The shrinking Royal Navy

[Junctionmad]

Don't think countries of the size of the U.K., need much of a navy these days. Small highly trained specialist forces trained for asymmetric warfare , anti-Terrorism duties etc. Sea based assets would be limited to material deployment duties and a few missile carriers , etc. The question of an aircraft carrier is a balance as its really not an naval asset in reality, rather a mobile airfield, That happens to be on a boat.

 

Money best spent elsewhere rather then nostalgic power projection

[The Stationmaster]

And ships with rounded capabilities too. Surface to surface missiles, cruise missiles, AA missiles and helicopters for ASW.

 

Plus a no doubt multi-functional air group and at least one SSN somewhere in the wake or in the lead

[Keith George]

Don't think countries of the size of the U.K., need much of a navy these days. Small highly trained specialist forces trained for asymmetric warfare , anti-Terrorism duties etc. Sea based assets would be limited to material deployment duties and a few missile carriers , etc. The question of an aircraft carrier is a balance as its really not an naval asset in reality, rather a mobile airfield, That happens to be on a boat.

 

Money best spent elsewhere rather then nostalgic power projection

 

I just wish to disagree.

 

Keith.

[jamie92208]

Don't think countries of the size of the U.K., need much of a navy these days. Small highly trained specialist forces trained for asymmetric warfare , anti-Terrorism duties etc. Sea based assets would be limited to material deployment duties and a few missile carriers , etc. The question of an aircraft carrier is a balance as its really not an naval asset in reality, rather a mobile airfield, That happens to be on a boat.

 

Money best spent elsewhere rather then nostalgic power projection

 

Like it or not we are an island nation dependent on seaborne trade.  This can be disrupted a long way away eg off Somalia, or in the Malacca straits and with a  resurgent Russia we should retain the lessons of history that we neglect our seaborne defences at our peril.

 

Jamie

[Bezzy Oppo]

Don't think countries of the size of the U.K., need much of a navy these days. Small highly trained specialist forces trained for asymmetric warfare , anti-Terrorism duties etc. Sea based assets would be limited to material deployment duties and a few missile carriers , etc. The question of an aircraft carrier is a balance as its really not an naval asset in reality, rather a mobile airfield, That happens to be on a boat.

 

Money best spent elsewhere rather then nostalgic power projection

 

That puts my eight years' service in the hydrographic flotilla into a whole new perspective; Port Stanley residents may also disagree. Still, changing times. I could just be reverting to analogue now I'm approaching the big five 'oh?

Edited February 26, 2017 by Bezzy Oppo

[jjb1970]

The USN has problems of its own. The Zumwalt destroyer has gone from being a program to deliver a new class of land attack destroyers which was a scaled back and affordable replacement for the DD-21 program when costs for that spiralled out of control to being basically a handful of ships that are as much technology demonstrator as anything. The LCS went from being a low cost stealthy and fast warship of limited capabilities to being a very expensive stealthy and fast warship of limited capabilities and which is now to be stretched into a Frigate. The F35 program cost issues have been well documented and these high profile issues are the tip of a similar iceberg of similar problems. And it is not just the USN and RN, from what I could see all the other navies building high end warships have been struggling with similar issues.

[Ohmisterporter]

From the Save the Royal Navy blog come this insight into the weapons fit for Type 26. I think it implies that the ships will be lacking in anti-ship missiles for many years and perhaps speculative articles like this are taken as "true" by many. Hope this is of interest.

 

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/will-the-type-26-frigate-deliver-a-punch-commensurate-with-its-price-tag/

[pete_mcfarlane]

There's a slightly different take on this on UK Defence Journal: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-fleet-will-armed-missiles-just-havent-ordered-yet/

[jjb1970]

The Type 26 won't enter service until well into the next decade and the Mk.41 VLS means that there will be no issue with buying an off the shelf range of missiles (probably US) or if they go the other way they have a while to consider new designs. In this case I do think the MoD are being unfairly criticised.

[pete_mcfarlane]

There's an Anglo-French project already underway to develop an anti-ship/surface target missile, although that seems to have an in-service date of  2030

[jjb1970]

There is the EF Typhoon option which used AMRAAM initially whilst the Meteor BVRAAM was developed. So the T26 could use off the shelf US missiles initially and be provided with possible future Anglo-French weapons like Perseus later provided the French agree to make them compatible with the Mk.41 VLS. And given that any hopes of landing export sales will be strangled if they're not Mk.41 compatible then I can't see that being an issue.

[Ohmisterporter]

Another article from Save the Royal Navy this concerns RFA solid support ships. These are going to be required urgently to replace the aged Fort class when the QEs are in service. As the tankers from Daewoo reputedly have problems perhaps building these FSS ships in the UK would be possible. Hope this is of interest.

 

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/fleet-solid-support-ships-an-important-part-of-the-naval-logistic-chain/

Edited March 4, 2017 by Ohmisterporter

[Legend]

Interesting article Ohmisterporter. Thanks for the link. Interesting gap in defences capability could open , that I hadn't realised before.

 

I am amazed at the article suggesting they could be armed with Tomahawk Missiles and even Anti Ballistic Missile weapons, we can't even fit our destroyers with them!

 

As to the lack of anti ship missiles on Type 26s , it is strange , but the Navy or MoD seem no longer to see sinking enemy ships as an essential capability in any Navy ship.

[jjb1970]

In the 1980's the original concept for the Type 23 envisaged the frigates being very cheap towed array sonar ships with very little else. Defence would be provided by missile equipped AORs which would work with the frigates.

On the build in the UK or overseas question the plunge of sterling relative to the dollar will certainly have boosted the argument to build new RFAs at home. Although the European yards will also be eyeing the work. Something to keep in mind is it is not just price, the Korean yards work quickly and to very high quality standards. None of the UK (or any other European yards) are in the same class. They dropped the ball on cable glands on the Tide class (a silly mistake which LR should've identified) and are running late but you have to consider that relative to the typical performance of other builders.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I did like the argument that we shouldn't give any more work to Korea because of the delays to the first of the new RFAs, and should use British Yard's instead. Because British yards always deliver on time......

 

I am amazed at the article suggesting they could be armed with Tomahawk Missiles and even Anti Ballistic Missile weapons, we can't even fit our destroyers with them!

I do find that 'Save the Royal Navy' lives in a bit of a fantasy World when it comes to the defence budget. 

[The Stationmaster]

I did like the argument that we shouldn't give any more work to Korea because of the delays to the first of the new RFAs, and should use British Yard's instead. Because British yards always deliver on time......

 

I do find that 'Save the Royal Navy' lives in a bit of a fantasy World when it comes to the defence budget. 

 

Has a touch of the 'we want eight and we won't wait' about it at times I think.

Edited March 5, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[jjb1970]

Has a touch of the 'we want eight and we won't wait' about it at times I think.

 

The Admiralty wanted six, the Treasury wanted four, so we compromised on eight.

 

The problem the British ship builders have is that orders are so few and far between that they do not have the opportunity to develop the skills and manufacturing efficiencies that are the norm in Korea. One of the more important and challenging parts of the build is the shaft alignment, you have to position the engine(s), gearboxes if fitted, all the shaft bearings and the stern tube and get it all within specified tolerances. That means making micro-adjustments to engines weighing 100's of tonnes, doing the chocking and ensuring the engine stays in position, doing the same for the intermediate bearings, gearbox etc and the stern tube. The Korean guys do more of these jobs in three or four months than the British guys would do in a lifetime assuming they stayed in the same role. The Korean yards are a production line using modularised manufacture and assembly techniques based around standard designs and using state of the art automated production equipment. British yards build small numbers of bespoke ships, every new project seems to go through the same learning experience and the yards are anything but state of the art. For all that, the British yards can produce quality ships.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Another mainstay of the cold war Royal Navy has finally retired:

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/indian-navy-retires-aircraft-carrier-ins-viraat-434977/

 

It's amazing to think that this ship was laid down as part of the WW2 emergency construction programme. 

[Ohmisterporter]

Always on the lookout for interesting defence stories I came across this on Foxtrot Alpha blog. Could the USN use smaller carriers than the Gerald Ford class, something around the size of our QE class? We look in wonder at the amount of money the USA can throw at projects for their much bigger armed forces but even they are questioning the burgeoning costs.

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834

[duncan]

My mother came home from Malta in 1961 on one of the landing ships built for the expected invasion of Japan in 1946.  As the 1946 voyage was expected to to be a one way trip, it was not exactly built to last.  

 

On arrival in the UK (Portsmouth ?), it was dry-docked & condemned as no reading could be obtained on the bottom plate thickness.  I am not sure if it was Reggio or Striker.  She has never really liked sea voyages since - no wonder.

 

 

http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/Combined%20ops%20assault%20and%20landing%20ships/webpages/landing_ship_3511.htm

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205120466

[pete_mcfarlane]

Always on the lookout for interesting defence stories I came across this on Foxtrot Alpha blog. Could the USN use smaller carriers than the Gerald Ford class, something around the size of our QE class? We look in wonder at the amount of money the USA can throw at projects for their much bigger armed forces but even they are questioning the burgeoning costs.

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834

That was an interesting article, although the comparison of the crew sizes between the QE and Ford class carriers is not quite as simple as the author seems to think. The QEs don't achieve their crew size saving simply by being smaller, but by having large amounts of automation built in. There's no reason why the US couldn't do the same with their ships and achieve crew size savings, but they haven't so a 60,000 US carrier is likely to have a much bigger crew than the QE class.  

 

Interestingly Wikipedia tells me that HMS Ark Royal (the 1955 one) had a complement of 2640, and HMS Hermes 2100. The next generation of smaller RN carriers had crews of around 1000 (Invincible class) and 500 (HMS Ocean), so this reduction in crew size is hardly a new thing. 

[jjb1970]

Based on my experiences with airport baggage handling I must admit I'm not as confident about the weapons handling system of the QEC as the MoD, but I mustn't be cynical.

 

The QEC was designed for what in military terms is a small crew for a warship of size from the outset and uses a high degree of automation. As stated above much of that could be applied to a CVN. A small crew (within reason) can generate a lot of benefits other than the obvious one of saving on crew costs. You can provide better accomodation with no increase in space given which increases morale and aids retention/recruitment, you can have a lot more space to play with within a given size hull for things other than cabins, less demand for hotel services (such as ventilation, water, sanitation etc ,those things are not trivial if you have 5000 people), you can operate for longer on a given weight of stores, the logistic tail shortens and more. You can get into a virtuous circle. The key is not to reduce numbers to the point where you lose operational efficiency and capability.

[Ozexpatriate]

The key is not to reduce numbers to the point where you lose operational efficiency and capability.

Or fighting capacity if the automation is damaged or there are crew casualties.

[The Stationmaster]

Based on my experiences with airport baggage handling I must admit I'm not as confident about the weapons handling system of the QEC as the MoD, but I mustn't be cynical.

 

The QEC was designed for what in military terms is a small crew for a warship of size from the outset and uses a high degree of automation. As stated above much of that could be applied to a CVN. A small crew (within reason) can generate a lot of benefits other than the obvious one of saving on crew costs. You can provide better accomodation with no increase in space given which increases morale and aids retention/recruitment, you can have a lot more space to play with within a given size hull for things other than cabins, less demand for hotel services (such as ventilation, water, sanitation etc ,those things are not trivial if you have 5000 people), you can operate for longer on a given weight of stores, the logistic tail shortens and more. You can get into a virtuous circle. The key is not to reduce numbers to the point where you lose operational efficiency and capability.

 

Very much the case I think - knowing of someone who is a crew member on a large RN vessel it fascinated me to learn that by far the largest amount of what could broadly be called 'engineering' input is not in particularly respect of the ship's motive power but seems to centre around plumbing. heating and ventilation, garbage compactors and such like right down to larger galley machinery.   The 'hotel servicing' demand can be quite a load on the engineers who seem to like getting down near the machinery spaces for a quieter life when circumstances permit.

[Ohmisterporter]

Here is a little story that may have passed unnoticed. It comes from the RT website and concerns "Ghost ships", that is ships deliberately turning off lights and whatever tracking equipment they may have to operate in a clandestine way for purposes unknown. Some of you with shipping experience may know why they do this. Try to ignore the dafter replies at the bottom of the article. Hope this is of interest.

 

https://www.rt.com/uk/380121-ghost-ships-terrorism-threat/

Edited March 12, 2017 by Ohmisterporter