The shrinking Royal Navy

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I'm also wondering what it will do once it arrives off Syria...

Drop anchor within sight of land, convenient for shore supply, and probably go aground on the steady stream of borscht jars and other gash heaved over the side. 

[4630]

.

Edited November 12, 2016 by 4630

[jjb1970]

The Kuznetsov is notorious for the unreliability of its engines, hence why the fleet is accompanied by its own tug. More interesting than the carrier is the large missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (sometimes described as a battlecruiser) which is a very impressive looking ship and armed to the teeth. The STOBAR configuration of the Kuznetsov is generally considered the worst of all the potential carrier configurations, combining many of the worst aspects of both STOVL and catapults.

[pete_mcfarlane]

It's worth remembering that the carrier and battlecruiser are both Soviet era ships. I don't think the Russians have laid down any major surface warships since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the list of ships here suggests that only recent construction is a handful of smallish frigates. The submarine fleet is a bit more modern though. 

 

You have to wonder how much longer these ships will last, and what size of fleet the Russians will be able to maintain in the future. 

[skipepsi]

It's worth remembering that the carrier and battlecruiser are both Soviet era ships. I don't think the Russians have laid down any major surface warships since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the list of ships here suggests that only recent construction is a handful of smallish frigates. The submarine fleet is a bit more modern though. 

 

You have to wonder how much longer these ships will last, and what size of fleet the Russians will be able to maintain in the future. 

I think oil and gas prices will decide that, the will may be there but the currency won't.

[The White Rabbit]

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-0/centery:51/zoom:11 doesn't show the naval vessels at sea but a fleet oiler is shown: Osipov, which is reported as being attached to the Northern Fleet. Just passing Brighton now. 

 

There's a Fleet Auxilliary (Argus) shown as at anchor behind the Plymouth breakwater and German frigate in Devonport. Duncan & Richmond are quoted as being 'out of range'... 

[The Stationmaster]

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-0/centery:51/zoom:11 doesn't show the naval vessels at sea but a fleet oiler is shown: Osipov, which is reported as being attached to the Northern Fleet. Just passing Brighton now. 

 

There's a Fleet Auxilliary (Argus) shown as at anchor behind the Plymouth breakwater and German frigate in Devonport. Duncan & Richmond are quoted as being 'out of range'... 

 

Argus has been at Plymouth for a few days as she was up in the Portland recently although I think she'd been back home to Falmouth in between those two deployments.

 

RN ships generally seem to turn off their AIS when they're a few miles offshore if outward bound and the NATO vessels training out of Devonport usually seem to do the same.  You will then (sometimes) get an AIS position being given which is quite old - I think 16 hours is about the oldest I've seen.  A recent odd one was HMS Dragon which was supposedly on deployment to 'a foreign station' but showed up again on AIS fairly rapidly as she came back in barely 24 hours after sailing due to the usual Type 45 problems.

 

Really says something about the state of the RN when they had to put Type 45s to sea to trail round with the Russian ships - i wonder if anyone was running some sort of book on whether a Type 45 or the Kuznetsov would break down first.

[pete_mcfarlane]

The Telegraph has an article on the Kuznetsov: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/russian-carrier-plagued-by-technical-problems/

 

I'm left wondering how the mechanical problems affect the ability of the ship to launch aircraft. IIRC the Argentine carrier in the Falklands didn't do anything useful because it couldn't steam fast enough to get a decent headwind down the deck to launch aircraft with a decent load. None of the quoted 'experts' mention this, and seem to treat the propulsion issues as a binary 'goes/breaks down' issue. 

 

Still, I suppose it's better than not having any working fixed wing carriers at all for 10 years...... 

[Derekstuart]

I don't follow this thread. There seems to be this "romantic" notion of days gone by when the government (of either side) actually bothered whether the Country was safe or not. One only needs to look at the news now to see that posturing and empty threats is the name of the game now- and for that we are a World beater.

[Derekstuart]

You ARE talking about the Country that has managed to keep some Trabants running for nigh on 60 years. The Russians might not go in for polished aluminium and coca cola dispensers on every bulkhead, but don't under-estimate their ability to keep things running.

 

Where the US and presumably all of NATO now is making everything computer operated (ridiculous to think at the core is bog standard pc kernels) the Russians still prefer hard wire and hard steel. Which ships will survive one of these circuit crippling electronic weapons? Hell, we've all seen Battlestar Galactica and Independence Day...

 

You have to wonder how much longer these ships will last, and what size of fleet the Russians will be able to maintain in the future. 

[jjb1970]

Russian warships (at least those still in service) are as reliant on electronic systems as our warships are.

[Torper]

Really says something about the state of the RN when they had to put Type 45s to sea to trail round with the Russian ships - i wonder if anyone was running some sort of book on whether a Type 45 or the Kuznetsov would break down first.

 

It appears that a type 45 took that dubious honour.  While the Kuznetsov managed to get to Syria and is engaged in action there, HMS Duncan had to be towed back to Plymouth on Wednesday, apparently having suffered total propulsion failure while taking part in NATO exercises off the Devon coast.

 

DT

[The Stationmaster]

It appears that a type 45 took that dubious honour.  While the Kuznetsov managed to get to Syria and is engaged in action there, HMS Duncan had to be towed back to Plymouth on Wednesday, apparently having suffered total propulsion failure while taking part in NATO exercises off the Devon coast.

 

DT

 

That makes the second Type 45 breakdown at sea in a couple of months although I understand that at least HMS Dragon actually managed to get itself back to Devonport.  But we needed worry as some Sea Lord is assuring us in the 'Telegraph' today that the Type 45s are 'the finest air defence vessels in the world' (or words to that effect)/  Maybe he should have said 'harbour air defence vessels'?

[skipepsi]

That makes the second Type 45 breakdown at sea in a couple of months although I understand that at least HMS Dragon actually managed to get itself back to Devonport.  But we needed worry as some Sea Lord is assuring us in the 'Telegraph' today that the Type 45s are 'the finest air defence vessels in the world' (or words to that effect)/  Maybe he should have said 'harbour air defence vessels'?

But only when plugged into the grid....

[pete_mcfarlane]

Looks like the Americans have joined in as well.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/zumwalt-breaks-down-gets-tow-in-panama-canal

 

(Wonders how often these things happen when the media isn't watching)

[The Stationmaster]

Looks like the Americans have joined in as well.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/zumwalt-breaks-down-gets-tow-in-panama-canal

 

(Wonders how often these things happen when the media isn't watching)

 

Interesting as it is rumoured that some of the troublesome fit on the Type 45s is not only of US origin but said country won't allow various service manuals to be handed to a foreign power (even one with a 'special relationship')  (origin RN fleet 'buzz')

[billbedford]

Looks like the Americans have joined in as well.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by billbedford

[pete_mcfarlane]

Interesting as it is rumoured that some of the troublesome fit on the Type 45s is not only of US origin but said country won't allow various service manuals to be handed to a foreign power (even one with a 'special relationship')  (origin RN fleet 'buzz')

If true, it makes you wonder about the procurement processes behind buying kit that you don't have full support for.

 

Unless the US moved the goalposts after the sale, as sometimes happens, rather like the F-35 source code transfer to the UK being blocked by a single US congressman who was worried we might let the French have a look at it (or some similar weird Worldview).

[jjb1970]

The problem with the Type 45 has been the WR21 engines. I could probably write a technical paper on the subject but it is a subject that defies simple analysis. The WR21 is probably still the most advanced marine gas turbine in the world, it uses a very clever inter-stage cooling and heat recovery system which acts to flatten the specific fuel consumption curve and makes it much more diesel like. Those familiar with gas turbines probably know that the headline specific fuel consumption (i.e. the grams of fuel used per KW hour) is pretty good and not that far behind a diesel engine. The more compact size of a GT would easily compensate for the fuel penalty (compare the size and weight of a 25MW GT with a 25MW diesel). The problem is that the headline figure is based on full load operation and as you reduce load the fuel consumption figure tends to collapse. On a warship especially the engines spend a lot of their time at high turn down ratios as they need extremely high power for sprinting but seldom go anywhere near those speeds. And as well as the fuel penalty, running a GT at high turn down ratios has negative impacts on maintenance requirements and reliability. This is why warships tend to have GTs for high speed and diesels for normal operation. The genius of the WR21 is that it flattens the performance curves and retains high fuel efficiency across the load range. That means you can have an all GT installation, save a lot of weight and operate with fuel figures not that far off a diesel engine installation. The WR21 was an international project, RR supplied the bare GT engine with Northrop Grumman providing the heat recovery and cooling system. DCN of France were also involved but were on the periphery, in reality it was really an RR - Northrop Grumman project. The engine was intended for the next generation of USN surface combatants but the RN joined later and specified it for Type 45. The problems have been with the recuperators primarily, and the company that made those went to the wall with Northrop Grumman being unable to source an alternative supply at one point (dunno if that is still the case). That has been a major issue as the whole engine is designed and built around the heat transfer systems, it is a completely different philosophy to a conventional GT. The Type 45's are orphans, no other ships will have the WR21, RR withdrew it from their portfolio years ago and Northrop Grumman pulled the plug before that. The sea water temperature issue is embarrassing but relatively easy to resolve (and it was the MoD that stipulated the operating conditions for the engine, so it is not the fault of RR or BAE if those figures were inappropriate) but long term support for the engine is becoming a nightmare. Usually this is presented in terms of dismissing the WR21 as being rubbish but it is a much more complex argument.

[jjb1970]

Something that is problematic is that re-engining the T45 (should it be considered) would be a bigger job than you might expect. Ordinarily if it was just swapping out one model of GT for a more modern or powerful alternative (eg a GE LM2500 in place of a marine Trent) it'd be a big job but one that shipyards and designers do and it wouldn't be that big a job as marine refits go. In this case because re-engining would invalidate the system operational concept it'd be a much bigger job. They'd almost certainly have to revert to having GTs for sprinting and fit much bigger diesels for cruising (they're already increasing diesel capacity). Again, its perfectly dooable but it makes the job a lot bigger. They'd need to do a lot of work to the electrical system and all the auxiliary services. You'd probably be looking at a new engine room in effect.

[The Stationmaster]

Something that is problematic is that re-engining the T45 (should it be considered) would be a bigger job than you might expect. Ordinarily if it was just swapping out one model of GT for a more modern or powerful alternative (eg a GE LM2500 in place of a marine Trent) it'd be a big job but one that shipyards and designers do and it wouldn't be that big a job as marine refits go. In this case because re-engining would invalidate the system operational concept it'd be a much bigger job. They'd almost certainly have to revert to having GTs for sprinting and fit much bigger diesels for cruising (they're already increasing diesel capacity). Again, its perfectly dooable but it makes the job a lot bigger. They'd need to do a lot of work to the electrical system and all the auxiliary services. You'd probably be looking at a new engine room in effect.

 

Agreed.  The basic problem seems to be that the electricity generation and supply system falls short of what is actually needed - usually the ship can manage to get itself along but once other systems come into operation the whole thing overloads and various functions shut-down and sometimes everything shuts down.  There appears to be an imbalance (putting it mildly) between the amount of power which can be generated and the demand and the interesting question is whether that is wholly down to a simple lack of installed horsepower or whether things are actually somewhat more complicated than that.

 

But whichever it is it is clear that re-engining is essential and that other upgrades/changes might also be needed.

[PhilH]

On a peripheral tack, the Navy would appear to be getting a helicopter well suited to their needs, the Wildcat which, by all accounts, will be almost exactly what they asked for.

 

Of course, where there are winners there are losers, in this case the Army, who will be lumbered with an aircraft which they don't want and is pretty much useless for a number of tasks specific to them. It's so bad that there is even talk of extending Lynx, which in itself is a bit of a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' aircraft.

 

Edit..one of the main reasons for selecting Wildcat over much more capable and less expensive American aircraft was to support the UK helicopter industry, namely Augusta Westland. This too was a failure with Leonardo Finmeccanica's (the parent company) decision to close the Yeovil facility, concentrating all of their production in Italy.

 

So, bit of an epic fail all round really.

Edited November 28, 2016 by PhilH

[BlackRat]

As long as we all remember the sole purpose of the RN is to get the RM to their objective, and be there ready to take the RM back to Blighty..............

[Bezzy Oppo]

As long as we all remember the sole purpose of the RN is to get the RM to their objective, and be there ready to take the RM back to Blighty..............

 

Yes, whatever concert or jamboree they've been booked for Pusser will get them there.....

[Ohmisterporter]

As a matter of interest just how are specifications for military equipment laid down? I imagine there are senior top brass who decide what they would like and they are joined by senior civil servants who tell them what we can pay for. At some point defence contractors join in and try to sell their product, or at least get the MoD to pay for design, prototypes etc. So whose idea was the WR21 as described in #94? There have certainly been new ideas that came from servicemen and have proved effective in service. There are plenty of failures too.