Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...gbow-recycling
There's also a difference between an unpowered barge and a mobile missile carrier....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
In the same vein…..
Ukraine to create squadrons of up to 20 naval drones with separate functions, which in combination repeat the capabilities of one full-fledged warship, — WSJ
https://archive.ph/2024.06.24-083519...ussia-ce35adfa
Ukraine to create squadrons of up to 20 naval drones with separate functions, which in combination repeat the capabilities of one full-fledged warship, — WSJ
https://archive.ph/2024.06.24-083519...ussia-ce35adfa
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
"There's also a difference between an unpowered barge and a mobile missile carrier...."
I agree - but then they haven't thought of that -they want it to be minimally manned and CHEAP! - So forget about beds, a/c, radios/ radar, a kitchen and other softening luxuries . and maybe powered by outboard engines.... Outsource the crew and flag them in the Marshall Islands....... Read any history of UK warship design since 1945 and it's often about how the original design grows when such things are suddenly remembered...................
The River Class cost the RN approx three times the price of similar vessels sold to Brazil - not all of that was extra kit, and yes it was probably a better ship but it shows how hard it is to get anything "cheap" in UK procurement. Possibly they'll finish up as T31's without a helicopter or anti-sub capability.
I wait in anticipation.
I agree - but then they haven't thought of that -they want it to be minimally manned and CHEAP! - So forget about beds, a/c, radios/ radar, a kitchen and other softening luxuries . and maybe powered by outboard engines.... Outsource the crew and flag them in the Marshall Islands....... Read any history of UK warship design since 1945 and it's often about how the original design grows when such things are suddenly remembered...................
The River Class cost the RN approx three times the price of similar vessels sold to Brazil - not all of that was extra kit, and yes it was probably a better ship but it shows how hard it is to get anything "cheap" in UK procurement. Possibly they'll finish up as T31's without a helicopter or anti-sub capability.
I wait in anticipation.
Last edited by Asturias56; 24th June 2024 at 14:39.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,967
Likes: 100
From: Devon
Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you think that the enemy submarines would present a threat that cannot be countered? Are you saying that there will never be a need to protect things moving by sea on the surface? Are you claiming that a surface group has more ASW capability without a carrier? From my perspective the enemy submarine has never had it so bad, with technologies like low frequency sonar allowing long range detection. Without a carrier - where will all the ASW helicopters go? This 1977 film from the IWM collections comments on these things:
THE ROYAL NAVY AND THE SOVIET THREAT
At 22.35 we get told about 'the most important surface ship of the future' - the 'anti submarine cruiser'. The point is made that a carrier provides easily the most cost effective means of deploying large anti submarine helicopters to sea in worthwhile numbers as well as command facilities for a task group. From 24.15 the presenter mentions that these ships will carry the Sea Harrier to supplement land based air cover for the fleet outside the range of shore bases and mentions dealing with shadowing aircraft used by the Soviets for targeting long range missiles.
You might also enjoy this talk by the late Professor Eric Grove:
Professor Grove mentions carriers a lot, in terms of protecting shipping and amphibious forces. At 50:15 he suggests that the thing hostile submarine captains dread most of all is the dipping sonar - and that an airborne radar flooding an area will keep the hostile submarines down. He then describes witnessing an ASW exercise in which a number of NATO submarines transmitted Soviet levels of noise, and every one was covered by either an ASW helicopter or an MPA. Then they turned off the extra noise...
However - it is safer to assume that some SSGNs may get to fire some missiles. What then? When this film (also from the IWM Collections) was made in 1977, it was assumed that the air to air missile could engage enemy missiles as well as aircraft.
PRINCIPLES OF ANTI AIR WARFARE
The last few months have proved that this is indeed the case:
Super Hornets Now Flying With Nine Air-To-Air Missiles To Counter Houthi Drones - The War Zone
The extra Sidewinder capacity was added to the Super Hornet and Growler to provide more ‘magazine depth’ to shoot down Houthi drones. For the Navy's EA-18Gs, the AIM-9X was an entirely new option added to their armory.
The need for this expanded air-to-air capacity became clear during IKE’s months on station in the Gulf of Aden, where it’s part of a task force that is defending shipping in the region while degrading the ability of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen to continue to threaten that shipping.
I believe that the Super Hornets have splashed a few anti ship missiles - definitely something to do at the greatest possible range. How many more merchant vessels would have been sunk, and how many more merchant seamen would have been killed or injured had it not been for the USS Dwight D Eisenhower and her Super Hornets?
A US aircraft carrier and its crew have fought Houthi attacks for months. How long can it last? - AP News
ABOARD THE USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER IN THE RED SEA (AP) — The combat markings emblazoned on the F/A-18 fighter jet tell the story: 15 missiles and six drones, painted in black just below the cockpit windshield...
How many of these missiles were shot down in flight?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...s-says-report/
Britain needs Arsenal Ships says report
A report advocates for the Royal Navy to embrace the concept of the ‘arsenal ship’, a vessel capable of firing huge volumes of missiles.According to ‘A More Lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s Naval Power‘ by William Freer and Dr. Emma Salisbury, it is time for the UK to accelerate its exploration of this concept.
Britain needs Arsenal Ships says report
A report advocates for the Royal Navy to embrace the concept of the ‘arsenal ship’, a vessel capable of firing huge volumes of missiles.According to ‘A More Lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s Naval Power‘ by William Freer and Dr. Emma Salisbury, it is time for the UK to accelerate its exploration of this concept.
Arsenal ships represent an opportunity to increase the number of high value units that will need to be defended, soak up more personnel, and cause other problems. I am sure that the US Navy look at and rejected the arsenal ship concept decades ago, with the exception of converting the four surplus SSBNs to carry one hundred and fifty or so Tomahawks.
So dumb while I am not convinced of the plan that AU and US are doing LUSV/MUSV its still an infinately better plan and concept than arsenal ships
Same reports coming out today more submarines (SSGN) and more type 26's. Lots or more but no actual where is the money and crew coming from.
Same reports coming out today more submarines (SSGN) and more type 26's. Lots or more but no actual where is the money and crew coming from.
Why do these people never notice that we need more ASW helicopters?
rattman,
With regard to where crews will come from, I believe the plan is to build ships with a crew of 50, rather than 150 (exact numbers may be incorrect, but the principle is the point). So there is a requirement for less personnel, or the same number can crew more ships.
No doubt someone with more knowledge will be along soon to give a more detailed/accurate answer.
As for where the money comes from...
With regard to where crews will come from, I believe the plan is to build ships with a crew of 50, rather than 150 (exact numbers may be incorrect, but the principle is the point). So there is a requirement for less personnel, or the same number can crew more ships.
No doubt someone with more knowledge will be along soon to give a more detailed/accurate answer.
As for where the money comes from...
As far as I know all these ideas have been forward by companies with no experience of operating warships, and not by the RN or warship designers. How does a tiny crew sustain defence watches for weeks? Or perform ship's husbandry to stop corrosion? Or deal with possible floods or fires?
In the same vein…..
Ukraine to create squadrons of up to 20 naval drones with separate functions, which in combination repeat the capabilities of one full-fledged warship, — WSJ
https://archive.ph/2024.06.24-083519...ussia-ce35adfa
Ukraine to create squadrons of up to 20 naval drones with separate functions, which in combination repeat the capabilities of one full-fledged warship, — WSJ
https://archive.ph/2024.06.24-083519...ussia-ce35adfa
We should be wary of learning lessons that apply to somebody else's unique geography and not our own. For example, some people think that we should have small and fast corvettes like the Norway and Sweden have in their fjords, designed to hide in nooks and crannies. Pity we do not have fjords...
"There's also a difference between an unpowered barge and a mobile missile carrier...."
I agree - but then they haven't thought of that -they want it to be minimally manned and CHEAP! - So forget about beds, a/c, radios/ radar, a kitchen and other softening luxuries . and maybe powered by outboard engines.... Outsource the crew and flag them in the Marshall Islands....... Read any history of UK warship design since 1945 and it's often about how the original design grows when such things are suddenly remembered...................
The River Class cost the RN approx three times the price of similar vessels sold to Brazil - not all of that was extra kit, and yes it was probably a better ship but it shows how hard it is to get anything "cheap" in UK procurement. Possibly they'll finish up as T31's without a helicopter or anti-sub capability.
I wait in anticipation.
I agree - but then they haven't thought of that -they want it to be minimally manned and CHEAP! - So forget about beds, a/c, radios/ radar, a kitchen and other softening luxuries . and maybe powered by outboard engines.... Outsource the crew and flag them in the Marshall Islands....... Read any history of UK warship design since 1945 and it's often about how the original design grows when such things are suddenly remembered...................
The River Class cost the RN approx three times the price of similar vessels sold to Brazil - not all of that was extra kit, and yes it was probably a better ship but it shows how hard it is to get anything "cheap" in UK procurement. Possibly they'll finish up as T31's without a helicopter or anti-sub capability.
I wait in anticipation.
One of the lessons from the past is not to build small ships - the greater the internal volume within the hull the easier it will be to insert new capabilities and the better the sea handling. Other lessons include not building frontline ships without up to date sensors at weapons (cf the loss of HM Ships Ardent and Antelope in the Falklands), not fitting old radar to new ships (the excessive beamwidth of the 965 radar was a factor in the loss of Sheffield and Coventry), and not ignoring the limited ranges of ship based weapons and sensors.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th June 2024 at 14:36.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
"There's also a difference between an unpowered barge and a mobile missile carrier...."
I agree - but then they haven't thought of that -they want it to be minimally manned and CHEAP! - So forget about beds, a/c, radios/ radar, a kitchen and other softening luxuries . and maybe powered by outboard engines.... Outsource the crew and flag them in the Marshall Islands....... Read any history of UK warship design since 1945 and it's often about how the original design grows when such things are suddenly remembered...................
The River Class cost the RN approx three times the price of similar vessels sold to Brazil - not all of that was extra kit, and yes it was probably a better ship but it shows how hard it is to get anything "cheap" in UK procurement. Possibly they'll finish up as T31's without a helicopter or anti-sub capability.
I wait in anticipation.
I agree - but then they haven't thought of that -they want it to be minimally manned and CHEAP! - So forget about beds, a/c, radios/ radar, a kitchen and other softening luxuries . and maybe powered by outboard engines.... Outsource the crew and flag them in the Marshall Islands....... Read any history of UK warship design since 1945 and it's often about how the original design grows when such things are suddenly remembered...................
The River Class cost the RN approx three times the price of similar vessels sold to Brazil - not all of that was extra kit, and yes it was probably a better ship but it shows how hard it is to get anything "cheap" in UK procurement. Possibly they'll finish up as T31's without a helicopter or anti-sub capability.
I wait in anticipation.
Joined: Apr 2010
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 958
Likes: 1,239
From: Herefordshire
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-na...g-motherships/
The Royal Navy wants three new-build mine hunting motherships
It has emerged that the RN plans to acquire up to three ‘survivable, non-complex warships’ designed from the outset to be motherships for autonomous mine-hunting boats.
Main difference between Royal Navy MHC and France/Belgium/Netherlands is a craving for above all, SPACE. Room to carry more/larger USVs, prospectively (2 now, hopefully 3 in near future), ROVs, UUVs/AUVs, etc. The less space constraints, the better. It's the best future-proofing.
Ships being built for Belgium/Netherlands/France are brilliant little ships perfectly designed against the MCM system as is now. But space lets you adapt to how it will be tomorrow. Also, more room for NAVYPODs to bring aboard anything from better defence weapons to more drones.
The Royal Navy wants three new-build mine hunting motherships
It has emerged that the RN plans to acquire up to three ‘survivable, non-complex warships’ designed from the outset to be motherships for autonomous mine-hunting boats.
Main difference between Royal Navy MHC and France/Belgium/Netherlands is a craving for above all, SPACE. Room to carry more/larger USVs, prospectively (2 now, hopefully 3 in near future), ROVs, UUVs/AUVs, etc. The less space constraints, the better. It's the best future-proofing.
Ships being built for Belgium/Netherlands/France are brilliant little ships perfectly designed against the MCM system as is now. But space lets you adapt to how it will be tomorrow. Also, more room for NAVYPODs to bring aboard anything from better defence weapons to more drones.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
"Not sure what any of that had to do with Longbow, but hey-ho....."
well yo u kindly pointed out that Longbow was an unpowered barge for those who didn't know.
My point was that whenever the RN tries to go "low cost" it never turns out that way.
well yo u kindly pointed out that Longbow was an unpowered barge for those who didn't know.
My point was that whenever the RN tries to go "low cost" it never turns out that way.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
"One of the lessons from the past is not to build small ships -"
I'd add building ships that don't breakdown regularly is also a good idea. But if we keep building larger and larger ships we have, given the budgets available, less and less of them.
Patrick Boniface of Warship World recently pointed out that:-
"Modern warships are more capable and their weapons more lethal, but they can only be in one place at a time and fewer and fewer available hulls they are in less places more often that before"
I'd add building ships that don't breakdown regularly is also a good idea. But if we keep building larger and larger ships we have, given the budgets available, less and less of them.
Patrick Boniface of Warship World recently pointed out that:-
"Modern warships are more capable and their weapons more lethal, but they can only be in one place at a time and fewer and fewer available hulls they are in less places more often that before"
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
First off, you have to understand that the Amazonas class sold to Brazil originated as Coastguard vessels for Trinidad and Tobago. For a variety of reasons, they pulled out of the contract, leaving BVT (as was) with three ships on their hands they wanted to get rid of. Hence they were sold at a bit of a knockdown price.
Second off - the RCB2 built for the RN were done so as part of the infamous ToBA, which was supposed to guarantee BVT (by now BAE) a workstream in return for closing some of their capacity. The need to have something to build came as a bit of a short-notice event, when it became clear that the T26 design and associated build cost was causing a huge game of chicken between BAE and HMG, which was likely to result in the steel trades on the Clyde being paid to stand around looking idle (normal jogging). That meant they needed something that did not need lots of design doing, so they hit upon the wizard wheeze of going for the Amazonas and badging it as RCB2.
Trouble was, the T&T coastguard and the Brazilian navy don't operate to the same safety standards as the RN, at which point the DMR and the Naval Authority hove into view demanding changes to the design to ensure compliance with stability standards, fire safety, explosive safety, escape and evacuation etc. Which required design changes. All of which cost time and money and incurred cost while the steel trades waited.
That's why there was the cost differential - less to do with UK "procurement" per se, than what at the time was the industrial strategy and the regulatory environment.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
Your River class example is also a little awry - and the cost increase there attributable to a number of things unrelated to UK "procurement".
First off, you have to understand that the Amazonas class sold to Brazil originated as Coastguard vessels for Trinidad and Tobago. For a variety of reasons, they pulled out of the contract, leaving BVT (as was) with three ships on their hands they wanted to get rid of. Hence they were sold at a bit of a knockdown price.
Second off - the RCB2 built for the RN were done so as part of the infamous ToBA, which was supposed to guarantee BVT (by now BAE) a workstream in return for closing some of their capacity. The need to have something to build came as a bit of a short-notice event, when it became clear that the T26 design and associated build cost was causing a huge game of chicken between BAE and HMG, which was likely to result in the steel trades on the Clyde being paid to stand around looking idle (normal jogging). That meant they needed something that did not need lots of design doing, so they hit upon the wizard wheeze of going for the Amazonas and badging it as RCB2.
Trouble was, the T&T coastguard and the Brazilian navy don't operate to the same safety standards as the RN, at which point the DMR and the Naval Authority hove into view demanding changes to the design to ensure compliance with stability standards, fire safety, explosive safety, escape and evacuation etc. Which required design changes. All of which cost time and money and incurred cost while the steel trades waited.
That's why there was the cost differential - less to do with UK "procurement" per se, than what at the time was the industrial strategy and the regulatory environment.
First off, you have to understand that the Amazonas class sold to Brazil originated as Coastguard vessels for Trinidad and Tobago. For a variety of reasons, they pulled out of the contract, leaving BVT (as was) with three ships on their hands they wanted to get rid of. Hence they were sold at a bit of a knockdown price.
Second off - the RCB2 built for the RN were done so as part of the infamous ToBA, which was supposed to guarantee BVT (by now BAE) a workstream in return for closing some of their capacity. The need to have something to build came as a bit of a short-notice event, when it became clear that the T26 design and associated build cost was causing a huge game of chicken between BAE and HMG, which was likely to result in the steel trades on the Clyde being paid to stand around looking idle (normal jogging). That meant they needed something that did not need lots of design doing, so they hit upon the wizard wheeze of going for the Amazonas and badging it as RCB2.
Trouble was, the T&T coastguard and the Brazilian navy don't operate to the same safety standards as the RN, at which point the DMR and the Naval Authority hove into view demanding changes to the design to ensure compliance with stability standards, fire safety, explosive safety, escape and evacuation etc. Which required design changes. All of which cost time and money and incurred cost while the steel trades waited.
That's why there was the cost differential - less to do with UK "procurement" per se, than what at the time was the industrial strategy and the regulatory environment.
Agree that the Industrial Strategy wasn't brilliantly handled - the builders could see then coming a long way off. (see Harland & Wolff right now) - but they were a lot more expensive than planned even so. And of course they then decided that a Merlin helicopter would be nice for the follow-on vessels. Constant pressure to increase size and complexity. I'm sure these Arsenal ships would turn out the same.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Agree that the Industrial Strategy wasn't brilliantly handled - the builders could see then coming a long way off. (see Harland & Wolff right now) - but they were a lot more expensive than planned even so. And of course they then decided that a Merlin helicopter would be nice for the follow-on vessels. Constant pressure to increase size and complexity. I'm sure these Arsenal ships would turn out the same.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
15% heavier, 12% longer, Cost was £ 116 - £ 140 mm each - average £ 127 mm more or less
River 1's cost £150 mm in total lease and purchase costs I think for 3 vessels so £ ~ £50mm apiece. the Brazilian versions of the type 1 cost £ 44 mm each
At least 29 changes were made in the changing the design from the Amazonas - the helicopter required a flying control position, a new landing grid and mods to refuelling and in flight refueling provision.
What is really weird was that they were supposed to be used to "iron-out" snags in the delivery of the T26's. but "Glasgow" has been building for over 7 years.
River 1's cost £150 mm in total lease and purchase costs I think for 3 vessels so £ ~ £50mm apiece. the Brazilian versions of the type 1 cost £ 44 mm each
At least 29 changes were made in the changing the design from the Amazonas - the helicopter required a flying control position, a new landing grid and mods to refuelling and in flight refueling provision.
What is really weird was that they were supposed to be used to "iron-out" snags in the delivery of the T26's. but "Glasgow" has been building for over 7 years.
Last edited by Asturias56; 26th June 2024 at 08:10.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
15% heavier, 12% longer, Cost was £ 116 - £ 140 mm each - average £ 127 mm more or less
River 1's cost £150 mm in total lease and purchase costs I think for 3 vessels so £ ~ £50mm apiece. the Brazilian versions of the type 1 cost £ 44 mm each
At least 29 changes were made in the changing the design from the Amazonas - the helicopter required a flying control position, a new landing grid and mods to refuelling and in flight refueling provision.
What is really weird was that they were supposed to be used to "iron-out" snags in the delivery of the T26's. but "Glasgow" has been building for over 7 years.
River 1's cost £150 mm in total lease and purchase costs I think for 3 vessels so £ ~ £50mm apiece. the Brazilian versions of the type 1 cost £ 44 mm each
At least 29 changes were made in the changing the design from the Amazonas - the helicopter required a flying control position, a new landing grid and mods to refuelling and in flight refueling provision.
What is really weird was that they were supposed to be used to "iron-out" snags in the delivery of the T26's. but "Glasgow" has been building for over 7 years.
As for ironing out snags in T26 delivery, no-one credible would have believed that. The RCB2 and T26 are incomparable in complexity and systems among other things.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
the bit about the T26's came from Conrad Waters - the Editor of World Naval Review. The idea seems to have been to perfect the systems for moving and assembling different bits in one place. Of course it's probably just some flim-flam to explain why it was given to Scotland. Hasn't worked out too well.
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 376
From: Hampshire
According to James Cartlidge in January the averaged costs per vessel were very similar
Being of a certain age, the RN I joined had several classes/sub-classes based on and including the original Type 12 hull (Torquay was still in commission), 12M (Rothesays), and 12I (Leanders) - Batch 1, Batch 2, and Broadbeam - all of which had been further subdivided. My point being having a common hull doesn't mean they are the same vessel with the same role. The Batch Ones were primarily purchased to replace the Island class FPVs with a more capable vessel, and theoretically the Castle Class (an orphan class originally supposed to replace the Islands but defence cuts led to only 2 being built); that replacement ended up being the the one-off HMS Clyde, which like the Castles had a flight deck. As N_A_B said the Port of Spain/Amazonas Class was a budget version to fill a coast guard role. The Batch Twos, irrespective of the industry politics, enabled the RN to perform a policing, support of civil power role both more economically and without having to use increasingly scarce escorts off their main tasking. Another advantage which fits the forward deployment role is 66% longer endurance than the Batch Ones.
N_A_B my understanding is that Amazonas and River Batch 2 have the same length (90.5 m) and nominal displacement (2000 tons) - happy to be corrected.
The report stems from a pro-Global Britain think tank, like all think tanks it states its research is rigorous, independent and policy-driven. Its funders include many who would benefit from a bigger better armed RN. The fact is until the next strategic review and a dose of the fiscal realities which both the currently major parties are ignoring, it's all a digital fantasty fleet wish list.
On a slightly different point, as I said in February regarding a proposed T32 design:
- The contract for the three Batch 1 vessels had a value of £378 million = £126 million per vessel (not sure how this works as Lease 1 £50million, Lease 2 £52, exercising of buy clause £39) - Launched 2002-2003
- The contract for the five Batch 2 vessels had a value of £635 million = £127 million per vessel - Launched 2016-2019
Being of a certain age, the RN I joined had several classes/sub-classes based on and including the original Type 12 hull (Torquay was still in commission), 12M (Rothesays), and 12I (Leanders) - Batch 1, Batch 2, and Broadbeam - all of which had been further subdivided. My point being having a common hull doesn't mean they are the same vessel with the same role. The Batch Ones were primarily purchased to replace the Island class FPVs with a more capable vessel, and theoretically the Castle Class (an orphan class originally supposed to replace the Islands but defence cuts led to only 2 being built); that replacement ended up being the the one-off HMS Clyde, which like the Castles had a flight deck. As N_A_B said the Port of Spain/Amazonas Class was a budget version to fill a coast guard role. The Batch Twos, irrespective of the industry politics, enabled the RN to perform a policing, support of civil power role both more economically and without having to use increasingly scarce escorts off their main tasking. Another advantage which fits the forward deployment role is 66% longer endurance than the Batch Ones.
N_A_B my understanding is that Amazonas and River Batch 2 have the same length (90.5 m) and nominal displacement (2000 tons) - happy to be corrected.
The report stems from a pro-Global Britain think tank, like all think tanks it states its research is rigorous, independent and policy-driven. Its funders include many who would benefit from a bigger better armed RN. The fact is until the next strategic review and a dose of the fiscal realities which both the currently major parties are ignoring, it's all a digital fantasty fleet wish list.
On a slightly different point, as I said in February regarding a proposed T32 design:
A crew of 50 (presumably 'core crew' i.e. supplemented by specialists for the 'autonomous systems' or a crewed aerial vehicle) is all fine and dandy but when spread across Cruising or Defence watchbills how will it be sustained? There is research that suggests a three watch system is the most sustainable for crew effectiveness and, physical and mental health.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
the bit about the T26's came from Conrad Waters - the Editor of World Naval Review. The idea seems to have been to perfect the systems for moving and assembling different bits in one place. Of course it's probably just some flim-flam to explain why it was given to Scotland. Hasn't worked out too well.
There was no flim-flam whatsoever in awarding the contract to the Clyde. As per previous posts it was an explicit provision of the ToBA, which in turn was enabled by the closure of the Portsmouth shipbuilding facility (a BAES decision).
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
I was comparing the River Batch 1's s with the Batch 2's - I made a specific reference to "follow-on vessels"
Type Offshore patrol vessel Displacement Length Beam Draught Batch 1: 3.8 m (12 ft 6 in)[1]
Type Offshore patrol vessel Displacement Length Beam Draught Batch 1: 3.8 m (12 ft 6 in)[1]
- Bush, Steve (2014). British Warships and Auxiliaries. Maritime Books. pp. 23–24. ISBN 978-1904459552.
- Offshore Patrol Vessels". BAE Systems. Retrieved 2 August 2016.
- Royal Navy. Retrieved 2 August 2016.
- "Construction begins on new Royal Navy warships". BAE Systems (Press release). Retrieved 2 August 2016.
- Ministry of Defence (10 October 2014). "First steel cut on new patrol ships". gov.uk (Press release). Retrieved 2 August 2016.