Amongst the announcements about naval construction made in November 2020, the Prime Minister stated the intention to build new “multi-role research vessels”. No further detail about these ships has been given, although more may emerge when the Integrated Review is published. Here we look at the background to this project.
The RV
The term “Research Vessel” covers a very broad spectrum of ships types and designs in terms of capabilities, equipment, management and ownership structures. Most developed nations operate some kind of platform for observing the ocean, European countries alone own around 100 such vessels, including 8 deep ocean and 9 Polar RVs.
There are 5 main areas of interest for RVs; Fishing. The fishing industry requires vessels to monitor stocks and provide data to government and private sector. This information is used to support statutory and legal obligations, develop fishing quotas, plan marine protected areas and assess the impacts of offshore wind farm developments. Marine Biology is the study of the broader marine ecosystem and marine habitats in the cause of conservation, including the interactions of marine plants and animals with coastal areas and the atmosphere. Oceanography may include marine biology but is primarily the study of the ocean itself, the dynamic mechanisms of the water column, currents, ice caps, waves and tidal movements. Hydrography is concerned with mapping the underwater topography of the seabed and coastline, from data gathering at sea to the production of charts. Seabed operations encompass the mining of minerals and the laying of pipes, cables and infrastructure for communications and offshore energy installations. There is a more secretive naval dimension, including mine warfare, tapping or interfering with seabed infrastructure, construction of seabed sensor arrays, submarine rescue operations and the recovery of sensitive items.
For an island nation such as the UK, all of these elements are of prime strategic interest and building new RVs to enhance the existing fleet very much makes sense. Environmental issues, competition for resources and increasing dependence on the sea for communications and trade makes understanding the ocean of growing importance for the world as a whole.
Naval RVs
The new vessels that have been promised are likely to be ocean-going and capable of global operations and it is useful to examine the existing vessels of this type and those of the recent past. For the RN, the two most significant vessel in this category are HMS Scott and HMS Challenger. Scott is a dedicated ocean hydrographic survey platform tasked with charting the deep oceans and gathering oceanographic data, both for the production of commercial charts but also in support of submarine operations. She carries no off-board systems and is reliant on specialist sonars for the majority of her work. She entered service in 1997 and is scheduled to leave service in 2022, although this could be extended. Even if the new RVs are intended to take on the hydrographic duties of HMS Scott, they are unlikely to be in service anytime before the late 2020s.
HMS Challenger (main image above) was a seabed operations vessel ordered from Scott Lithgow on the Clyde in 1979 and was finally completed in 1984, her costs having spiralled to £154M, (the equivalent of £500M today). Her troubled construction reflected the sorry state of British shipbuilding at the time, a very ambitious specification and the MoD’s lack of experience in building such a specialist vessel. She was supposed to have three main systems; a Towed Unmanned Submersible (TUMS) that trailed on an umbilical cord up to 2km behind the ship, able to operate very deep, down to 5,000 meters. A central ‘moon pool’ to lower a very large diving bell for saturation divers down to 300m. The ship was also designated to carry the LR5 submersible which comprised the UK submarine rescue system. The TUMS was riddled with technical problems and never worked properly. The enormous diving bell was very expensive to operate, requiring large amounts of costly helium gas. Although the ship was exceptionally manoeuvrable and controllable, with a cutting-edge dynamic positioning system, a top speed of 15 knots was rather slow if ever she had ever been called upon to be involved in a submarine rescue.
Despite her many design flaws and unrealised capabilities, Challenger was a remarkable vessel and did achieve some successes during her short naval career, including some that are still classified. This included the first-ever transfer of personnel between two pressurised submarines at depth and recovering a Sea Harrier from HMS Ark Royal that crashed off Portland. In 1989 the ship and her divers helped avert an environmental catastrophe by recovering highly toxic chemicals from a cargo vessel, MV Perintis that sank 35 miles north of Guernsey.
She was a luxury the RN could not really afford and many of her tasks could have been done more efficiently by hiring civilian specialists as required. Her procurement was likely partly inspired by the complex, and still largely hidden, undersea battle that raged during the Cold War, in particular the use of seabed sensors. She was withdrawn in 1990 and subsequently sold to commercial interests. She is still in service but has been modified beyond recognition and is now one of the world’s ugliest ships, employed by De Beers to mine diamonds from the sea bed. The experience with Challenger has many useful lessons when considering new RVs. Deep-sea diving, ROV and UUV technology have improved dramatically and costs have fallen since she was conceived but much care is required in designing a single platform for multiple roles.
Civilian RVs
The construction of the £250M RRS Sir David Attenborough (SDA) by Cammell Laird for the British Antarctic Survey has been seen as a significant success for UK shipbuilding. She is almost two years behind the original schedule (only in part due to COVID) but is currently on sea trials preparing for her maiden deployment to the Antarctic in the Autumn. She is a modern and sophisticated icebreaker-RV and aspects of her design and equipment fit may inform the development of future RVs. Her notable features are an internal moonpool for ROV / UUV operation and heavy-duty cranes, A-frames and winches for deploying equipment overboard. She has a hangar and large flex deck for containerised stores and laboratories and machinery noise-reduction measures to reduce interference with sensitive instruments and marine life.
As part of the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda, it is a virtual certainly that construction of the ships will be restricted to predominately UK consortia or companies. CL would be in pole position to be involved again although the newly revived Harland and Wolff may also participate.
The UK also has two other modern globally-deployable RVs, the RSS Discovery and RSS James Cook operated by NOC, the largest UK integrated ocean research institution. Both were constructed overseas, in Spain and Poland respectively, at a time when there was less political sensitivity about awarding government-funded shipbuilding contracts abroad. The two vessels are employed collecting data with a broad scientific remit to understand the oceans. They are fitted with azimuth thrusters and dynamic positioning systems and are able to deploy sensors and off-board systems up to 30 tonnes.
Although NOC has charitable status, much of its income is derived from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) which is mostly funded by the Government Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). NERC also funds the British Antarctic Survey. How the new RVs will be owned and managed is another aspect that will have to be considered. Whether they are operated by the RN or a civilian agency may depend on whether they are primarily involved in national security-related work or have a more scientific focus.
In conclusion, the UK has the requirement, the operating knowledge, recent construction experience and will shortly have the funds to build new research ships. The Prime Minister specifically mentioned “vessels”, implying the intention will be to build more than one. There are pitfalls in attempting to design a vessel that is ‘jack of all trades but master of none’. Perhaps the ships could share the same platform design (hull and propulsion) but one fitted for hydrography work (to replace HMS Scott), while the other was optimised for seabed operations. Antarctic patrol ship, HMS Protector will be 30 years old by 2030 and some thought also needs to be given to her replacement. Protector is not a ‘pure’ RV, having a much wider remit to support UK interests in the region than the BAS vessels but she does conduct hydrography, oceanography and scientific work.
In our next article, we consider the threat to undersea cables which may have been a significant factor in the decision to build new RVs.
Just exactly where will “the funds to build new research ships” come from ? This country cannot get three relatively cheap supply ships from the drawing board to service in 15 years so I think your new money will be long gone. Maybe two research ships could be built fairly cheaply if they are fitted for but not with most equipment as is common Royal Navy practise. Beautiful photo,s out today of Italian carrier complete with missiles and guns doing F35b trials!!
Britain has money, it’s just how we spend it, we have a huge economy even with all what’s happening. Even if we didn’t have the money For example We can borrow it with a very Low interest rate like we have been doing or sell bonds.These vessels are no where near say a single type 26 price, more opv price, but that’s BAE opv price lol.
And if that Italian ship has to use its turreted gun something’s gone seriously wrong, that’s what escort vessels are for. I would like Hms QE to be fitted with sea ram Though or even longer range Sea Ceptor, surely canisters won’t cost much to install as no cutting the deck ect would be needed. And has HMS QE had her 4 30mm cannons fitted yet?
If the Italian ship has to use it ‘s guns then it has expended its 32x MBDA Aster 15 Mach 3.5 surface to air missiles which are carried in two pods stbd forward and port aft.
Yeah, I know, that’s what I meant somethings gone very wrong
I’d like to see Phalanx upgraded to Sea RAM on the 2 x QE’S, 2 x Albions and all RFA’s.
NEVER HAVE MORE WISE WORDS BEEN UTTERED. Why the RN cannot or will not see this is beyond me.
And it’s not like major work needs to be done as it uses same base as phalanx,
USN is only changing over 1 per Burke, so it must have some disadvantages. Apparently the Aegis system with SM-2 looks a bit higher and might miss very low level missiles. Sea-ceptor doesnt reach out as far as SM-2 but has the close in area sorted.
Yeah sea ram sounds good, sea ceptor sounds better, but I’ll go with the far cheaper sea ram.
SeaRAM will be more expensive than Sea Ceptor, with shorter range and is not as capable in all weather conditions.
I’m not sure about that, yes we already have Sea ceptor on our ships, but sea ram is plug and play like phalanx isn’t it?
The Prime Minister mentioned the Multi-Role Research Vessel during his speech on defence expenditure in November – and it’s not been heard from since.
Instead, however, around six weeks later, the First Sea Lord made reference to “Two new ocean surveillance ships to help is with out data gathering but also to help us protect critical national infrastructure and undersea cables.” He’s subsequently referred to them as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9-nzV-hjKA
So the question seems to be, are these two separate projects, or have embryonic plans for a Multi Role Research Vessel morphed in two Ocean Surveillance Ships?
I suspect it’s the latter. However, as mentioned, maybe we need to wait for the integrated review, although I suspect that will be light on detail.
We need a Scott replacement. We need a replacement for Diligence.
My understanding was the Ocean Surveillance Ships were intended as Scott replacements.
And does that mitigate that need for that hull? No.
We shall see what comes about. Scott is a very simple ship. It does a very specific job. It doesn’t need diluting with other functions.
But there’s only one and it’s an ageing vessel.
Yes. And it needs replacing. Desperately.
If you wanted to replace Diligence the same sort of ship can be found very cheaply on the world market. Plenty of large oil rig supply vessels out there.
Yes. The RN is pushing SSN’s into the Indian Ocean; these complex platforms need engineering support. But there is no sign of Diligence being replaced. So fewer hulls, less support, and deployments further a field…..
Doesn’t serco have a Royal Navy ship engineering support contact, and they Have the ships to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Northern_River
Diligence is 5 times the size. Plus other issues.
Northern River is an excellent ship for trials, training and exercises, and submarine rescue mothership. The Diligence role is different but a similar approach could be used.
Yeah I 5nought so, thanks Rob
Have they the ships ?
“We provide and operate nearly 120 support vessels (from 100 to 25,000 tons) for both the UK Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy, plus International Nuclear Services. We provide 99.8% on-time delivery of support vessel services to the Royal Navy.”
It would seem most of those are just harbour vessels, but not all
https://www.serco.com/eu/sector-expertise/defence/maritime-services
The Serco fleet has changed over the years with new ships brought in when needed. About to deliver and operate a 24,000t icebreaker / research and supply vessel for Australia so not just a port operator.
Gladly ships are more reliable these days, and I can see why they cut diligence With the huge cut in RN ships and submarines. And Private company’s can do the same job but far cheaper and we have teams globally to deploy at short notice if any of our ships run into problems, them we have our yank friends with a truly global fleet of bases and engineering ships And supply chain that we can use if really needed.
Actually how much did we even use diligence? Apart from training.
Underwater engineering………
http://www.hisutton.com/Ru_Arctic.html
I’d think and hope we’d see 2 ships with the same basic design, but as the article suggests with 1 then tailored to replace Scott and other focusing on seabed operations as a very belated replacement for my namesake Challenger!
The need to eventually replace Protector and the likelihood of increased activity in the Arctic should definitely be taken into consideration.
We definitely need a Protector replacement, and maybe a ship With a hangar again like we did have wit two ice protected lynx choppers, hopefully a replacement could be equipped with two ice protected wildcats would be nice.
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2020/hdw-circumnav/harry-dewolf-1.jpg
Oh you want a truly expensive ship then with less capacity. Lol question what more expensive than UK shipbuilding? Canadian shipbuilding.
It just sucks how we are replacing two vessels with one, RRS sir david..and even then she doesn’t have a huge ice class, the ozzies new ship has a higher class… Britain has a huge territory in the antarctic 7x or more bigger than Britain!! We need more than two polar ships in our Whole fleet.
It would be nice if Scott was replaced with two multi role vessels further growing the RN, And its not like HMS Scott is a money pit! She actually makes the MOD money Selling her Data and know how!..
My favourite is the JMSDF Shirase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_icebreaker_Shirase_(AGB-5003)
Scott was built to undertake one role. A multipurpose hull wouldn’t do the job.
Totally agree that Scott/Diligence need replacing, the conundrum would appear to be where and when to build them, given that FSSS has to be our top priority! Would like to think that they would be built in the UK, but we only have a finite amount of yards for this, not entirely sure if FLSS will ever get going, but if so, things are starting to back up from a UK construction perspective!!
We could just buy something to replace Diligence.
As for Scott I haven’t a clue…….. 🙂
Instow, on the other side of the Torridge.
Hi said Appledore couldn’t build big ships…
I was being a bit naughty posting a picture of Appledore. 🙂
It terms of length I think Scott was as big as they could go. Though Scott displaces more she is lot shorter than T45 and T26, and several meters shorter than T31. But is just as wide in the beam and has a deeper draught.
Not atall X, lots of people didn’t know Appledore could build larger ships. But I didn’t realise Scott was smaller in length that a type 45… just goes to show Weight isn’t everything and our new frigates are pretty dam big…
It tends to be draught most forget. They see the structure above the water and forget all the rest below. Scott is about a whole metre deeper than T45…..
They have built a few Big’ish Ships over the years but there are issues.
Yeah like running out of work Sadly…
Been like it for Decades……
How about Liverpool, they have experience now.
Yes, entirely readable, but I think FSSS takes priority on build, there are probably enough yards to do all the work, it’s more a case of cash flow.
It’s a huge beast, and carry’s three choppers… and they have 4…. But they have a bigger economy so can afford more!
yes! 🙂
And 4x more destroyers… and twice as many atack subs. And larger Army, Air Force and Navy…. Jesus Japan used to copy British designs fir loads especially their navy, they even still have British type uniforms… How things have changed.
The reason why the JMSDF eat curry is because of us Brits. They have some very interesting ships in both their ‘navy’ and their ‘coastguard’.
Yes, now its considered a ‘national dish’ – like UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_curry
Curry is good stuff.
“ But they have a bigger economy so can afford more!”
Part of that is right, but they only spend 0.95% of GDP on defence and the ‘limit’ is 1%. By counting some other ‘military related items’ , it might be closer to 1.3%
Shows how huge their economy is.
Not too different per capita than UK. Population is 126 mill and falling while UK is 68 mill and will reach 70 mill by 2030.
Really shows how they get their procurement in order and progress steadily through it. (UK has nuclear SLBM and attack subs which I reckon alone costs 0.3-0.5% of GDP.)
UK could work a lot more with Japan in the procurement area, a wasted opportunity not to get on board earlier with japans 4 engine P-1 , which was more suited to RAF mission and could have sold them other Nato nations etc. A future fighter should be a JV with Japan and others
Yeah, but who knows what the UK population really is, and how many UK born who are abroad too?
Aussie breaker is even bigger, (with smaller economy):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSV_Nuyina
Yes by about 5000 tons to Boaty, but it is over one billion quid and built in Romania. It may have a slightly higher ice breaking capability too, but for that price? I am now thinking that our idea of being unable to compete with any Country in building certain types of ships is incorrect.
That ship would cost around 290 Billion Pounds in todays money at an exchange rate that was good for Japan in 2008. Todays rate would mean it cost around 358 million Pounds. The ship has a higher Polar class by about a half a meter but we think the far east can build for half the price along with other myths. But this is not true, in many cases, they are more expensive.
Interesting seabed technology article Royal Navy tests software to rapidly map the seabed – Naval Today
But, you would have to wonder how shallow the sea floor would need to be to make this technology effective
Its a lower standard than the current methods of seabed mapping. However some areas with highly variable sea floor which changes after each storm this can produce better results.
Its highly technical but this study looked into some results around Jersey in the Channel Islands
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/211555994.pdf
For me, the most interesting nugget in this post was that the French research ship is called the Pourquoi Pas?. What a marvelously idiosyncratic name, the perfect response to those who ask what is the point in abstract knowledge.
They have a history with that name
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pourquoi-Pas_(1908)
Jean Baptiste Charcot was a sort of Scott or Shackleton figure
It seems ironic that the subject of purchasing new research vessels is taking place at a time when the UK is struggling to keep a viable battle fleet.
What looks apparent to me is that the 150 million pound price for the RSS Sir David Attenborough was very low, certainly looked that at the time, even if touted as the UK biggest or highest price commercial ship. The contruction time to full service was ambitious too. Even the later 200 figure when compared to other similar RV ice breaking ships. Even if the eventual cost was around 230+ million pounds or more, it looks to be cheaper per ton than all the others. Australia’s latest Romanian (Damen)built ship, the Chilian ship, the Canadian ships and the Japanese ship. Cruise mapper give you a list of others too. The other apparent thing to me is that looking at dozens of different ship types and their costs, looking at the GBP v Yen or USD, AUSD, EURO etc exchanges back then (ships ordered foreign and UK) to now with inflation, the UK comes out pretty well in terms for shipbuilding.
We hope.
To be built in Scotland I presume.