will have to develop it themselves because I just don’t see anything on the market that fits the bill that’s not a phased array and I don’t see the cost of a phased array as justified for the operational requirements of an ANZAC replacement.
Simon says ” an investment in smaller numbers of larger ships, which is the current trend is it not?”
No other things are driving ship size, the reduced numbers are due to “Peace Dividend”. I grant escort numbers were slowly decreasing before the end of the Cold War. But over the last 20 years numbers have decreased alarmingly. We are in a vacuum between the shift from a bi-polar to a multi-polar. As easy as it is to blame the MoD for lack of planning nobody as yet (apart from yours truly ;) ) has any angle on where we are going.
@ Swimming Trunks re Leander, radars, etc.
Back to what I said about “General Purpose” frigates in that other thread. :)
“If the RAN wants a big air surveillance radar I think they will have to develop it themselves because I just don’t see anything on the market that fits the bill that’s not a phased array”
Selex might beg to differ with you on that!. Their circa-400km ranged RAN-40L D-band air search set is almost exactly what you are citing requirement for and fits nicely into the hull size bracket discussed for T26. At least the MMI De la Pennes’ embark it on very similar hull dimensions.
Using an Artisan or Kronos style 3D set is more than adequate for most frigate applications though…including local area AAW.
@ Jonesy Very nice had not come across that. I am inclined to agree with you that the Artisan is up to the job even for Australia’s needs.
@ x – it appears (from a quick google search) that the 81’s, 41’s, 61’s and Leanders all had 965 long range air warning radar. Would the modern equivalent be the S1580M?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1850M#section_1
We don’t need the Sampson on a “Sloop”/cruiser role ship – not an AAW ship…
Wonder if the S1580M could be fitted on a T26 AAW version?
Why are we discussing an AAW version of the T26?
ST said “We don’t need the Sampson on a “Sloop”/cruiser role ship – not an AAW ship…”
Not sure I said or even inferred that…….
As for Smart-L yes I suppose you could say that is the modern equivalent. Modern equipment is so capable it can be hard to make direct comparisons.
fyi
Decent article from DefenceManagement.com
Note the author. Congratulations Gabby.
@ x – Sorry, didn’t mean to infer you did. Just that a Sloop doesn’t need to be a Type 46…
So for a sloop/cruiser (role) we need: range (diesels), helicopter (or two/UAV’s), LR Radar, self defence AA (RAM/Seaceptor?), good communications (possibly high level of bandwidth for UV’s), a sonar (what type?) and traditionaly a MCG. Now – whats the best hull to put all this in?
@ Swimming Trunks
Thales UMS 4410 CL Hull sonar suite.
I have become increasingly fond of the pentamaran. A big one. High speeds with modest power. Good sea keeping. Should be a good radar platform too.
Ant, I don’t really like people linking to Gabby’s stuff to be honest because I don’t particularly like those that build their reputation on the back of others, stealing content and ideas and presenting them as ones own.
It is called something I think, begins with P
@ x – oohhhh pentamaran… Was always a fan of Trimarans… Multi-hull would be good for seakeeping and raising the radar but wouldn’t it be costly/risky to develop a new hull form?
Thales UMS 4410 CL Hull sonar looks good but expensive. This Sloop is getting expensive….
Hi Jedi,
Have you noticed that in the relative (GNP/GDP)graph that the Treasury puts out (their website), the upturn (modest) for the defence expenditure is only in the year of the General Election?
– not that they would have a clue of what number they are dividing with!
Possible MHPC? ;-)
http://z11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/ar/t855.htm
If we want to sell the T26 to the rest of the world. We must offer not just ASW/GP variants, but also an AAW Variant.
All that BAE have shown is the basic design. They really should be showing different concept variants which suit the potential Foriegn customer, not just what the RN needs or wants. They could also have show what a stretched or a broad-beam variant might look like, or variants with different weapon and radar layouts as well. What suits the RN might not suit the needs of the Brazilians, Indians or Australians.
We have to show the full potential of the design now. Not in ten years time as an after thought.
http://rp-one.net/shipbucket_profiles/graphics/fsw_p_final.png
http://s11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/ar/t832.htm
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/fsc-f5.jpg
Simon 257. If BAE want to export it then fine, they can design other variants as required but not while they are working on the MOD dime! To be fair to BAE what we have seen so far is a baseline version. They will not even look at stretching or going broad beam until they have finalised the first version.
Weapons systems wise, all we have seen are indications of 2CWIS, 2 30MM transferred from the T23 and lots of silos. we do not yet know what flavour the silos are. Detailed planning of an AAW version without any firm interest could see BAE spending money on nothing. As a company i am sure they have some drawings somewhere and have been making enquiries.
How difficult would an AAW variant be? Well get rid of 997 and put a Multi Mode Phased Array such as Herakles or Sampson (if possible given its weight) on the mast, plug into command system. Put missiles as specified in silos. Probably a combo of Aster 30 and CAAM (can fit more in than Aster 15 with minimal performance loss). Specify your preferred options of Gun and CWIS systems and bobs your uncle. AAW version.
@ Swimming Trunks
If you poke about on the interweb you will come across some PDFs from BMT / Nigel Gee detailing a container ship that does something horrendous like 41kts. Most of the design work has been carried out. Having two outriggers on each beam helps with docking too. I have wondered if some sort of netting could be secured between the out riggers to help with stealth and/or missile protection. Outriggers could be armoured and the have the vital systems sitting behind them in the main hull. Greater beam means primer movers could be placed higher moving them out of shock zones. Long central hull, lots of subdivision; perhaps every other filled with containers or empty oil drums. The idea I think is to pour a 3,500t ship into a 10,000t hull as steel and fresh air is cheap. Of course the clever thing is the ships volume as such is outside the hull. Small crew. Armoured citadel perhaps? And Bob’s your aunty…
Hi ST,
Your shipbucket (linked) VT derivative is better or equal to these LCS derivatives: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/proposal-alternate-lcs-design-us-navy-3254.html
It is these sorts of things we need, as well as the gobally deployable… read the T26 just off the printing press
– the mix, and nothing but the mix (except the budget and the threat scenarios)
APATS, I think Simon has a point.
Although BAE are working on the MoD money one of the underlying drivers for T26 is exportability, it has been mentioned numerous times from various MoD officials. How difficult would it have been for the CGI team to create a number of animations showing different weapon fits etc.
It’s bread and butter work and the MoD and BAE have missed a golden opportunity to present a united front and take advantage of the global media buzz that is currently surrounding the Type 26 announcement. Export success results in royalties to the MoD which ultimately improves the chances of getting those precious 13 hulls in the water.
It is in everyone’s interests to see the Type 26 exported, missing the opportunity to bang the drum by releasing a paltry 20 second animation and a few images shows me that neither the MoD, BAE or RN understand the realities of ‘marketing’ or exploiting new media which is rather shocking to be honest
Opportunity wasted
Sealift is interesting:
http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/112/Paper41-NSRPPresentation03-03-05.pdf
@Simon
“If we want to sell the T26 to the rest of the world. We must offer not just ASW/GP variants, but also an AAW Variant.”
Exactly!
@TD
“Export success results in royalties to the MoD which ultimately improves the chances of getting those precious 13 hulls in the water.”
Or more.
TD
Ah-no redemption or rehabilitation then?
OK
@ ACC
I have also considered pentamaran as a “barge” for SeaViper. It could sit at the centre of task groups. No need for a large crew or other sensors. Just missiles and perhaps CIWS. We would only need 3. This would free T45 to become a proper destroyer in line with US, European, and others’ destroyers.
(FWIW IMHO MHPC is weapons grade rhubarb.)
To all, Does anyone know that such an animation does not exist? we are not trying to attract walk in buyers to a show room. The MOD released the CGI we have seen. perhaps other interested parties for whatever reason do not want to release any CGI that have been done for them. What we have seen so far is the baseline model. We have not yet seen the differences in appearance if any between the GP and ASW, I do not think there will be any. We have not yet decided precisely what CWIS system will go on. We do not even know the exact Propulsion system to be fitted or what type and variants the silos are.
What will be happening is an awful lot of behind the scenes conversations with potential export customers about exactly what their requirements may be.
It is no coincidence that the exact specs of the RN version have also not been announced. If common ground and slight compromise can make versions more similar and drive down costs for everyone.
“Or more.”
Hell yes.
9x ASW and 6x GP would be just swell.
Ant, redemption comes after an admission of guilt and full apology, not seen either, in fact, exactly the opposite.
Have seen lots of silent editing to try and obscure it though
@ Jedibeeftrix
TAS for all!!! :)
APATS, all good points but I still think there is a distinct lack of understanding of the power of social media in connecting and influencing decision makers.
Would also add, that export revenue would come into both the Treasury via tax receipts and MoD via licence fees but it would not necessarily flow into the RN’s budget, let alone the Type 26
Can you imagine Type 26 export success funding, I dunno, Storm Shadow integration on Typhoon
OUCH :)
@TD Come on I think you know me well enough to know that if the integration of Storm Shadow on typhoon was the best use for the money then I would not moan about it, (too much).
Edit
Though obviously it would be far better spent integrating JSM on F35B! ;)
“Can you imagine Type 26 export success funding, I dunno, Storm Shadow integration on Typhoon”
http://files.sharenator.com/Third_party_facepalm-s750x600-140097.jpg ;)
It was a joke!!!
Export success?
– might flow into some funding for DIS…
some of it at Uni’s
some of it at defence labs (Qinetic not one of those anymore, but a key initiator/ incubator for projects)
None of this will happen if it is regarded wasted money, with no industrial off-shoots
@ X – yes.
all with TAS would be made of win.
Lack of export nouse is one of the many things that have gone wrong with this country over the last thirty years.
It is absolutely vital that Bae and it’s fellow shipbuilders start proving they can generate external sales. The sale of the two T42s to a foreign government and Goalkeeper CIWS kit may just be the bit of candy used to tempt foreign buyers into the UK Plc sales tent. Having been successful arms exporters for decades we sort of lost the touch when Saudi seemed to provide an immense amount of work and someone decided it was ‘RIGHT’? to investigate if backhanders had taken place. Personally I think the merger of VT with Bae was a mistake. In my eyes VT had the desire and capabilities to create designs and crafts that would sell abroad. I’m not sure Bae made much effort.
If this thing does not sell abroad I think noone should be getting bonuses. In fact they should be laid to pasture with no pension.
RE:
“The sale of the two T42s to a foreign government and Goalkeeper CIWS kit may just be the bit of candy ”
– T42; when?
– Goalkeeper; is it Dutch or British? Anyway, the numbers in service will count it out pretty soon?
@ TD
You know I don’t find RAF Deep Strike a laughing matter…… :) ;)
@ jedibeeftrix
As I said elsewhere 12 with TAS is better than 13 with some without TAS. Of course others beg to differ, but they would be wrong.
Looking at potential export sales.
The Canadians are looking to build 15 Single Class Surface Combatants to replace both the Halifax Class and the Iroquois. Starting later this decade the contract to build has been awarded to Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax but no mention of a design.
As mentioned above the Ozzies will be looking for 8 replacements for their Anzacs in the mid 20s.
Then there is the brazilian Navy expansion plans. Number etc still wooly but they have definite plans to expand. Now they already operate T22 and they are buying BAE 90M OPVs. This is an area where we should be hammering them on the basis of continuing to buy British and that T26 can cover their core FF role, ASW specialist role and we will make an AAW version for them. They save by having only 1 set of prime movers, 1 Command sytem. EW suite, bridge equipment, comms fit etc across their entire FF flotilla.
Have I missed anyone that may be wanting a 5-6k tonne escort in next decade or so?
@ACC
Auntie Beeb’s coverage.
APATS, how about the USN :)
Seriously though, consider the LCS question
@ APATS.
Yes, the Kiwi’s will have a requirement to replace their 2 Anzacs as well.
Regarding Canada. I do believe that the Canadians Shipbuilding Unions are adamant that any new warships must be built in Canada though. So T26 may have be of the table, for the time being.
Simon 257,
Yes the award to build them has been given to Irving shipbuilding but cannnot find much on a design. So they may be interested in building T26 under licence.
Kiwis will probably buy 2 large FVs that can in no way be deemed threatening to anyone.
@Simon257
A licensed construction deal could be arranged.
A nice re-release of the old images in a slightly less fuzzy format. Nothing particularly exciting there, but did anyone else spot what looks like a second pair of Phalanx amidships between the funnels? Maybe even BAE have to reuse old stuff these days – bet it’s a cuff from fiddling the T45 CGI model.
The aft 30mm sponsons are ideally placed – you now have a full arc of fire from almost right ahead through the stern, giving interlocking arcs of fire across the stern which is essential for countering the swarm, as well as very deep limits for depression (could probably hit something parked alongside!). I am of the opinion that a quick counter-swarm enhancement for the T23 would be to fit two leftover 20mm GAMBO’s in similar positions either side of the hangar. Hopefully instead of ASCG bolt-ons the mounts will be fully integrated as in the T45 – there are three EOD’s evident, bridge roof and above each 30mm mount.
Fore and aft Phalanx – interesting addition and one I very much approve of. Phalanx is an excellent system being capable of both anti-surface and anti-air action and has an extremely good TV/IR camera system – the Yanks use it by default for tracking a man overboard in the water. This way the forward system is able to provide overlapping arcs with the after system for a raid inbound on the quarter. Still, with SeaCeptor and 30mm ASCG the Phalanx mounts are something of a luxury – perhaps a deployment-only fit.
Three VLS silos forward – two for SeaCeptor and one large one for other goodies perhaps?
That mission bay must be huge internally. Nice big hangar, room enough for at least a Merlin and probably a couple of smaller rotary UAV’s. Enclosed bow and stern with a big door for S2087 and towed decoy.
And huge bridge windows – obviously trying to keep the company that made the slabs for the T45 in business. Largest – and most expensive – glass windows ever installed on a warship. Oh well, wasting money hasn’t gone totally out of fashion then.
Otherwise a nice, clean design with no expensive gimmicks. Should be eminently exportable. Maybe. If we sell it under an assumed name – Ecuador perhaps?
I’m inclined to agree that letting the Canadians or any one else for that matter build T26 in there own yards is just fine. Its the sensors and weapons we really want to flog to them not to mention engines and helo’s.
There is no way either Canada, Brazil, Australia or India will accept foreign built frigate hulls.
TD – I think T26 would be perfect for the USN but the political ramifications of even US built T26’s are probably just too much to accept. Not to mention the fact that too many questions may be asked of US ship building if T26 cost less than an LCS and four times less than a Burke.
The idea of selling the two remaining T42s (Edinburgh and York) to some unspecified country has to be a joke (yes I’ve seen the media reports). The primary weapon system is no longer supportable in any way shape or form, so a fairly hefty refit to put “something” in, even if it’s only a PDMS would be required.
Secondly, the structural condition of those ships is marginal at best – they are extremely prone to cracking in all sorts of places, which is initially a maintenance headache, but if not addressed, rapidly becomes a safety issue. When Manchester went south on her last commish, a survey found over 30 cracks in structure of which a number were quite serious.
Their stability might be a bit interesting as well, depending on what standards one applies.
Finally, not sure how long the Oly / Tyne combo will be supported by RR.
Overall – not the most attractive package you’ll ever see and definitely less so than a T22B3.
Hi SI, may be I just missed a rapid transition from T23 to T26 installations, but
“Hopefully instead of ASCG bolt-ons the mounts will be fully integrated as in the T45 – there are three EOD’s evident, bridge roof and above each 30mm mount.
Fore and aft Phalanx – interesting addition and one I very much approve of.”
– I don’t know that much about EODs but is there some double counting here, i.e that unit seen between the 30 mm mounts:
is there a gun with it, or is it just a back up for the two ( them, or one at a time, to be slaved onto it, in case the main FCS gets hit,so that they will still keep going)?
ACC finding it difficult to make out the EOD on Bridge roof but there are 2 sticking out on sponsons from the funnel above the 30MM mounts when viewed from the stern. ASCG on the T23 also has its own optics so interesting placement.
@ACC
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/Business/DSA/MaritimeEquipmentSales.htm
HMG needs to put on her best suit and get selling. The French seem to be much better at selling and even building affordable boats than us.
If it was my money I think I would buy an Absalon, so they had better be cheap. Should we not be going CODLAG?
Opinion 3
Is your comment about CODLAG ref the T26? No confirmation on propulsion yet. though rumours of CODLOG. I am sure those old T42s will be peanuts. a whole lot less for both than half an Absalom. Frankly as NAB said they are not a very attractive proposition and to be honest they do not owe the country anything given their long service.
Quick clearup, the ASCG on T23 is a stand alone system. The SCG on the T45 has the guns fully integrated into the combat system. Same external hardware, different internal wiring with the difference that the SCG can be cued by the combat system to speed targeting. The 4.5″ gun is wired up in the same way, so it too can be cued by the two EOD’s. The 3rd EOD on T26 is on the bridge roof, centreline, forward edge.
SI, Think I see it now! Would make much more sense to fully integrate the mounts on T26.
Quick question, how many Phalanx mounts do you reckon we have knocking about? Obviously equipment transfer is part of the T26 attractions but there are no Phalanx to transfer over. Is the CWIS on the CGI indicative of the position but possibly not the mount or may we buy Phalanx or another system if a purchase is required. Or as you posted earlier will be a deployment fit from the same pool as the T45 mounts?
@APATS Yes I am hoping that the T26 is CODLAG, I think I read somewhere that they are tilting towards CODLOG. Re T42 yes peanuts agreed although obviously the refit must be worth something; I see them as a ‘political gift’ with the quid pro quo being some shipbuilding or arms orders as follow on. As for the Absalon cost, that being versus a T26 – the T26s need to be cheap, most buyers will not be looking to have destroyers etc as well, an Absalon is so flexible, its like an Olympian and makes me dribble.
Could we afford our own SINKEX?
@ TD
First one since Torrey Canyon ? :)
@APATS
TD says 36 sets
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/type-45-fitted-with/
Opinion3 said “Absalon is so flexible, its like an Olympian and makes me dribble”
How is Absalon flexible?
Doubt HM the Queen would sign off on HMS Jessica Ennis……
@Opinion3 – How much for one of those Goalkeepers; sat on the end of my drive would see off all the bloody cold callers!
@jedibeeftrix – Yes I get your point, but I meant why weren’t we in FREMM from the start, literally blank piece of paper time?
@All – Am I seeing things? Zoom in on the overhead shot, port side of the funnel stack – are those small (CAMM?) tubes? You’re probably going to disappoint me and say it’s part of the plumbing.
Opinion 3, Ref CODLOG and CODLAG, the prime movers and electric motors are much more efficient than they were when T23 was designed. probably allowing more flex.
Absalom is a strange creature and although everyone raves about her i do not think anyone other than the Danes has bought one. Possibly Jack of all trades and master of none? Suitable for Denmark but if you are going to have amphibs and Frigates and Destroyers anyway why buy a vessel that tries to be all 3 but is not as good at any of the roles as the specialist? just a thought. as to a reason behind lack of export orders.
Wise Ape Why were we not in FREMM, Tornado, Horizon, typhoon etc. yes they look like a mini VLS silo.
@TD – “Why were we not in FREMM, Tornado, Horizon, typhoon etc.” – aren’t you going to say that two out of three isn’t bad? :-)
@X There would be no shortage of young sailors offering to serve ;-)
@Wiseape I understand it has now gone to some Arab owned football club, apparently their one had backache
@APATS The ‘A’ stands for and, I am sure that is a lot better than ‘or’! I suspect most potential purchasers will be looking for a jack of all trades, and its probably as good thing if they are a master of none.
@Pentamaran enthusiasts
1) http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/112/Paper6.pdf
Found this presentation by Nigel Gee/BMT, which differs from the several others out there in that it digs a bit deeper into the pros and cons of this hull form, which may be interesting to you.
He claims a shipbuilder’s assessment that it would be equally expensive to build as an equivalent monohul or cat, principally (as I read it) because of the cheaper diesels required for the same speed which off-set the design and material costs.
He predicts a profit increase of 35% in the first year, presumably from fuel efficiency.
He moves on to discuss optimal drive and engine combinations.
Does make one wonder if it is so good why no-one seems to have built one yet though….
2) Secondly (my apologies if this has been mentioned before but it was news to me) see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M80_Stiletto
Ride quality sounds superb, shallow draft an advantage too.
In summary useful characteristics for a long distance frugal fast patrol ship in the littoral.
3) @x I agree sponsons may make more survivable vs ASM
@ Ant – Thanks for the BMT link, very interesting.
I had a crazy idea (again…) – what about a common pentamaran hull for ro- ro (point replacement), container ship (logistics/auxiliary cruiser), and the sea lift (Disaster relief/helicopter carrier?) ?
Re NGA and their pentamaran. They’ve been pushing the idea (cargo ship)since 1990. Anyone care to guess how many they’ve sold? Ever?
There’s a reason for that.
Which is?
what’s the reason NAB?
Can anyone explain why the Canadians, Brazillians, Australians, etc would buy T26? …and if they did buy it, do you think it would be just plans or hulls?
We are, in my mind, expensive and behind the game leaders in this field.
If the T26 design was being released as an efficient, long-range hull with optional cheap and/or quiet powerplant with great big holes in the deck to fit a range of main guns, missile silos and gas turbines where needed, then I’d accept that it was being designed for export success.
To me it’s just another fully integrated warship… a good one mind you ;-)
Drum role for NaB……….and the reason is…….
@NaB
Assuming sound principles, patented until 2016.
To be honest they look like they dock several meters away from the dockside. Will the cranes reach. That would be reason enough to stop me ordering one
@Simon
That’s been the approach taken by the RN since Trafalgar and the restructure: Keep pace with new developments, build capable vessels in the meantime, revolutionise when the next step is clear, retain the ability to advance when needed.
Type 26 is not meant to be cutting edge, it’s intended to be the affordable (yet capable) workhorse that enables specialised equipment such as Astute/CVF/T45 to be purchased.
Goalkeeper is being phased out – great for hard hitting impact, awful/impossible to reload in anything like a useful timeframe. Phalanx is much easier to reload and has (in 1B incarnation) a much better TV/IR secondary track capability. We’ve done something similar with SWMLU by adding the IR tracking camera. Phalanx is also easily swapped between ships, as the interface between ship and mounting is easily fitted ‘for but not with’ – just as we see in all RN ships so armed including RFA’s. All Phalanx 1A’s should by now be refitted to 1B standard but I think it’s rather less than 36 systems. Also some have been nicked by the Army for base defence in Afghan.
The appearance of Phalanx is unusual to my eyes. SeaCeptor was developed as a PDMS system with far greater autonomy, flexibility and capability, increased range and reduced reliance on shipborne guidance systems. By improving the capability so far, adding Phalanx seems to be unnecessary. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to have, but I wonder if Phalanx being added os more of an export pitch than an intended RN capability. Phalanx is supposedly being reserved for RFA’s and other high-value assets.
CODLAG vs CODAG/CODOG may not be such a clear issue – CODLAG is certainly efficient in the T23 but the efficiency of these drivetrains has improved markedly in recent years, especially in German designs. CODAG/CODOG may be just as good as CODLAG and doesn’t need the high voltage wiring linking the generator sets. CODAG/CODOG may not be as quiet or as responsive though – I would imagine such a drivetrain would require CPP’s rather than FPP’s, which are not as quiet.
WiseApe, unlikely in the extreme to site a missile silo so close to a funnel stack. Heat transfer issues aside, there are a hundred better locations to put something as simple as a box launcher for SeaCeptor. For a PDMS system there is some value in a distributed launcher arrangement to counter damage limitation so maybe there are some options for further silos.
Can we still land a Chinook on the back or has that ship sailed with the drop from the seven thousand ton range?
TOC said “Keep pace with new developments, build capable vessels in the meantime, revolutionise when the next step is clear, retain the ability to advance when needed.”
Yes but there was subtle difference between the circumstances that brought Warrior and Dreadnought in to being. With Warrior the RN did indeed take the approach you outlined. But by the time Dreadnought was conceived the RN had lost considerable ground to the Germans and Americans. In many ways Dreadnought was a leap of faith, the single calibre turbine ship was very risky and not at all a certainty. Remember the best tech doesn’t always win out as other factors come into play. A risk that time has reduced somewhat. Also the period is viewed by the majority through the lens of Pax Britannica. A majority who aren’t as familiar with naval developments elsewhere.
@NaB
Critical instability in roll whilst turning with certain wave states?
This suggests otherwise, but I feel is incomplete.
http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/112/Paper21.pdf
@APATS
“Though obviously it would be far better spent integrating JSM on F35B”
Like NSM a lot, fascinating capability to mate with Merlin in theory, but I’d rather they kept the pennies for SPEAR Cap3 – http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-mbda-sharpens-spear-missile-design-for-f-35-integration-373453/
@
“How much for one of those Goalkeepers; sat on the end of my drive would see off all the bloody cold callers!”
South Koreans were paying $8mn per unit recently. I dont envy you your cold caller problem!.
SI,
“Largest – and most expensive – glass windows ever installed on a warship.”
Interesting. I wonder how they compare to the A-60 windows of RASCO (Admiral’s bridge ;-)) on a Wave.
“All Phalanx 1A’s should by now be refitted to 1B standard but I think it’s rather less than 36 systems. Also some have been nicked by the Army for base defence in Afghan.”
A contract has been let to upgrade all 36 to 1B but not all units have been upgraded yet.
Are you sure about the Army using them in Afghanistan? This keeps getting mentioned but I have seen no evidence for it and I know that four units previously deployed to Basra are now deployed to Bays along with the RN personnel who maintained them in Basra.
True, now you mention it I’ve only seen them in connection with Iraq, though I would have thought it was common sense to have them in Afghan as well. Oh well, all the more for us!
I gather the windows were some specialist contract, a true one-off megabucks expenditure. They are huge! Anyway, I thought the Wave extra windows were the sun deck – does it not help keep the pool warm?
Alas the Waves have no pool. Only Rovers and Leaf have swimming pools now. The Leafs were built with two, separate officers and ratings pools for Merchant service but the RFA replaced the ratings pool with a ship’s office and the main magazine. Diligence has a sauna, and I believe Oakleaf may have had both sauna and swimming pool.
Where are these comfort features on Type 26?!
The Wave RASCO windows are pretty much deck to deckhead A-60 laminated stuff, though there are only five of them. I assume T45 windows have some sort of blast resistant qualities?
Personally regarding the CIWS, I’d prefer the 35mm Millenium Gun CIWS with mixed annunition which requires no deck penetration, and provides the necessary stealth silohette
The Other Chris,
As far as 5,000 tonne hulls go a fully specced RN ASW T26 may not be ground breaking but she will be pretty competitive. Speed of close to 30kts combined with long range and quiet propulsion. World class ASW capability. Ability to engage air threats out to approximately 16NM without a dedicated long range air search radar or dedicated FC radars. Merlin in the hangar, variety of USV, UUV and UAV capable of being hosted. SILOS capable of firing strike missiles, a 127MM gun capable of engaging targets with precision ammo out to 50NM plus. Good EW and Comms fit. CWIS and other gun fit as purcahsed, most likley 30MM ASCG and Phalanx? All at a pretty reasonable price.
Of course for the export market different options should be available.
Will we be fitting ship launched torpedoes or a vertical launch system or is the helicopter carried weapons sufficient?
“As far as 5,000 tonne hulls go a fully specced RN ASW T26 may not be ground breaking but she will be pretty competitive.”
Perfect, this is more than good enough. And as I have banged on about for months, is FAR, FAR, FAR better than some super HMS Homunculus which looks lovely and never gets beyond the artists impression.
They desperately need to control the budget on this. And if that means one less bell and whistle which could anyway be added later on, then fine in my book.
The full res images make for interesting viewing.
It has to be remembered that everything is *representative* and not a final or detailed design. I am convinced that those ARE Sea Ceptor VLS by the funnel and the numbers make sense for 48 Sea Ceptor. What SI identified as beam Phalanx are probably Inmarsat or similar, definitely not Phalanx.
There are .50 M2 HMG at each forward corner of the bridge structure and MK44s at the after corners.
Let’s not everyone get too carried away with trying to identify specific little flaps or radomes, even down to individual little popguns mounted on bridge wings, because those take about 5 minutes to add in in the CGI programme, cost nothing and are not contractable. So stick them on, why not?.
It is a Business Development animated cartoon, the main purpose of which is a little devils’ bargain between the MoD and BAE Systems to stoke up interest and keep the programme “sold”, which works well for both parties.
It will be a floaty little boat, designed to a price which it then exceeds, trade offs will be made, a new government may need convincing of the need for it at all (particularly with such stunning intellectual thinking as “we need one to replace every old one that goes out of service, and don’t bother me with any modern capability mumbo-jumbo. One out, one in, and that’s all there is to it”).
The thing is not anywhere near Main Gate, and that’s where the serious chopping occurs.
We’ll be lucky if we end up with 10, and they won’t have all of the toys shown in the little taster cartoon.
(In case anyone thinks I am being too like Eeyore, I work in BD in the defence industry (but not BAE), and that is EXACTLY what you do at this stage: you issue out the world’s sexiest animation showing every single possible requirement being over-met, and especially those that the engineers are already showing doubts about privately and internally. BAE are no worse than any other company in this respect)
Anixtu, Some people must have a magnifying glass out as I cannot see a 50 cal or Mini gun on any pic. However given the lack of traditional mounting positions due to the flush superstructure would make sense.
If pentamaran was all it was cracked up to be for a cargo vessel, economics would mandate at least one order by now.
Unfortunately, even with ever rising MDO prices and flat freight rates……
RT, Absolutely nothing like a little bit of pure bitterness to sweeten an evening. Of course unless modern mumbo jumbo includes things being in 2 places at once then it is really irrelevant. In 1990 the RN had 50 escorts today we struggle to maintain 19.
APATS,
Try here: http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/digitalmedia/mdaw/mdk2/~edisp/~extract/BAES_090238~1~staticrendition/original.jpg
@ NAB
I suppose shipping is like any industry in that some things catch on and others don’t. Any technical reasons?
Anixtu, Cheers much better definition and scale. yes can see them now. also the access behind the bridge wing with the decoy launchers. Very obvious in that image that the 24 cell silo has larger covers than the 2 12 cell silos forad of it. also the silo type thing next to the funnel has the same funny raised covers as the 2 12 cell silos forad.
@x
I’ve always been interested to find out more about two aspects of the time period: Specifically how well perceived ahead of time were the restting of the arms race with Dreadnought and, later on, the defusing aspect of the Washington Treaty, especially with regards a potential USA vs GB war. If you (or anyone else really) have any reading recommendations or can shed any insight, I am grateful as always.
APATS,
1. Reality. It is how the industry works, especially when the MoD pre-selects a manufacturer before Main Gate, and thus both jump into bed with each other. Can you imagine this little cartoon being issued if there were still several candidate bidders?
2. Number of floaty little boats needed is dictated by number of commitments, varied by predicted hull availability times. Just because we had 13 before does not mean we need 13 next time around. If the Andrew were prepared to try something a little daring like having 1.5 crews per boat, you’d get a different answer than having one crew per boat, as you would with two crews per boat. Similarly, if engineering standards and construction requirements were altered, you’d get a different answer than needing three hulls to keep one at sea. Might be 2.5, or even 2.
Not much fussed about having 50 escorts in 1950, and only 19 now. Life changes. 50 may or may not have been justified then, 19 may or may not be justified now, real politics intervenes and say you can have 75%. Personally, I don’t believe the Andrew need more than 10 dinky little escorts but they do need more amphibious ships and definitely no spastic carriers or the ridiculously expensive white elephants proposed to fly off them, but that’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it. See how dangerous that could be if someone important like a Sec Def holds that opinion? I’m also deeply sceptical of the ability of the very senior element of the RN (2 stars and above) to make any logical case at all for what they already have, and believe the RN is too small to have world pretensions as it still has, but the country does not. In short, largely a rosy-eyed sense of history and maudlin is what propels the RN thinking, in my view. Still, you can always counts little flaps on CGI cartoons published by defence manufacturers if it makes you feel better.
I note the Andrew are capable of thinking like this for the very dinky little mine hunting boats, and prepared to let the RFA spend most of their lives at sea, as well as having 2 crews for the SD ships, so it is a rubicon already crossed.
Is this sacrilege?
EDIT: re your slightly previous response to Anixtu, it’s still a cartoon. I would not bet your mortgage on it coming true.
@ TOC
Brown, again, Warrior to Dreadnought
Penn Infighting Admirals
Lamber Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution
Any book on Sir John “Jacky” Fisher.
Don’t really do Washington Treaty stuff. We stuck by the rules, everybody else cheated. So…… :)
RT, I posted quite extensively on the mens of rotating hulls on a previous post. your ideas have been tried and due to small facts like Ships Companies requiring hulls to remain current on when non deployed and the fact that hulls that are non deployed slot into roles such as providing training platforms and FRE DUTY TAPS it has been decided it doe not work.
Now I know that such a manning study run by an RN 2 star with inputs from civilian time in motion and personnel specialists is not up to your high standards but that was what happened. 3 Hulls are required to keep one Operational in AOR anywhere in the world 24/7/365 not at sea. That does not allow for refits etc so actually you look at 3.5.
Given the MOD deal with BAE to provide work combined with the fact that there are no alternative constructors within the Uk and HMG decision not to build warships outside of Uk the pre main gate work merely saves time effort and money.
We do rotate the Ships Company on the MCMVs round very 6 months and 2 hulls every 3-4 years. Being heavily involved in this I can tell you it had massive initial teething issues and the increased size and complexity of the systems on an FF/DD made it a non starter as the trial proved.
Survey vessels actually have 3 crews as do Fish Boats working a 2 thirds on 1 third off type routine.
It is a CGI but on one hand we have TD telling me we should have made more to sell versions that may or may not exist. on the other we have you telling me it is a waste of time and unrealistic. In the middle there is me. Wonder why?
We tried something like 1.5 crews per boat with TopMast. I dont know if its been quietly dragged out and shot yet, but two pieces from Rum Ration that describe the delivery of the scheme quite well can be found following:
“Topmast is pants and does not work. You still get the usual sicknotes, compassionate, cant work wont work types and then the remainder suffer big time. Even to the stage where some lads and lassies do all the HAT, SATs, work up etc and are then drafted off so that matey boy or girl who have done sod all get the cream of a decent trip and then go back to waterfront manning when the ship gets back and the same people then go back aboard for more OST stuff. Its a flipping joke.”
and….
“There have been problems with personnel in Devonport. The troops get bored, trash the accommodation & hit the bottle. Believe the Topmast record is 2 bottles of vodka before the dogs. HMS DRAKE Base WO1 has introduced both watches every morning just to find out who is here and started patrols in the base to maintain standards.
As a sea rider I have seen people on one Guzz ship doing an OST appear on another one doing OST a few weeks later. That really builds morale. I believe that Topmast is being looked at in light of many problems. I have heard (anyone know better) that certain warfare drafting plots are unsustainable under Topmast.”
….bottom line easier said than done!
When James gets a bit angsty I find a picture of 80s era Soviet armour soon calms him down….
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCndMAuVZEo/T5riIz0lbsI/AAAAAAAAAKE/KeXunY2WsVo/s1600/T-80U%2BSoviet%2BMain%2BBattle%2BTank.jpg
APATS,
I’m not really impressed, but then I start from the notion that there’s only really one escort task worth doing and that is the SD escort. Everything else is largely voluntary (at HMG level, clearly the RN does what it is told to do, no arguments there). Of course you need some training fleet boats, but even so, that all tops out at about 6-8 FF boats including a pair in refit.
Some slightly bigger questions. Do we need the world’s best AAW destroyer, far less 6 of them when it is vanishingly difficult to conceive of anyone flying fast air or missiles against us that our 1990s systems could easily knock out of the sky? Probably not, especially at £1 B a pop. Do we need 13 FF boats when our existing T23s are still vastly better than OPFOR’s SSKs? No, and we certainly don’t need to waste money on replacing them one for one. Do we need a level of carrier strike that we have never had before, nor could probably operate optimally under current and predicted ROE, against a threat that is more distant than ever before? Of course not.
Do we need the ability to land ashore in one fell swoop either a Brigade, or deploy a massive floating hospital, or deliver 10s of thousands of tonnes in aid in austere conditions? Of course we do. We bemoan quite often the fact that we can’t.
The Andrew’s thinking, and more importantly the raping of the defence budget is completely arse about face. Apart from the SD, and a very few other tasks, the Andrew is expensively irrelevant, but it will not admit so. Cut it down to half the size, concentrate on the SD and a very few other capabilities built around an amphibious task group, and spend the rest on a proper coast guard would be a better solution to what we currently have.
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?
Bernard Woolley: To defend Britain.
Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people *believe* Britain is defended.
Bernard Woolley: The Russians?
Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it’s not.
Let’s face only Trident, Fisheries Protection, and the ceremonial formations of the Household Division are the only parts that work. If the RN is irrelevant the Army and the RAF are irrelevant too.
I pictured Red Trousers as some sort of fun Punch and Judy character, maybe a chirpy clown or a fun Disney character…….. but no your such a killjoy. :-) or should I say :-(
We need at least 13 floaty little boats for two reasons
1. It doesn’t matter how capable they are they can’t be in two places at the same time, and should you lose a platform there needs to still be the capabilities to protect and defend the fleet.
2. It is our industrial policy to have a National defense industry, adding gizmos to floaty things is insufficient. There will be a massive reduction in work if these frigates are few, and take forever to get built. The CVF build illustrates just how many people will need work once they are both built.
RT, Your arguments should be taken up with 10 Downing street not me! I may be being massively thick but SD escort does not ring a bell and googling presents me with a startling selection of extremely attractive yet expensive young ladies from the US west Coast ;).
You completely discount the level of force required for an operation. In the same manner that the Army has to be able to deploy a Division in a 1 off effort the Rn has to be able to support an ARG and a CBG.
ASM misiles and aircraft are advancing rapidly and we did not have any 1990 tech, we had 1960s designed type 42s and we bit the bullet and went down to 6 type 45s.
Your point ref the Type 23 is completely invalid as the systems amy be superior but the hulls are not and my previous point ref manning and tasking easily justifies 13. in fact we could probably justify 20.
You are the same person that advocates using T45 to engage air tracks out of sight over land yet then posts that ROE would be a prohibitive factor in manned Carrier Strike Ops, bet you never tried that at Staff College?
We can land almost a brigade with one Carrier and assets over a beach. We can easily land a brigade through a port. Now landing a Brigade over a beach implies opposition which with your preferred cuts and fore composition we would not be able to repel. making the landing irrelevant as you would all be bloody swimming.
I will not comment upon the last slightly spiteful sentence other than to take a sip of Vino Rosso and look at the CGI of T26 again.
“a very few other capabilities built around an amphibious task group”
You mean the amphibious task group that will be centred on rotary lift from the duty CVF?.
The USN’s amphibs are hobbled as its rotary lift or tacair support for deployed forces for them…they arent big enough for both at the same time (not so much a problem with 10 CVNs knocking about you assume!). CVF is big enough to do both simultaneously and, if necessary, land the helos and generate a considerable sortie rate with 30+ strikefighters.
I understand the term is ‘golf bag’. Of course you need to screen your golf bag lest someone comes along and does terrible things to it. An AAW capability able to handle current and evolving threat systems appears prudent?. T45 seemingly delivers especially if the USNs comments regarding Sea Viper are genuine. Same goes for the ASW element….the Dukes are ageing prudent to have a plan to replace them with something at least as competent?.
X, :). But, it is a matter of public record that the actual fighting is done by the Army and Royal, at least in just about every conflict since WW1. Some interventions flout this rule, but rule it is for the long haul stuff.
Opinion 3, well I normally am quite chirpy, even about the Andrew whom I love more deeply than the Kevins. But somehow the process of wading through several pages of nautical techno-porn on interpreting little CGI flaps on what is clearly a piece of BD fluff, and reading the breathless analysis of the cartoon in terms of missile cell openings of various calibres when in fact the CGI flaps are imaginary, illustrational, and not specified by any requirements because they have not yet been written somehow turns my stomach.
It’s a pissing boat, for pity’s sake, not the Messiah herself, and we’re about as likely to get 13 of them as it is that the second coming will be on Wednesday of next week in Basingstoke in a small shopping centre, and the chances of the little toys appearing as forecast in the cartoon is about as likely as the second coming happening inside Clinton Cards in the “Girls 7-10” aisle at precisely 11:53 on Wednesday of next week.
@ ALL Politicians are the Same – “I will not comment upon the last slightly spiteful sentence other than to take a sip of Vino Rosso and look at the CGI of T26 again.” Hands where we can see them! And what happened to the rum ration? ;-)
APATS,
I’ll rein back a bit, it’s certainly not you I’m having a pop at, it’s the Whitehall thinking which I’ll happily admit is influenced by all sorts of non RN factors (why else would we be building carriers if not for Scottish jobs, at the whim of an absentee ex-PM?). But I won’t exonerate a group of about 6 RN senior officers who I know from personal experience valued service over country and deliberately “queered the pitch” in the early 2000s, in one case by specifically stopping funding going to a dstl OA programme that was coming up with inconvenient answers.
SD escort? I tell you what, I’ll swap your SD escort (I’ve still got the use of a ocean-facing flat in Huntington Beach that my cousin owns but he’s banned from the USA until he pays all of his taxes so I have the keys, only about 100 miles north of SD, and let me tell you, it’s a bachelor shag pad extraordinaire) for the SD escort I mention above of being in a floaty little boat trying to sanitise areas of the north Atlantic in winter gales from marauding Russkies so that the British boomer can safely drift by on some unknown bearing and depth. (Being a good boy, I’d pay her off and then call Mrs RT and the little darlings across for a holiday)
RT, I think you mean the DUTY TAPS! ref the flat in Huntington I would have to create a secure means of making the financial transaction or it may be the last one I would ever make.
APATS,
I’ve been warned off as well. Cous pays me £500 monthly from his HK bank, I pay a US service company $480 monthly to have someone go around and spruce the joint up, pay any local taxes etc. Cous fell foul of a land deal in Wyoming and (according to him) was shafted by a co-investor, leaving him liable for the full share of taxes and not 50%, Cous told Wyoming to bugger off on the other 50%, they reported him to the Feds, he left. But under US law the Feds can’t seize assets in another state, so his California beachfront flat is fully legit, but he can’t pay the bills as that indicates he is still in the US (he’s not – Shanghai mostly running his proper business, Thailand 2 months a year, Army / Navy Rugby in Twickers
for the annual Army victory paradeone weekend a year). F*ck knows who is right or wrong.I suppose I could make the Huntington flat available to you on a sub-let basis for you sojourn with Ms SD. It’s a real spanker, that flat – cost about $800K 6 or so years ago, fully decked out, and there’s a Hobie Cat as well in the underground parking bay. Beach about 200 yards away.
any Miss Sd might see the trapeze on a Hobie Cat as a step too far!
I don’t know. Tell her about the large sharks with the big white teeth as she’s dangling out there, and then manipulate the tiller a little bit without being too obvious to get her bottom near to the waves before lifting her back up, and if you’ve got red blood in you she’ll be so bloody grateful that you kept her safe she’ll be paying you for services rendered.
(If she won’t go out on the trapeze at all, beach her at the first opportunity. No one wants to spend the day with a scaredy cat girl, because you sure as hell won’t be spending the night with her, and even if you did, it would be like shagging a church mouse, all quiet and timid)
Trapezes do the most marvellous things to a girl’s chest, and you can pretend to be watching the sail or the wind shifts as you hang her out there, joggling the tiller to get a near instant but amplified reflected joggle from the girl’s chest. Hours of fun.
RT They are great fun to sail. I restrict my sail powered events to things that are fast and fun. Round the world or across the pond on a yacht, not this call sign!
Just a general comment on exporting ‘ships’. Yes it is likely that Australia, and Canada, and Brazil will want to build the hulls in country but even so licence building can be a nice little earner for the owner of the design.
Just taking the RAN AWD project as an example. The decision was to evolve an Australian AWD from the Spanish F100 frigate and that is what has been happening.
The RAN F100 differs from the Spanish original in gun (Mk45 Mod 2), non Ageis Radar fit, the Sonar (a British one), the diesel fit (MAN in lieu of CAT) to improve endurance, much of the comms, a block 1b phalanx and a lot of detail stuff. The point is much of the design work has been done in Spain. Spain is also suppling a lot of the fittings and equipment and systems and will end up with a class support contract for the duration of the ships lives.
There is almost as much money to made out of licence build as home manufacture and that money tends to support white colar and higher tech jobs.
This day and age it is difficult to see how you can sustain a stable ship construction industry without covering all potential customers.
Hi Johnno,
Does this “non Ageis Radar fit” negate what has been written about them being potentially Standard3/ ABM capable?
ACC, no they have AGEIS and Mk99 directors.
What has been done is to fit a close range air/horizon search radar. From the pictures it is the same radar as fitted to the USCG’s new high endurance cutters. It will supplement AGEIS or allow the ship a reasonable`radar picture with AGEIS silent. Nice EW wise to sound like a cutter when you are something else.
Whilst we are talking about matters maritime, I note the Phoenix Think Tank have changed their website and removed the veiled threats and innuendo about Think Defence
mmmm, I love the smell of climb downs in the morning
Perhaps now I can reveal the location of TD Towers
http://www.one08.co.uk/images/biggles.jpg
On another related matter, SI, APATS, Jed, Anixtu, Jonesy etc
Can any of you describe the history of the RN standing tasks/deployments, say going back 30 years or so?
What I am trying to get at is the simple question of change, if we have X tasks now and have Y ships what was the situation in 1982, 1992 and 2002 for example
@ Red Trousers – “that is EXACTLY what you do at this stage: you issue out the world’s sexiest animation showing every single possible requirement being over-met”
You are absolutely correct, i supply the animations.
@ Admin – “What I am trying to get at is the simple question of change, if we have X tasks now and have Y ships what was the situation in 1982, 1992 and 2002 for example”
Yes please. I would also like to see this in the context of APATS 2:5 rule for [persistent] tasks, and in particular how non-persistent [permanent] tasks bugger this about.
By permanent, i mean things like the carriers and amphibs that come in [two’s] to enable a permanent capability to intervene, even if it cannot be sustained persistently.
@x
Appreciate the book list, thank you.
@X
Shipping is an industry entirely driven by cost. That means that “if something doesn’t catch on” it’s not a question of trends, it means that the technical proposition (in this case high-speed, low fuel use) doesn’t actually stack up in economic reality.
Patent expires in September 2016, if we’re going to see any at all it will be after that date when license/royalties for design and construction are not required.
There’s also a question of risk – commercials tend to err on the side of caution, or rather predictable profit, until a radical introduces a disruptive technology or business model.
The licence / royalty element is actually a very small percentage of overall cost, particularly if you then have to do your own hydrodynamic / structural research & design to actually produce the ship.
The trouble with all the “stabilised monohull” concepts like trimarans and pentamarans is that their advantages vs a monohull of a particular size tend to be marginal and quickly eroded as ship size gets bigger. Actually generating a ship design with workable arrangement and transmitting grunt into the oggin tends to be a bit more difficult than people think for these slender forms as well.
TOC – you might want to try RA Burt’s two books on British Battleships as well. The first deals with Dreadnought evolution, the second with post WWI developments, including the Treaty ships.
I think at least part of the lack of take up is the fact that most cargo ships and tankers are knocked out in yards in Asia with little expertise in building anything other than a big steel box.
Other than size increases and electronics fit there has been little innovation in bulk shipping in 50 years.
@RT
“…Apart from the SD, and a very few other tasks, the Andrew is expensively irrelevant, but it will not admit so. Cut it down to half the size, concentrate on the SD and a very few other capabilities built around an amphibious task group, and spend the rest on a proper coast guard would be a better solution to what we currently have…”
– I can only rationalise your latest tirade against the Royal Navy and its raison d’être by assuming that you are not entirely relishing the prospect of the return of the 6% of Army regulars typically deployed in Afghanistan (fewer whenever the Royal Marines provide the spearhead), plus the personnel previously billeted in Germany, to sit around their UK barracks for the indeterminate future rather like the ‘Kevins’ at their air bases. While I’m sure you will try to convince us that they will be kept extremely busy with the odd company being sent to defend Cyprus and the Falklands or guard Buck House, ‘shiny boots on the parade ground’ doesn’t have quite the same ring as ‘boots on the ground’ and I am not unsympathetic.
– In the meantime, the Naval Service (RN & RM) will still be roaming the world’s oceans in its ‘floaty little boats’ and submarines, quietly gathering intelligence, conducting survey work, rendering humanitarian aid and disaster relief, thwarting pirates and drug smugglers, strengthening alliances and improving interoperability with other nations, reassuring friends, deterring potential foes, honing its edge in myriad warfare disciplines and otherwise promoting and protecting our national interests as it has always done and always will. And yet you have the nerve to call the Andrew “expensively irrelevant” and even criticise its ‘operational productivity’ compared to the 1-in-5 deployment cycle of Pongo units (e.g. infantry battalions). No matter how many Type 26 frigates we get, I’m sure their operational cycles will knock the Army’s into a cocked hat as do those of current vessels.
– Incidentally, stereotypes intrigue me and you obviously delight in presenting yourself as the epitome of a retired seniorish Rupert who enjoys his huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ and retains some connection with the defence industry. I’m only surprised that you haven’t yet referred to weekend chukkas at Windsor Great Park. ;-)
@NaB
Interesting, I’ve added those to my order, thank you.
Agree with you on the license/royalty front, the angle I’m looking at is the first mover hurdle. It’s indeed small, and it’s another reason (or reasons) not to pursue an untested design.
Think I am going to have to set up a separate corner of the site for stereotypes of all shades of green and blue to to bitch about Andrew, Kevin and Pongo paying particular attention to deployment cycles :)
Martin
You do the Asian yards a disservice I’m afraid. The Japanese and Korean yards have built some of the most complex merchant vessels ever seen. Check out some of the drillships and other Offshore vessels built by Samsung. The explosion of size in containerships (including hatchcoverless technology) is not simple and has required a significant amount of ground breaking structural research (as did larger tankers and bulkers before them).
Some of the Japanese and Korean yards have research departments with more staff than currently work in the shipbuilding industry in the UK! That is on top of their “technical” (ie design) departments.
China isn’t there yet, but it will be.
@ NAB
I know that. As you know in these times of economic austerity articles on the number of any given ship type idle have been handy space fillers for much of the trade press.
And then there are genuine technical advancements like using LNG for bunkers because of its low cost and clean burn.
But that still doesn’t answer, what is the “problem” with pentamaran hulls? All I can deduce is new form factor equals risk. If there are technical problems I would like to know. Especially as penamaran supposedly solves some of the problems of trimarans.
EDIT: I have seen you have answered that question elsewhere.
Ah, one picture of my old flame Cerberus and its replaced a graphic of the Black Swan modular Sloop as the wallpaper on my phone. Guess I’m a sexy fast pointy floaty kinda guy after all…
@ TD
‘Think I am going to have to set up a separate corner of the site… paying particular attention to deployment cycles’
What a statto corner ? :)
RT said “But, it is a matter of public record that the actual fighting is done by the Army and Royal, at least in just about every conflict since WW1. Some interventions flout this rule, but rule it is for the long haul stuff.”
I don’t know how to respond. Um….
Here is a nice video of the Red Arrows flying Foland Gnats…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxf_9oliGg&feature=related
Woosh!!!
Thought it would make a change from Soviet armour.
@Red Trousers
“Do we need the world’s best AAW destroyer, far less 6 of them when it is vanishingly difficult to conceive of anyone flying fast air or missiles against us that our 1990s systems could easily knock out of the sky? Probably not, especially at £1 B a pop. Do we need 13 FF boats when our existing T23s are still vastly better than OPFOR’s SSKs?”
Defence is all about uncertainty. This is already annoying for the army, which can relatively easy swap in and out their short-lasting equipment. But RN and RAF planning needs to look at a 30 years cycle.
You are damn convinced about our capacity to defeat SSKs. Maybe. But, with sub-launched SAMs in the later development stages, added by the fact that all it’s development was made by computerized construction software: to our adversaries, they are only one chinese hack away. And there you heli-borne superiority walks away. So, maybe our losses will be higher than anticipated, and running out of ship means loosing the war.
You are damn convinced, that there will be no missile-threat to the UK. If Iran gets nukes and adds them to the existing, London-range MRBMs, the only type of BMD asset in service will be the T45. Maybe we could have created a land-based system, but still this system would have needed development.
“Do we need the ability to land ashore in one fell swoop either a Brigade, or deploy a massive floating hospital, or deliver 10s of thousands of tonnes in aid in austere conditions? Of course we do. We bemoan quite often the fact that we can’t.”
Your proposal to add amphibs is strategically flawed. These assets can easily be added using COTS-technology. We basically need very few investment to stay state-of-the-art, a whole sea base cost less than a Albion. They will also land 10k men ashore in contested environment, magically without NGS, magically without air-cover, magically without a wide ASW-screen.
If you ask Haitians, if they would take the floating hospital or a piece from your credit card, the answer is: the first week or so, they would accept the hospital. After a while, the damn imperialist bastard ™ has to go away, leaving some money at the doorstep. If this is realism-and-truth-time, we have to admit, that this humanitarian aid thing basically never worked out.
And while I propose a coast guard, too, I think of it as a policing arm. While you seem to view it as something like a coastal-defence flotilla.
Picking up on a few things :
@APATS – we _have_ been hammering the Brazilians, they’ve been offered a package of half a dozen GCS plus Wave – obviously they would build at home. Aussies don’t need to decide on Anzac replacement for another 5 years or so, the timing could potentially work quite well as they like to see steel in water before they buy. But they may well want US weapons for logistics commonality – GCS can do that, but less value to UK plc. One might assume the other half of Anzac would follow the Aussies, probably build in Oz? Malaysia have also been sniffing around, looks like Turkey have lost interest once they discovered we wouldn’t just hand over the blueprints for free, they were only really interested in technology transfer and they’re now talking about incorporating SM-3. The “FREDA” version was really aimed at them. Think the politics mean that Canada is gone, never say never but it’s unlikely. USN seem to be committed to 24 LCS, after that who knows but if they were to ditch the current LCS design it seems they might be more likely to go for a smallish LPD – think a home-grown equivalent of the Rotterdam/Bay.
Multihulls are great if you need a lot of deck area but hull depth is less important. That makes them great for ro-ro car ferries but much less useful if you want to eg incorporate 7-metre VLS tubes plus gubbins. It also suits them to have a port handy for them to hide in if it gets choppy – again that’s good for ferries, less good for something that’s meant to be patrolling the Atlantic.
As an example, one reason for choosing the 57mm gun on the LCS is that a 76mm wouldn’t fit on the trimaran variant. As an aside, Bob Work has been popping up on ID saying that although the early LCS will cost over $600m (£380m), the later ones will cost $425-450m (£270-285m) including a mission module. As a further aside, his comment on CAPTAS4 was “Awesome system. I am quite impressed with it. We intend to hand a MFTA on CAPTAS4, or something like it. When we do, I believe we will silence most of the critics of the ASW mission package. It will be much better than FFG 7’s system.” I think Thales have that one in the bag…. :-)
This latest T26 stuff is a bit more than the usual Powerpoint – T26 has now gone through Main Gate 1, so the back-of-envelopes have been put away and it’s onto the detailed design. I know people moan about the protracted design phase but it’s very Bernard Gray – he’s obsessed with “measure twice, cut once” rather than the usual make it up as we go along, changing the spec every 5 minutes as we think of something else. Which leads to something like the Bay mess.
@Opinion3 – think you’re being a bit optimistic about Absalon cost, the consensus is that their real cost is nothing like some of the numbers kicking about on the interweb. And for fleet ASW you need something faster than the Absalon – remember you have to sprint and drift, with an average speed the same as the battlegroup. It’s a very different requirement to pottering around on your own in the Baltic.
@Simon – the reason others would buy in designs is that designing complex warships is difficult – it needs a lot of (human) infrastructure and experience. It’s cheaper and quicker just to buy in the design if you don’t have that infrastructure – just look at the pig’s ear the Indians have made of some of their designs in their insistence to do everything indigenously. The Shivalik’s design started in the early 90’s, but the first one was not commissioned until 2010.
As for being designed with “with great big holes in the deck” – I take it you’re implying something like Stanflex? Personally I don’t think that’s the way to go, at least not for weapons systems. It’s a nice idea in theory that just doesn’t really work in practice. VLS tubes and a RHIB/USV/UUV hangar are the new Stanflex. I think the GCS designers have made the right choice, to go for modularity at the construction stage rather than in service – MEKO rather than Stanflex.
The one thing where a Stanflex type system can make a practical difference is enhancing availability by swapping out modules for maintenance. That’s less relevant to weapons systems but potentially could really help the boring service bits – water purification, sewage treatment, air con and so on. They always seem to be the bits that break down and force ships into port – but are a lot less sexy than “ooh look, we can swap out our gun!”
@SI – still think Phalanx is complementary to missiles, the RN always seem to skimp on point defences compared to eg the Russians. And don’t forget that Phalanx will soon have fricking laser beams…..
@TOC – yep, Chinook is very much in the plan – you can tell just by taking a ruler to that overhead view. Incidentally, happy 50th birthday to Chinook for the other day…..
Incidentally, people might be interested in the CSIS report on the US in the Pacific that I linked over on the East-of-Suez thread – well worth a read.
Hi Martin,
I am not sure that is a good enough explanation ” the lack of take up is the fact that most cargo ships and tankers are knocked out in yards in Asia with little expertise in building anything other than a big steel box.”
-they first establish the cash flow (through the std boxes) and when the cash is flowing, they buy upmarket operations in high-cost countries to get the know-how… just look at STX
Hi El Sid,
As Turkey is getting the targeting radar (on land) compliments of the good old USA, why not “they’re now talking about incorporating SM-3”
RE the following “@Opinion3 – think you’re being a bit optimistic about Absalon cost, the consensus is that their real cost is nothing like some of the numbers kicking about on the interweb” I agree
– build commercial
– have military fit-out yard and do the “T23” by taking modules from vessels being retired
RE “And for fleet ASW you need something faster than the Absalon – remember you have to sprint and drift, with an average speed the same as the battlegroup. It’s a very different requirement to pottering around on your own in the Baltic.”
– ha-ha, on which shore of the Baltic are the Danes going to land their half (army) recce bn? May be the old colony, Estonia? The ship (class) was built for being able to express sovereignty in the Arctic by more than just planting a flag somewhere
El Sid said “Multihulls are great if you need a lot of deck area but hull depth is less important.”
I think you are thinking too much about ferries. I think what is being envisioned is more,
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/trimaran/images/tri1.jpg
than,
http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jhsv_underway_1.jpg
I don’t think missiles mind if their VLS is a short fat rectangle or a long thin rectangle.
As for sprint and drift it isn’t “top speed” but acceleration that limits Absalon. And then I don’t think it is much of a handicap. Further it is how well rafted her engines and other noise produce are or not that limits her as an ASW. A modern TAS has a fair detection area. Being able to move 10nm further on more quickly on is much of a limitation when your sensors are reaching over hundreds of square miles.
x, “I don’t think missiles mind…”
Surely a long thin missile won’t fit into a short fat VL box whether the missile minds or not.
Can’t think of much to say about this. Until it comes to counting the pennies in the MoD’s piggy bank, we won’t know what option boxes are being ticked; and until then, it is just another ship-shaped graphic.
It does at least give the impression of being quite voluminous – plenty of room for ‘stuff’.
What else. Is that the right shade of grey? If we’ve moved from Cold War operations in the grim North Atlantic to the sunnier Med, Indian Ocean and Gulf, isn’t it time to decorate over that miserable Medium Sea-Grey paint job with something a shade bluer?
i think he means length vs width, rather than its depth.
I thought he was talking about El Sid’s comment about multihull vessels, hull depth and 7 metre VLS, Jedi.
I might be missing something.
Hi x,
The LCS trimaran is a toned-down version of the graphic you linked to
– the stresses in high seas are still too much (at least for the aluminium construction)?
El Sid, the Russians have a completely different attitude to technology. Personally I’m confident that most missile threats out there can be neutralised without even firing a shot through advanced decoys – and I’m a front-line user. Phalanx is a luxury given the capabilities of SeaCeptor. We can’t afford the luxuries, let’s not start down the fantasy up-gunning route. Like I said, I’d be surprised to see an uplift in Phalanx mountings although fited for-but-not-with is likely. I think it’s more of an export sales acknowledgement.
Anixtu posted a higher res image – the ‘silo’ in the funnel has louvres so it’s a vent, not a silo.
RT – nothing can be said to that, so I shan’t bother.
Johnno, interesting to see the Hobart has had the horizon search radar added to complement SPY-1, thus acknowledging the limitations of the SPY-1. I think that the SPY-1 radar was not the one to go for – an active array would have served you better in the long run – but I rather suspect interoperability with the US was a key factor, hence the AEGIS selection. I hope they work out!
TD, as far as commitments go I don’t think they have chanced significantly in the last 20+ years since the end of the Cold War. However, the ability to resource those commitments is what has changed drastically. In terms of FF/DD-level commitments, we had (in 2000) STANAVFORMED, STANAVFORLANT, Armilla, APT(N) (aka West Indies Guard Ship), APT(S), TAPS, FRE, UKAMPHIBFOR and UKCSG plus, of course, CASD and support. We also had a regular deployment to the Far East and were able to commit additional ships to most major NATO exercises. The NATO committments were standing, and we were able to almost guarantee that a UK warship would be available for each task group.
Since then, we have the same committments but resourced differently. The NATO contribution is now irregular and only to either SNMG1 or 2 (see later). Armilla became TELIC, now KIPION and has at least 2 ships permanently allocated, one of which is likely to be dual-tasked to either Op ATALANTA (EUNAVFOR) or the NATO TG in theatre. APT(N) is done by an RFA (mostly). APT(S) is still supported, but the TAPS and FRE are frequently combined into one hull. Our expeditionary groups have long since collapsed into the RFTG, which no longer has any permanently assigned ships and must be scraped together when needed. And to do that, we are flat out running hot – I’m sure the Army know what I mean.
We haven’t sent a ship to the Far East on anything like a regular basis for years, much to the detriment (I think) of UK-Australia/New Zealand/many other relations.
Submarine tasking is not my area of expertise and is not for discussion anyway, but I expect they are only able to support the East of Suez boat these days, the rest being mostly knackered or years late.
MCM tasking used to be one to MCMFORNORTH, one to MCMFORSOUTH, a constant rolling programme of UK port surveys and a deployed element to the NAG as well as fishery protection duties. That’s now just one ship (occasionally) in NATO, the rest existing only to support the rotation of crews to the Middle East and the occasional route survey in the UK.
There will be many other commitments to consider such as fishery protection, SAR, MACP and others, but broad brush that’s about it, I think.
There is no problem with stress in aluminium, you just end up throwing more material at it than a steel structure. The design loads for whatever naval rules you want to use are exactly the same. Some of the design detailing (bracketry etc) can be a bit tricky, but not impossible.
The problem with multihulls is the “pinching and prying” loads as the hulls move semi-independently under wave loading, which imposes loads that you don’t see on a traditional monohull. Where you tend to get problems is in long deckhouses that become “effective” structurally, which means they carry a relatively high proportion of load compared to other parts of the hull. Being of lighter construction, this is usually “a bad thing”.
The way round it (and what is done on all the aluminium catamarans) is to mount the entire deckhouse on resilient mounts, thereby decoupling it from the hull global loading. Trouble is, the catamaran ferries were not designed for open ocean use. I remember when USS Swift (HSV2) visited Pompey for an exercise nearly ten years ago now, her skipper was quite open that they’d gone out in sea state 6 and within (literally) hours had had a significant number of their deckhouse mounts go “pop” – another “bad thing” which led to a swift return to calmer waters and port. You can design ally ships to withstand it, it’s just that the sort of thing that needs high-speed multihull forms (fast ferries) tend to have non-oceanic routing, so designing above a certain wave loading just burns fuel or loses revenue earning payload, so it doesn’t happen.
As for the graphic – it’s an old DERA trimaran concept from the early 90s with very little practicality about it. The GD LCS design is based more on the Austal high-speed ferry, the Benchijigua Express, which serves the Canary Islands.
I accept all the points about the Absalon, its a ‘jack of all….’ but in many ways potential purchasers aren’t likely to be opting for dedicated destroyers, aircraft carriers and frigates and amphibs, they are unlikely to be able to afford it. There is also always a part of me which says don’t sell your best kit or you might find it used against your own forces.
A multi-functional boat, especially as if can be used for civil support ops, SHOULD go down well with the market. I accept it hasn’t though, if I was right the Danes would have sold a few dozen Absalons by now.
I guess our frigate is going to be more like the German F125 and that is no bad thing. On paper the GCS doesn’t quite look as good as its competitors but I have no problem with that – we are doing this to a budget and should have more of them as a result.
Its a platform and it is the missile tech which on these platforms that is going to make them effective and something to be feared.
It’ll only really meet its capabilities when CEC, FLAADS, Perseus/ MK41TLAM, FASGW(L) are operational. Don’t know if anyone has done any articles on CEC but to me it seems like a no brainer. Remember the days of computers before networking? I wouldn’t want to go back to then.
But how essential is CEC when we already have Link 16, 22 etc?
What does it give us extra and is that extra worth it>
Forget CEC. We wanted it for all the T45’s. We wanted it for 8 T45’s. We wanted it for 6 T45’s. There is no money for it, now or anytime in the near future, and we’ve been told not to expect that to change. It’s only an interoperability tool to work with the US in air defence anyway – it’s useless to us unless we fit it to the T26 and CVF, and that’s even less likely. Link 22 would be far more valuable and useful, but we’re not even getting that.
BUT that said, and I should have mentioned this earlier, on the T26 images above, the four flat panels on the mast, just below the radar, look awfully like CEC antennas to me. Who knows – anything is possible with CGI.
Opinion 3 On paper the GCS doesn’t quite look as good as its competitors”.
Care to elaborate?
SI,
“the ‘silo’ in the funnel has louvres so it’s a vent, not a silo.”
The louvres are on the opposite, uptake side of the funnel. The VLS side does not have them.
Anixtu, I’m not convinced but it’s a fairly pointless avenue anyway until more details are published. Maybe it’s the vent recirculation for the greenhouse we’ll be installing, you know, fresh veg for a deployment?
@ Somewhat re Fresh Veg
I bet the first thing that “flexible mission space” will be used for is a reefer container for the galley…..
Hmm, not sure about space to land a Chinook, the helicopter deck is coming out at around the 28m mark.
Boeing report the length with rotors running at around 30m verses 23m for the Merlin (landing gear and thus airframe positioning on pad not taken into account).
She could probably handle VERTREP from one, but I doubt a Chinook landing spot is to be had.
@ ACC
The image was for illustration. Many think ferry when you say multi hull.
@ Brian B
Most of the multi hull point warships designs have very long central hulls. VLS on conventional ships are fat rectangles. If you arranged the vls long central hull the vls would be a long thing rectangle. The Zumwalts take a different approach and arrange the VLS all around the edge of the deck. As I said above many think multihull and then fast ferry.
x,
“I bet the first thing that “flexible mission space” will be used for is a reefer container for the galley…”
Gym? Garage for CO’s car?
The Zumwalt approach to VLS is at least interesting. Implementation issues aside:
– Reclaim the centre-deck;
– Limit the number of VLS cannisters out of action when struck;
– Minimise secondary damage from munitions/fuel detonation.
Balance this with:
– Some VLS cannisters likely out of action whenever struck.
Some questions for those with the experience:
– How easy do you think reloading would be compared to conventional VLS grouping?
– Do you think the gradual degradation of available munitions verses a potential all/nothing risk when struck is worthwhile pursuing?
– Does the survivability aspect stack up in your view?
We can discuss the 155mm armaments together with LaWS and Electromagnetic Rail Guns another time, unless you feel the VLS and the turrets have an interesting relation? :)
Flexible mission space = putting green?
Something has been bugging me for a couple of days.
The current design images of the Type 26 (which look great!) don’t include any anti ship missiles of the ‘bolt on’ Harpoon or JSM variety.
Fair enough the designs may not match the reality because the weapons fit may change over time, but with a lack of vertical launch anti ship products in the western market what alternatives exist?
It may not be the most vital piece of equipment, but id still be concerned to see these ships without any kind of meaningful capability in this area.
@ Anixtu
Gym? No the hanger is the gym. I had never give the CO’s car a thought. Now a ten pin bowling lane is 60ft long it should fit just about diagonally. Perhaps a pool? So many options……
@TD and @Somewhatinvolved
I put my hands up, I don’t know the various pros and cons of the systems, and do not know which is the right system to choose.
However network capable defence especially combining Vigilance/ Crowsnest; F35; and the ship’s Sampson/Aster suites does make sense IMHO.
“let’s not start down the fantasy up-gunning route” – would a couple of those nifty Centurion combined chaff/flare/etc. launchers blow the budget? Perhaps in place of Phalanx.
“the ‘silo’ in the funnel has louvres so it’s a vent, not a silo” – so not plumbing, part of the air conditioning.
“Flexible mission space” – basketball court to keep the marines happy?
@RT – While I can see your point about this being a “bells and whistles” promo vid by BAE, isn’t that sort of thing more likely when there’s more than one company vying for a contract? I mean, we already know WHO is building the ships, HOW MANY (supposedly), and HOW MUCH for – the only hard bargaining to be done now is WHAT EXACTLY will MOD get off BAE for the money, so not really in BAE’s interest to “over-egg” the pudding?
@ our nautical brothers,
I very probably go “slightly” over the top in my characterisation of your beloved service, and for that I apologise for affronted feelings – you should hear me on the Royal Artillery if you want both barrels. And you can be certain that I really don’t mind similar barbs about the Army in return – it’s all part of life’s rich pattern.
However, in mitigation, when being serious I come very definitely from the “sod the history and how we’ve always done things, what’s the capability and effect required in the future?” school of thinking, and the Army has no monopoly on that – Kevins and the Andrew can do that equally, as indeed can anyone.
However (deep breath), that appears so often to not come to the fore on some of these threads, and more widely (in my observation), is not also applied within the MoD itself to the most expensive capital programmes, of which the Navy and Air Force “tend” to have the most expensive. It’s fine going for some new type of boot from a non-traditional manufacturer, or one that doesn’t need polishing but provides good ventilation, or whatever, because the cost of boots is down in the weeds. And yet, assumptions are made for expensive programmes and never challenged. “We have 13 elderly frigates, so we must have 13 new frigates” – no challenge is raised about deployments, refit intervals, double-crewing, assigning them to theatres to reduce the long to and fro UK passages. What is God’s law that we need a proper fighty ship to chase about after drug smugglers or to intimidate a pirate in a rusty old fishing boat (we don’t, as proven by RFA deployments etc. so why not formalise it permanently and put scarce resources into where we do need fighty ships, but maybe fewer are needed because they are not wearing themselves out doing lesser tasks.
I’ve got a venerable old Jensen Interceptor which lives under a dust sheet in the garage for most of the year, but comes out when I want to arrive somewhere in a beautiful car and make an impression. I’ve got a shitty 6 year old Citroen 1.6 for the daily commute and hauling the kids to school. Horses for courses.
Even wilder ideas: what is the essential difference between an AD capable Frigate and an ASW capable DD? Can we get away with a total of 14 multi-role ADASW ships, instead of 19 of FF and DD? and so on. Why don’t we simply buy 4 Visbys or similar with 6 crews to rotate around the Caribbean and East Africa / Gulf presence roles, and have 8 FF for proper training and deployments, which would be cheaper than 13 T26?
@ RT
Is this what Sandhurst teaches? Or is it your accumulated wisdom from your time in the green suit?
@RT – I’m a civvy (a few weeks in the ATC during my misspent youth should not be held against me; besides, I was expelled) so I am not at all misty-eyed about the navy or other services. I’m sure others will answer your points better than me, but here’s my stab at it:
Actually, we’re replacing 17 frigates with 13, you’re forgetting the four T22s sunk by the 2010 SDSR. Six T45s to replace – sorry, was it 12 or 14 T42s? Hardly like4like
You own a Jensen (green with envy) and a Citroen (welcome to it) – isn’t it nice to be able to afford both types to fulfil two entirely separate roles. Of course, you could do the school run in the Jensen, not very economically granted, but you would struggle to impress in the Citroen.
There is an unavoidable problem with building fewer of something, no matter how good they are – they can’t be in two places at once.
There’s nothing wrong with a good rant now and again. I wasn’t being remotely funny about shooting cold callers.
X?
Your post is too short for my sarcasm detector to register a reading – sarcastic or serious?
(Sandhurst teaches nothing of the merits of having a ADASW multi-role ship: surely that is Dartmouth’s job? It does however try to knock in some common sense, often having to start from a low entry point)
I want to know what Sandhurst teaches you about seapower. I won’t say Royal Navy become the British Army relies on the USN.
Unlike some here I haven’t the benefit of a few terms at Sandhurst, Dartmouth, or Cranwell.
WiseApe,
the Jensen’s not green with envy, it quite likes its’ owner and is a relaxed mid-dark blue. Plus, it was an inheritance along with £10K to keep it going for a few more years. It gets an annual service and MoT from the village all makes garage for £250, 6 months road tax (which I try to remember to claim back 3 at the end of the summer), and only does a couple of thousand miles a year, so it’s paid its’ way for at least another 10 years I reckon. I turn over the engine and take it 100 yards up the drive and back weekly throughout the year so the wheels don’t seize up.
The shitty Citroen is however completely rubbish, but does the job.
X,
Sandhurst, nothing. But the question is not about seapower, it is about the provision of capability and identifying alternatives, even if they are uncomfortable with previous ways of conducting business. So 2 years of technical and joint staff training, and 4 years working in procurement and being part of joint committees trying to come to the best balanced decision, and observing single services attitudes to what is key and what is tradable gives me some insight.
Hence other comments about “gin-sozzled old Admirals”. It’s not a personal comment, I really have seen Admirals drinking at lunchtime in the Wardroom at Dryad when hosting a Joint Committee trying to balance investment decisions, and then in the afternoon join the Committee and by force of personality and rank try to impose a decision that plainly stands up to little logical analysis, but is good for naval interests. Personally, I don’t drink from Sunday evening to Friday evening because it’s unprofessional.
@X “Sandhurst, Dartmouth, or Cranwell” – would be a walk in the park after my old RE teacher at comprehensive school. Talk about fundamentalist, she assured me at the age of 14 years old that I was going to rot in hell for all eternity. Thank God I grew up to be an atheist. :-)
@ RT
Interesting. Thank you.
@ WiseApe
God applauds you choose to exercise the free will He has given you. :)
Just getting back to the frigate pics – whatever happened to portholes? Do they compromise stealth or something?
@X – He/She.
Scuttles not portholes.
Re Multihulls hiding in bad weather….depends on the multihull. Once again NGA’s Fast Sea Frame. 30knts at the boundary of SS6 and survival above SS8. Thats with an AL hull. NGA had also specced up a heavier, slower, steel hull/AL superstructure variant.
The below picture shows the size of useable space in the mission deck – remarkable for a sub 80m vessel (note ISO containers tucked away in the corners). Even allowing for the distortion in the image the air gap above the 8.5ft high containers is obvious as is the gap between them.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/missionbay.jpg/
….the photo does also answer the question of mission bay or hangar for the gym!.
100 yards up the drive?!
“Scuttles not portholes.” – once again the level of my ignorance is revealed to me.
Also torpedo tubes, they seem to have gone the way of scuttles in the RN.
“100 yards up the drive?!” – yes I missed that – and I was going to apologise for implying he is well off!
Not needed when you can drop them from the sponson of a helicopter?
Revisiting yesterday’s comments on TLAM for the surface fleet.
I should think that if we find ourselves pitted against an adversary with any kind of effective navy, we’d need the few available submarines to do traditional anti-ship shenanigans, rather than bombing inland targets.
Having RN subs fire TLAM has been fine for Kosovo, Libya, etc; but there’s been no substantive naval threat in those and other operations.
Putting TLAM onto T45 as intended would not be too costly, would give a better simultaneous launch ability too. I don’t think T26 needs them though – a single T45 in-theatre with 18 missiles compares reasonably well to the volumes of TLAM that have been fired to date. And just two T45, or one and an Astute, would provide a very substantial strike capability in a major operation – TLAM on T26 would, I think, be over-egging the pudding a little.
@SI
“TD, as far as commitments go I don’t think they have changed significantly in the last 20+ years since the end of the Cold War. However, the ability to resource those commitments is what has changed drastically. In terms of FF/DD-level commitments, we had (in 2000) STANAVFORMED, STANAVFORLANT, Armilla, APT(N) (aka West Indies Guard Ship), APT(S), TAPS, FRE, UKAMPHIBFOR and UKCSG plus, of course, CASD and support…”
– Don’t forget we also hosted three multi-national, multi-threat Joint Maritime Courses (JMCs) per year whereas these days we are only able to run two lower key JOINT WARRIORs per year. These periods provided valuable training for all concerned, especially in providing our own forces with unique opportunities to operate with MPA and carrier-based air against realistic EW, SSK, multiple FAC, mines and ASM threats.
@ WiseApes re STWS
The argument is if you ever get to use them the game would already be up. That is the submarine would have already got close enough, calculated a firing solution, and shot its torpedoes. Saying that many navies are still fitting STWS to their ships.
@ Brian Black
Don’t be silly. ;) What we want to do is build a regional bomber. Should only cost perhaps £20billion or so. Then we can fire the cruise missiles from those. What’s that? £20billion would buy a lot of ships, missiles, and a constellation of ISR birds . I know but that is just too logical. :)
@The Other Chris – yes but I imagine it takes a while to tow your Merlin/Wildcat out of the hangar, unfold it, etc. In that time you may have lost contact with the sub – or it could have sunk you. Aren’t tubes still carried by other navies – even though they also have ASW helos – to provide a “snapshot” capability?
Edit @X – posted this before seeing your comment.
@Brian Black – I suspect we’ll end up with “fitted for but not with-part two” i.e. we’ll have the tubes but no missiles in them unless the deploying ship is expected to be firing them. Aren’t TLAM about £1million each – even RT might struggle to cough up for 6 times 16 for T45.
TOC,
if your house is 100 yards from the road, does a 50 yard drive make any sense?
Not my fault the road builders missed the front door by 100 yards. Poor navigation, I’d say.
DS, SI etc
My point is that despite the changing nature of defence planning assumptions over the last 30 years, generally speaking, we have continually revised downward our expectations of what the UK military can both do and do alone, the RN standing tasks have remained constant, more or less, even accepting that stuff like the deterrent is a baseline anyway
Would that be a fair characterisation
@RT
Ahh, upon re-reading I see how that sounded. Why not take it further afield for a run out?
Opinion, we went over the merits of CEC vs Link 22 a while ago, wonder if TD can find it again. But rest assured we know all about network enabled systems; it’s just that the ones we use today are becoming less effective, and there is no money for us to buy the replacement. CEC and Link and very different, will happily go over it if you like.
Ship launched torpedoes are becoming less relevant because their range is inevitably less than that of a submarine’s weapons. They are rather more last ditch weapons in the event that you manage to catch a sub in range but who has not yet fired, or to give the sub CO something to think about after he has fired at you. They are a very flimsy shield to put up if you intend moving through an area known to contain a submarine, without the benefit of ranged ASW weapons (like ASROC), ASW helos or MPA. However the launchers could easily accommodate the new generation of anti-torpedo torpedoes, so it makes sense to retain the launchers. In an ASW threat area, a Lynx can be at 5 minutes notice for a number of hours, and 15 mins notice for somewhat longer. You’d be foolish to have it stowed when you might need it.
RT, Dartmouth does a good job of teaching us the need for and role of a Navy in both peacetime and in conflict. Shrivenham was supposed to do the same for the other two Services, and in my experience actually enhanced my understanding. It also gave me a general understanding of the role of the other Services and the rest of Government in the overall security policy of the UK. There has been plenty of well reasoned argument on this site underlining the need for our Navy to be the size and shape that it is (well, rather larger), which seems to have made no impact on your views. It’s a pity you’ve coloured your view of the RN with the behaviour of a few ill-mannered senior officers, or the arguing over budget allocations. It is certainly not representative. It’s more concerning to me, as a much more junior type, that the views of the upper ranks are so drastically polarised. It makes me wonder how anything gets done at all.
RE “Aren’t TLAM about £1million each – even RT might struggle to cough up for 6 times 16 for T45”
– don’t remember what the (mass-produced) missile costs, but just the wrapper to enable firing it from a torpedo tube is close to half a mil (dollars, though)
– just assuming that we would accept increasing the stock pile by 150 % (as per above), the surface option would provide quite a saving
Hi, WiseApe. Re coughing up for six times 16 TLAM for the T45. We’d obviously have to cough up for new launch tubes, but I don’t imagine we’d be chugging around a full complement of missiles on all the ships. I’d expect weapon loads to be dependent on tasking – perhaps the single T45 off to the Gulf would carry a handful.
Was it 16 or 18 Tomahawks envisioned for the destroyers – can’t remember; but I heard the Astutes don’t carry more than two dozen or it encroaches on the torpedo load. If one of each vessel unloads during a major operation, then even at a million quid a missile, it is still quite a piffling amount – considering that they’re not going to be launched against inconsequential targets. Take out the air-defence unit that would otherwise take down your multi-million quid fighter and pilot, and the balance comes out in the green.
TD, yes, I’d agree. We have continually revised upwards what we expect our ships and units to be able to do, which is why we have done the same, or more, with less.
@ TD
Could it be geography doesn’t change while threats do? NATO’s sea flanks are still open. Those islands are still there. Iran is still there.
@SomewhatInvolved – thanks for the low down re torpedoes. Won’t push my luck re scuttles. Anti-torpedo torpedoes sound interesting.
@Brian Black – “Take out the air-defence unit that would otherwise take down your multi-million quid fighter and pilot, and the balance comes out in the green.” – hadn’t thought of it like that, good point.
TD mentioned the deterrent as a baseline capability. At what point during the continual downward revision of what the UK military can do, do we fall off the doomsday radar of rogue states like Iraq (they supposedly had WMD once upon a time), North Korea, Iran or an independent Wales?
Maybe if we just build half-a-dozen Global Combat Ships, and spend the rest of the Navy’s T26 pot on cute little corvettes/cutters, then we wouldn’t be such a -perceived- menacing threat and wouldn’t need the nuclear deterrent.
Interesting piece re swarm attacks and the Bradstone Challenger speedboat over on Rusi. Look for “little boats, big danger.” Copying and pasting of links is currently beyond my fledgling interweb skills. Sorry.
Ape,
“whatever happened to portholes? Do they compromise stealth or something?”
They compromise gastight integrity.
The nuclear deterrent is arguably there to retain the veto at the UN…
@ Brian B re “we wouldn’t be such a -perceived- menacing threat”
I think the idea is for your armed forces to strike terror in to the hearts of your enemy.
Chris,
“The nuclear deterrent is arguably there to retain the veto at the UN…”
There is no causal link between nuclear weapons status and permanent membership of the UNSC. It’s all to do with who won the war. Without looking up the founding articles of the UN, I suspect that they cannot be altered without UNSC approval, and we’ve got a veto on that…
BB,
“At what point during the continual downward revision of what the UK military can do, do we fall off the doomsday radar of rogue states like Iraq (they supposedly had WMD once upon a time), North Korea, Iran or an independent Wales?”
We don’t, we just become a softer target.
Anixtu,
completely correct. I did have to look up those UN articles and constitution for my MA thesis, and yes (while not stating it was who won the war), it was who won the war, plus China. and yes, there is a catch-22 clause that states that in effect the UNSC may indeed be reformed, but only with the positive endorsement (ie voting for, not abstaining, or voting against which is in effect a veto) of any of the P5.
So we can’t be chucked off in a majority vote, we’d have to positively vote ourselves off. And even then, that may not work, because (e.g.) the USA could abstain if they thought we were being too lily-livered and they rather want to have their poor little
poodleally on the UNSC, and by voting against, so force us to remain on the P5.Ludicrous, I know. But it’s the rules…
I’m pretty sure that as well the P5 have a veto on which other 10 nations sit on the UNSC in their six month turns, but that was tangential to the point I was researching so did not investigate further. I dimly recall the academic whose commentary on the rules I was reading stated that sanction had never been applied, as throughout the Cold War both the USA and Russia were buying up the votes of all sorts of other countries, and if the two started vetoing each other’s allies on the UNSC, the whole process would have become unworkable.
Trident is scaled for the Moscow criteria. It capability is far in excess of that needed for rouge states.
As in the Red ones?
para 1 above, replace “any” with “all”. ie all 5 P5 members need to positively endorse a change, plus 3 of the remaining 10 giving 8 out of 15.
Who won the war plus China plus France……
There was a good argument for Canada to have a seat.
We tend to forget these days that Canada was quite the military power back in the day. Certainly did more than France who lost, played for both sides, and still came out with a ticket to the top table.
@ Mark
One warhead per Trident isn’t much. D5 has a yield of 475kiltons. Leaves most of Tehran standing. Have a go yourself,
http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
X,
the French are indeed perfidious, and the Canucks fine upstanding mostly Scots and Irishmen. At least, until you enter Quebec when they are all perfidious.
I had a work colleague years ago who had when she was in the Andrew worked at RNTIC, which apparently did all sorts of precise targeting and space / re-entry and ballistic calculations, along with terrain analysis in order to understand precisely where to steer the multiple independent re-entry buckets of instant sunshine to best effect. Quite good with a slide rule, she was. Anyway, she insisted – to my disbelief – that even the rocket motor was steered in, as in her words, “it’s falling to earth already, and it’s bloody heavy and moving fast, so you might as well do some extra damage with it”.
Well if only 1 warhead per missile is carried. We need not have 24/7 casd it need not be able to respond to a surprise attack in 15mins. As Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons or the means to target the uk never mind north Korean. Nor the ability of a total preemptive strike on uk home islands without warning the capability is as I said significant beyond min deterrence for rouge nations.
Idle speculation and completely off topic, but if the UN were being formed today, who would be on the “top table” and why?
“There was a good argument for Canada to have a seat.”
it is only getting better as demographics and nominal growth exceed that of existing nations.
i.e. gdp bigger than indonesia, italy and korea, and gdp/cap;ita second only to the us of any major nation.
@ wiseape – average the aggregate four 2050 gdp projections contained therein and you have (most) of your answer:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/britain-in-the-world-%E2%80%93-a-long-slide-into-oblivion/
@ RT
As much as thoughts of megadeath disturb me one of the reasons why I support the deterrent is that it is just, well, awesome. 7,500nm, CEP of what 150m or so, 16000t submarines, it is all just too much. I am going to put a paper bag on my head and go to lie down for a bit.
Well we could scrap the trident replacement and with the money convert the v – boats in to SSGN’s and/or build more SSN’s (possibly with VL tubes). Would certainly boost our conventional detterence…
JDBTx,
can you drop me a note via TD or simply a www link to your CGI capabilities? I need a couple more companies on standby, ‘cos the one we use now is getting pricey. I don’t believe in full OJEU competition, best, fittest and fastest is my motto, and anyone posting on TD passes all 3 tests.
X,
paper hats are no good. You need proper tin foil hats and to live under the stairs.
Does anyone else have a father who was so prepared to “Protect and Survive” ( copyright 1975 Govt propaganda) that he actually rehearsed the whole family one Saturday morning with a no-notice test? Mine did (only once – I think my mother later privately pinned him up against the wall while wielding a carving knife and told him to stop frightening the little darling, that being me).
@WiseApe
“Idle speculation and completely off topic, but if the UN were being formed today, who would be on the “top table” and why?”
Probably a G8 or similar.
120 x 100 kt warheads is enough to make you a target, but not enough to deter.
UK planners had it right in the 50s when they said a minimum UK deterrent needed 200 warheads & that some of them should be in the 500 kt to 1 megaton class.
I think India has the toys to be a permanent member of the UNSC.
Qatar is small, but has enough money to buy its way on.
RT – it can be done.
@ Mark
I normally nuke the conurbation to my east. But I thought Tehran was a good substitute.
@ Jedibeeftrix
It is a shame their politicians have done so much damage to the military over the years. I suppose hiding behind America and geographical remoteness doesn’t help the cause. It is interesting to compare the military of Canada with that of Australia.
http://www.centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/316-dropping-the-bomb
@ RT re stairs
I live in a bungalow. All my immediate family live in bungalows. Stairs are therefore scarce. Couldn’t I just mark out a pentagram on the floor?
@ Swimming Trunks
That is disgusting. I am going have to scrub my PC once I have marked out my pentagram.
X,
thinking about it now, I recall it must have been pre-75 when I was 10, because we still had Susan living with us and she left before I was 10 (she was my Nanny, endlessly tall and a bit of a blonde bombshell), and my mother and Susan had a bit of a tussle under the stairs as to who was going to hug me – both of them at that moment sincerely believing that it was the real deal. No wonder my mother got a bit pissed off afterwards.
You could put in for planning permission to your local council to put up a staircase in your bungalow, for the express purpose of sheltering under, rather than leading to a new storey in the bungalow. I don’t think it would constitute a change of use, and it would certainly lead to the councillors having a head-scratching moment.
x
I know essex has it problems but thats a bit extreme even for you x :)
Protect and survive, was that a couple of white sheets and a kitchen table?
Anyway, back on topic on RN standing tasks and defence planning assumptions
This is something I find very interesting
The RAF, Army and RN have suffered pretty much equal budget/capability reductions in the last 30 years of defence reviews. now I know each of the three services like to claim they have been the hardest done to but that is nonsense, I think a while ago I did the analysis on major equipments, people, units of organisation etc and it was remarkably consistent across all three.
To match these cap in hand budget/capability reductions have been a steady reduction change in defence planning assumptions, our strategic ambition (more or less) matching the depth of the armed forces pockets.
But
SI and others have told me that the RN is the exception to this, whilst the Army and RAF have had their expectations and budgets cut in alignments the RN has not.
Apparently, for the last 30 odd years of steady shrinkage the obligations of the RN hasnt changed.
Anyone like to comment?
TD,
two points of observation – I’m sure there’s real data somewhere out there to be brought to the table:
CASD + FRE + onshore activities including the old Comacchio Gp are really not RN tasks (although of course theyy are), they are of national importance, and (I think) the RN has a budgetary uplift…. (I think) to compensate. Thinking about it, Comacchio Gp were always budgetarily separate from 3 Cdo Bde, until earlier this year – maybe that’s why?
The Andrew are good at giving proper names to enduring tasks e.g. APT(N), APT(S), Armilla, etc. The RAF and Army less so – we tend to fling Squadrons and Battalions all around the world on ad hoc taks that don’t last as long, and maybe the history does not record those so well as RN standing tasks.
I can see it both ways. My instinct is that once you have levelled everything down to a common denominator it pretty much evens out (in the Army, it was “Nights out of Bed” or NOOB, and Weeks Deployed” or WD – two metrics I had to collate and report quarterly when I was a junior staff officer).
@ RT re planning permission
Now that wouldn’t be a problem. My local authority actually has a bunker so would be open to me having similar. It is quite a nice bunker to be honest; there would have been worst places to spend Doomsday. The lot over the border are or were a nuclear freezone. They got fined for not having a bunker by Mrs Thatcher. Ironically the building where they claimed their bunker to be was ground zero for the Soviets. If the balloon had gone up they would have received from their left leaning brethren 1 x 1 megaton warhead and 2 x 500 kiloton free fall weapons.
@ Mark
I am very mild mannered in real life. Honest.
RT, this is my point. The Army and RAF have had their ‘assumptions’ trimmed in line with budget restrictions over the last three decades give or take
The dark blue are telling me the RN is the exception
Have an open mind and all that but is that credible
X,
I seem to remember back in the 80s the Andrew sailing an SSN up to Greenwich, which at the time was a nuclear-free zone (apparently). There was also something more recently about either an Australian or New Zealand coastal city getting very upset about a port visit by an SSN, because they were also nuclear-free. Can’t recall the details.
TD,
interesting statto was produced by a Kevin on the Staff Course. The only metric he measured was “deployable manpower”. By that, the Andrew have a serious difficulty in making the sort of case they try to, because boats have a limited number of places on board, and there are only so many boats. Great long table of boats he produced, down to and including the fisheries boats, and certainly including the air squadrons. Everything else (less Royal) is non-deployable, and the number you arrive at is about 30%. Apply the same to RAF squadrons and Army units and you are well north of 60%.
Nothing proven there, if interesting.
Then factor in actual “unit” (ie boat, battalion or squadron) deployments, and apply the percentage (not foorgetting that most boats in the Andrew are not away routinely from the UK for more than 6 months of the year), and guess what? The Andrew at an individual level is mostly to be found in Blighty and firmly onshore, not on the ocean wave.
I did it a while ago with infantry battalions, RAF squadrons, different types of ships, equipment numbers, manpower and pretty much everything I could find on DASA and the correleation was incredible; equal pain for all three services over a long period.
This is why I hold no truck with those bemoaining how one service or the other has been harshly treated, the stats just don’t back the victimhood claims up
So whilst all three services have enjoyed the dubious pleasure of capability and number reductions the only service that has the same obligations as they did three decades ago is the RN.
So the question is again, am I barking!!
Are you comparing like for like though?
I can’t speak for the Kevins, as I don’t follow their doings. But in simple terms:
The Andrew have the same number of commitments, which tend to be year in year out enduring. Easy to measure.
The Army has (wet finger) the same amount of commitments, but they change frequently. eg we are no longer doing NI, but back in the NI days we were not doing AFG. Ditto Bosnia and Iraq. We pulled a Bn out of HK and put a second Bn into Cyprus. Much more detail to measure, harder to do, and therefore likely to be less precise than the Andrew. Possibly also with the passage of time it is easier to forget individual Army unit deployments.
A thought, anyway. I don’t have any data in front of me to make a proper stab at it.
(Interesting discussion with the old man last weekend. Back in 71(?) he was the SO2 G3 Plans in HQ NI, pulling together the orders for Op Demetrius (wiki it), and at one point there were real, proper plans if the situation went a bit pear-shaped to pull in 51 separate infantry battalions by a combination of RAF and chartered flights into Aldergrove, then commandeering all the public buses in the province. Real proper pukka plans, signed off by FM Carver and Adm Hill-Norton, and even Edward Heath was briefed on them. That was when we had some proper numbers of units to chuck around).
It seems that the two most interesting things up for debate on the subject of T26 weapons fit seems to be the choice of anti ship and land attack munitions.
For me I think it’s pretty unpalatable to have a ship of this size and role without an anti ship capability. Even though it’s very unlikely to be used, it’s just something that should be in place. You don’t need to break the bank, the Naval Strike Missile would be my choice as a sort of evolution from Harpoon, 8 bolt on cannisters that offers a degree of enhanced performance.
Tomahawk is the logical choice for land attack, being both proven and compatible. I wouldn’t be against looking at alternatives though. Perhaps the way forwards is to have a limited amount of Tomahawk, enough for residual presence/training, plus the ability to fully load up a couple of ships in a crises. After all, buying additional missiles is the easy bit!
Parallel to this mix it would be good look in-to the compatibility of Fire-shadow as a future enhancement, plus it should definitely be a priority to develop a joint anti ship and land attack missile for eventual service down the line.
I’ve thought about this for a while and can’t think of a better direction to take.
Challenger,
some thoughts:
is it the job of a submarine hunter to be firing off land attack missiles, anti-ship missiles or loitering munitions? Yes / no?
If yes, how much extra training for both the Captain and crew in learning all of these very different skill sets, and do they have the systems / sensors on board to give them the SA and other contextual information they need to do the job effectively?
Can a PWO(U) decipher the airspace coordination order, or do you need 2 PWOs, one wet and one dry?
Have you got the right data comms and SA to be able to successfully prosecute a fleeting land target when you are 50 miles offshore and have diddly squat knowledge of the local context on land?. Do you have an on-board lawyer to help you decide?
What happens if the ship is in the middle of a firing sequence for something airborne, and OPFORs SSK arrives on the scene? Which is the priority?
What happens if you are mid-tow of the underwater array and an OPFOR ship arrives in threat range? Do you cut the tow, or keep on towing and not be in the right attitude to fight the surface threat?
Anti ships missiles have been nothing more than a contingency weapon for some time now, it’s not something id use to go out and sink an enemy contact with, but id rather have it in my arsenal all the same. Plus it’s something that has been carried on frigates for decades, so I don’t see how it would require any different training or additional manpower.
I think a land attack capability should be included on T26 (or at the very least have them fitted for and not with) simply to broaden the options.
Astute could make a good platform if we had 10 or 12 of them but with only 7 boats carrying 12 missiles it isn’t exactly formidable.
Same goes for CVF/Lightning. QE or POW loaded up with 24+ jets could be a very effective way of doing some damage, but can we really count of this sort of capability being present?
I wouldn’t like to put all my eggs in one basket, better to spread capability across multiple platforms I say.
@ACC
Not quite sure what you’re saying, but if Turkey are wanting ICBM interception then SM-3 and Aegis is the only game in town, and it seems that they are now going with Lockheed. Although it’s more complicated than that – they’re desperate for technology transfer and are looking to replace bits of Aegis with their own stuff. Another angle is the negotiation over their on/off F-35 deal. Anyway, it seems Turkey are out of it now.
My point about Absalon is that the requirements for a ship that is mostly operating independently are rather different to something that is going to be a junior member of a battlegroup.
No @x, I most certainly was not thinking of ferries (even if Jonesy is with Sea Fighter), I was thinking of this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce_(cropped).jpg – the biggest real-world trimaran warship – and only 15% shorter than T26. Which doesn’t even have room for a 76mm gun. You can mess about all you like with VLS configurations, you’re not going to fit significant numbers in that shape hull even if it was twice the size. Another aspect is the reduced manoevrability relative to the monohull – which is why the USN seem to be heading towards the monohull in the confined waters of the Gulf, and the trimaran in the western Pacific.
Your sonar detection range depends on your target – and note the recent story about an Akula wandering around for weeks under the nose of the USN. That 10nm could make all the difference though as for the kind of range you’re talking about, you’re going in and out of convergence zones. And we go back to that issue of being the junior member of a battlegroup – T26 will end up escorting groups of other ships, in which case 10nm could make all the difference to SeaCeptor’s ability to cover the air threat.
@SI Fair enough on Phalanx, but I can’t help feeling we’re back in 1982 when Sea Dart/Wolf were meant to be sufficient – and the first orders placed when the task force came home were for a load of CIWS. It’s like guns on the Phantom. It’s a fair point about soft kill, but even there it feels like the arms race is swinging back towards the offence, what with multispectral sensors and imaging IR and such like on the incoming.
@TOC
Flight deck is about the same as a T45 – 530m2 versus 550m2. It doesn’t matter if the rotorblades are hanging over the edge as long as the fuselage is on the deck, fuselage is about 15m long.
There’s lots to like about peripheral VLS, the main downside is just that it’s more complicated to build than a simple box and so more expensive.
@Challenger
You’re soon going to have an anti-ship TacTom, and LRASM-A following on from it will also be Mk 41 compatible. It’s not impossible to imagine Sea Spear being adapted to share a launcher with SeaCeptor either. In any case, our subs are our main anti-surface platforms.
@RT
I can understand the point of view (even if the banter tends to obscure it) but I think the short answer is that people aren’t just blindly ordering more of the same, there is some thought going into it. Your ADASW ships are effectively cruisers, and is effectively what the US has gone for with the Burke IIA’s. The difference is that they have 70-odd of them, and are prepared to pay £1.2bn a copy. However they look like overkill for a lot of missions.
Replacing 19 specialists with say 14 multimission ships is fine if your specialist ships are often working together – but the reality of the RN is that they are now so pared down that in wartime we’d be making either/or choices, depending on whether the perceived threat is more air or sub based. By the same token, increasingly you’re getting ships covering multiple stations in the same tour, so you can’t just bung two ships forward in the Caribbean and forget about them. Visbys wouldn’t work in East Africa without a lot more logistics support – and they don’t have a hangar. Also don’t forget that while chasing pirates is nice, the main purpose of those frigates off Somalia is to act as the cavalry in the event of things kicking off in the Gulf, they would be escorting LNG/oil tankers past Silkworm batteries and Kilo submarines. It’s not hard to make a case for the RN being genuinely hard pressed at the moment – Triumph doing 13 months active out of 17 is a bit of a special case (decommissioning was postponed to let her do another tour when the Argies started sabre-rattling), but it’s still a helluva long time to spend in a sunken coffin.
@Wiseape
TacToms come in at about $1.4m.
On the deterrent, try this view “States for whom nuclear weapons are primarily a refection of Cold War history. In these cases, nuclear weapons have a very limited role in deterrence strategies, even though they cost a great deal. Government leaders have difficulty acknowledging this. In this category I would place Great Britain and France.”
He makes an interesting point that nukes are losing their scariness these days – people feel more threatened by economics.
SomeWhatInvolved, The ADF’s ‘be all and end all’ is interoperability with the US.
I believe the T26 has a really good chance as an ANZAC replacement in terms of the hull, mechanical/electrical systems and sonar. It is a half decade ahead of the FREMM, the Germans would have to evolve something specific, Spain was talking about a non AGEIS frigate based on the F100 hull but they have no money for the forseeable future, so it is well placed if development stays on track.
For Comms, Sensors and Weapons the test will be local requirements, interoperability with the US and logistics support. Over to BAe so to speak.
@ El Sid re VLS
I keep on forgetting that many here are very literate in their thinking and that their preferred word processor comes from Crayola not Microsoft.
The VLS line was throw away line. At the time I was thinking an 8 x 8 matrix could be just as easily be a 2 x 32 or a 4 x16 matrix running up a slim hull towards the fo’c’sle. I was just thinking or typing allowed and had probably moved far beyond what had sparked my thoughts originally.
I try not to think too much about LCS in either of its forms. I don’t mind dead ends and strange evolutionary off shoots with technology as they often tell you more about contemporary thinking than the accepted norms. But LCS is just piss poor. Even the fact the trimaran variant has been removed from the Gulf is of no consequence because the whole programme is fundamentally flawed.
@ Red Trouser re SSN
The masters at this are the Spanish who complain every time an SSN calls at Gib. (They did it too when a V-boat visited the Rock.) They bang on about nuclear safety and the environment. Yet if the USN call in just up the coast not a murmur is head. They have the same trouble with tankers too.
El Sid,
“Another aspect is the reduced manoevrability relative to the monohull – which is why the USN seem to be heading towards the monohull in the confined waters of the Gulf, and the trimaran in the western Pacific.”
Potentially a spot of poor judgement on their part. It seems their monohull is quite a bit more maneuverable than necessary: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/137746/us-navy-suppressed-bad-lcs_1-test-results.html – old story of semi-planing hull in a seaway?
“Which doesn’t even have room for a 76mm gun.”
This is a recurring comment that is difficult to square away. When you consider that the Italian Spaviero hull was 60tons displacement, less than 23m long, crucially, 7m in the beam and sported an OTO76/62 just fine it is difficult to accept that the OTO is physically incapable of being installed in LCS-2!. Perhaps it cannot be fitted in as the trimaran hull is now arranged, but, that isnt the same thing is it?. The hulls on Sea Fighter are 5m each in the beam already. The scale-up to fit a deck penetrating weapon like the OTO wouldn’t seem technically onerous…more an exercise in balancing weight, speed/propulsion and hydrodynamic resistance. Not that I’m saying we should throw away 26 and build Sea Fighter of course!.
“It’s a fair point about soft kill, but even there it feels like the arms race is swinging back towards the offence, what with multispectral sensors and imaging IR and such like on the incoming.”
Agree with that but I think that we are getting close the the tipping point where you cant lean one way or the other on ship self defence…you will need both soft-kill and hard kill in equal measure. Look at a system like SPEAR Cap3 or SDB2. SPEAR Cap3 is looking to produce a 54nm ranged weapon capable with a multispectral seeker thats 2m long!. The artwork has it 4 to a bay in F-35 or 4 to a pylon on Typhoon!. Back in the day we’d have a pair of strikefighters coming in swinging a pair of AM39 class weapons each. That offers no comparison to what we’ll face if those fighters can ripple off 16 or more lighter weapons in a time-on-target attack from 40 miles off. So, while advanced seeker tech will push back softkill, saturating hardkill defences in future is going to be a simpler task. Bring on the lasers and MW guns!
@AJ
GCS was explicitly designed to be systems-agnostic – after all it is BAE who make Mk41, so they would be more than happy to have something based on ESSM.
Just keep Siemens away from it….
@RT
“The Andrew are good at giving proper names to enduring tasks e.g. APT(N), APT(S), Armilla, etc. The RAF and Army less so – we tend to fling Squadrons and Battalions all around the world on ad hoc taks that don’t last as long, and maybe the history does not record those so well as RN standing tasks.”
– Funny old thing but the Andrew has had its share of “ad hoc tasks” too. The opening of hostilities in the FI, Gulf, Sierra Leone and Libya didn’t exactly feature in the FOP (Fleet Operational Programme) or ships’ longcasts. ;-)
“…Then factor in actual “unit” (ie boat, battalion or squadron) deployments, and apply the percentage (not foorgetting that most boats in the Andrew are not away routinely from the UK for more than 6 months of the year), and guess what? The Andrew at an individual level is mostly to be found in Blighty and firmly onshore, not on the ocean wave.”
– Somewhat misleading conclusion based on some false premises:
– Shore-based personnel such as Royal Marines, fleet battle staffs, fleet maintenance units, diving/EOD teams, mobile OA & TD staff and sea training personnel are deployable too and don’t forget the thousand Naval Service personnel assigned to HERRICK each year. Downsizing of the Fleet means that most deployments of ships (and ship’s company rotations in the case of the minehunters based in the Gulf) now last 6-8 months and the norm for SSN deployments is currently 10 months.
– Even when not deployed, the crews of RN ships and submarines spend considerable time at sea conducting Part 4 Trials and SATs (Sea Acceptance Trials) following build or maintenance, Fleet Trials (e.g. tactical and weapons system trials), pre-deployment OST (Operational Sea Training), professional training (e.g. hosting and supporting COs(desig), PWO, MCMG and Perisher courses) and weapons training (e.g. pre-OST shakedown, JOINT WARRIOR, NATO exercises, etc).
– All this aside, even the Andrew permits its personnel a reasonable amount of time in shore jobs or around their base port with the opportunity to travel home when not duty (normally 1 in 4 when alongside). Despite being the least generous of all three services, the Naval Service Harmony Guidelines recommend that no individual should exceed 660 days of separated service in a three-year rolling period (normalised to 220 days per year) and that ships or other units should not be deployed for more than 60 per cent of a similar time span (6 in 10 Rule). Contrast this with the Army’s 415 days of separated service in any 30 month period (normalised to 166 days per year) with tour intervals of no less than 24 months for units (1 in 5 Rule) and the RAF’s no more than 140 days of duty detached away from home in a rolling 12-month period (normalised to 140 days per year) with formed units, or sub-elements within them spending four months on deployed operations followed by 16 months at base (4 and 16 Rule).
RT,
“Everything else (less Royal) is non-deployable, and the number you arrive at is about 30%.”
I suspect your RAF mate was telling partisan service-centric fibs.
Today(ish) I make it about 45% of the non-FAA, non-RM portion of the RN, without trying, i.e. without adding HQ units, P Squadron, jointery, etc. If we include RM it leaps, not sure about FAA.
The real benchmark should be the 95% deployable RFA. ;-)
@x
“I keep on forgetting that many here are very literate..”
– I suspect you mean “literal” (not to be confused with “littoral” ;-) ) but I wholeheartedely agree with your sentiment.
Johnno,
Cheers for that, some hope for T26 then!
El Cid,
Bit of an inaccurate twist there fella. Dart and Wolf were legacy weapons designed to engage Soviet bombers and ASM’s in the open ocean or provide self-defence to isolated units. Trying to provide force protection with Dart against seaskimmers and FGA was always going to be a tall order as the weapon wasn’t designed for it. Wolf was good enough for self defence, but trying to screen a large force with a self-defence system is again nigh on impossible. Of all the dozens of ships in the TG, only seven were armed with Dart and just 3 with Wolf. Phalanx will make no difference to a ship as an area defence weapon – it’s self defence only. Re softkill, the balance of better warhead vs better protection is always going to favour the warhead, but we have kept pace and are well ahead of the game in soft kill terms.
RT,
I can decipher a targeting directive and ACO, am a qualified RN targeteer and am merely a basic-level qualified PWO. Dedicated AAWO’s on air warfare destroyers are also qualified battlespace managers. We don’t train as PWO(A) or (U) anymore, haven’t done so for years.
Are we qualified to fire missiles, and do we have any degree of situational awareness? Can we cope with multi-threat warfare? Yes to all. Do we have SA inland? No, but since we can’t drive the ship inshore we’ll just have to rely on aircraft, UAV’s and/or boots on the ground to give us the target. Nothing will be fired without a targeting directive, and if we really, really need a lawyer we can pick up the phone following emergency targeting procedures. If not, the Commanding Officer takes all responsibility and acts within his ROE.
We’ve been using the same ACO’s, ATO’s and targeting directives as you have, but they are fundamental to all levels of operations at sea so we understand them fully and have all the necessarily qualified personnel onboard. Consider that we operate aircraft regularly, thus requiring a full understanding of airspace coordination. We understand targeting, ROE and all the legal issues. We are just as qualified as you would want us to be. Just because the Army and RAF have managed to completely re-invent the process in Afghanistan doesn’t mean we are somehow less qualified, as seems to be the perception following ELLAMY.
We are, just like the Army, dependent upon other elements to provide beyond-line-of-sight targeting. Like the submarines, the firing unit rarely has any input to the flight/attack plan, merely ensuring that the targeting package is uploaded to the missile before launch. TLAM is in any case regarded as a strategic weapon, not tactical, and that is unlikely to change. We can’t just make up a missile flight profile, it has to be coordinated by the battlespace managers, so everything requires a level of coordination beyond the capability of the ship. Just think of us as a floating artillery battery, subject to the same command and control arrangements and subject to the same authority within the Joint Force.
RE: Multi-hulls. RV Triton was built for testing and then sold on to the Aussies I think. Since then I’ve read stuff about monohull being better (like in the Black Swan proposal) but haven’t seen any deffinitative reasons/test results. Is there anything in the public domain about the tests and their conclusions?
@ Dunservin
At the moment I have conjunctivitis. And I post from a netbook predominantly. Sometimes spelling mistakes creep in to my musings. It is one of my pet peeves when some seize on asides and throw away lines. At times I suppose I am guilty of it too! :)
@x
You think you’ve got problems? My first mobile kept applying predictive text… in French. Eventually I had to call on my son to switch the damned function off.
P.S. Sorry to hear about your conjunctivitis.
@ RT re ASW ships and cruise missiles
Are you playing devil’s advocate, or do you really not understand the high utility of the modern escort?
As for chasing pirates the RN’s primary role isn’t to act as a seaborne police force. Once again a high end escort in peace time can perform this constabulary role, but an OPV can’t perform the escort’s role in war. Just as some speculated in the Balkans and other places whether the soldier was indeed cut out to be a peace keeper. Yet you seem to have little difficulty in accepting expensively trained and equipped soldiers chasing thugs with AK47s.
@ST
I would love NaB to come in on this a little less cryptically.
It may be that purported efficiencies of multihulls are illusory, although this report quotes a QinetiQ spokesman confirming MV Triton achieved 20% vs. a monohull:
http://www.motorship.com/news101/triton-trials-trimaran-form
Similarly finding a suitable disposition for engines shouldn’t be insuperable. The paper I linked to above from Nigel Gee laid it out. Moving further, distributed IEP would be ideal, though maybe not cost effective for smaller craft.
I can’t really find any convincing reason why multihulls aren’t a good idea.
This thesis sets out advantages and disadvantages of various hull forms quite nicely.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a420615.pdf
The initial MV Triton seakeeping is reported here with great satisfaction:
http://hildstrom.com/publications/pub-StructuralTrialsOfTheRVTriton-Feb-10-2003-Final.pdf
I had thought dangerous instability in beam waves, or structural issues with slamming the outriggers, from consideration of yachting multihulls, might be the problem. But I can’t find any voiced concerns with larger steel ships.
Beedal’s site muses:
“However, the trimaran approach does also have several possible disadvantages when compared with a mono-hull approach for FSC:
•the very long and wide hull will make a trimaran FSC too large to fit in to existing escort refit facilities and dry docks, necessitating expensive redevelopment of these.
•worldwide, there is no experience with designing, building and operating large steel trimaran ships (other than the small RV Triton).
•increased and unusual structural stresses may present significant design challenges and technical risks
•possibly higher construction costs.
•reduced stealth – radar, noise and wake signatures may actually increase in practice
•reduced internal hull volume for a given tonnage, so less room for accommodation, VLS cells, fuel and stores, etc.
•instability if an outrigger is lost or flooded.
These disadvantages when combined with the risks and doubts inherent with any major revolution in naval design may yet prove too severe, and a mono hull form adopted for FSC.”
No definitive evidence that you asked for though.
In general users seemed very pleased. Perhaps there are valid concerns about noise and signature, plus a conservative attitude to risk in the establishment?
@ Dunservin
Have never ever sent a “text”. I had a little go years back with first generation predictive word completion. The only word I could get out was “cabbage”. I thought this ‘phone is too clever if it knows me that well on such scant data. FWIW I have never ever tweeted nor do I have a FaceBook page.
Thank you for your concern re conjunctivitis.
@X
‘Are you playing devil’s advocate, or do you really not understand the high utility of the modern escort?’.
I was attempting to engage RT on this subject late last night. Anyone who thinks destroyers should only play goalkeeper against aircraft and frigates should only tow a sonar array really needs to forget about the 1980s and join the 21st century!
Like hydrofoils, displacement multi-hulls tend to be an answer looking for a military question. They are fine as spacious ferries over short distances in relatively benign conditions but their disadvantages in terms of structural vulnerability, restricted manoeuvrability and lack of protected space below decks tend to outweigh any benefits in increased upper deck area and stability. TRITON served her purpose in proving the concept had few significant advantages over a conventional monohull for naval purposes.
TD Said: “Apparently, for the last 30 odd years of steady shrinkage the obligations of the RN hasnt changed. Anyone like to comment? ”
Lets see, when I left the RN in 93′ it was at the height of its modern cold war, post Falklands strength:
12 x T42 AAW
14 x T22 ASW / GP
16 x T23 ASW / GP
Total = 42 Frigates and Destroyers (Surface Combatants if you like – not frakking “Escorts” !!)
Standing tasks for FF / DD
1. South Atlantic Guard Ship (now APT(S))
2. Fleet Contingency Ship (now FRE ?)
3. West Indies Guard Ship (now APT(N))
4. North Atlantic ASW towed array ops
5. Stanavforlant (Standing Naval Force Atlantic) – NATO task force, now called Standing Maritime Group 2 (?) and to which we no longer provide a ship
6. Armilla Patrol – (Gulf patrol) at least 1 if not sometimes 2 plus tanker
So, has the list of standing tasks been reduced – not much if at all ?
And yet:
1. We gap APT (N) or use an RFA
2. We gap APT (S)
3. We still have a standing task in the Gulf
4. We have removed ourselves from the child of Stanavforlant
5. We have removed the standing anti-soviet, north atlantic towed array task
But we have reduced over 40 major surface warships to less than 20.
@ Ant – Thanks for the links. Will check them out later. Have family around and apparently I’m being anti-social… :-
@ Chally
Always here it we must do more with less. Modular that, modular the other. We can’t do everything. The most flexible platform we have is the ESCORT. Tanks do one thing. Typhoon only really does air to air well. ESCORT can do its primary task, plus provide some secondary capable, NGS, chase pirates, comms link, build intel pictures, cocktail parties, parties for orphans, base for SF etc. etc. But what do we find here? We need an OPV to chase pirates. ASW should only be doing ASW. All rhubarb. For the cost of 1 F35 we could stretch the hull of T26 and a VLS silo. For the cost of another F35 we could fill it with cruise. May never be used. May be used. But at least you aren’t spending billions on a FJ to launch stand off missiles. Billions on tankers. Millions in personnel costs. An ESCORT in the Med, Indian Ocean, and Southern Atlantic and you would have in range about 75% or more of everything you would want to TLAM. It is the odd logic of TD where one framework is used for the Army and the RAF, and another for the RN.
Jed,
1. We rarely gap APT(N) but regularly use an RFA and have used Ocean before.
2. APT(S) is not gapped, the Ship simply does not spend it’s entire time in the Falkland Islands.
3. The Gulf has become Op Kipion and at the moment we have 4 MCMVs A requirement for 2 FF/DD hulls, A bay in support of the MCMvs plus a tanker.
4. The NATO FF groups are now SNMG1 and SNMG 2, one usually stands up as CTF 508 on anti piracy Ops off Somalia the other does the round robin of European NATO exercises and Operation Active Endeavour.
5. Duty TAPs still exists though given a suitably equipped hull it can be combined with the FRE, not ideal though.
To chip in on a couple of small points:
1. Phalanx as a CIWS – ancient and crappy piece of kit that is pretty much “chocolate fire guard” against modern AShM. Not to say it does not have a last ditch ani-aircraft / helo / small boat role, but demonstrated as pretty crap anti-missile system in the late 80’s (I have board everyone with the details of that test before…..) the 20mm round is simply not long ranged enough, nor indeed ‘heavy’ enough.
2. STWS or Ship Torpedo Weapon System – or shipboard Torpedo Tubes: The ability to launch a light weight short ranged Anti-sub torpedo can still have value, especially against an SSK threat in a constrained environment (coastal, shallow water ?). However, as move into a “steel is cheap and air is cheaper” world of “frigates” of over 5000 tonnes, why not fit full size hull mounted tubes for wire guided weapons like Spearfish ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearfish_torpedo)
@ x
‘ It is the odd logic of TD where one framework is used for the Army and the RAF, and another for the RN.’
I would say that a bit harsh, he’s not pro navy like many on here, but’s not really the same thing.
x
Just because I am feeling pedantic, are you not causing part of the problem by constantly referring to modern, multi-role surface combatant, (or just “warships”) as ESCORTS ?
The word seems to suggest they have only one role and can do only one thing – Escort other ships !! It is pretty much a World War II vintage term, which although it might be applicable to a ROLE should really not be used to describe the TYPE of ship anymore. A bloody CVS with it’s ASW Seakings could have “escorted” a cold war amphibious group to Northern Norway, but one ever described the Invincible as an “ESCORT” :-)
APATS – thanks for the details, but I believe APT(S) has actually been gone without for short periods, and I don’t just mean the ship being elsewhere ?
@ All re TD
BTW that is the collective TD and not TD as in admin/site owner.
@ Jed re Escorts
No I am just winding up an ex-matelot hiding in Canada behind the collective might of the USN and USAF…. ;)
Jed, I cannot think of it being gapped in recent years. The relief was delayed down south during the Libya Op but not gapped.
@ x
OK fair enough, but I’m still not sure. Most people on here have a strong interest in the navy and that area of defence. Look at the numbers of recent comments and I don’t really see what your suggesting, or maybe it’s me?
x – don’t forget if you come across the arctic wastes where the Yanks cant help us, our redoubtable Rangers will be waiting for you !
With their dog sleds and .303 Lee Enfields……
Topman, I think it is down to the ongoing projects etc. Carriers plus the replacement of the back bone of the fleet. Plus some interesting discussion reference different military strategies have lent towards naval posts but I am sure if the army was replacing CH2 or the discussion on Tornado replacements would also spark quite a lot of posts.
Edit answer to Anixtu rather than post again.
Once in 2008! Just as Piracy was becoming a huge issue and before the Argies got too argumentative. TBH may have been better sending the Bay to somalia and Northumberland to the FIs.
The FF/DD on APT(S) has been replaced with an RFA LSD on at least one occasion.
That is pretty close to gapping IMO.
@ Topman
Obviously I am not talking about the sane, sorry pro-maritime commentators. I am talking about the haters, sorry the less maritime inclined. :)
Fair enough, anyway back to this ship business… ;)
@ Jed
I am that sad that I know about the Rangers and their .303s and dog sleds. The programme to replace the .303 is a bit of story in its own right. I wonder if some bright spark has ever suggested the AK47 or even the Mosin-Nagant? The Danes have similar long range patrol unit in Greenland.
X – indeed !
Topman = back to this ship business…..
OK then if you insist.
What really, really pisses me off, is the BAe angle – nope, actually the Defence Industrial strategy angle.
Does anyone really believe a derivative of the T45 hull could not be made quiet enough to deploy T2087 effectively ? I know I dont, and while levering the costs of design and build infrastructure would actually provide good VFM for MoD / RN, it would not of course progress the endless desire to get back into warship export markets, and therefore to increase profits.
Similarly an MOTS purchase of FREMM or a modded Absalon hull, even if built in UK yards, would do very little for “UK Plc” on the world stage – but, if anyone thinks the T26 is going to be an export success, well personally I would grass you up to the local Rozzers for substance abuse……
Jed, By the time we have redesigned T45 and altered the propulsion, built in the noise dampening. Switched to FPP. Built in the mission bay that the type 26 is going to have. Modified it to except kit straight from the Type 23 (which can be done during the design stage on T26). We would have ended up with a modified version of a hull designed 15 years ago for about the same money it has cost to design a new one.
If we had decided initially that the 45 hull would form the basis of the T26 then it was a workable proposition. Unfortunately we did not.
ref the T26 being an export success. Well there have not been too many successful export designs since the MEKO hulls and the classic OHP.
Given that the USN have effectively left the FF market and the German F125 is such a specialist design. The only modern FF non AAW type designs out there will be FREMM and T26. Will Brazil design its own FF. Australia?
What design are Canada using for their Common Surface Combatant? Saw the build contract has been awarded to a Halifax firm but no mention of what they are going to build.
@Topman
‘It is the odd logic of TD where one framework is used for the Army and the RAF, and another for the RN.’
“I would say that a bit harsh, he’s not pro navy like many on here, but’s not really the same thing.”
– TD often claims that he is objective w.r.t the RN by citing his ‘even-handed criticism’ of certain questionable Army and RAF policy decisions (e.g. FRES and FSTA respectively) but there tends to be general consensus about such silly moves anyway. However, his criticism of RN decisions (e.g. the restoration of carrier air and not sacrificing high end DD/FF in favour of less capable patrol vessels) is usually much more pointed and contentious, particularly among the dark blue professionals.
@x
– Glad you explained your puzzling repeated use of the term ‘ESCORT’. As we all know, ESCORTS are entities of questionable morals who are only in the business for one purpose. In the case of DD/FF fulfilling this role, this purpose is to risk their own survival if it means preserving the HVUs (High Value Units) or MEUs (Mission Essential Units) for which they are responsible.
@ Jed
One of the design drivers for T45 was that it be quieter than T42. (T42 carried the same hull sonar as T22 and T22 was nosier than Leander.) T45 is fitted with Kamewa Adjustable Bolted Propeller; adjustable in that the blades can be adjusted and replaced with hand tools. How quite T45 is compared with T23 I don’t know. It would be a bit dumb to build a stealth ship that advertises itself to every pop-up missile carrying submarine in range because it is a tad noisy. I will spare everybody my T45 hull sonar ramblings……
Just on the question of whether T26 (plus T45 for that matter) should carry anti-ship missiles. Should we not ask the question “What is it likely to be up against? Will “they” not be carrying anti-ship missiles?” Very difficult to look forward for the projected 30 year life of the ships I know, but we shouldn’t just look at our assets in isolation and forget about the opposition. If they’re shooting at us, is it enough to evade/intercept their missiles, don’t we want to shoot back. Best defence is a good offence is it not.
Just out of interest, when is the last time a ship sank another ship – in anger, obviously?
@X “Have never ever sent a “text” – I don’t own a mobile phone. Why on earth would I want people to be able to get in touch with me 24/7. I don’t even like the phrase “24/7.” I know for a fact I will be spending at least part of that “24” either asleep or on the toilet, so the phone can b****r off!
PS – before anyone calls me a Luddite I would just like to point out that I am speaking to you via the interweb. And I have an ipod.
@ Dunservin
‘However, his criticism of RN decisions (e.g. the restoration of carrier air and not sacrificing high end DD/FF in favour of less capable patrol vessels) is usually much more pointed and contentious,’
I guess it depends who reads it, to those who are navy minded, as many are on here, then of course it is. But I’m not sure it’s universal that TD’s points and criticism are contentious with regards to navy matters.
‘particularly among the dark blue professionals.’
Of course people proud of their walk of life and have interest in navy matters would naturally see it that way.
@ Dunservin
ESCORT is also quicker to type than surface combatant. I suppose DD/FF would be quicker. But I am troubled by how some fixate on AAW and ASW to the exclusion of the those ships’ shared general purpose capabilities. Also we mustn’t forget some nations like the French have both fleet frigates and escort frigates, the latter being more capable than OPVs. Um. In my less lucid moments I do bang on about first rate and second rate capabilities; the difference being whether the capability is area or point/local. So DD carrying SeaViper is a first rate air defence asset, but if that DD had a (proper) hull sonar it would have a second rate ASW capability. A FF with TAS capable of monitoring hundreds of square miles of ocean backed by Merlin and hull sonar, and with reduced acoustic signature is a first rate ASW asset. Its Sea Wolf means its a second rate air defence asset. A second rater would only have PDMS and hull sonar (and a simpler engine fit out) but wouldn’t be an OPV (perhaps a frigate escort?) I think I spent too much time in the late 1990s trying to figure this stuff out….
How about we use the generally accepted term for a vessel capable of carrying out a number of roles without being a specialist. That word is FRIGATE. If we need to talk about a role that could be done by either an FF or a DD, then maybe the term ESCORT has value.
Jed, I don’t believe it. Type 45 cannot be acoustically quietened enough to act as a towed array platform. I am in the know on this, but details withheld I’m afraid for obvious reasons. However, unless you COMPLETELY redesign the propulsion system you will never make a T45 even half as quiet as a T23 – it was after all designed for power and speed not stealth. And T45 has got a good hull mounted sonar – in fact rather better than the T23’s hull mount (by virtue of being many years newer). Its a COTS system from Thales and is very clever.
But not as clever as the Thales UMS 4110 CL the MoD wanted but couldn’t afford.
True. But you can’t have everything!
@ Jed – ” A bloody CVS with it’s ASW Seakings could have “escorted” a cold war amphibious group to Northern Norway, but one ever described the Invincible as an “ESCORT”” – I thought that was exactly what it was. It evolved out of the escort cruiser concept in to a ASW escort carrier. With Harriers it could offer air cover as well. In old terms they were CVL rather than CVE but the CVL were intended to perform the same roles but have the speed to operate with the fleet
Some more info here
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120823/DEFREG01/308230004/Process-Begins-Equip-Royal-Navy-8217-s-Type-26-Frigate?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Sound like the sonar on type 45 is more than gd enough for the job asked of it.
@ Mark
It is a torpedo and mine warning device. The French and Italians must have seen some advantage fitting the Thales set to their Horizons. Seeing as their Horizons will be working as part of groups that contain ASW ships like FREMM.
As SI says we can’t afford everything. Shame.
If our “escorts” are now multi-role surface combatants, have they become HVU’s? Can we afford to lose one? Do our “escorts” need escorting?
x
he also says the one on type45 is pretty gd and does the job required which does for me. I would like a b2 but have to settle for tornado such is the reality of life.
@ Mark
It is in SI’s contract to say good things about the RN and being an officer he knows it is bad form to question the organisation that puts bread on your table. :)
@ Swimming Trunks
It appears T45 is a HVU unit. But is that because Sea Viper is so capable or because Sea Viper is so darned expensive? I have read that originally the RN were to have 24 T42s, 12 were built. We were to have 12 Darings and we have 6. The form Daring takes suggests the RN were intending to get a class of conventional AAW destroyers/DD/escort/surface combatant. One wonders if Their Lordships had the foresight whether T45 would have looked somewhat different? No hanger, twin VLS silos, a smattering of 76mm’s who knows? Um. I do think perhaps T45 numbers do make a case for 18 T26 hulls; 6 to make up for the loss of T45’s GP capabilities plus 12 (13? stupid number). Heck I would even call that group of 6 GP and would be happy if they didn’t have TAS.
x, on looking at it the UMS4110 is a medium to low frequency attack sonar which is in the same class as our 2050, but with lower frequency capabilities which gives it an improved range. Sounds a bit like the Horse Jaw set on the Udaloys, which makes it very potent. Associated issues would include reverberation problems in shallow water (which is why we stick with the MF set), plus our LF capability is embodied in 2087.
On Mark’s link it looks like CODLAG or IEP as the preferred powertrain. Makes sense – allows for quiet props at least – but I think CODLAG is more advantageous as you don’t have to run a large gas turbine constantly. Thinking of noise impact. Diesels can be muffled much more easily. Worst case scenario the whole thing becomes a sales platform for RR’s compacted MT30 and a noisy beggar all round.
I can be rather pro-Navy, but always happy to suck in other ideas and modify views accordingly. Wouldn’t want to end up as polarised as some when I ship my Admiral’s boards! Pass the gin…
I’ve seen why the stern mission bay was deleted from the original plans. By linking it with the hangar, there’s potentially a thumping huge space inside the hull where you might park extra aircraft or UAV’s. Without wishing to overreach myself, we might be looking at a fairly clever multi-use internal bay which could be configured for aviation, storage, additional boats, etc.
@ SI
Somars are all very complicated. I think CODLAG makes more sense too. I actually understand all that. Better slide the decanter on before the other one catches up.
@ Swimming Trunks
Given SeaCeptor’s performance as beyond SeaWolf and in some ways better than SeaDart, SeaViper’s performance, ASaC from CVF, and possible CAP from CVF I think I quite like the idea of T26 being a true, perhaps our first, general purpose frigate. Yes we need 18, perhaps 24…..
SI,
“On Mark’s link it looks like CODLAG or IEP as the preferred powertrain. Makes sense – allows for quiet props at least – but I think CODLAG is more advantageous as you don’t have to run a large gas turbine constantly.”
I read the same thing as badly written but backing up the CODLOG rumour. It rules out IEP as far as I can see. You wouldn’t need a gearbox for that.
Why would IEP with mixed diesel and GT generators require a GT to run constantly?
I was reading some ’80s Hansard defence pages – some issues very similar to what gets discussed now.
From a 1984 commons debate; the awful prospect of the Navy failing to maintain the planned fleet strength of 52 frigates and destroyers, and uncertainty about the numbers and cost of the new Type 23. In that context, there are suggestions of a decision on whether to supplement the new frigates with the simpler, cheaper “OPV Mk 3”.
Just wondering if anyone knows what that OPV was, or whether it was ever produced for any customer. How does 1984’s OPV concept look against today’s ideas?
@ Brian Black
It would look something like this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_class_patrol_vessel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdurston2009/5280963463/lightbox/
Just been playing with some numbers…
RN = ROUND(USN/6) – the following table will look rubbish ;-)
Type,USN,RN
Carriers,11,2
Cruisers,22,4
Destroyers,61,10
Frigates,29,5
ESCORTS,112,19
Amphibs,11,2
Docks,21,4
SSN,53,9
SSBN,18,3
My point is that 19 escorts fits the mould… by chance?
However, notice the 25%/50%/25% split (ish) on high/medium/low on the USN escorts. Interestingly they do the same with high/medium/low on copters too.
Are we missing something? Did we really need 6 T45? Should we have procured 4? Should we have saved some money? Is T45 more akin to a Guided Misssile Cruiser? Is the new T26 actully the new “destroyer” in all but name? Is 8 x ASW frigates overkill?
When I first became interested in things naval IIRC the RN had 12 destroyers and 23 frigates, so I have this irrational ratio of 1 destroyer to 2 frigates…
@ Swimming Trunks re 1 to 2
Um. Me too. I sort of reason it as the destroyer sitting at the centre and the frigates working under the AAW umbrella. I have sort of modified that now to 2 first rate (AAW, ASW) to 2 second rates. All subject to change.
Simon says “Are we missing something? Did we really need 6 T45? Should we have procured 4? Should we have saved some money? Is T45 more akin to a Guided Misssile Cruiser? Is the new T26 actully the new “destroyer” in all but name? Is 8 x ASW frigates overkill?”
Yes we need 6 T45. SeaViper is awesome. As for T26 being a destroyer, um, the terms frigate and destroyer don’t mean a jot really. For the RN destroyer came to mean AAW ship and frigate ASW ship. The Dutch and the Germans have air defence frigates. It is just a label. Is 8 ASW frigates overkill? No. The ocean is large. Submarines are getting quieter. There is huge difference between owning submarines, operating them effectively, and having the infrastructure to support their operations beyond your own littoral. But submarines are a danger; especially as other states become more proficient in their use. TAS detects all “noise” not just submarines.
“Yes we need 18, perhaps 24”
When you plant seeds… :)
IIRC the old Cold War Dutch ASW task groups were:
1 De Tromp AAW destroyer (or AAW frigate)
2 kortenaer ASW frigates
4 Van Speijk (Leamder) frigates, later to be replaced by Karel Doorman frigates
Or was it 4 kortenaer and 2 Van Speijk?
Good point Anixtu, CODLAG looks probable then. Based on the T45 and her power demands, she needs to keep one GT running to provide minimal motive power; the diesels aren’t powerful enough to provide propulsion. I’d assumed the same in another IEP installation – my mistake. Of course sufficiently powerful diesels (or more of them, T45 only has 2) would provide ample power for low speed and quiet operations with the GT reserved for higher speeds at greater fuel efficiencies. But there’s no place for a gearbox in an IEP plant, so CODLAG it is.
SI,
I had wondered before about the DGs on T45. Are they essentially used as harbour generators or are they run at sea too? Can a T45 move at all on DGs alone?
RE “What design are Canada using for their Common Surface Combatant? Saw the build contract has been awarded to a Halifax firm but no mention of what they are going to build.”
– aren’t they jumping onto the Burke-derivatives train?
– haven’t read anything definitive, but Japan and Korea have done OK
@ ACC – Canada getting Burkes?
On the topic of a perceived RN focus in recent comments…
APATS summed it well: The largest, most current, breaking news programmes right now are not only RN centric but also affect such a huge part of that services equipment – T45 and Astute still coming online with interesting developments (e.g. PWR3 for AJAX), CVF’s under construction and with increasing promise of both being operation instead of one mothballed, T26 with a Main Gate style announcement only this week, MARS and MHPC programmes promising to follow on and finish the revamp of the remainder of the fleet.
This is in the context of the claims that the “books are balanced” – regardless of personal opinion, and on anecdotal evidence alone, it seems the various critics around are a little less bleak and cynical than usual.
I’m also interested massively in the Watchkeeper programme (as stated many, many times), leading onto SCAVENGER and keeping an eye on the BAE/Dassault partnership (Taranis/nEUROn). AESA upcoming on Typhoon is good news, and the continual fitting of air to ground to various air superiority craft are always interesting (e.g. Paveway IV on Typhoon, SDB on F-22)
FRES is on the horizon, I’m intrigued by the various calibre debates for the “next” set of standard issue small arms (as well as the “should we even be standardised?” debates) and there’s always the transportation debate (usually drifting into ALBION and BULWARK discussions). I don’t see many commenters here slating the C-17 deals, the RAF have done well there and I’m sure the Army and RN benefit well from the logistics.
There’re plenty of other projects, purchases, programmes and capability gaps to discuss – kick off a guest article about something that interests you, perspectives are always appreciated here – that’s a constant, and I’m sure we’ll all enjoy a good natter (and jokingly try to hijack the threads too!).
EDIT: What’s replacing Tornado? Would love a viewpoint article on that.
Honestly Anixtu I’m only working from a very brief familiarisation with the class, having never actually set foot on one. They’ve got some truly weird power configurations as well – one or two ‘island modes’, something I really don’t get. But my understanding from a few years back was that the whole was optimised around the two WR21 powerplants. With just 2 diesels, they sound exactly like harbour generators or maybe just fail-safe options. If the WikiOracle is to be believed those two Wartsilas pump out a max of 4MW, which doesn’t seem enough to move an 8000t warship.
Of course CODLAG is just the RN preference. There must be some alternatives cued up for the export market.
“Island Mode” is a power generation setup that can be used when power requirements fluctuate and keeping pace is important. The power levels “float” up and down, hence “island”. DG’s can react faster to changing demands than GT’s.
It’s not limited to maritime applications, it’s general power generation terminology.
@ Somewhat
I have been onboard Daring and Dauntless. Smelled the new paint. Marvelled at the big bridge windows. Stood where Harpoon should be. Got lost traversing both flight decks. Wondered why ops looked more like a corner of call centre than the nerve centre of a Death Star.
You have at least seen one haven’t you? They are that big the sun down goes down in Pompey about 3 hours early. :)
@TOC
I don’t know why they don’t keep the Typhoons in their QRA role and continue with the multi/swing role Batch 2 and 3 Typhoons to replace the Tornado.
If the FAA get F35Bs and both the Typhoons and the F35s are maintained and fully kitted/upgraded is there still a need for the Tornado?
If there is could a MRA/FOAS type plane complete the missing link?
RE: Tornado replacement – http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/05/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-medium-bomber/
Despite me fancying a return to the medium bomber I think the replacement for the Tornado begins with a T, and maybe an F :)
Tomahawk and Frigate.
I missed the thread about a medium bomber first time around. Good stuff.
@Brian Black’s comment about other roles than simply blowing things up makes me think that if you are designing a medium plane with a big internal bomb bay from scratch why not make it big enough to accomodate manned mission suites (in the shape of an ISO conainer?) for MPA and ISTAR? Sensor pods bolted on externally. Maybe we’re getting too porky now but its an intriguing prospect.
And now we are back in the STOVL world for QEC the question of carrier compatibility is also somewhat different. If we could design a mediumn utility plane with SRVL characterisitics we could really be on to something.
@Jed says: August 23, 2012 at 16:00 Re Phalanx, “…(I have board everyone with the details of that test before…..) the 20mm round is simply not long ranged enough, nor indeed ‘heavy’ enough.
Where could I find that? An Australian study recently concluded that gun systems are inadequate against high speed, highly maneuverable ASCMs.
“Limitations of Guns as a Defence against Manoeuvring Air Weapons,” (pdf) by Christian Wachsberger, Michael Lucas and Alexander Krstic, Weapons Systems Division, Systems Sciences Laboratory, DSTO-TN-0565
Re heavy weight TT on surface ships, “… as move into a “steel is cheap and air is cheaper” world of “frigates” of over 5000 tonnes, why not fit full size hull mounted tubes for wire guided weapons like Spearfish ?
I agree whole heartedly and not just for use against subs, they work well against surface ships too. Several Northern European and Italian frigates were built with 21” torpedo tubes. Originally the USN FF1040s had TT in the stern as well. Torpedoes now have beyond visual range capability.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=451
If you absolutely, positively have to sink something, there is nothing better than a torpedo.
@Wise ape, “Just out of interest, when is the last time a ship sank another ship – in anger, obviously?”
Not sure it qualifies as a “ship” but Iranian 270 ton missile boat Joshan, was sunk by a USN SAG during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988.
@SomewhatInvolved says: August 23, 2012 at 17:58 “How about we use the generally accepted term for a vessel capable of carrying out a number of roles without being a specialist. That word is FRIGATE. If we need to talk about a role that could be done by either an FF or a DD, then maybe the term ESCORT has value.”
In USN usage, the generally accepted term for a vessel capable of carrying out a number of roles without being a specialist is a destroyer. Frigates have generally been ASW specialists or are in some other way compromised relative to destroyers, usually they are slower and have fewer or less capable weapons. I think the idea that destroyers are AAW specialist is unique to those with a RN background.
@Swimming Trunks says: August 23, 2012 at 18:42 If our “escorts” are now multi-role surface combatants, have they become HVU’s? Can we afford to lose one? Do our “escorts” need escorting?
The Japanese apparently think so. Their 32 ships in four squadrons “escort forces” include 4 DDH, 8 (mostly Aegis) DDGs and 20 standard or ASW destroyers (including some with very impressive AAW systems of their own). The eight ships in a force can be further split into two groups of four, one with a DDH, a DDG, and two DDs and a second for BMD with a DDG and three escorting DDs.
@SomewhatInvolved says: August 23, 2012 at 20:42 “But there’s no place for a gearbox in an IEP plant, so CODLAG it is.”
I must of missed something, why would the lack of a gearbox rule out IEP?
@SomewhatInvolved says: August 23, 2012 at 21:15 “If the WikiOracle is to be believed those two Wartsilas pump out a max of 4MW, which doesn’t seem enough to move an 8000t warship.”
That is 5,400 HP and should be sufficient to drive the ship at speeds in the low teens.
@Peter
@Brian Black’s comment about other roles than simply blowing things up makes me think that if you are designing a medium plane with a big internal bomb bay from scratch why not make it big enough to accomodate manned mission suites (in the shape of an ISO conainer?) for MPA and ISTAR? Sensor pods bolted on externally. Maybe we’re getting too porky now but its an intriguing prospect.
Something like this …….?
http://thunderbirds.sfdaydreams.com/toys/taktbtwo.jpg
Sorry it was the first thing that came to mind. :)
APATS said:
“By the time we have redesigned T45 and altered the propulsion, built in the noise dampening. Switched to FPP.”
Swapping props, hardly rocket science – if a modern warship has been built without acoustic dampening / shock mounting, then more fool us, but I have to give credence to what SomeWhatInvolved says about his real world knowledge of the platform. However, to go on….
” Built in the mission bay that the type 26 is going to have.”
OK, but if T45 BII was your open ocean Towed array / 2 x Merlin ASW specialist, it would not need a mission bay, which could be provided by a much cheaper general purpose patrol frigate / SIMMS !
“Modified it to except kit straight from the Type 23 (which can be done during the design stage on T26). We would have ended up with a modified version of a hull designed 15 years ago for about the same money it has cost to design a new one.”
Now this bit really sounds stupid to me ! So the ship that is touted as the most “future proof and easy to upgrade” type the RN has ever had can’t take a different radar during build ? Really ???
So, back in the late 70’s to early 80’s we could take the 1940/50’s technology of a Broad Beamed Leander with a twin 4.5 inch gun, a sonar not much removed from WWII ASDIC, 2 x 40mm Bofors (again WWII), 1 x Seacat, a flight deck and hanger big enough for a Wasp, a triple depth charge mortar and really crappy radars and cost effectively turn this into:
An Exocet / SeaWolf Leander – with 4 x Exocet, a Seawolf system, including raised mast with type 967/968 radar, a type 670 jammer, an enlarged flight deck, a hanger big enough for a Lynx, Satcoms and the first computerised integrated communications system, the type 2016 sonar in a massive hull dome, triple torpedo tubes and 5 x 20mm guns !!!
All that, before modular electronics, before “design for upgrade” etc, and yet you don’t think we could have stuck a cheaper radar, 8 Harpoons, and Aster 15 only (or CAMM) into a T45 hull for less than it would cost to design a new ship ???? You do realize how much has been spent on the “concept definition phase” of what will be the T26 yes ?
Chuck Hill – google for USN Harpoon test firings – early to mid 80’s. I remember reading what was then the classified report: instrumented test barge with a Phalanx on it, acquired and successfully engaged a Harpoon instrumented test round (no warhead, but although the missile broke up, pieces of debris retained enough momentum to hit and damage the barge. The extrapolation was that against some of the big Soviet missiles, even if you managed to detonate the warhead, you might end up with enough debris / shrapnel coming “inboard” that you might suffer enough damage to soft bodies, antennas, weapons etc as to constitute a mission kill.
RE: Torpedo tubes. The Iranians have two classes of torpedo “stealth” boats, one with lightweight and one with heavy torpedoes. They are intended for anti-ship but you could probably change them to do ASW as well simply by modifying the torpedoes carried.
Chuck,
“I must of missed something, why would the lack of a gearbox rule out IEP?”
Other way round. Presence of a gearbox rules out IEP.
@Anixtu August 24, 2012 at 06:35 “Other way round. Presence of a gearbox rules out IEP.”
Thanks, sorry, Missed the statement there was a gearbox.
@Jed, Thanks.
BAE announced today tenders for propulsion and gear boxes
TOC, I did not know that. Every day is indeed a school day.
Chuck, I think the destroyer emphasis is more about fleet size and tactics than national thinking. Probably as a result of needing to build escorts capable of keeping up with the carriers, the USN has made a point of investing in the larger destroyer hull for the escort role with frigates always seeming to be a poor second. They have also evolved the term ‘cruiser’ to denote the main air defence platform.
In European navies we haven’t had cruisers since WW2 (the Tigers don’t really count as they were hacked into helicopter cruisers) and the term destroyer is generally taken to mean an air defence platform. Frigates are more general purpose designs. The Dutch and German navies have confused things by defining their air defence platforms as frigates (Sachsen and DZP) whereas the French, UK, Italian and Spanish navies retain the destroyer terminology, as do the Australians (after the brief dalliance with the Adelaide frigates).
The Russian/Soviet fleet has changed designations and designs so many times it’s thoroughly confused. After starting down the European route, they then switched to US philosophy (Kashin, Sovremenny, Udaloy) and then switched back to favouring frigates (Neustrashimy, Gorshkov). Their designations are more usually complemented by their primary role, i.e. anti-ship destroyer, ASW destroyer, etc.
It’s all terribly confusing.
@ Jed
I couldn’t understand why there was a concept phase. The evolution of the British ASW frigate is easy to understand. I think defence companies like to push ill defined concepts like modules or make UAV sound like something new.
The only thing now I have concern about is automatic cannons. Like where BAE have positioned the two aft. But I am wondering about for’ard and back aft; 2 mounts may not be enough. As you point out later Leander carried 5 x 20mm. Anyway that is what I amusing on today.
RE Trimarans (and by extension pentamarans). The whole idea behind these is that the “stabilisers” allow use of a more slender and hence less resistful centrehull, which also tends to be longer than the “equivalent” monohull. It’s the extra length that gets the “better” seakeeping and partly the reduced resistance. These benefits are real and the manoeuvring is actually pretty much comparable to a monohull as well.
The difficulty with multihulls tends to come with arrangements below decks. You can have loads of upper deck area, but below decks there are structural limts on what you can do in terms of passageways, door / hatch access. Fore and aft access also tends to have a disproportionate effect on layout in your more slender hull.
The main thing for warship applications however is that DD/FF tend to be length-driven for a number of reasons, not just Mr Froude and once you get above a certain length (which is broadly where we are with T45, T26), then the benefits of multihulls tend to be very marginal anyway. Hence general lack of adoption.
As for OPV III, sitting in a cupboard I have a set of tender returns from Yarrows and Hall Russell against OPV III. The Yarrow submission was a bit like a shrunken T23 (2200 te, 101m, accommodation for 80, Lynx Hangar, EH101 flightdeck). Hall Russell had a smaller (84m 1800te design called Skeandhu). I suspect both foundered on the post-Corporate consensus that we had “underarmed” ships – the same effect that (fortunately) changed a towed array tug and helo platform into the T23 we know and love.
Defense News 23 Aug 2012: Process Begins to Equip Royal Navy’s Type 26 Frigate
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120823/DEFREG01/308230004/Process-Begins-Equip-Royal-Navy-8217-s-Type-26-Frigate?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
I know we are going off topic a bit(ish) here but what would be the effect on operational capability if we separated the TAS tug, combat management centre and offensive weapons/helicopters?
So we would use a helicopter carrier style vessel to concentrate/process data and house a larger helicopter/UAV fleet than would normally be the case with a frigate.
The sensors (in addition to helicopter ones) would be onboard small and cheap ‘tugs’, perhaps even unmanned
Additional airborne sensors like particulate detectors on something like a scan eagle are cheap as chips so why not have 10 or 15 of them, all controlled by the mothership.
Maybe even ten or twenty unmanned surface small RIB derived vessels equipped with passive and active sonar
Go distrbuted instead of concentrating everything one one platform
Is the future distributed and netted sensors on, above and below the surface, thats what I really want to know
I have a dream!!!
Jed, 127 has been spent in total to get a final design “you don’t think we could have stuck a cheaper radar, 8 Harpoons, and Aster 15 only (or CAMM) into a T45 hull for less than it would cost to design a new ship ???? ”
No I was saying that we could not make T45 quiet enough to take a TAS, fit a mission bay and all the other stuff for less than 127 million. Even if we had managed it for roughly that the individual unit price will rise for the larger Ship.
What do they use in their drawing pens, unicorn tears?
@TD
Thats not a completely new idea, is it? I beleive the RN once built three ‘Through Decks Cruisers’ for ASW work!! Think we might even still have a couple hanging around somewhere…
Also in the current fleet the second Albion with an inflatable aircraft shelter could possibly do the job you describe?
No reason however with miniture systems like Scan Eagle that a new Frigate can’t also cover an even wider stretch of sea than the legacy platform.
TD said “I have a dream!!!”
Well stop eating cheese before bed time.
How much protection does the mother ship require?. If its a distributed network of uavs controlled from a mother ship then disable the mother ship and everything else are paper weights would be an issue
@ Peter Elliot
How far can Scan Eagle see compared to Merlin’s onboard radar. How fast is Scan Eagle compared to Merlin? How much further out do you want to see? Two hours steaming? Three hours steaming? Four hours steaming? And in all those hours how often will the surface picture change? How far out do you want to advertise your presence? What about using other sensors to build a picture?
TD, are you thinking about the UXB combatant again?
Distributed networked autonomous vehicles are a likely and viable future concept. Isn’t that what the USN and USAF are working towards? Likely a long way off though, and a costly future at that. So it would be an amazingly brave, ballsy and above all, well funded nation that plumps for that as its headmark today.
TD is Duncan Sandys and I claim my 10 bob note.
@ Peter E
I have just looked at Scan Eagle. It is a remote control aeroplane isn’t it? More like Shufty Sparrow….. :)
I can understand the baseline design (GP vs ASW?) calling for a conventional CODLAG though it’s not inconceivable that the T26 concepts presented could support an arrangement akin to the Queen Mary 2 for an IEP/FEP approach (although QM2 is described as CODLAG often too, without the direct drive):
– Smaller aft uptakes for the diesel generators housed in the engine room, reducing impact on hangar;
– Gas Turbine housed in a soundproofed machine room above the mission deck;
– Electric motors for the prime movers akin to T45.
Would certainly mitigate some of the sound concerns with a GT, and the MT30 in particular voiced earlier.
“Shufty Sparrow”
Sneaky Beaky?
TOC said “Sneaky Beaky?”
Yes. Secret Seagull……
As for QM and CODLAG. Go and look at how the engines are laid out in T23. And look at the volume. Consider top weights. Consider size of QM2. You will see that your question is already answered.
Chris, the QM2 is an IEP or FEP design, not CODLAG. CODLAG specifically indicates a propulsion plant with a combination of diesel driven electric motors and direct drive gas turbines. QM2 has no direct drive so she is IEP or FEP. The military terminology would have to be either CODLAGL, CODAGL or CODA/OGL (cough). Wikipedia’s attempt to call it CODLAG (electric) is nonsense.
Agree on the uptake/downtake configuration, but again it is very early to be scrutinising fine details from a CGI image at this stage.
T45 suffered an ignominious design cockup (which some have pumped up into an advantage) in that they opted for COTS prime movers, which didn’t fit two abreast in the same compartment, resulting in two motors in different compartments and one shaft longer than the other. One hopes the T26 will not suffer the same way.
SI, you have reminded me of that UXB now you mention it. I thought it was a bit bonkers to be honest but the distributed netted sensor model, with each sensor being basically redundant by virtue of their quantity, all combining to create a common picture seems at least to me to be a logical extension of data linking, uav’s and sensor miniaturisation
Mark makes a good point about concentration of risk in the mothership but there are ways to mitigate that and would it be any more vulnerable than any other vessel.
Swarms at sea
Where is that cheese
@TD
Your weak points include data interconnects, requiring a degree of autonomy.
Continued developments in AESA for use as a broadband transceiver will be an enabler for you.
T26 have looked at pretty much every flavour of propulsion system you care to mention, from all mechanical diesels to IFEP. That they are settling on CODLAG indicates that the cost of larger Electric Motors (both capital and space / HV cabling in the ship) is prohibitive.
T45 is a slightly different beast, in that it’s IFEP system was driven largely by the compulsory adoption (courtesy of BuffHoon) of “the Great White Turbine” – the evolutionary cul-de-sac known as the WR21 – which is about as far away from COTS as you can get (twelve units, one of which is the rebuilt test-bed!).
Once you had all that electrical generating capacity concentrated in two units, you pretty much had to separate them from a survivability point of view, rather than any tank-top layout consideration. The Stork donks (licence knock-offs of an old Wartsila genset) are there primarily for harbour duties, although obviously nice to have running when you’re a bit worried the GWT might fall over, (eg RAS, harbour entry etc).
T26 has grown away from the 1990’s fantasy view that diesels needed lots of ME fitters and were therefore bad, evil and should be stamped out in favour of nice exchangeable GT alternator sets that the kind people at Rolly’s would support for the price of a cup of tea……
In other words, they’ve opened more than just Paxman’s engine brochures…..
@SI
Apologies, my RR Mermaid material refers to CODAG (rightly or wrongly in itself) without the L.
Re: T45 placement, indeed! This £127m may be well spent on T26 then?
Other than placement in separate compartments, what other advantages are being extolled?
Access for maintenance?
Oh fitters not filters. I wondered what an ME filter was.
As much as I like diesels I think T23’s CODLAG configuration is sound. It is British ship design at its best. And I am glad that BAE are going CODLAG with T26.
Perhaps advocates of regional bombers should consider we, the UK, can build ships (and buy missiles) rather well on our own still. We only do shares in aircraft. Bang for buck and supporting British industry first.
Just to go back to exporting either the T26 design or ships.
BAE have quietly helped the Royal Thai Navy build a much improved (HMS Clyde) River Class OPV. The ship was launched last year and is currently fitting out.
HMTS Krabi is fitted with a OTO-MELERA 76mm Gun and 2 20mm Cannons. More importantly, the Ship is fitted with a Hanger and can/will carry an AW-139.
Just wondering if we do build two new RN OPV’s they will be based on this ship?
Great White Turbine – brilliant! But is the MT30 any better?
Ubiquity, especially if the efforts to commercialise them takes off and aids export.
MT30 has to be better as it doesn’t have all the Recuperative Cycle gubbins plastered all over the module to flatten the fuel curve. Credit where it’s due, RR recognised the need for a big powerful simple cycle GT in MT30.
Legend has it that elements of said gubbins are produced by Messrs Cletus and Bubba in a shed in Arkansas and may not be readily available for the life of the engine (allegedly….)
Re HMTS Krabi. That ain’t a River-derivative, it’s 33% more displacement. That appears to be a devlopment of the T&T / Omani boats.
HMTS Krabi is a modified version of the BAE 90M OPV which was a stretched and modified version of the 80M OPV that the Rivers are. Though a River is only 79.5M long, allowing QHM Devonport to assign them the same jetty they gave the Old Islands on rare visits. They did fit just!
“Just wondering if we do build two new RN OPV’s they will be based on this ship?”
If we did it wont mount the OTO’s. Not very likely that we’d start a new logistics/training chain for 2 guns. So 90m hull with hangar and DS-30 REMSIG…not useless though it may show Clyde up a bit.
Simon257, Where did you see the info about a hangar. I can only find that it operates a AW 139 and can see no evidence of a hangar of even the telescopic variety on the pictures. I ask as the ability to have a hangar seems a good one.
Jonesy, Interestingly they have the flight deck flush to the hull at the rear of the Ship and only 20M long whilst Clyde has raised hers above the quarterdeck. Allowing a Merlin(or more importantly down South the Sea King SAR bird) capable flight deck despite the shorter overall length. Maybe a 90m OPV with the similar flight deck arrangement would offer room for a semi telescopic hangar arrangement.
Interestingly, in the same article discussing the HTMS Krabi, Ship and Boat International reported [1] that in addition to buying the three OPV’s intended for Trinidad & Tobago, Brazil “exclusively” acquired the rights to the design plans of the OPV 90’s, including “full rights” to the general arrangements allowing for further orders to be constructed by Brazilian shipyards.
No mention of hangars on the Krabi specifically, only a flight deck “designed to accommodate a Super Lynx helicopter”.
[1] Ship and Boat International March 2012 (Subscription Required)
@ TD – I have been thinking of a similar concept, based on Brown’s DDH/corvette mixed squadrons.
Something like this (with Self-defence weapon systems)
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA518429
http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/935293
And something like BAM/Black Swan/Global Sloop.
1 DDH and 3-4 Sloops?
Add a small LPD like an enlarged Endurance 140 to turn the ASW group in to a peace time influence squadron/war time Littoral strike group… Sorry! Seaside Strike group.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/12/littoral-strike-group-alternative-to.html
All types of ship can carry/opetate smaller UAV’s/USV’s/UUV’s and RHIBS but the DDH can also be a mothership for larger UAV’s and helicopters and the Small LPD for larger USV’s, UUV’s and manned patrol/attack craft?
http://www.yonca-onuk.com/products.asp?id=5
Very flexible group which can do ASW escort, coastal control, ISTAR, and MSO/DR/HA
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/SEA-15FinalPresentation%20slides.pdf
TD – your other weakpoints include range and endurance of your small sensor craft swarm, seaking, need for a mother ship, lack of maturity in autonomous capabilities (for when you loose your network connectivity), lack of satellite bandwidth for non-line of site ops…… but keep dreaming the beautiful dreams :-)
APATS – your missing my point I think. As I said, a T45 BII would not need a large mission bay, you could add that to a cheaper GP frigate. BAE did have at least paper designs for variations on the same hull, so I refuse to believe it would have cost more than 127 Million just to design in some acoustic dampening etc. Plus as you would be using the same construction already set up for the modules etc there would potentially be savings (e.g. 6 x T45, and then straight into 8 x T45 BII).
ST, Love the look of that TG at last link but the procurement cost of the hulls alone would be somewhere North of £2.2 Billion pounds. Then add on the systems conservatively at £300 million and we have £2.5 Billion pounds. Nice if we could afford it.
Jed, You cannot make T45 quiet enough without changing its entire propulsion system. As SI posted last night.
Also we now have a 3rd Ship in the plot that we require if we want to use multi mission modules. Given that these will be cheap GP frigate they may well be cheaper to run but we have another design to pay for. Then the potential for extra training etc on yet another set of systems as our cheap GP Frigate may not have the expensive systems on our other 2 vessels.
I posted last night that if we had decided to go for a Type 45 Batch 2 and made the required adjustments to the Hull and Propulsion of the first 6 then yes it would have been a goer. Unfortunately we did not so it never was.
RE “The Iranians have two classes of torpedo “stealth” boats, one with lightweight and one with heavy torpedoes”
@ ST, I’ve looked for the “heavy” before, and not found any
– can you help?
SI said he couldn’t tell us why T45 was noisy because of Official Secrets.
All electric ship. Fixed pitch propellers. The major noise generator are the primer removers. Primer movers aren’t sufficiently rafted. Not rocket science. Better rafts perhaps? Slippers instead of steaming bats? Plastic cutlery? All messes issued with head phones for TVs? No electrical appliances in the galley?
@x
Less swearing on board? :)
Anyway for all we know, it could be due to cavitation by hullshape. You go fast, pressure on water goes up, pass the ship, pressure relaxes, lots of bubbles. And the T-45 does go pretty fast.
We can always ask SI if I’m getting warmer or colder. :D
The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, and therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt that the information that he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known, and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.
It’s the ‘not value for money’ alarm – constantly going off…
TOC that sounds so Monty Pythonish, like the one about “Left thinking people are right.” :)
@ ACC – Best I clan do at the mo:
IPS-18 Tir Class Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)
Quantity in Service: 10Displacement: 28.16 tonsDimensions: L 21.12m, W 5.77m, Dr 0.87m H 2.1mCrew: 6Endurance: 450nmSpeed: 52ktPowerplant: 3 x 1200hpArmament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes, 1 x manned 12.7mm HMGOf North Korean origin, these innovative small fast attack boats are clearly designed with radar cross-section reduction in mind. A retractable radar mast further enhances their ability to hide amongst the clutter of small fishing boats and otherwise inconspicuous minor radar reflections. The stealthiness does not extend to the infrared spectrum though, with raw exhausts venting out of the rear of the boat. Nor is the only defensive weapons position well thought out in this regard, being a single pedestal mounted 12.7mm heavy machine gun which is externally crewed. In the right circumstances these boats represent a serious threat, but they have limited sea keeping, endurance and sensors thus limiting their combat potential in a wider conflict. They are potentially armed with Shkval rocket torpedo (range about 6-8km), or the Iranian YT534W1 modern heavyweight torpedo (estimated range about 20-30km), but quite possibly employ very basic unguided torpedoes.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/bluffers-guide-iranian-naval-capability-2007-a-3230.html
separated the TAS tug, combat management centre and offensive weapons/helicopters
this is the wacky late seventies thing with the group of not-much-more-than-a-SURTASS vessels, an aviation RFA, and presumably (but not usually stated for some odd reason) an AAW ship providing cover isn’t it? which foundered on the experience of the Falklands suggesting that the Argies would have gone through them like a dose of salts, never mind the Russians?
SI said “not value for money alarm”
Nice to see at least one RAF system being used by another service. Did it take much to navalise it, or is that an Official Secret too? :)
Seriously that is somewhat different from can’t be done. But as you T45 is a bit of dead end street. It will come out eventually what makes the all electric T45 noisy.
“It will come out eventually what makes the all electric T45 noisy.”
Every marine system on the ship? Propulsion systems are only some of the noise generators. Electricity does not equal silence…….
Plus some “other things” that shouldn’t be talked about.
Alex, forty or fifty years of technology development
@ Observer re cavitation
Yes and no. I know T45 is very fuel efficient, but some of that has to be as much due to hull form as the machinery. Hydrodynamically efficient hulls are quiet hulls; it is only 28kts we are talking about here top whack. Even the hull paint is high tech these day to smooth the vessel’s passage. TAS towing is done at a dawdle. Transom? Well T23 is quiet and that has a transom. Perhaps the propellers aren’t in the same class as T23’s excellent prop? But that isn’t insurmountable problem is it. Propellers connected to shafts connected to gearboxes connect to engines make noise but T45. Just had a scan at Converteam’s website it even says low noise and vibration. No it has to be something more subtle or nuance like you said it could be swearing. Or perhaps Jack and Jill has so happy with their new ship they sing their little hearts all day long; each deployment is like one over extended episode of Glee. Perhaps Somewhat is somewhat jealous and dreams of being drafted to a Daring………… :)
From Dunservin’s link:
“The design was approved in April, but the MoD has only just announced the decision.”
– WHY the delay?
…BAE declined to name the companies sent bid invitations.
Local supplier Rolls-Royce said it received the tender documents.
“We can confirm that we have received the ITTs for the major items of propulsion equipment covered and will be responding ahead of the next design gate,” a spokesman said.
The British-based company is a longtime supplier to the Royal Navy of maritime equipment, including gas turbines.
It strengthened its hand in the maritime diesels sector last year when, along with partner Daimler, it purchased German manufacturer Tognum.”
– this latest part, the deal bringing GT and diesel integration into a virtual monopoly (outside the over-priced US market) has been kept very hush-hush… two Europeans at work; even the Commission will shut up, for a change
@ NAB
I know about some of things that shouldn’t be talked about. And I think alluded to other things making noise with my line about steaming bats and slippers…..
Anyway I am happy about CODLAG, so stop harshing my mellow dude.
EDIT: When we used to take kids to visit ships the “noise” of a warship was always one of the first things that was commented upon. And the idea of working in such an environment put some off the idea of the RN as a job or career. I do know what they meant as having worked in IT all my life the constant hum of large electronic devices and air conditioning can at times be nauseating.
@ ACC – Open source info aparently so no idea if its accurate…
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/57412768?width=640
@APATS
“Jonesy, Interestingly they have the flight deck flush to the hull at the rear of the Ship and only 20M long whilst Clyde has raised hers above the quarterdeck. Allowing a Merlin(or more importantly down South the Sea King SAR bird) capable flight deck despite the shorter overall length. Maybe a 90m OPV with the similar flight deck arrangement would offer room for a semi telescopic hangar arrangement”
Potentially so…though my understanding was that, ideally, the chopper pad sits as close to maindeck level as possible, whenever possible, as pad motion in a seaway is exacerbated the higher up it is on the hull.
As the old ‘lost traveller’ joke goes I think the basic issue, with a 90m derivation of the Clyde, is more you dont want to start from there in the first place. You look at Clyde, you look at Krabi and then look at something like the Danish Rasmussen’s and, if you are willing to spend anything on modifications to a design, you would have to question whether BAE’s ‘cheap’ designs were a patch on the Danes ‘cheap’ design?.
Hi TD, catching up so may be someone has said this by now, RE
“what would be the effect on operational capability if we separated the TAS tug, combat management centre and offensive weapons/helicopters?
So we would use a helicopter carrier style vessel to concentrate/process data and house a larger helicopter/UAV fleet than would normally be the case with a frigate”
– wasn’t the T23 the “adapted” trawler, to tow x (not our x, the TAS- like)
– to get many of them, the hull size was minimised, and a supply ship assumed to keep them on task
The new thing (against an old mission) would be to separate the Command Centre and the offensive weapons
– bearing in mind that on the Vincies both the jets and the helos were defensive, albeit could do some ship strike, is this any different from the old thought?
@Chuck Hill – thanks, I was struggling to come up with anything remotely recent.
“It’s all terribly confusing.” – I’ve had this printed onto a range of T-shirts.
Jonesy but then we remember that we are going to build them in Portsmouth if they go ahead at all.
Also the BAE 90M design is cheaper and has proven a far greater export success than the Rasmussen.
The FD is only raised 10ft on Clyde which buys a lot of space.
X
“the constant hum of large electronic devices and air conditioning can at times be nauseating.”
It’s even more worrying when it’s people doing that! Not to mention the rocking back and forth…….
X,
Converteam has been acquired by a US company, RE
” Just had a scan at Converteam’s website it even says low noise and vibration”
– not sure exactly why you went to them for reference; are they best-of-breed in this area?
@ NAB re rocking back and forth
As the kids say, I saw what you did there!!!
@ All re OPV
I would buy Thetis. Ice strengthed. 20+ kts. Hanger. Proper gun. Good deep V hull. £100million a copy. Super ships.
@ ACC
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/converteam/
x, they were in contention for the NZ OPVs (and in my mind, ideally suited), RE
“I would buy Thetis. Ice strengthed. 20+ kts. Hanger. Proper gun. Good deep V hull. £100million a copy. Super ships”
– do you know what happened; what factors weighed in?
x, Converteam:
The release does not say who bought
Their own website may be the answer: the only piccie that there is no text to is… the Zumwalt
– and, who again, is building them (and anything similar, albeit probably smaller, in the future)?
@APATS
“Jonesy but then we remember that we are going to build them in Portsmouth if they go ahead at all. Also the BAE 90M design is cheaper and has proven a far greater export success than the Rasmussen. The FD is only raised 10ft on Clyde which buys a lot of space.”
Absolutely thats why I said “if you were going to spend money changing a design”. The whole exercise is there to keep ship-shaped metal-bashing happening on the south coast so the very last thing you want is for there to be overheads going back to Filton (or wherever the ex-VT work landed eventually) for redesign. Cheapest way to keep yards active – two more ‘Port of Spains’ and, if you want to be really extravagant, chop back the after deckhouse and mount the 16ton crane closer to the funnel athwartships…get a few more metres on the flight deck that way.
The base hull, sans ‘government-supplied-equipment’,for the Rasmussens was about £30mn a pop. To do this they spread build elements out over yards across half of eastern europe…so building on the south coast pushes that up a good way. It needs a min. 15m hull plug for better pitch response, bit more length on the flight deck and more volume for bunkerage plus a pair of 12cyl Wartsila 26X’s replacing the existing sets to cover the weight increase. Even pushing up costs 150% still gives a cheap hull though!.
ACC
“NZ OPV’s….do you know what happened; what factors weighed in?”
Wasnt the OPVs was it?. I thought the yard that built them was already out of business by then. IIRC it was offered unsolicited instead of the ANZACs Mekos that NZ were committing to. Did read something that the hulls were being offered at NZ$70mn each.
Jonesy, concur but surely when BAE were making Clyde from their 80m opv they considered doing the same with the 90m?
Back in the real world you are almost definitely right.
@ ACC
I thought you were asking why I mentioned Converteam. I don’t know who bought them.
As for Thetis and New Zealand I don’t know. They are ideal for us. I was waiting for somebody to say something about ice strengthening but I can’t wait. The reason why we need it is,
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/images/822.jpg
http://www.fleetwood-fishing-industry.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/codwar5.jpg
and
http://www.stoneyburn.com/navy/Falmouth%20Damage.jpg
I know further up the thread there was discussions about torpedoes. Well there is another way to sink ships and that is to ram them. The Greeks did it. There was a flirtation with it in the early steam period. In deed torpedoes were once spar torpedoes, charges placed on a spar to be rammed into the opposition’s hull before detonation. Ice strengthening and speed will probably be better than gun in persuading errant skippers than a shot across the bow. Or at least give us another option…..
APATS,
I’d imagine they’d have considered a variant with a different aviation fit. Raising the flight deck though would have torpedoed the mission deck space aft which seems quite an important design element given a 16t crane!. That is, of course, unless it was done in the BMT style with the mission deck open over the aftermost 5m or so with an extending gantry over the top to allow for container/module handling.
Could have been done, and given a fair old degree of mission deck space, but it may not have been an altogether cheap modification.
@X – we don’t want to mess with Iceland again. Once bitten.
Jonesy, interesting, this bit of history:
“instead of the ANZACs Mekos that NZ were committing to”
– those ships, due to the interwebs being everybody’s source, get referred to a lot – as if they existed!
– anyway, the replacement was an evolved design (whether or not from the MEKO design builder; I don’t know) of the OPVs for the Irish Navy
– the base design was for very choppy seas
– the NZ evolution was, after the fact,judged to be top-heavy; maybe they just have bigger waves down there, blowing across from the Antarctic, so choppy and rough are actually different attributes for conditions to be endured?
Hi x,
Yes, “I thought you were asking why I mentioned Converteam.”
– I was
@ not a boffin
I’m not sure that your comments on pentamaran’s are correct…… the developed designs are not just narrow and stabilised they can be wide multilevel structures supported by widely placed but narrow hull elements .
If you are going to go for the wide stabile fighting deck and its companion lower levels I do wonder about the buoyancy that needs to be provided, and the materials required, but the fact that we don’t yet have such big craft is down to lack of design and build experience rather than insurmountable technical limitations.
When the USS Independence has established itself as a functioning LCS, with desirable near shore capabilities, I expect the trimaran to be more widely used, the various BMT etc.. designs for a pentamaran may have limited scale but I think that’s more about getting the innovation adopted rather than the basic design .
I expect that the pentamaran will be adopted because it has the sacrificial wings that can stop low skimming missiles suffering damage, without compromising overall survival, and retains speed and manoeuvring.
Long term, moving away from screws towards water jets would allow new multihull configurations to develop hybrid at sea combat manoeuvres… when they deploy both fore and aft thrust for high rates of turn at speed. This could be combined with multiple rudder type surfaces etc etc.
Combining these features with high speed changes in ballast could provide a version of the computer mediated performance of fighter jets – inherently mad navigational moves made possible by processing power and “navigational rules”.
@ ACC
Well I know how much noise a GT (lots) and diesel (still lots but not a lot as the GT) make. I wanted to see if the provider of the motors for T45 made any mention of noise and vibration.
ACC,
“- those ships, due to the interwebs being everybody’s source, get referred to a lot – as if they existed!”
Not sure we’re on the same page here mate.
The Thetis offer to NZ was nothing to do with Project Protector. It was for the Leander replacement RNZN undertook that led to the ANZAC frigates Te Kaha and Te Mana. The offer for the Thetis was unsolicited but, allegedly, significantly cheaper than Kiwi participation in the ANZAC frigate programme and caused much political infighting.
Hi Jonesy,
Rather than being one round behind, I mixed up the two rounds together
– so, how do you rate the second round? I think the idea about the mix was right, but was the *high end” high end enough, or was it curtailed too much
– I won’t even speculate “had it been Thetis in Round 1, then…”
T45 , 28 kts top whack.
Compare with the 1967 Saam class frigate we sold the Iranians that could do 39 kts top whack.
Why do you need such a high speed?
Bear in mind those rates are not sustainable, you may arrive at your area of operation sooner if you can maintain twenty-something knots for the entire journey compared to rates in the teens, high speed bursts, replenishment and maintenance stops.
Given modern sensors and armaments, an area of operations can be covered more easily by your detection and threat footprints.
TOC
Going to the aid of…
@ JH
Apparently Daring reached 31.5 knots in her sea trials. It’s still not 39 knots but I do wonder if that 31.5 was with everything maxed out or if we could get a little more out of the T45’s?
Again, you can’t necessarily sustain the speed for the duration.
You have your helicopters for anything within the radius of the 60’s era high-speed run.
You can always coordinate efforts from civilian craft if you have situational awareness en route.
There’s also a little matter of a difference of 6,500 tons between the two class of vessels.
Lastly, primary consideration of a warship is not SAR or humanitarian relief, is there a military reason for an area-control AAW specialist destroyer to push extreme high speeds?
In the case of the USN, the they seem to have a minimum speed of 33 knots for battle force ships that goes back to WWII. That was the speed of the Essex class carriers and escorts of every size were expected to keep up with the carrier.
Today’s CVN can walk away from virtually any of its escorts, especially if the sea is running.
I’m sure the Saam’s 39 knots was not useable in anything but calm waters.
I’ve been a little surprised to see a general decline in top speed of combatants, but sustained cruise speed seems to have increased.
RE “a general decline in top speed of combatants, but sustained cruise speed seems to have increased”
– less importance attached to running around the task force, to fend off threats (as they are less likely)
– and, relatively, more importance attached to to being able to deploy quickly (in a trans-oceanic way) to where-ever power projection will be likely to be needed, over and above the “station ships”?
APAT’s
My apologies for not getting back sooner, as I was called into work just after I posted and I’ve only just got back. I’ve just double checked and I was wrong in my statement earlier, the ship is not fitted with a hanger. I’ve just realised I was looking at the stern of another ship and am embarresed to say, that I jumped the gun! My profound apologys to one and all for causing any confusion!
While top speed may have declined as a key characteristic for racing about in the battle group (various comments above) is not speed of use in some situations such as anti-drugs operations, where the druggies are themselves using speed as a form of defence. Clearly, no one would expect an FF to out run a cigarette boat, but in terms of radius of intervention over time, it’s better. There’s little use in spotting a suspicious boat with the ship’s helicopter but not being able to get close enough to it to be able to intervene.
If so, that would appear to be a characteristic of those sorts of non-war operations, and may in itself drive a special procurement of a ship / small class of ships that can operate effectively in that role (fast / can launch RIBS full of Royals / got some guns and enough radars, plus a Wildcat, but do not need the full-on warfighting ASW / AAW suite), and not load an overall “top speed” requirement onto the war fighting ships?
Racing Visby with a helideck?
Clearly doing the media rounds.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/versatility-is-key-for-royal-navys-new-frigate/1013675.article
@RT
You’ve just invented the LCS. Which is lovely if you have the luxury of building dedicated ships + training/logistic train just to fight pirates, but I’m not sure we really can. It’s a nice task to have for training the proper fighty ships and keeping them occupied, but is it worth sacrificing any fighty ships when you’ve only got 19 of them?
Even some of the strongest proponents of the LCS in the high reaches of the USN say that if they’d been there from the start, it would have traded top speed to improve endurance. The fact is that it’s not the end of the world if the odd pirate escapes – and you counter their speed by having much better ISR than them, to get assets in front of them. The more interesting case is when people use speedboats to come at you rather than escape you – that is one case where it is worth having top speed (assuming the sea room to use it), it’s a useful “weapon” to use that doesn’t escalate low-level provocation. Look up the USS Pueblo for an instance where more speed would have defused a situation. But otherwise you come up the basic physics – more speed means a big increase in the prime movers and eventually modifying the hull at the expense of other useful stuff, which all gets expensive.
@ACC/all
GE Energy bought 90% of Converteam from Barclays Private Equity and LBO France for $3.2bn in March 2011. The remaining 10% is owned by management. I think it’s fair to say that they’re the go-to people for warship propulsion these days, even the USN has overcome their distaste for not-invented-here to use them for the Zumwalt and MLP.
@Simon (23/Aug 19:58)
I wouldn’t read too much into US ship classifications – this is the navy that is planning a 15,000ton destroyer don’t forget (I’d like to see the BM monitor classification revived for the Zumwalts). You remember how we called aircraft carriers through-deck cruisers in order to sneak them past the politicians? They play the same game only worse. Most of those Burkes are pretty comparable to the Tico cruisers, and significantly more capable than the Darings. The Burkes “should” be designated as cruisers or at the very least light cruisers.
On the flip side their frigates are a bit of an afterthought, the Perrys are practically unarmed sonar tugs these days used mostly for flagwaving. If they were us, the USN would use a Burke for most of our standing tasks, in the way we use the T23’s. So they’re using a £1.2bn light cruiser with 90-96 VLS tubes capable of firing Tomahawks, ASROC and in some cases missiles that can down ICBMs, for tasks where we’re using a £150m ASW frigate.
The designations may be the same, but the ships and the CONOPS are very different, you just can’t really compare.
@Mark – thanks for the link to an interesting article, especially this little nugget: “For taking on submarines, there will be a torpedo launcher.”
Mark, great find! Lots of detail there including confirmation of the combined hangar/mission bay, torpedo launch system, improved CODLAG drive and a hull designed from the outset as acoustically low-profile. The integrated computing system is interesting – could this be the first military spin-off for tablet style computing systems, a single operating system hosting various others (such as DII, CSS, etc) as essentially ‘apps’? That alone has huge potential to interest export customers, I would think.
Common sense is prevailing – the Type 23 EVO is nearly here…
Our speculation on this thread confirmed in the piece by The Engineer “For greater flexibility of the combat systems, the ship will have an integrated mission bay and hangar, allowing the Navy to more easily deploy varying numbers of helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and boats according to the situation.”
Whereas the below sounds very much like a single point of *critical* failure having been created:
“One of the most novel systems on board will also be one of the most important. BAE is developing what it calls a shared computing environment specifically for the Type 26 (although a version of it may also be de-risked on the Type 23).
This basically means having a single computer system that can support the multiple pieces of software used throughout the ship”
Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/versatility-is-key-for-royal-navys-new-frigate/1013675.article#ixzz24YBxpybE
Hi SI, IBM produced that “a single operating system hosting various others (such as DII, CSS, etc) as essentially ‘apps’” in the 70s (VM, Virtual Machine) and it has been around ever since in various incarnations
– a good idea, though, opening more avenues for COTS/ MOTS… and upgrades as ‘drop ins’ which was exactly what IBM developed the solution for. No one could have afforded to buy the mainframes again and again
SI
integrated sensors package is all the rage at the minute. Maybe there doing with ships the kind of thing there doing with f35 sensors.
But I can see the sales pitch “want to sink a submarine we have an app for that”
Well it’d be an improvement on DII anyway. You know, we are having to rewrite dozens of our little ‘come in handy’ programmes (such as the ballistics calculator) in Excel so we avoid paying Atlas tens of thousands of pounds to approve and validate them for release on DII. Funky computer systems are all well and good, as long as you have the authority to modify them – or else cough up.
Maybe it’ll play the Intel ‘bing bong bong bong’ ditty if we score a hit? Bad enough it plays the Windows startup ditty when the system is rebooted, always comedy in a crowded Ops Room during the Thursday War.
Lockheed made a big thing about designing the F35 combat system using COTS systems and programming language – but hasn’t that come in for a lot of flak, tens of thousands of extra lines of code or something? Not a computer geek, sorry, knowledgeable person so in the dark.
@SI
You’re slightly missing what virtualisation is about. In naval terms, perhaps the best analogy is IEP. Traditionally you have separate engines driving the prop shafts (even engines of different types to drive the shafts at different speeds), generating electricity for ship’s services and so on. IEP abstracts that so that the engines provide a pool of “common currency” in the form of electricity, and then both the microwaves in the galley and the motors driving the props draw from that pool without knowing/caring where the electricity is generated.
So it is with virtualisation – instead of having a specialised computer for the combat system, and the file server, and the crew’s email, you have a rack of generic processors that software like VMware uses to create a pool of “computing power”. This pool is then allocated to as many virtual machines as you like. Each virtual machine sees its slice of the pool as a full PC, so runs a copy of Windows or Linux or whatever, and then you run your software within that copy of Windows. So you might have the email server running on one virtual machine and the training software on another virtual machine – but both running on the same physical hardware. They see each other as just another server on the network – and if one crashes you can just start it up again in another virtual machine. A typical application for it is web servers – you might have 100 different websites on a server, and you don’t want one person mucking about with their website to mess up the environment for the other 99 businesses.
So it’s not about having “an app for that”, abstracting the hardware like this means that you only have one lot of hardware to support, and you need less hardware in total. Plus the commonality of hardware means that it’s much easier to upgrade. So it’s bad news for people like Ultra who make all those expensive dedicated MILSPEC processing cards. And from a naval perspective, it makes it easier to build resilience into the system – not only do you just need one set of MILSPEC components, but you can distribute the hardware throughout the ship and all systems can keep running even if you take hits that disable individual servers.
[Obviously the details are a lot more complicated than the above, but hopefully that gives you a flavour]
does anyone know what a Type 23 average cruising range is by the way
ACC,
“so, how do you rate the second round? I think the idea about the mix was right, but was the *high end” high end enough, or was it curtailed too much”
I think they got fixated on getting the hulls inside the budget and took their eyes off the capability they were needing to deliver in the hulls. In the end they spent NZ$130mn on an amphib thats sub-par and was from very early in its conception, NZ$140mn on 4 basic inshore patrol hulls that are incapable of deploying seaboats in SS4 conditions and the remainder of the $500mn budget on a pair of offshore boats that are clearly well thought out but again questionably delivered.
That the budget was too light for the requirement is so plain it doesnt need stating. Its also plain that the idea of building all hulls under one umbrella project to maximise work on one contract and drive down build costs as far as possible was bright but ill-concieved. In my view they would have been better to let the patrol hulls as one contract and the amphib as standalone. There isnt the crossover between the two to get any real scale economy savings in plant or systems so it achieved little.
In my view an order for a basic Endurance-class hull off Singapore Marine and an order for 6 simplified Rasmussens i.e no Stanflex provision (4 standard, 2 stretched) would have given the Kiwi’s far more than they have ended up with on a not dissimilar budget. Seeing theyve already spent an extra 20mn or so on putting right the MRV I think a bit of flex in the budget might have been a good thing!.
I wonder how much HMG pays Microsoft for its Window licences?
The silly thing is that the systems would be more secure running in VMs on Linux boxes. An odd phenomenon is that Windows often runs better in VM that sitting on the hardware itself. The VM is a stable known while kit still varies. I first noticed this when I was running XP in a VM on a box I had just switched to Linux. The box was running Linux, VirtualBox, and XP and the latter was quicker than the original XP install. Went off to my various Linux forums and chatted with those in the know who confirmed I wasn’t seeing things. At work we used have UNIX servers up for months on end with out a hiccup. The major Windows systems wouldn’t go a day or more without needing a reboot.
As for IBM and VM we should remember that it was the UK’s own ICL whose VME OS was perhaps in its day the most complete virtual machine environment. It was streets ahead of anything IBM had.
EDIT: Further up I commented how T45’s ops room reminds me of a call centre. That was only enhanced by the Windows logos on various unused workstations. It is crap. Linux is secure, stable, and free (as in beer), while Windows is insecure, not stable, and expensive.
From Mark’s link to The Engineer.
“‘If you don’t get the propeller and hull-form design right, the cavitation inception speed can be very low, which can negate all the benefits you’ve achieved through having bigger propulsion motors and putting more power through them,’ said Lewis.”
Back to why isn’t T45 quiet? Only joking ladies.
Re SomeWhatInvolved. T23 EVO
More like a T22 Batch Four EVO. The more you look at the images of the T26. The more it looks like a Stealthy/Streamlined T22 Batch 3!
Re: Windows vs Linux vs Whatever
Yawn. Before we get into these debates let’s nip this in the bud. I’ve heard all of these opinions before… and none hold water on the security, reliability or cost front for any OS, runtime or machine (virtual or not) combination. Whatever the “right choice” may be is dependent on a variety of factors from the bare metal up to the end user.
You can all be sure of one truth: The only reliable system is an aggregate of a shared-nothing, distributed system.
Even then there’s no silver bullet – you have to balance and trade-off depending on the application you’re providing a solution for.
Regardless of implementation, the system to all intents and purposes will provide an expanded capability along the same lines of the IPMS on the Echo class.
A good brochure to illustrate this approach can be found at the link below, just keep in mind this is one implementation:
http://www.mapps.l-3com.com/datasheets/ipms.pdf
Some acoustic masking techniques:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/prairie.htm
Hi TOC,
You are obviously wrong on the (Total Life) Cost front, but regardless I would have thought that on a warship the systems architecture (FCS included, additionally to the L-3 example) would tend towards your ” The only reliable system is an aggregate of a shared-nothing, distributed system”.
– the brief description in The Engineer was pointing to the polar opposite (even though the servers can be distributed, as opposed to a commercial application when having them on racks together cuts down the cost of operating, services as in the environment they require and also maintenance;en-block).
From The Engineer (linked above, thanks):
“For taking on submarines, there will be a torpedo launcher, a deployable helicopter with anti-sub capabilities and the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence system to launch countermeasure decoys if a submarine fires its own missiles, again based on derivative systems from the Type 23.”
@ACC
“You are obviously wrong on the (Total Life) Cost front…”
I disagree specifically on cost. May not be the best place to discuss why as it’s a topic in its own right.
On the server architecture, I would be surprised if we’re talking about a single location. I’d also be surprised if this was an all-encompassing system as well.
What do you think about the feasibility of there being a two tier approach here in reality: IPMS style network with a second layer comprising the virtualised approach (whether thin client or migrating VM’s, ESXi style)?
@ Dunservin re Prairie
I think the discussion re T45 is whether she is suitable starting point before systems like Prairie??Masker and specially design propellers are used. Of course it all discussion for discussion sake! :)
As I have said T45 was designed to be quieter than T42 which shared the basic mechanical layout of B1/B2 T22; COGOG Olympus and Tynes. I don’t think T42 has Prairie. But if T45 is quieter than T42 and then had Prairie/Masker added and special designed propellers and had a few other matters addressed it would in theory be quieter than B1/B2 T22 which was our last but one ASW frigate. Of course T22 wasn’t as quiet as Leander. And how far T23 that would be we don’t know either!!! All good fun. I am glad they have played safe and gone with CODLAG for T26.
Prarie and Masker are old ideas that still have some utility, but they still generate noise. Another system exists to reduce cavitation caused by stabilisers as well – I forget the name. Apparently a ship running Masker stands out in the noise spectrum as a rain shower, which is persistent and doesn’t go away. A submarine can get nervous if a rain shower starts following it around. So it can help, but T23 doesn’t need it when ultra-quiet and, by the sounds of, neither will T26. I’m fairly sure T45 has it fitted already.
Trying to quieten a T45 is a bit like trying to quieten a Ferrari or Lamborghini. It’s loud and powerful – which is what we wanted – but simply strapping on noise insulation will only get you so far. There is a lot to favour the design from scratch of a ship designed to be quiet from the outset. I mean, it’s not like we have ten different designs for ASW ships, is it? One frigate and one destroyer design isn’t asking much in the grand scheme of things.
@x
The RN’s term for ‘PRAIRIE’ is ‘AGOUTI’: http://www.neely-chaulk.com/narciki/Agouti_Noise_Reduction
Just as long as everyone understands that noise reduction features are not just ‘add-ons’ but are intrinsic to whole ship design.
@SI
Are you thinking of ‘STABAIR’?
@ Somewhat
As you say T45 is a dead end propulsion wise.
I am going to look a bit more carefully when I read all electric equals quiet.
As for Masker and rain showers well that is something some fail to grasp is that any “stealth” technology by of itself being artificial means there is a “something” that can be differentiated.
@ Dunservin
I appreciate that the ship is a system as whole. I think many of ramblings here allude to that underlying truth.
But if we were taken T45, not designed with these systems, and were using at a base for this mythical ASW ship then systems like Prairie/Maskers would be essentially add ons.
I know enough about ships to know that you can’t just take a cross-channel ferry, add Maskers/Prairie, put prime movers on rafts, and turn it in an escort. There is a slight difference between discussing whether a modern “stealth” all-electric destroyer can be used as a basis for another class and the aforementioned ferry.
Why would we want to use a type 45 design for our frigates? The RN frigate and destroyer are two very different vessels to fulfil specific roles which require different qualities. Surely the more important question is how many type 26s do we need and what weapons should they be equipped with?
” Surely the more important question is how many type 26s do we need and what weapons should they be equipped with?” – which is thankfully what MoD/RN are getting on with. So, where are they going to fit torpedo launchers and anti-ship missiles on this design? Or are they not going to try? One helo or two? Will ASW version carry Merlin, GP to carry Wildcat?
We won’t have enough Merlins or Wildcats to put two on each T26, so will it be one of either plus a rotary UAV? Which one? Buy off the shelf or develop our own? Much to RT’s annoyance I suspect these naval posts are set to run and run for some time yet. :-)
@ Wise Ape said “naval posts are set to run and run”
Well that’s just the trouble. The navy is relevant, vibrant, exciting, and now. They are the global service for a global age. The Army stopped being important when the Yanks dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. And is green with brown boots a good look for anyone we ask? The other lot, whose name escapes me, are well, they are, um, what are they? Who are they? Answers on postcard to arrive no later than last Tuesday.
Aren’t you meant to give us a Four Minute Warning?
@ TOC
Physics doesn’t mind which way time runs, so if physics isn’t bothered why should I? :)
Heh heh, can’t argue with that!
Would anyone hazard a guess on when a class name will be assigned to the T26.
I can’t see them being named after the 1930’s built E Class Destroyers, which names are next in line to be used. Or is it a better than average chance of them being named after British cities, now that the T42’s are soon to be decommissioned.
I am expecting them to re-cycle Leander names. And I would place an each way bet on a HMS London too especially if they build 13.
The trouble is choosing names that have some resonance with the modern British public.
@x
Well HMS X Factor, HMS facebook and HMS Big Fat Gypsy Weddings it is then
Seriously (ish), Leander class names would be a strong start point – especially if it results in 26 of them, coincidentally to match the class number.
Names; we’ve just had D-destroyers, we already have Echo and Enterprise, how about onto F? There hasn’t been a HMS Falkland for quite some time.
Yes. A bit off piste but no HMS Amazon. HMS Dido? No. Tribals are out. My point is the the Leander names are fine to me. But I have some knowledge of Greek mythology and RN history.
The Weapons class names wouldn’t work. C class names may be OK. HMS Caprice? Um. No. Short pithy names that are easily pronounced are what is needed.
New counties class? HMS Merseyside or HMS West Midlands? Um no again.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h195/matt_hayward_photos/CerberusRNFrigate.png
Just saying…
@Think Defence, August 25, 2012 at 11:30
“does anyone know what a Type 23 average cruising range is by the way”
My 2000-2001 Combat Fleets of the World indicates 7800 nmi at 17.
” Although supposedly all named after Ancient Greek characters in legend that is not entirely the case: HMS Cleopatra being named for the Egyptian Queen who seduced Julius Ceaser and Mark Anthony. The reason? My guess is someone was asleep in class during Classics”
http://www.leander-project.homecall.co.uk/Type%2012i.html
@Red Trousers, August 25, 2012 at 08:26
“While top speed may have declined as a key characteristic for racing about in the battle group (various comments above) is not speed of use in some situations such as anti-drugs operations, where the druggies are themselves using speed as a form of defence. Clearly, no one would expect an FF to out run a cigarette boat, but in terms of radius of intervention over time, it’s better. There’s little use in spotting a suspicious boat with the ship’s helicopter but not being able to get close enough to it to be able to intervene.”
This is why the USCG (and others) have started arming their helicopters. The USCG “air-borne use of force” kit is a 7.62mm for firing warning shots and a .50 cal. sniper rifle for disabling fire.
Name them for RN enlisted heroes. They have gotten little enough credit.
One of the beautiful things about a T23 and speed on diesels is it was completely dependent upon what else was going on. For instance you could quite happily be making x knots on 3DGs and maintaining your SOA overnight when all of a sudden speed dropped by a 1.5 knots as the chefs had flashed up the entire galley for breakfast and you had to start another DG. The DGs supplying both propulsion and hotel services. I would not bet on an average SOA of 17kts on diesels probably 15 which would give a max theoretical range of somewhere beyond 8000Nm.
Of course post refits they seemed to have gained a few knots so 17kts may now be realistic.
Chuck RN/RFA Ships doing counter drug ops will have armed helos including RM snipers. Though the down draft from a Merlin can actually flip a cigarette boat over thoroughly ruining its day.
@ Chuck Hill
We don’t really don’t do that here. Right or wrong, I don’t know.
@ALL Politicians are the Same, August 25, 2012 at 23:16 “Chuck RN/RFA Ships doing counter drug ops will have armed helos including RM snipers. Though the down draft from a Merlin can actually flip a cigarette boat over thoroughly ruining its day.”
I had seen some videos of your ops and they look very much like ours, but RT did not seem to know about this. USCG frequently deploys with RN and Dutch to coordinate ops.
@x, August 25, 2012 at 23:18 “@ Chuck Hill, We don’t really don’t do that here. Right or wrong, I don’t know.”
Referring to naming ships after enlisted RN heroes? Isn’t it about time? Better names than “Prince of Wales.”
The F names would be next in line but given that T23 broker with tradition. Given that the city names are only just being retired I would not be surprised to see them use county names.
I would prefer to see some of the old naval hero names used in previous battle ships such as Rodney, Nelson and dare I say even Hood.
Anson and Howe. Certainly there are plenty of notable names.
Drake if you can accept possible confusion that name begins with a D.
If the Navy does go for alphabetical progression with the T26, as there are thirteen ships planned, the 13th should of course be named after the famous HMS Friday.
Other F names I’d suggest are HMS Flagellomania, as I hear they’re into that sort of thing. HMS Fourgon, due to the large mission bay. HMS Fuliguline, for the ships’ adaptability at sea. HMS Frottage, for the lonely nights spent at sea away from the missus. And perhaps HMS Foolocracy, to remind of the years of political mismanagement of defence. Need a few more…
Medal winners? ENNIS, FARAH (nicknamed Mobot), KENNAUGH or MURRAY. HMS Wiggins or HMS Bechtolsheimer anyone?
@ TOC
I would just call them all Jessica. :)
@ Chuck
One of the new A-boats will be Anson.
Re: names – how about captains instead of admirals? Not Bligh, obviously.
Or, a trifle less seriously, Bond villains: HMS Scaramanga, HMS Blofeld, HMS Oddjob (perfect for one of the GP boats.)…
Or how about Bond girls. Who wouldn’t want to serve on HMS Pussy Galore?
I think HMS Frugal and HMS F**ked to go with the 8th Astute HMS Austerity.
HMS Powerpoint and HMS CAD, in memory of all those that never saw the light of day. :-)
I’ll vote for HMS pussy galore. We can also get back HMS Vesper. How about calling them after gold medal winners at the Olympics. Maybe then we can get 29 :-).
HMS Churchill would be good. The US has a destroyer named for him so why not us. Maybe if we follow the US and name ships for politicians they might agree to build more. HMS Thatcher, Blair and Call me Dave spring to mind.
Re Speed.
Remember that racing yacht that got into trouble in the Southern Seas? Australia sent a warship that had to go like the clappers for a day or two, before its Helo was in range.
Names. What about “L” class? Lion, London, Liverpool, Leander, Leopard, etc.
Or for the traditional, HMS Rum, Sodomy & Lash.
If we assume that the E names are not going to be used then we are onto F. The WW2 F Class destroyers were.
Fame, Fearless, Firedrake,Foresight, Forester,Fortune,Foxhound,Fury and Faulkner. So we could name the 8 ASW variants F though would only use Fame,Fearless,Firedrake,Foresight,Foxhound and Fury myself. Maybe another 2 names needed.
Then the GP variants could be G class Gallant,Greyhound,Griffin and Glow Worm were all WW2 names. The other G names are pretty rubbish so need to think of another.
“The other G names are pretty rubbish so need to think of another.” – Golightly? :-)
RW
Don’t hold your breath. There is no rationale for tri or penta marans unless the main hull is significantly more slender than a monohull. The multilevel structures you refer to are still fundamentally there to provide righting moment for both intact and damaged stability. The integration of those structures with the main hull is one of the areas where layout limitations come into play.
I’m afraid “sacrificial wings” will have to be made from unobtanium if that particular fantasy is ever to come true against anything other than small ATGW.
As for waterjets, they need connection to their prime movers as well, which also incurs arrangement issues. They’re not little pods to clag on wherever you want.
Ballasting is likely to be of negligible value as well. There is usually simply no room to appreciably change the draft of a DD/FF. It’s all governed by waterplane area and the amount you wish to change draft by. I once worked with some combat system types who thought it would be a wheeze to make a frigate “submerge” to reduce it’s AW signature. Given that the design was about 140m by 18m, that’s roughly 20te of ballast per centimetre immersion. To get any sort of useful change of draft (say minimum 3m) you’re looking at minimum 6000te of ballast or more importantly 6000 cubic metres of volume in a hull envelope with only 16500 cubes. Just not do-able, practical or useful in any way shape or form.
With T26 I would put money on them either being named after cities or counties.
They are going to want to have ship names that identify with the public.
Then id assume they would go back to alphabetical names with MHPC.
NaB,
“I once worked with some combat system types who thought it would be a wheeze to make a frigate “submerge” to reduce it’s AW signature.”
Weren’t French by any chance were they?. If so they kept going and were still on the recreational pharmaceuticals for quite a while:
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/innovation-technology/smx-25/
Hms London, Cardiff, edinburgh and Belfast. Would be a gd first 4 ships names.
Followed by county class cruiser names for the remaining ships
@Mark
I doubt Belfast will be used as a name in the near future, not whilst the former is still a popular attraction sitting on the Thames.
Now that the Fleet is so tiny, more afiliations are precluded than engendered by naming warships after places in the UK (e.g. counties, cities, towns, seaside resorts, hunts, dukedoms or even villages in the case of the c.250 post-war coastal and inshore MCMVs (mine countermeasures vessels) of the -TON, -HAM, -LEY and -FORD classes).
By having non-geographic specific names, the Type 45s can be afiliated with whomever their Lordships require. For example, among her other associations HMS DARING is afiliated with Birmingham and Guernsey while HMS DIAMOND is afiliated with Aberdeen and Coventry.
@Dunservin
I get what you are saying, it definitely becomes more difficult to please everyone as the fleet contracts. It was fine up until the 60s and 70s.
However If you name 13 ships after the 13 largest cities or counties in the UK then you have automatically affiliated them to the maximum slice of the population possible.
I can’t see the RN just re-cyling T42 names. County names are problematic. HMS West Midlands? Really? HMS Devonshire or HMS Devon?. London as a name is different; lot of weight with that name note how it appeared in the T22s from seemingly nowhere. Of course the RN could choose to mix old historic names. So we could have Cutlass and Crossbow from the Weapons class) and Comet and Cromwell from the C class. Some good names amongst the C’s. Quite fancy a HMS Crusader. I think they will recycle Leander names. Or they will go with my suggestion from earlier today to call them all Jessica……
Challenger,
I can see where you are coming from with the 13 largest cities idea, but it seems a bit “urbanist” to me. Britain is more than just the cities. anyway, who wants to go to sea in HMS Bradford-Leeds Conurbation?
How about famous naval battles (that we won)? Or famous figures in British naval history, whatever their rank? It must be time for a new HMS Cook. Or, simply the 13 most resonant names of ships that are not currently in use. HMS Endeavour, Warspite, Glorious, Dreadnought, Indomitable, Courageous, Renown, Bellopheron, etc (please don’t now point out that those names all had some embarrassment associated with them as I have not researched them all – if so there’ll be others. They are just some of the names I remember)
@ Red Trousers
Um. I was going to say similar but I was scared what I was going to say would be construed as a bit political in a Ben Elton way. Um. All I will say there is growing feeling out in the real world outside of London that non-urban English, Welsh, Scots, and Ulstermen/Irishmen a bit “ignored”. For those of you who don’t know there was a Tribal called HMS Punjabi.
Incidentally, why do the USA claim that the USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned ship in the world, when HMS Victory seems older? I distinctly recall this claim being made, and repeated when I toured her in Boston Harbour. Was Victory taken out of service for a while?
The problem with battle names is they’re bound to rub someone up the wrong way, including current allies. Actually, ESPECIALLY current allies.
We’re never likely to see battlecruisers ever again, so how about Indefatigable, Indomitable, etc? Look in the dictionary, plenty of suitable “I”s.
X,
not as “political” as a mate of mine working in the Minister’s outer office managing to very nearly slip through a planned meeting of Brit and French Ministers for 18th June one year (this was when Blair was in power and had some nonsense idea of working more closely with the ruddy French). French Minister and delegation were to travel via Eurostar to Waterloo station, then get in the long black fancy cars and travel to the MoD via Trafalgar Square. Sadly, some other diary clash cropped up and the thing was postponed, so missing the magic date, and indeed the RV changed as well.
Oldest afloat.
@RT
I was certainly being ‘urbanist’ in advocating city names. In an ideal situation everyone in the UK would be represented, but seen as we have nowhere near enough ships to do that id rather have the majority or the population affiliated and represented by using urban names as opposed to a minority with rural ones.
Also I think if we did end up with city of county names then it would be acceptable to pick the ones with historical significance and which, to be blunt, sound good!
Dunservin
Surely having a ship name after the capitals of the home countries is a way to do that so each has some sense of attachment to the RN without requiring lots of ships.
Challenger is there a convention to stop Belfast being used again whilst an ancestor is still in the thames.
You could use names from the colony class ships or names like endeavour, intrepid, royal oak, hood, Juno so many gd choices I think sticking to the single class all of the same letter would be a mistake. Connecting to the past present a future with this class will I think go someway to being able to better engaging the public to service they don’t see very often or understand.
Challenger,
except that according to both Wiki and Wolfram Alpha, those 13 largest cities (by accepted boundary) only add up to about 12.6 million, out of 70 million of us. Even going beyond the accepted boundary and into the linked urban sprawl (eg including Salford with Manchester) you are still only up to about 18-24 million, depending on how you draw your net. So by any normal definition, still a minority and not even close to a majority.
(Also not a representative spread geographically. Nothing from Wales or NI, nothing south west of Bristol, north of Glasgow, nothing in the east between Hull and London, nothing from the south coast which supports so much of the fleet, nothing between Leeds and Glasgow)
Lets be inclusive. For the 8 ASWs: HMS Crusader, Cromwell, Churchill, Centaur, Comet, Centurion, Chieftain and Challenger. For the GPs: HMS Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito, Lancaster and Wellington. Should please everyone. :-)
Seriously though, how about VC winners? Former First Sea Lords? Knights of the round table?
What about Commons? HMS Dartmoor, HMS Streatham etc
@RT
Hmm, well last I heard the population of the UK was 62-64 million, not 70.
It depends on how you add it up, but if you count the London metropolitan area, Manchester urban area and various other larger groupings then it would be significantly more than the 12.6 million figure you suggested.
I totally get you’re point about it not be regionally representative (which isn’t fair) and the fact that any list of 13 urban areas isn’t going to include a majority of the total population.
However what is better, 13 names that represent millions and millions of people, or rural names that struggle to include a fraction of that number?
@Mark
Belfast isn’t in commission and I am not aware of any formal preventative measure to stop the name being used again.
However I reckon it’s just a convention to not use the name again and confuse people (idiot people I mean).
Well, a lot of the classical ones have a good battle honour or three attached. Out of the Cs, Challenger as in Challenger Deep is surely one to keep for a MHPC, as is Cook or rather Endeavour, as part of their mission is survey. (In fact, Explorer class would be good. Endeavour, Shackleton, new Scott.)
Then again, a lot of old navy ones are available again if you don’t insist on an alphabetic class. mind you I still think WSC was right about William Pitt and Oliver Cromwell.
HMS Cromwell? Some constitutional issues with that, and I’d insist on the Loyal Toast being drunk several times daily, to stop the Captain from getting any funny ideas.
(On this note, I was delighted to discover one of those little nuggets of history that bring a smile to the face. In WW2, the battleship USS Iowa was chosen to bring President Roosevelt across the Atlantic to the Allied strategic meeting in Casablanca in 1943. They even fitted a bath aboard for the President. The Iowa was escorted of course, including by the destroyer USS William D Porter, which clearly was not a lucky ship and was commanded by a feckless idiot.
The William D Porter began the passage by inadvertently ripping off the railings and lifeboats of another destroyer while undocking, and then when at sea managed to leave a loose depth charge rolling about on the deck, which fell into the sea and exploded, causing the entire group including Iowa to conduct violent anti-submarine drills. The following day, while mid Atlantic there was an exercise involving ship-launched torpedoes, and true to form, one of the torpedoes from William D Porter went wonky and headed straight for the USS Iowa. There was confusion with radio silence and a misunderstanding with the blinking lights, but luckily the torpedo missed Iowa and exploded 30 yards astern in the wake.
At that point the Captain of the Iowa turned his guns towards USS William D Porter, on the assumption that the entire ship had gone rogue, and were attempting a series of Presidential assassinations. The entire ship and her Captain were placed under arrest, and naturally any naval career ambitions of every officer on board were terminated. You certainly won’t see the captain’s name – Lt Cdr Wilfred A Walter – commemorated by any future US ship!
WiseApe said “Seriously though, how about VC winners?”
Won’t happen.
“Former First Sea Lords?”
It would be seen as bit, um, crass and self promoting and just not the done thing from a service that prides itself on be self-effacing. If the RAF got their Tornado bomber replacement it would never be called a Harris. (“Today RAF squadrons flying long range stealth Harrises bombed targets near Paris.” “My Harris can carry 12,000lbs of ordnance.” “Wow that Harris was shifting…” “The Harris bomber, or the Rolfs as they are affectionately known by their crews..” )
“Knights of the round table?”
No we have just used those names.
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/12636.html
Churchill wanted the name for a Queen Elizabeth battleship. And there’s already been a Blake for Cromwell’s (Dutch and Spaniard-hammering) admiral, Robert Blake.
Celtic gods?
Well-known bankers. Who wouldn’t be proud to sail in Bob Diamond?
@WiseApe
“Lets be inclusive. For the 8 ASWs: HMS Crusader, Cromwell, Churchill, Centaur, Comet, Centurion, Chieftain and Challenger. For the GPs: HMS Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito, Lancaster and Wellington. Should please everyone…”
– Every one of these warship names has a fine naval pedigree dating back centuries in some cases. Are they notable for any other reason?
RT
USS Constitution still floats in the wet stuff, whereas the Victorians stuck HMS Victory on a metal pin on dry land.
A school friend of mines wife, ran an opera company in Boston. She talked the USN into letting her use it for a production. She even got them to turn it around for her.
Following on from one of your ideas, I am thinking of an X Bow patrol ship, capable of 30 Kts in rough seas for 60 hours without crew mutiny. Hangar big enough for 2 Merlins. Landing deck big enough for a CH53K.
@John Hartley
“..whereas the Victorians stuck HMS Victory on a metal pin on dry land…”
– Sorry John but HMS VICTORY was moored in Portsmouth harbour until moved to No.2 Dock in Jan 1922 where she still sits with her masts cemented into the dock bottom. Queen Victoria had died in Jan 1901 and King George V was on the throne, having succeeded King Edward VII in May 1910.
@ John Hartley,
I had a good old time for a couple of hours on Constitution. I was killing time in Boston with a work colleague who’d previously worked for a Senator, and who still had some form of magic ID card that allowed all sorts of private tours. She’s a good looking if fairly stolid boat, much smaller than you’d expect. I’ve been on Victory before if only for a dinner, and they are like chalk and very fine cheese.
Somewhere up above, there was a brief conversation between APATS and Chuck Hill, mutually concluding that a helicopter with a 7.62 and 0.50 sniper combo was the answer to drug smuggling. Hmmm, call me less than convinced as we move into the future. The druggies are getting so desperate and so out of touch with normal behaviour that it’s not going to be too long before one of them retaliates with some unfeasibly large MG or even a small SAM***, and when the helicopter is forced to keep station with the druggie to allow the sniper a reasonable crack, then it’s not going to be too hard to hit, particularly as the helicopter has to at least pretend to obey ROE.
*** I don’t imagine it’s too hard to acquire these sorts of weapons if you are a south american druggie, there’s millions of dollars at stake, and you chucked the normal rule book of life out of the window the last time you beheaded 35 policemen and put the video on You Tube.
This is your 600 comment warning. According to TD’s rules, there are only 100 comments left before we are forced to talk about things that are not ruddy little floaty boats.
Thank you. That is all.
RT Well there may come a time when they do try but it certainly has not happened yet. The 50 Cal machine gun carried by the helos tends to have effect the smugglers actions.
You must also remember that the actual smugglers are not the guys who behead people in the jungles. They are paid for their boats and their skills. Your hardcore “beheaders’ do not leave their well controlled safe havens. Let alone venture out onto the wet stuff in a 60kt cigar boat.
They also know each other and have a vested interest in not doing anything that would see military ROE change to immediate use of deadly force. In the same way that the Somali Pirates do not engage war ships or helos (bar the idiots that tried to take on a Tico a couple of years ago). the first smuggler or pirate group that did so would find itself not only very unpopular with the military but also with their colleagues.
@RT
“This is your 600 comment warning. According to TD’s rules, there are only 100 comments left before we are forced to talk about things that are not ruddy little floaty boats.
Thank you. That is all.”
– Fair enough but you don’t usually like it whenever anyone suggests upgrading snatch Land Rovers as a cheap option or asks whether it’s sensible for the Army to retain so many expensively trained and equipped ‘high-end warfare’ artillery units, tank regiments, infantry battalions, etc., when its day-to-day tasking appears to comprise chasing donkey/moped-riding thugs armed with AK-47s, RPGs and IEDs.
– If I were you, I’d count my blessings. ;-)
How about naming the first ship Walker and the rest after Black Swan and modified Black Swan Sloops that sank U-boats: Amethyst, Cygnet, Erne, Hart, Kite, Magpie,Mermaid, Peacock, Starling, Stork, Wild Goose, and Woodpecker
APATS,
yes, undoubtedly correct certainly as at now, probably also for some time to come, but these things have a habit of evolving.
Wider point I’m making is that for a long while we’ve operated under a sort of “public school cricket” rules: a combination of real power and an underlying assumption, reinforced by local success, that things are the way they are. Not just in the maritime domain, but on land as well I will grant you. But OPFOR gets a vote too – see how fixed we became by IEDs in Iraq and AFG, spending billions collectively on avoiding the threat and largely losing any initiative for several years. In the counter-druggie domain (also counter-piracy, also Iran) we over-rely on off-board measures – largely helicopters and UAVs – to obtain what we want eg close surveillance. What happens when OPFOR changes the rules? There is very little as vulnerable as a helicopter station keeping with a potential nasty 100 nm from the mothership. how does the Captain react when he gets no more comms from his helicopter, not knowing that it has just taken 50 rounds of 0.50 up the chuff and is now rotor down in the drink?
Dunservin,
quite the reverse. Life moves on (although only slowly in the Army). You’ve found me advocating all sorts of stuff on TD that ex-colleagues would have heart attacks over. Motorbikes, DSVs for 1/100 th the price of a FRES SV, no tanks needed apart from a few in mothballs. As and when I pull my finger out and finish my airships article you’ll find me advocating other stuff that is going to go down like a bucket of cold vomit in Army circles.
You won’t however find me advocating any possible military role for the RAF Regiment or RAF Movers. I’m too much of a
traditionalistrealist for that.@ RT re SAMs and MANPADs
Always a fun filler in a dissertation concerning SALW proliferation. One of my SS lecturers thought the world’s governments were complicit, just damned unsporting, or both in how they policed these armaments. Silly lefty wonk.
It is hard enough hitting something that is flying with a HMG from a ship let alone a listing skiff in a choppy sea (with a crew who are probably high and shook sensible by the movement of their boat.) The USCG call it Airborne Use of Force and it does work.
RT
Unfortunately one of the rules of being the “good guys” means that occasionally you have to role with the first punch before escalating. These helo crews are pretty aware of what they are approaching and have the advantage of manouverability and height. The vessel will be covered by the sniper and the HMG so it would take a brave or reckless boat to try it. The odds on them getting it right and so quickly that the helo does not even get a message off given that the boat has to produce a weapon aim and fire before the helo crew pull the trigger are pretty small. It is not a blackhawk hovering over a crowded Mogadishu but a helo covering a small boat from range and aspect of its choosing.
i could get run over tomorrow. In short yes like most things we do it has an element of risk. We mitigate as far as we can. then we react and adapt as required.
APATS,
range / height / aspect of own choosing all very well, but you know as well as I do that the helicopter has to come within about 200 yards and station keep for the onboard snipers to even start to get close for the warning shots. And you know as well as I do that it is a very well known technique for masking even quite large MGs to hold them behind hessian or even plyboard screens and fire with no warning. Did you never mark off your cover screens with chalk marks for fully blind firing? Can you not aim an MG reasonably accurately from the hip? It is child’s play, even for druggies and pirates.
Scenario: helicopter descends for some warning shots, and is engaged, even inaccurately with MG fire in a sustained burst. What is the pilot’s likely reaction? Stay close and on station to allow his onboard sniper a fully aimed shot, all of the time increasingly collecting bucketloads of 0.50? or push off sharpish to somehow high and safe, and therefore deny his sniper any form of shot?
Sod it, even a Schermuly fired in “the general direction of” a helicopter beginning to approach is going to look like a small SAM, lots of smoke trail etc. Particularly if you take the parachute out to give it about 500 yards of range and burn. What helicopter pilot is going to risk going any closer when he’s just had a small rocket, type unkown, zip past his canopy? Kevins turn tail and flee – I know this from personal experience. You can buy Schermuly-type rockets from most marine chandlers without even breaking the law.
Thereafter, any helicopter is going to be incredibly suspicious of any other boat, and therefore not very effective at stopping drugs running. So everything will need to retract to within about 3 nm of where the mothership is in order to get RIBs onto the water and observed fire from the 30mm and mini guns. No one is allowed to fire 4.5 guns because of ROE.
Who wins?
“a service that prides itself on be self-effacing.” – Yes but in the modern world is this the right attitude to have?
How about a public competition, a petition or something, where the public get to choose the names. I know what you’re thinking, but to avoid Joe/Jessica Public coming up with names like HMS Simon Cowell or HMS Anne Widdicombe, they get to choose from an alphabetical list of names put forward by the navy. Might be popular in the schools.
@RT and APATS – “Scenario: helicopter descends for some warning shots…” – isn’t this the sort of thing we want rotary UAVs for in the future?
@ Chuck – Like the idea of a bird class but perhaps that would suit the MHPC?
@ Wise Ape
No. I know we live in an era where it is easy to knock this country. But we have been here what 1200 years? Our political system, with a few modifications, has been in place what 330 odd years? Our head of state stays in office for decades. We should be railing against populist stunts that devalue us. The youth of the UK suffer cultural disconnect because some have successfully undermined our institutions. Not saying change is bad; especially if change is progress. But change for the sake of the change to undermine a settled society for reasons that are arbitrary, transient, disingenuous, just fashionable or popular, ill founded, or for self-gain is in a way, well, evil.
Names of warships matter. Men and woman will live and work in T26 for the best part of 30 years. If they are unlucky some will go to war in them and some will die in them. Warship names carry the weight of history. It isn’t a decision that should be made by the masses by a text-message on Saturday evening on a TV programme presented by some Z-list celebrity.
Quick question (hopefully not already covered)…
What are the mini sponsons each side of the bridge? They look un-stealthy and a little slab-sided. They look as if they were put there only so that the bridge can “see” rearwards and someone can walk round and clean the windows ;-)
Re. “Prince of Wales” and naming after heores;
At least one heir to the throne was a quite skilled Admiral and strategist, although he never was called PoW. He was later James II …
@Simon
Remote weapons stations – excellent arcs of fire
RT The reaction to a perceived threat or schermully or appearance of a weapon is going to be the door gunner squeezing the trigger on a 50 cal HMG already covering the boat. The sniper may be used as the preferred minimal force to fore a disabling shot but the HMg will have the order “cover”.. At that point nothing in the ROE profile or the fact that the weapon may be a “command weapon” robs the door gunner of his inherent right of self defence which would involve instantly putting rounds on the target vessel.
Thereafter the warning shots by a helo from aforementioned HMG are going to come in from further out and disabling fire will be authorised far earlier.
Nothing prevents 4.5 being used as a graduated escalation of force. A 4.5 shell across the bow that forces a vessels to stop is preferable to putting 30MM into the vessel as far as most ROE profiles are concerned.
i think that you mistake drug smugglers and pirates for enemy combatants, they are not. they are conducting business and generally have shown no appetite for dieing whatsoever.
@Simon
“What are the mini sponsons each side of the bridge? They look un-stealthy and a little slab-sided.”
The bridge wings you mean?. Extremely useful for parking and station-keeping evolutions. Also cracking places for when the sea state gets up and the yellow curry just really isnt settling…provided you remember which is the lee side!
“Names of warships matter” – “they get to choose from an alphabetical list of names put forward by the navy.”
APATS,
last helicopter I was in under perhaps similar ROE coming into Sarajevo – the pilot yanked everything upwards and outwards when we saw the muzzle flash, and the door gunner got nothing off. Human nature.
It must be very easy to think everything is covered (not you specifically – you did mention having to roll with the first punch earlier).
OPFOR gets a vote. Whoever thought that the first privately owned submarine fleet would belong to a druggie? What’s to stop an RPG-7 being fired at a British warship tied up overnight at some Caribbean island. I don’t think much beyond the gangplank is guarded by the not very frightening sailor, certainly nothing is cleared out to 400 metres beyond the harbour. And if HMS Absolutely Spiffing takes an RPG into the bridge while tied up, it probably is not going to be doing too many anti-druggie patrols tomorrow. And certainly not if 3 drunken sailors are discovered with their bodies in one place and their heads in the harbour.
How difficult is that for a drugs overlord? Send a bunch of cutthroats to some Dutch Antilles island because a British ship always calls in there, and the boys always go and get drunk.
What the druggie lord wants is freedom of manoeuvre. Get US/UK/NL ships rather worried about using helicopters, get them deeply on their guard about tying up anywhere, get them double-checking everything, going slowly and deliberately, and he’s won. Everyone knows that an “acceptable” level of violence – perhaps a few dozen UK/US/NL casualties is not going to be enough to spark additional deployments, that there are so many national jurisdictions at play that nothing is ever effective internationally. If using the inverse square law he can increase seaspace for his operations, then it’s probably worth it.
(There’s some other nasty stuff going on. A New Mexico Chief of Police returned home after a day’s work recently to find his wife and daughter killed in the kitchen).
Anyway, nothing personal, you’ll probably think “we can’t deal with absolutely everything”, and you would be right. But the way of thinking has to change.
Ahh, “wings”. Thanks.
They certainly seem sensible, it’s just that the ends are slab-sided rather than raked up/down like the rear MG sponsons. Not sure I understand why not!
Re: copter intercept of drug smugglers…
I was under the impression that these drug lords have a lot of money (due to the drugs they trade) so would certainly expect a decent machine gun concealed behind that hessian. The only trouble I see with that idea is the time it takes to whip it out of the way and the length of time it takes for the chap in the copter to squeeze a trigger on an already targetted 50 cal.
Much better to go in guns blazing with a couple of packs of heroin to throw into the hold if it were a mistake – ooh, I’m bad :-)
RT Anyway, nothing personal, you’ll probably think “we can’t deal with absolutely everything”, and you would be right. But the way of thinking has to change’
As I muted earlier much easier to cover a boat at sea than the variety of places that provide cover somewhere like Sarajevo. I am not going to discuss defensive measures beyond saying that every single Port an RN Ship visits has a threat assessment completed on it. Their is a matrix of measures to be implemented by both ships company, external authorities etc and full OPTASk harbour Force protection Plan is produced.
Look at the bombings in discos in germany back in the 80s, somethings are difficult to prevent. What is clear at the moment is that the drug lords and their smugglers are not interested in escalating violence against military forces outside of their specific locations.
Out of interest what would you change?
@ Wise Ape
Sorry I missed that. Still no.
APATS,
re matrix of measures,
yes of course, but I don’t believe many of them will be more than box-ticking exercises, especially if “external authorities” are involved. Nothing against the Andrew at all: I feel the same about anything I’ve ever done. I’ve never been satisfied with anything I ever took over, and I’ve always found that a formal request by signal for an elevation of posture was accepted. If I was the CO of a ship doing the anti-druggie operations I’m fairly sure I would be requesting RAS as a norm and only putting into ports if completely necessary. The boys and girls on the ship are not there for a holiday, so six months completely at sea would be what they should expect.
As to what would I do? Mostly put great effort into the upstream intelligence efforts. Far better to stop it at source or at least before it gets onto the sea. If that means moving money and effort out of the guardship task and into Box 501, so well.
RT
I let down British tourists in Boston, when I was admiring the USS Constitution. A US sailor walked past. I said “Wheres this freedom trail then?”. He kept a straight face & said “Sir, you are standing on it”. Oops.
I agree. If an RN ship has enough speed to not be too far away from its helo, its got to help.
RT, Unfortunately that really does not tie in with the other tasking the Ship will have. Caribbean Port visits represent a significantly lower threat than visits in the Gulf and far east. Stopping port visits in the Caribbean where there has never been an incident due to a possible threat from some Drug Lords is surely a sign of weakness. Until Intel suggest there is a threat or there is an incident that is the way it will stay. A compromise would be to schedule the Port visits for more secure locations such as the US base at Roosevelt roads or Willemstad on Curacao.
APATS,
given that port visits have in the WI happened very regularly for X years / decades, what would be so wrong with not having any for a while, and spending much more time at sea? Are the economies of these little islands going to collapse without Jack Tar’s beer money?
If a CO proposed to the Captain of his flotilla “I’m going to sail out to the WI, spend 100% of the time at sea engaged on anti-drugs operations, and return to Pompey in 6 months without ever docking or conducting a port visit”, what would be the reaction?
RT, this is turning into another general anti-RN rant and frankly, it’s getting boring. What point are you trying to make? That we are militarily incompetent and are completely oblivious to the risks involved in the application of lethal force at sea? That we can’t survive more than a week without a cocktail party? You clearly have no understanding of what tasking is involved in the APT(N) commitment, which is not just about drug running but about diplomatic engagement, including a commitment to work within the US counter drug operation as PARTNERS, fully integrated into their operational pattern.
Anyone can dream up doomsday scenarios but the fact is that MANPADS have not yet made it into the threat arsenal for either counter drug ops in the Caribbean or counter-piracy ops off Somalia. The risks are measured, assessed and a tactical estimate produced before any such engagement. Professional soldiers are involved at every stage. We’re not going to sit on the horizon like frightened rabbits just because we MIGHT be shot at – we are military, just as you are.
RT, That is not how deployment tasking works. The broad brush programming etc will happen at Fleet HQ with a bigger picture overview. They may look at things such as the 100th Anniversary of X on y island. A naval exercise or possible support to an SSN at AUTEC. This is before it has even been decided which unit to send. We also slot into USCG patterns. Closer to the time the Unit itself will become with involved with the programmer as details are thrashed out and certain port visits will be requested and others will be assigned. There are 4 oversea territories in the Caribbean that may request a visit.
In a 6 month deployment the Ship will require a maintenance period and this is usually planned in early as it is an opportunity fro families to fly out. Most members of the ships company will be able to have 1 of the 2 weeks maintenance period off.
So in a 6 month deployment there may be 2 official visits, a maintenance period and if it is an Ff/DD and not an RFA it may participate in an exercise or work at AUTEC.
“in 6 months without ever docking or conducting a port visit”, what would be the reaction?”
Swap drafts and a lot of derision from the submarine service!.
Re Helicopter vulnerability in Law Enforcement scenario
1. There is usually also an approximately 45 knot RHIB loaded with heavily armed men in hot pursuit when the helicopter attempts to stop the go-fast.
2. There isn’t a warrior ethos on the go-fast. The consequences of being caught are minor compared with the possible consequences of a shoot-out. These guys are in it for the money.
3. Comms with the helo are near continuous. Every step, from approach, to warning shots, to disabling fire is separately approved and monitored.
4. The direction the smugglers are going is to semi-submersibles and true submarines. They vastly improve chances of avoiding interception.
APATS,
you talk great sense, I’ve seen different acronyms but to the same effect for land unit tour plotting (although less with the families. Presumably, this is only a popular option for the WI tour, less so with the FI ;) )
But, I never really felt comfortable. HMtQ is spending her money on sending you out there to do a proper job, and as far as I am concerned, unless there is a specific purpose to a port visit – one that has not been previously accomplished – then it’s slotting into the wasting money category. Stuff the 100th something – I’d rather be hunting druggies.
But, I am also a bit odd. On 9 six months deployments, I never took R&R – always raffled my 2 week slot off to the Troopers on a pure luck basis. Always set it as the last slot, which allowed some flexibility if there was a compassionate case. I then took on the Trooper’s role when he was off for two weeks – good to see life from the bottom up, and to give my 2IC a proper chance of handling things. Once had a CO who tried to stop me from doing this for various forms of bollocks “officers should be different” thinking: told him to bugger off which he did, but my OJAR that year was not stellar. Still, he was a well known tosser in the Regiment, and I survived.
@ Chuck Hill, re your point (1), surely that only works when Helo and RIB are within a shortish distance from the mothership. What happens at 100 miles, which even Royal in his RIB is going to think a bit too far from home?
@John Hartley
Re: Ulstein X Bow
Take a look at http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/a-ship-that-is-not-a-frigate-part-3-design-discussion/
@Red Trousers, August 26, 2012 at 20:45
“@ Chuck Hill, re your point (1), surely that only works when Helo and RIB are within a shortish distance from the mothership. What happens at 100 miles, which even Royal in his RIB is going to think a bit too far from home?”
We don’t attempt to stop them unless there is a boarding party in the vicinity. In Eastern Pacific or Caribbean Druggies are coming North, They are spotted by Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Ship moves to block so they are not generally attempting to overtake from astern.
It is a target rich environment. There are more targets to intercept than there are ships to act on the intel.
@ Chuck Hill,
you clearly did not see the 4-part series of HMS Manchester doing one of those WI tours in 2010. About as sub-optimal as it is possible to be, always chasing from behind. While I’m as patriotic as any Brit would reasonably be, I felt seriously embarrassed at the capabilities on show (and it had a USCG team on board – most of the time I could see the thought bubble from the USCG Lt’s head saying “FFS, get me onto a proper mission”.). And yes, the sort of attitudes betrayed by the crew on their various “runs ashore” were equally cringe-worthy, and no APATS’ reassurances of serious clearance of threat zones on port visits do not convince me at all that the Andrew has a f*cking clue about proper security, and even if they do, there was literally zero evidence of an armed guard to protect the drunken sailors as they proceeded from bar to bar. And then it broke down, several times. It was like a nautical trip on a dodgy ferry from Clacton with a load of drunken day-trippers. It was about as professional as the stupid Petty Officer on HMS Endurance very nearly causing a sinking of the ship in 2008 because he opened up the sea-cocks “by mistake”.
I really thought the Andrew by 2010 would have grown a pair, but it did not appear so.
RT, yes the caribbean is a popular one for families. There is no R&R on a Ships deployment so the family out option depending on maintenance Port is always an option. Dauntless had hers in Cape Town during her APT(S) and Dubai or bahrain are good options on a Gulf Deployment. Of course you run the risk of Operational Commitments changing the program and last minute bookings or good insurance is advised, though that does not help much if ship is ordered to sail 24 hours after family pitch up. Life in a blue one.
Manchester had drugs busts valued at £20 million. Conducted disaster relief operations on St Lucia following a hurricane and conducted a Port Visit to Havana. The first one in 50 odd years to discuss cooperation in counter Drug Ops and disaster relief. As well as other military exercises. Yes she is old and she did break down but you cannot judge 7 months on 4 hours worth of TV. Plus jack has always worked hard and played hard. No different to Squaddies in Cyprus or Germany.
APATS,
always easier to say farewell to the family for at least 2 months more than you think you’ll be away. Mrs RT was slightly shocked when I came home on the scheduled 6 months once. Next time around, she was knocked up with Little Darling Number 2, and I had a cracker of an opportunity to do an extra couple of months in Sarajevo commanding the Anti-Sniping Platoon of FREBAT 3, otherwise known as the 2eme REP, which was my boss’ old Regiment and something no red blooded man will lightly give up. Still got both my green beret with les flottes and the badge, and – serious honour – a white kepi. Little Darling No 2 will one day I hope learn that his old man earned it while he was still tucked up in Mrs RT, even if she finds it hard to accept.
APATS, we’re out of sync, but yes, Tommy is a bit of a bugger when he’s abroad, no different and probably worse than Jack
(Not sure of the value of stating $20 M – what’s the context – I did a study in the Cabinet Office later that year that concentrated on Defence outcomes, but the Manchester deployment (along with several Army deployments) had failed to achieve what was expected).
“And yes, the sort of attitudes betrayed by the crew on their various “runs ashore” were equally cringe-worthy”
Recruitment showcase portraying Navy life as jolly runs ashore in exotic climes?. Shocker!. You got to elevated rank and retain this naivete…..illuminating.
“And then it broke down, several times. It was like a nautical trip on a dodgy ferry from Clacton with a load of drunken day-trippers”
This being the HMS Manchester launched some 22yrs ago?. Has the odd mechanical defect you say?. Weren’t you describing the reliability of Scimitars of a similar vintage as deplorable?. Maybe you’d comment on the reliability of a Chieftain of that vintage perhaps?. Or is here where you pop up with the ever erudite ‘I never said the Army was any better’ missive?.
RT I was merely summarising the deployment. £20 million is neither here not there and is actually pretty poor. Iron Duke got £240 million pounds worth in one bust in 2009.
Edit Jonesy Manchester was 30 years old during that deployment.
Jonesy,
you clearly are not distinguishing between the reliability of one or several CVR(T) among 116 that make up a unit, as compared to the binary serviceability of the single HMS Manchester. A few CVR(T) being down does not affect much the overall mission. HMS Manchester sitting in some shitty Caribbean dock with her arse end exposed to the elements while engines are changed clearly does.
Statistics shocker.
@ Jonesy
The response to RT is,
116 little tanks? 3rd Shock Army deployed over 4000 armoured vehicles. 116 little tanks would not affect much 3rd Shock Army’s overall mission.
Statistics shocker.
We need to compare apples with bananas not kumquats. Or something like that….. :)
X,
aah yes, but we were only a small part of the overall, plus we had the Belgiques “apparently” on our side and to our north (if they turned up – a bit of a moot point), plus we gave much better parties.
Otherwise, you are asking for the equivalent of requiring one single Leander to close the entire GIUK gap, which even the Andrew would probably not achieve.
RT, Now hunting Soviet subs in the North Atlantic having dropped Royal off in Norway would not have been much fun but with the USN on our side and carrier and UK air support it would still have been preferable to trying to plug the Fulda Gap!
Ah fat fingers strike….yes launched 32 not 22yrs ago. Didnt spot that during the edit window thanks for the correct APATS.
X..no the response to RT I’d make is that his CVR(T) was by no means unique. The Chieftains of that vintage, according to a full-screw Recce Mech of my acquaintance, were equally shabby. That his denigrating a 30yr old ship, when he is fully aware of the effort required to keep mechanically far simpler units in the field, is baffling.
@RT
We did have an incident where a druggie fired at a RHIB and got away:
http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2010/09/28/smugglers-shooting-at-the-coast-guard-not-a-trend-we-want-to-encourage/
No ship or helicopter on scene and he was close to shore.
There is a danger of getting to smug and overconfident, possibly resulting in failure to supply proper support.
APATS,
oddly, Fulda was over-rated. It was a shortish distance, which made it important, but it was a shortish distance between nowhere very special and somewhere else equally not very special. Even the US Army knew that.
The worst case scenario was the Berlin-Hannover – Ruhr corridor, which was 1 (BR) Corps turf, and we were sadly under-numbered to do it justice. In the 80s we (allies) had a policy of stopping with the German Civvy cops every East German or Polish truck driving along it, and photographing both driver and his mate. There was a near total correlation in between drivers’ mates and Battalion and Regimental commanders in 3 Shock Army, doing a casual little recce of the route. sort of indicates where they were heading.
My Regiment’s initial job was in the Harz. First task was to drop the tower at the Brocken with a big artillery stonk (no planes expected to be available), then drop trees in a criss-cross pattern to prevent easy use of tracks and firebreaks. Get back to the western side, then spot for 24 Airmobile Brigade (motto “Fight and Fly, Dig and Die”). Then any of us left try to RV somewhere around the old BMH Rinteln (knew a couple of nurses there, good girls, but clearly only in Germany looking for a marriage). After that, who bloody knows? Am fairly sure we’d have run out of juice, comms, scran and ammo by then, no matter what was happening in REFORGER. Probably have it away on our toes, either due north or due south. No point in heading west to follow the fighting, or east.
@ Jonesy
Fair point. Also I think he is being a little unfair on the Belgians. If it wasn’t for them the BAOR of his time would have no rifles. They would have been reduced to using rude gestures and broom handles with taped on knives. Funny how the small nations with a history of neutrality produce all those effective firearms…
@RT
“…On 9 six months deployments, I never took R&R – always raffled my 2 week slot off to the Troopers on a pure luck basis. Always set it as the last slot, which allowed some flexibility if there was a compassionate case. I then took on the Trooper’s role when he was off for two weeks..”
– Just caught up with this – most interesting. To put it into context for me, what rank did you hold when you assumed the role and duties of a lowly Trooper for two weeks during your ninth 6-month deployment?
Jonesy, what is baffling, the fact that a unit can deploy when it is given that a proportion of wagons will break down, or the fact that a unit can deploy when 100% will break down?
Dunservin,
what do you think? Wear no rank, do the Trooper’s job. Not very popular with one CO, but accepted by a couple of others and not much remarked upon by most else. I’d been a Trooper when I joined the Army, and we all sit on the shitter in the same way, so it is hardly a big deal.
RT
No that you appreciate mechanical issues increase with age and impact operations with AFV’s but castigate the precise same thing with a very more complex ‘machine’ like a destroyer. Maybe I was wrong…perhaps not so baffling after all.
Jonesy,
blame the MoD. There’s something qualitatively different in between requiring a deployment when some proportion will break down, and requiring a deployment when it is guaranteed that all will break down.
If Manchester is guaranteed to break down, well what is the point?
The only thing that matters is mission effectiveness, and by definition, by breaking down, she was not mission effective all of the time. Slightly embarrassing, would you not say?
“If Manchester is guaranteed to break down, well what is the point?”
The point is that if you are deploying a 30yr old ship you do it on a task that can stand a maintenance interval or two and to a theatre capable of providing materiel support.
Manchester was effective on station in that she covered her taskings…what percentage of your AFV’s could you lose before you were incapable of repelling the red armoured fist?. By the sound of it you were inadequate before you left barracks?!.
Jonesy,
well we were damned effective in GW1. An armoured recce regiment taking out an entire armoured brigade in less than 6 hours on a billiard table smooth desert was some way in advance of what would normally be expected (see the official 16/5L and Divisional Strike group reports if this interests you: 153 armoured vehicles destroyed, 1,500 prisoners, and a logistics park destroyed as well). By the way, every Iraqi tank had a main armament range greater than Scimitar, and we had no TI other than on Swingfire and hand held units. And one GPS per Squadron. And it was blowing a sandstorm.
Oh, and due to a breakdown, a pair of Scimitars, one towing the other with an Ollie bar destroyed a moving T-59 with a combined 100 rounds of 30mm. Just kept hitting it until the turret blew off.
That was after the complete regiment had made a covert night approach march consisting of 182 waypoints and about 95 kilometres through the desert at night in rain and later the sandstorm, avoiding both enemy concentrations and known minefields. I know it was 182 waypoints because I plotted them and I led them because I was the navigation officer, and I’ve got my map on my downstairs bog wall to remind me that once I did something to be proud of.
So much for not getting out of barracks. I’d like to see your definition of inadequate. And now fuck off.
@RT
“what do you think? Wear no rank, do the Trooper’s job…”
– I asked what rank you held, not adopted, when you assumed the role and duties of a lowly Trooper on your 9th six-month deployment. From what you have told us, you must have been quite senior by then and I’m having the teensiest difficulty imagining the Cdr (2I/C) of an LPD or LPH surrendering his station leave to an able rate then removing his shoulder boards and taking over their part-of-ship duties and other work for two weeks mid-deployment.
– By the way, how’s the polo coming along? ;-)
@mick 346
Why would we want to use a type 45 design for our frigates? The RN frigate and destroyer are two very different vessels to fulfil specific roles which require different qualities.
Economies of scale – would you prefer 16 “exquisite” specialist vessels, or 19 with slightly sub-optimal hulls where all the “boring stuff” is common? Too often the RN has taken the exquisite option that’s no good to anyone else.
And it’s been done before – the best ASW and AAW ships of the late Cold War were based on the same hull. The difference was that the USN did it the right way round, they took the Spruance hull and filled it with SAMs to create the Ticonderogas (and scored some export orders with the Kidds).
@Chuck Hill
It’s a bit hard to take advice on ship names from a native of a country that has a ship called Carl Vinson but no Lexington or Saratoga or Johnston…. But ships named after heros are just not going to happen. We had a good little chat about this on ID a few weeks ago, it’s more than just a convention, it reflects deep cultural differences. We don’t have the same cult of the individual as the US, we prefer to honour units as a whole. Plus the RN has fought what, 5-10x more battles than the USN and had many more ships through history, so we’ve got lots of names that have been used on 10, even 20 ships going back to the Armada or even earlier. Given we have so many names with a raft of battle honours, who needs to invent new names? Why honour one man when you can honour the service of thousands, going back to centuries before Columbus?
@all
I’d guess it’s 80% certain that the T26 will have city names – they’re too popular politically and you can make sure that numbers 12 and 13 have the names of eg Birmingham and Nottingham where there’s lots of marginal constituencies. Not that ship procurement gets the same level of democratic scrutiny here that it does in the US, but it’s still worth a try. There’s a couple of counties in the Dukes already (Kent, Somerset and Sutherland just off the top of my head, plus Norfolk went to Chile), whereas the T23 settlement names are unlikely to be used in a city class as they’re generally too small.
Otherwise I could live with a Fearless class of ASW frigates and a Garland class of GP frigates – in addition to APatS’ list I’d like to see a Formidable and a Falcon (as a nod to the airbase on Malta in WWII), other possibles could be Fencer, Fortune, Fortitude and you could have Furious in place of Fury and Fox in place of Foxhound. There’s lots of names from the WWII G class of destroyers – it’d be nice to have Garland back (supposedly the oldest name in the RN). On top of Garland I’d go for Greyhound, Glory/Glorious, Gorgon and Griffin/Griffon, with backups of Gadfly, Goliath, Gladiator and Gipsy.
That then brings us naturally on to the Trident successor. They can have proper “Admiral” capital ship names that also happen to begin with H – Hawke, Hood and Howe – plus there have been a Horatio and Hardy in the past in the unlikely event we get a fourth. It’s appropriate for HMS Hood to be underwater in the North Atlantic….
I like Spurances and Kidds.
We will get 4 SSBNs. It is the only way the system works. Notice how decisions for deterrent sort of just get made and the work goes on in the background. Would you say as a Labour PM dare give aid abroad, money to the EU, and not fund the deterrent when the Third World seems keen to get the bomb and sling it ever further. And with China growing ever stronger? The deterrent is a dead argument. The only reason why it keeps surfacing is the Guardian and the BBC. Do the latter really represent the general swathe of opinion in the UK? That is the UK outside cosmopolitan socialist London. What many on the Left don’t understand is that as unpalatable as nuclear warfare to any right thinking person the rather basic concept that you hit us we hit you back just as hard has a simple inescapable truth that even the most dimwitted can grasp. Nuclear deterrence doesn’t scale down to stop bush fires but it does offer defence against a peer threat which is an end itself. No it will be 4 boats; stop drinking the liberal socialist Guardianista BBC kool aid.
As to names two points to remember
Firstly the MOD and BAE want to sell this design globally so they will want a name that encourages customers to think warm thoughts about the last British warship export success story. So I wonder whether the Leander names will reappear.
Secondly there are two classes with T26 given the fit out levels so that would support at least two name seqences. Since F, G and H are next in line it would not be two hard to name the different orders in different groups and get to HMS Helmand by the end.
How does what the RN call their ships, HM’s ships, have any impact on export sales? BAE will sell it as Global Combat Ship or whatever. The product name and the names of the ships in service aren’t connected.
“That is the UK outside cosmopolitan socialist London.” – a lot of the buggers have moved to Manchester. Hope they’ve taken their cars with them. :-)
Exports won’t be impacted in the slightest by what the RN calls it’s ships.
However it can be reasonably assumed that they will want to try and select names which resonant and affiliate with the British public. You’re never going to please everyone but I agree that the high probability is on reusing the city names of the T42.
If not cities then id be happy with using F or G names to follow the alphabetical convention. The RN has hundreds and hundreds of names to choose from, a lot of them great and a lot of them having impressive history.
@X
Their is not a doubt in my mind that we will get 4 SSBNs.
I wouldn’t say I’m entirely happy with nuclear weapons, I’m not an enthusiastic zealot, but I get that it’s a political tool more than anything to keep us in the diplomatic big leagues. It’s also handy to keep you’re hand in with this sort of ultimate deterrent in an increasingly changing and turbulent world.
However having said all that I really believe that their must be a way of achieving these political and strategic goals without the huge costs a straight successor demands.
What is so wrong with a stretched Astute that operates as a SSN but can rapidly reconstitute CASD if it’s required?
@ Challenger re names
There are lots of names. But when you weed out the odd sounding to the modern ear, and the ones that have modern connotations (say Amazon), the politically incorrect (say Gay Bruiser), there aren’t as many names as there first appears. Saying that as I said above there is a part of me that says put history first and hang populist moves. But I have no problem with say a Canopus.
re: deterrent
No. We are a small country we need a submarine based deterrent. It takes so much missile to lift so many MIRVs so far which means even with a clean sheet you would end up with something similar in size to Trident. Go to look at Astute and Vanguard and then ask if they could have got away with a smaller submarine to carry Trident wouldn’t they have done so in the first place? Sea water isn’t going to change. Steel is still steel.
@ WiseApe
I consider Manchester foreign anyway. I sit here on the extreme northwest borders of Mercia like a Roman soldier on Hadrian’s Wall. :)
@X
I agree their are lots of names that you would rather not use in 2012, but even after you take them out of the equation you are left with quite a large number of decent choices.
On the deterrent I take you’re point on Astute being too small. So we can assume that it will be a new build sub, albeit one that reuses as much of the technology and design features from Astute and Vanguard as possible.
I’m just not sure I’m sold on the need for CASD. Id like to look in-to the validity of using the new boats in the everyday sense as SSNs or perhaps land attack SSGNs like the Americans operate some of their Ohio’s, with CASD being a rapidly reconstituted ability as opposed to the primary task.
I’m not saying that sort of change would be easy/without problems but it would keep the residual ability of the deterrent alive whilst adding some capability to the current Astute fleet.
“HMS Crusader deployed today to the eastern Mediterranean where she will be tasked to intervene against an islamist insurgency in the Holy Land.”
I don’t think that one will slip past the censors.
No it will be 4 boats; stop drinking the liberal socialist Guardianista BBC kool aid.
@x You’re getting your drinks confused. The targets of your rants want either no successor or a TLAM-N equivalent, the debate between 3 and 4 boats has legitimate military/shipbuilding supporters on both sides. There’s certainly been a couple of papers from people like RUSI talking about 3. Unless you’re accusing RUSI of being raving pinkos?
Having full-life reactor cores makes a big difference to the sums, as you avoid that long mid-life refuelling outage which the V-boats have nearly finished. Given that a)the economy is likely to still be up the creek when the decisions are made and b)the government won’t be a Tory majority one, I just can’t see the full-fat option happening politically. In fact I can see scenarios where we get another CVA-01 situation, if Ed Balls screws things up sufficiently. Carrier aviation was one of those things that we thought we couldn’t do without, then we discovered that we just couldn’t afford it. I don’t think it’s very likely at all that we’d abandon the deterrent totally, but it’s not totally inconceivable.
On fighter-bomber submarines, the convergence is already happening. You have Trident tubes in SSBNs being filled with Tomahawk 7-packs and ninja delivery systems, and SSNs replacing individual VLS tubes with things like the Virginia Payload Module, which would have four tubes each of which can pack either 7 Tomahawks or a UUV. The indications are that Trident’s replacement is bearing this trend in mind and will be shorter but fatter, to better fit in a stretched Virginia variant.
To some extent it gets a bit moot whether you regard the Successor boat as a new design or stretched SSN – most of the systems will be common in any case. The Astute design was made bigger so that it could use the same PWR2 reactor as the Vanguards, and it looks like Ajax will be the testbed for the PWR3 to be used in Successor.
@Challenger The trouble with true fighter-bomber subs is that other people like to know what’s on them, and they tend to assume the worst (not least because we would never tell them). For instance, Spain kicked up enough of a fuss about Tireless going to Gib for repairs, can you imagine the reaction if they thought the Costas were in danger of getting extra suntans? It just gets really complicated from a legal/treaty point of view. That’s why it’s probably better to ditch the true fighter-bomber approach (the “F/A-18 sub”) and go for something more like the Tornado F3 and GR4 – you benefit from the commonality in parts and R&D, but other people can clearly distinguish your intentions.
Brunel, Faraday, Fleming, Glyndŵr, Nightingale, Baird, Berners-Lee, Austen, Babbage, Elgar, Tolkien, More and Jenner.
Just examples from the 100 greatest Britons voted unashamedly unobjectively by the British public. Continue the Olympic theme and be proud of the people who have shaped the culture of these Islands and the influenced the world.
@TOC – wasn’t John Lennon in the top 10? Also Dickens and Darwin, or am I remembering a different poll to you? If it’s the same one, I voted for Faraday (close between him and Clerk Maxwell ).
Assuming you mean the BBC show in 2002, this is the top 10 :
http://web.archive.org/web/20040525234431/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/greatbritons.shtml/
Winston Churchill
Isambard Kingdom Brunel
Diana, Princess of Wales
Charles Darwin
William Shakespeare
Isaac Newton
Queen Elizabeth I
John Lennon
Horatio Nelson
Oliver Cromwell
Full list : http://alchemipedia.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/100-greatest-britons-bbc-poll-2002.html
HMS Tolkien? :)
HMS Nightingale? That is a good name. Pretty little ship.
http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/19/media-19680/large.jpg
HMS Lennon? Ugh. Perhaps HMS George, Paul, and Ringo could join him in a squadron of yellow submarines. :)
HMS Shakespeare,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Shakespeare.jpg
@ El Sid
There are sound technical reasons for buying 4. I would rather go with the opinions of naval architects than RUSI. Thank you.
And I am aware of SSGNs. I wonder if MoD think about Chinese SSGNs patrolling the North Atlantic…….
The nuclear cruise is a dead argument. Range. CC of the boats. Defence of the deterrent.
The innards of the SSN and SSBN may be the same. Look at how big an A-boat is and look how big a V-boat and ask yourself why it is so….
As for the winner of the next General Election I admit things look bad for the Tories. But we are just about 3 years away. Thee are stirrings that the EU crisis and some populist stunts could be used by the Tory party. The other question is the Liberal aren’t popular. Nobody voted for a Coalition. However unpopular the Tories are the Lib Dems are just as or more unpopular. A careful sell of voting for Labour means more Liberals would pay dividends. Events across the Channel, the US, and China probably will have more impact on the GE (and defence spending) than a minority of the UK turning out to make a choice between dire and dire and dire….
Yes, that’s the list. I admit to cherry picking from the full list (not just top ten) unashamedly :)
@ TOC
Ship names are interesting. I am still hoping they all get called Jessica.
I think you’d be in good company!
@El Cid – yes, thanks, that’s the list I was trying to remember. Michael Crawford 6 places above Michael Faraday – shocking!
@X – without wishing to cast aspersions upon the saintly Jessica, I bet the yanks are glad they never went for USS Lance Armstrong.