At last - Navy orders three Type 26's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As of April 2017, no date has been given Tyne's decommissioning.
HMG's line was that the RN would be free to keep the batch 1 Rivers if it could find a way of fitting their running costs within existing planned funding - ie by finding savings elsewhere. With the pressures on manning (and of course funds) I guess it was felt that resourcing full-fat warships was a higher priority. That said, I've heard suggestions that they may look to retain one of the batch 1s, making a total OPV fleet of 6, but have seen nothing confirmed.
When the chips are down (which is when things really count), I'm not sure any peer or near-peer enemy would regard the threat of an OPV greater than that of a carrier with a tailored air group.
Last edited by FODPlod; 8th Jul 2017 at 20:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True but day-to-day also counts - and in many people's eyes it counts for more
We've only really need carriers once in 67 years whereas patrol vessels and frigates are in use every day.
OF COURSE we should finance both but .............
We've only really need carriers once in 67 years whereas patrol vessels and frigates are in use every day.
OF COURSE we should finance both but .............
This misses a basic and fundamental point, which is the carriers' role in peacetime diplomacy. 90% of the time (and hopefully 100% of the time) they won't be being used in a hot war. But their role as a visible asset shouldn't be underestimated. Witness the disproportionate hoo-hah when the wheezy old Kuznetsov passed through the North Sea recently, ditto Liaoning in Hong Kong, and the number of major nations currently investing in the capability. The carriers provide a powerful and highly visible presence and offer the visible potential to deliver substantial military effect, in a way that escorts - whose main capability is to defend themselves and escorted assets - cannot. Other countries understand this, and it's good that the UK is showing signs of understanding it too. Given just how parlous the world is likely to become over the next 50 years, the cost of the carriers amortised over that period will prove to be a considerable bargain.
Just a passing thought.....
Since the oil price crash lots of offshore support vessels and crews have been laid up. Why not contract these people to carry out coastal work?
Put an RN or two aboard the manage the job, and co-ordinate as needed. We have hundreds of trained merchant sailors looking for work, with years of experience going to waste. Why not spend some of that overseas 'aid' budget on looking after our own waters for a change?
Over to you!
Put an RN or two aboard the manage the job, and co-ordinate as needed. We have hundreds of trained merchant sailors looking for work, with years of experience going to waste. Why not spend some of that overseas 'aid' budget on looking after our own waters for a change?
Over to you!
Since the oil price crash lots of offshore support vessels and crews have been laid up. Why not contract these people to carry out coastal work?
Put an RN or two aboard the manage the job, and co-ordinate as needed. We have hundreds of trained merchant sailors looking for work, with years of experience going to waste. Why not spend some of that overseas 'aid' budget on looking after our own waters for a change?
Over to you!
Put an RN or two aboard the manage the job, and co-ordinate as needed. We have hundreds of trained merchant sailors looking for work, with years of experience going to waste. Why not spend some of that overseas 'aid' budget on looking after our own waters for a change?
Over to you!
To do what exactly? How? What about equipment issues? Or legal ones? Can they do boardings - the bread and butter work of an OPV? Can they be armed? Do they have secure communications?
HH
Well apart from the contribution carriers made during the Cold War, Korea, Suez, various actions in the Middle East and Far East.....
For a large part of the 1990s, the main UK military effort was in Bosnia. A carrier was deployed continuously in the Adriatic for those years, with both Sea Harriers and Sea Kings doing all sorts of stuff, including enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia, doing reece, and ground attack - the Sea Harrier participated in NATO air attacks against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. On here, many have been dismissive of the small number of aircraft (six Sea Jets) embarked, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the RAF contributions ashore had similar numbers of aircraft, but without the mobility or swing role. The embarked ASW and AEW Sea Kings also contributed to operations. Remember, Yugoslavia did have an air force and a navy.
In the late 90s carriers took part in various other activities, including helping police the no fly zone over Southern Iraq and at least a couple of stand offs with Saddam Hussein. I think that RAF Harrier GR7s were embarked for the first time during one of these crises, hence the inclusion of the Joint Force Harrier concept in the 1998 SDR. After Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, HMS Invincible was sent to the Arabian Gulf as (so the media said) there was a missile threat to the RAF base in Kuwait and the UK wanted another option. On her way back to the UK, Invincible got diverted to the Adriatic to participate in the Kosovo operations.
In 2000, the UK intervention in Sierra Leone involved HMS Illustrious with both types of Harrier embarked, a fact that may not have registered with the UK commander ashore, Brigadier David Richards (later a Knight, a General, and CDS). The political and psychological messages sent by deploying large warships close to land should also be remembered, as well as constant presence, large numbers of helicopters, command and control facilities, medical facilities, and others. I seem to remember that Illustrious made a high speed dash across the Atlantic, but had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up.
In 2001, Illustrious once again deployed with both Harrier types embarked, for the SAIF SARREA II exercise in Oman. Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, she was retasked to act as a helicopter carrier (Ocean needed to return to the UK for maintenance) and disembarked her fixed wing aircraft (and grey Sea Kings?). No land based UK fast jets took part in the initial strikes against the Taliban either, although submarines did.
In 2003, Ark Royal acted as a LPH for the invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi air force was mostly dead and buried after over a decade of sanctions and a no fly zone, and Kuwaiti/Bahraini/Qatari airbases were used by the US/UK/Australians. Not that that stopped the US Navy from deploying FIVE carriers.
Since then, our main military involvement has been Iraq and Afghanistan. Apart from the lack of an opponent with an air force or navy, they both lack any length of coastline, Afghanistan being land locked, Iraq having only a tiny coastline - not that this prevents carrier based aircraft operating in both places.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless and until the great British taxpayer is willing to pay more tax we're constantly going to be faced with unbalanced and inadequate armed forces
I really feel for them - they are asked to stretch way beyond the original scheme and when they do they are asked to stretch even further.
I can't see when it will all go south but I'm sure it will one day.............
I really feel for them - they are asked to stretch way beyond the original scheme and when they do they are asked to stretch even further.
I can't see when it will all go south but I'm sure it will one day.............
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the chips are down (which is when things really count), I'm not sure any peer or near-peer enemy would regard the threat of an OPV greater than that of a carrier with a tailored air group.
We've bought a pair of awfully large boats, but are not investing in much to go on them.
S-D
You'd like to think that wouldn't you, but I wonder what a "...tailored air group..." will look like for our carriers. If we rely on our own (UK) assets, then maybe half a dozen F35s and a mix of helicopters covering ASW, AEW etc.
We've bought a pair of awfully large boats, but are not investing in much to go on them.
S-D
We've bought a pair of awfully large boats, but are not investing in much to go on them.
S-D
By the time of planned FOC in 2023 the UK is due to have 42 (out of 48 in the first batch) F35Bs, with 2 front line squadrons of 12 each. Longer term the plan is said to be for 4 front line sqns, although what that means for the carriers depends on whether the next batch remain as B's or end up being A's.
Last edited by Frostchamber; 9th Jul 2017 at 17:51. Reason: typo
I just hope that this is not seen as an excuse by the politicians cut support budgets for the Type 23 and her systems. Remember our ships and sailors do go in harm's way - and nobody can predict the future.
Already it appears that the shortage of manpower (caused by the SDSR 10 cuts and not rectified by SDSR 15 - we all hoped for a significant manpower uplift) is leading to ships having the proven Sea Wolf system replaced by Sea Ceptor (not yet tested). After all, MOD has never had problems with integrating things before...
Also the ships are working very hard - hence being worn out. Likewise people...
Already it appears that the shortage of manpower (caused by the SDSR 10 cuts and not rectified by SDSR 15 - we all hoped for a significant manpower uplift) is leading to ships having the proven Sea Wolf system replaced by Sea Ceptor (not yet tested). After all, MOD has never had problems with integrating things before...
Also the ships are working very hard - hence being worn out. Likewise people...
However, what they've mostly done is dash hither and thither, putting a lot of miles on the clocks. Not good for the hulls or main machinery.
T45 is much sturdier (commercial build standard - 0.5inch plating) - it'll take a lot longer for those to rust through. So are the new carriers, and presumably the T26, and I think everything built since Ocean.
Sea Wolf might be proven, but that just means that its rapidly approaching obsolesence is proven. Replacement is necessary.
Who knows whether the T26's will be useful. We do need big ships for quite a lot of the jobs the RN does. However one can't help but think that if any significant maritime warfare breaks out in, say, the Persian Gulf, a whole load of small, fast patrol boats with lots of fuel and a decent sting would be more useful. Just like any other naval war in confined waters has ever been.
So they were built out of thin steel to save weight.
However, what they've mostly done is dash hither and thither, putting a lot of miles on the clocks. Not good for the hulls or main machinery.
T45 is much sturdier (commercial build standard - 0.5inch plating) - it'll take a lot longer for those to rust through. So are the new carriers, and presumably the T26, and I think everything built since Ocean.
However, what they've mostly done is dash hither and thither, putting a lot of miles on the clocks. Not good for the hulls or main machinery.
T45 is much sturdier (commercial build standard - 0.5inch plating) - it'll take a lot longer for those to rust through. So are the new carriers, and presumably the T26, and I think everything built since Ocean.
In fact, your T23 had higher scantlings than the T22. The real issue for the T23 is that they were designed and built for a life of 18 years - with one mid-life capability upgrade and then disposal. So there were few margins (weight, space, power, stability etc) built in. Argyll - the eldest RN ship left - is now 26 and has another 6 years to go. Some of them will do 35-36 years - double their design life - on current plans. Somehow the genius in charge of T31e seems to have missed this salutary lesson in what happens when you ask the Treasury for a new ship, rather than "extend" the existing ones......
Tootling about in the GIUK gap tends to put a lot of stress into the hull girder (which was sub-optimal to start with), whereas what they've actually seen in sea states is a bit less. One reason why they haven't really fallen over yet.
T45 is not to commercial standards but to Lloyds Register Naval Ship Rules (as are T26 and to a degree QEC). That does tend to mean thicker plate from less optimised structural arrangements. The real thing that helps T45 is the hull depth vs length. T26 is not quite in the same happy position....
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTEWe've bought a pair of awfully large boats, but are not investing in much to go on them.
S-D[/QUOTE]
Probably more accurate to say, "We've bought a couple of awfully large boats (sic), but are investing a fortune to put not much on them.
S-D[/QUOTE]
Probably more accurate to say, "We've bought a couple of awfully large boats (sic), but are investing a fortune to put not much on them.
I'd agree there is an issue around whether the UK plans to invest sufficiently to utilise the carriers to their full potential. Current plans, as I mentioned above, are to have 2 front line F35 sqns operational in time for the carrier's planned FOC in 2023, plus OCU. That should be enough to field 12 on the ship for routine peacetime overseas deployments and surge to 24 in a crisis.
That's probably just about OK although it smacks of pitching things at the minimum we can get away with, bearing in mind that USMC assets will be deployed regularly too (although not in the event of any any UK-only undertaking). It also reflects no change in our "ambition" which is continuous availability of one carrier (only) and no provision to field additional FW assets on the second carrier concurrently. To that extent we're clearly not planning to invest in them to their full potential.
Then again, that same minimalist thinking is clearly applied across the board to UK forces generally, so nothing new there.
If we do end up with 4 sqns of F35B in the longer term things will be that much better, but that's a long time away in political terms...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 July 2017 • 11:00am
The first warship in a new fleet of Royal Navy frigates will be named HMS Glasgow, the Defence Secretary has announced.
Sir Michael Fallon revealed the name as he cut the ship's first piece of steel at the BAE Systems shipyard in Govan in Glasgow.
Earlier this month a £3.7 billion contract was signed with BAE Systems to build the first three warships in the new eight-strong fleet of City class Type 26 frigates, sustaining 1,700 jobs in Scotland for two decades. Together the three ships being built under the first contract will safeguard 4,000 jobs in Scotland and across the wider UK supply chain until 2035, according to the Ministry of Defence (MoD
"HMS Glasgow and the other seven frigates in this new class will protect our powerful new aircraft carriers and nuclear deterrent, helping keep Britain safe across the world. The Type 26 is a cutting-edge warship that will maintain our naval power with a truly global reach. Designed for a service life of at least 25 years, the Type 26 frigates will form a backbone of the future Royal Navy surface fleet well into the future."
The ships will specialise in anti-submarine warfare and work closely with the Navy's Trident nuclear deterrent and the new aircraft carriers, the first of which - HMS Queen Elizabeth - launched from Rosyth in late June for sea trials. HMS Glasgow will enter service in the mid 2020s and the fleet will eventually replace the current Type 23 frigates. Each Type 26 will carry a crew of 118, have a top speed of more than 26 knots and a range of 7,000 nautical miles.
Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, said: "The Clyde was the birthplace of some of the greatest fighting ships the world has ever known, and so cutting steel there today for the future HMS Glasgow is symbolic of a Royal Navy on the rise once again. As an island nation, we are utterly dependent on the sea for our security and prosperity, and the City-class names have been chosen for the Type 26 to provide an enduring link between the Royal Navy and our great centres of commerce and industry. The name Glasgow brings with it a string of battle honours, stretching from the Arctic Circle to the South Atlantic. As one of the world's most capable anti-submarine frigates, the Type 26 will carry the Royal Navy's tradition of victory far into the future."
The contract for the second batch of five ships will be negotiated in the early 2020s.
The first warship in a new fleet of Royal Navy frigates will be named HMS Glasgow, the Defence Secretary has announced.
Sir Michael Fallon revealed the name as he cut the ship's first piece of steel at the BAE Systems shipyard in Govan in Glasgow.
Earlier this month a £3.7 billion contract was signed with BAE Systems to build the first three warships in the new eight-strong fleet of City class Type 26 frigates, sustaining 1,700 jobs in Scotland for two decades. Together the three ships being built under the first contract will safeguard 4,000 jobs in Scotland and across the wider UK supply chain until 2035, according to the Ministry of Defence (MoD
"HMS Glasgow and the other seven frigates in this new class will protect our powerful new aircraft carriers and nuclear deterrent, helping keep Britain safe across the world. The Type 26 is a cutting-edge warship that will maintain our naval power with a truly global reach. Designed for a service life of at least 25 years, the Type 26 frigates will form a backbone of the future Royal Navy surface fleet well into the future."
The ships will specialise in anti-submarine warfare and work closely with the Navy's Trident nuclear deterrent and the new aircraft carriers, the first of which - HMS Queen Elizabeth - launched from Rosyth in late June for sea trials. HMS Glasgow will enter service in the mid 2020s and the fleet will eventually replace the current Type 23 frigates. Each Type 26 will carry a crew of 118, have a top speed of more than 26 knots and a range of 7,000 nautical miles.
Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, said: "The Clyde was the birthplace of some of the greatest fighting ships the world has ever known, and so cutting steel there today for the future HMS Glasgow is symbolic of a Royal Navy on the rise once again. As an island nation, we are utterly dependent on the sea for our security and prosperity, and the City-class names have been chosen for the Type 26 to provide an enduring link between the Royal Navy and our great centres of commerce and industry. The name Glasgow brings with it a string of battle honours, stretching from the Arctic Circle to the South Atlantic. As one of the world's most capable anti-submarine frigates, the Type 26 will carry the Royal Navy's tradition of victory far into the future."
The contract for the second batch of five ships will be negotiated in the early 2020s.