At the First Sea Lord’s Conference held this week in London, there were several announcements made about the future of the RN. Here we reflect on the news and events of the week.
Frigate gap
As we reported earlier the headline news this week was the decision to go ahead with the MRSS project which will now enter the concept phase. There will be “up to” 6 ships, with an initial commitment to 3, which does not inspire confidence that the full number will ever be built, going by historical precedence. Either way, this is clearly positive news but provided convenient cover to distract from the more depressing confirmation that the frigates, HMS Westminster and HMS Argyll, will be decommissioned.
The former will be scrapped while the latter will be sold to BAE Systems for use as a training vessel at their new Clyde Shipbuilding Academy in Glasgow. Just how much money had been spent on refitting Argyll before this decision was made is unclear but she looks in good condition externally. At least her withdrawal from the fleet will be in a good cause, developing a badly needed future generation of engineers and shipyard workers.
It is no surprise these ships are being axed and makes sense on many levels. It would be a waste of limited resources to take several years and spend £millions on ships that are already at almost twice their design life in order to get another 5 years of service from them when replacements are on their way. Keeping the Type 23s going beyond their 30th birthdays has proved more difficult and expensive than had been anticipated even just a few years ago with serious corrosion exposed during pre-refit surveys.
The RN also wants to minimise the number of new sailors that need to be trained on outdated equipment that the Type 23s carry or subject them to 1980s accommodation standards that do not meet modern expectations. Instead, it can focus on better preparing its finite number of people for Type 26 and Type 31 that have plenty of new systems to be mastered.
From a financial and crewing perspective, this is a sound decision but everyone must be clear that it implies an increased risk to the security of the nation while we endure the ‘frigate gap’. (roughly 2022-30). HMS Montrose and Monmouth have already been withdrawn using similar justification. This means the escort fleet is going to decline even more dramatically while awaiting the replacements that will start arriving in meaningful numbers in the early 2030s. The RN will have a maximum of 9 frigates in commission for the next few years although this will be partly mitigated by improving destroyer availability.
Sources say HMS Iron Duke will be fitted with the S2087 towed array sonar system removed from HMS Westminster but this will be a major piece of work and take the ship out of service for many months.
Industrial crisis threatens FSS?
The day after the Defence Secretary proclaimed we are entering a “golden age of shipbuilding”, The Times reported that shipbuilders Harland and Wolff are at risk of financial collapse as they cannot meet the conditions for a £200M government loan guarantee. H&W is valued at just £20M and its involvement in the £1.6Bn Fleet Solid Support ship project has always been seen as something of a gamble by some. Underwritten by Spanish shipbuilding giant Navantia, the bigger risk initially appeared to be whether the workforce in Belfast could be expanded and up-skilled to take on such a complex task when the yard has not built a new ship for 30 years.
The MoD may still win its battle with the Treasury to support H&W but if the company should collapse, it would be politically disastrous and could further delay the FSS project at great detriment to the RN. Either construction would default entirely to Navantia and the ships built in Spain or the project would have to be reset and the UK consortium resurrected to take it on. Without the Belfast yard there would be serious questions around shipyard capacity at the same time MRSS will need to begin construction.
Maritime offensive fires
Speaking at the conference, Grant Shapps said; “I can announce that in the future we will be equipping our Type 26 and Type 31 frigates with land strike capability”. This is not news as the First Sea Lord confirmed at last year’s event the Type 31 frigates will have Mk41 VLS cells (To be added during a post-handover Capability Insertion Period for the first 2 ships at least). The Anglo-French ship-launched Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FCASW), called the Future Offensive Surface Weapon (FOSW) by the RN, is currently being developed by MBDA. Optimistically expected to be in-service by 2028, it was announced to parliament as far back as July 2021 that Type 26 will be equipped with the FOSW.
MROS on show
Berthed on the Thames for a second time following her naming ceremony in October 2023, RFA Proteus formed the centrepiece for London Sea Power Week 2024, hosting visitors including VIPs, MPs, academics and a select number of journalists. She is an impressive, highly automated, modern commercial vessel in immaculate condition and has a friendly crew. (A guide to the ship is available in our previous in-depth article here).
Although she has been brought into service at very rapid pace by RN standards, it is clear that there is still much to be done to learn how to exploit her capabilities. Work is ongoing in acquiring appropriate off-board systems and developing a concept of operations around how she will be deployed in her role protecting undersea infrastructure.
-
RFA Proteus bertheed next to HMS Belfast(1938). The ROV hangar is visible with the starboard side doors open. This large space extends the full width of the ship and is 4 decks high. Davits can be fitted to allow submersibles to be lowered directly over the side. -
The view looking forward on the spacious working deck. The Dynamic Positioning operator has a commanding view from the control position above (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
The flight deck is not certified for naval helicopters but could be useful for operating UAVs or accommodating civilian search and rescue helicopters (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
The FET Perry XLX-C on display is a British-made heavy-duty ROV with manipulator arms for working on seabed objects. This is owned by the MoD Salvage & Marine Operations (SALMO) team and is the kind of equipment that may routinely be operated from Proteus (Photo: Navy Lookout).
FADS
While the MRSS project has been given the go-ahead, the RN’s Type 83 destroyer / Future Air Dominance System (FADS) is the next most critical programme that needs to be approved and funded in the 2025 defence review. The RN would ideally like to replace the Type 45 air defence destroyers from the mid-2030s to avoid the unhappy prospect of extending them in service beyond their design life. This timescale looks extremely optimistic given cost and industrial capacity but delivery of FADS by the early 2040s at least is imperative.
The above-water battlespace is becoming increasingly dangerous and complex. A new generation of weapons, notably hypersonic and ballistic missiles together with massed attack drones, is already putting surface combatants at much greater risk. Any platform that is going to provide credible defence for a task group against these threats will inevitably have to be sophisticated, large and expensive.
There is a very sound case for investing properly in FADS. Without these platforms, the RN will be doomed to be a second-tier navy, unable to deploy into even moderately contested environments. More widely, air defence of the UK mainland is now a subject of public discussion. Of the 3 services, the RN already has the most expertise in surface to air missiles. It would make sense to utilise up-threat maritime air defence platforms as a key outer layer of air and missile defence protection for the UK.
A more lethal RN?
To accompany the conference, The Council on Geostrategy published their paper “A more lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s naval power”. This eloquently lays out the undeniable case for a more powerful navy. It then details an ideal ORBAT, strengthening the navy in almost every aspect. Suggestions include building 12 SSN-AUKUS and adding an SSGN to the Dreadnought programme, more jets and UAS plus improved defences for the aircraft carriers. Procure 8 heavily armed Type 83 destroyers, build additional Type 26 frigates and purchase ASCROC, build 9 Type 32 frigates, developing arsenal ships and accelerate the FSS project.
Almost everyone sensible would accept this plan is what we should be doing in an ideal scenario and there is no harm in aiming high. However in reality this is a fantasy fleets exercise and should be enjoyed with caution. To achieve such a fleet would be a massive national endeavour that the UK public and very few politicians are anywhere near ready to accept. Any credible plan needs to take into account the available industrial base, naval infrastructure and personnel numbers, especially engineers and technicians. While the British ability to improvise and pull together in a crisis should not be underestimated, even if moving from today’s “pre-war period” to a “war-footing” with unlimited budgets, these low profile but crucial underpinnings would be the limiting factors on delivery.
Conventional naval capabilities take a long time to develop and there should be no let up in doing so. However, even the very decent existing programme will not start to significantly enhance the RN for at least 5 years. Perhaps more urgency and innovative thinking should be devoted to considering how the RN can ‘fight tonight’. What can be done to rapidly up-arm the platforms that actually exist and are not just CGIs or wishful thinking. Containerised or bolt-on capabilities that are cheap, minimum viable solutions that can provide mass and offensive power are urgently needed.
Main image: RFA Proteus heading down the Thames on 16th May. Photo: Andrew Wood.
That will be a miracle. 4 years for a missile?
It has been worked off for more than a decade.
There is not even a design.
Interesting to see that the French navy conducted an exercise last-week rearming at sea the Charles de Gualle with Aster missiles from a support vessel. It was a bit Heath Robinson using a mobile crane parked on the carrier’s deck, but clearly they have a programme to achieve missile rearming at sea.
Does the RN have a similar project?
(The USN is working on releasing Type 41 VLS at sea too. But I would imagine Asters and Sea Ceptors should be easier to handle simply on size.)
Read the paper at the bottom,
Arsenal ships. Maybe not rearming but surge when needed.
Having spent some years experimenting, the US plans to order up to nine LUSVs/LOSVs between 2025-2028, which are expected to cost on average US$250 million (£195 million) each. They will displace around 1,800-2,000 tonnes and carry 16-32 VLS cells.
But which is cheaper – and therefore more feasible – to achieve?
Adding the ability to the new FSS ships to rearm T23s, T26s and T45s with more Sea Ceptors and Asters… or building an arsenal ship for each of them?
We were unable to reload VL Seawolf when I was in (1988 – 2013) and they weighed in at about 700 / 800 lbs (best guesstimate based on the CL Seawolf missile which was about 300lbs when I was off watch action reloading crew). RAS’ing technology hasn’t really changed that much I imagine.
Can’t imagine trying to load a 4+ metre long canister weighing a ton + with an Aster 30 in it in a sea state anything and unlikely you could have a high enough RAS point over the silo to get the canister positioned.
Ammunitioning in Portsmouth at UHAF is stopped when the winds get about 15 knots if I remember correctly for safety. Admittedly conflict/crisis/wartime different rules apply but there are still safety procedures that need to be followed.
Would it be possible to reactivate Argill in war scenario?
I’d see it being very unlikely, for one there won’t be anyone qualified to crew another T23, and it’ll have much of its military equipment stripped off I imagine.
New,more and more powerfull ships is always a great debate to have but the number one priority must be recruitment and retention. There’s no point looking at ways to increase the size and punch of our navy without the people to man and maintain them. The most important decision HMG can announce is an across the board pay rise and scrapping 90% of the hurdles new recruits face between application and acceptance. On H and W HMG should consider nationalisation of the yard at least as a shortterm measure. Assuming we fix recruitment we are going to need more capacity and unless someone comes up with a better plan they are the the best option.
Unless NI leaves the U.K. Which at the moment looks more likely than Scotland leaving.
Not so. Scotland has a series of single party governments ( with allies) that aim for independence.
Northern Irelands government is mandated to be a power sharing with both Unionists and Republicans in government. So needs both to want independence
The Good Friday Agreement provides under certain circumstances for the calling of a referendum it doesn’t need both side in the Assembly to agree.
A referendum would be have to be called by both Westminster and Dublin. so its hard to know how they would decide before that one was wanted.
There was a referendum on remaining in UK in 1973, the republicans boycotted it effectively negating the vote of 98% for union to remain. DUP would do the same in a future vote ‘to blow it up’ as they campaigned against the Good Friday agreement and referendums.
It’s been more or less reported by BBC that the story on H&W difficulties is speculation. Basically seems to me like it was journos exaggerating to create a scoop.
H&W are hardly in rude financial health but they are not teetering on the edge of the precipice either. It’s just a refinancing issue that’s been blown out of proportion.
H&W are trying to switch to new loans on better terms, and have yet to secure the needed government guarantee. HMG said it’s still in negotiation. We are talking £200m which is buttons in terms of HMG finances.
If the Guardian is to be believed, in 2009 the Treasury was on the hook for £1.162 tr after bailing out the banks and the finance industry. And that was back when a trillion was a lot of money. That they still quibble over the minutia of a £200M government loan guarantee for H&W shows a bias against and lack of understanding of things outside of their area.
I think part of the problem is the size of the loan relative to the size of the business. If anything goes wrong with building these ships H&W don’t have the reserves to fall back on. What H&W needs in my opinion is to be taken over by a bigger and more financially stable engineering/defence company.
Thing is HMG want to get away from the market with only one big player… the reality is if you want to manage and develop a limited market place so you have competition you need to invest.
Agreed that Treasury really only pay lip service to the idea of encouraging development of UK industry- although that’ll almost certainly be because that’s how their review and performance criteria are laid out. Update those, and you may start to see a change.
Personally, it’s a no-brainer that it’s worth the risk to get H&W up and running. Ultimately, I’d rather risk it, have it fail and see the ships built in Spain, than not try and revive the shipyard.
To address the frigate shortage, the MOD have issued an RFI for autonomous towed array systems capable of being operated from USVs in the 40m size range. Something like GeoSpectrum’s containerised TRAPS system, carried on a vessel like XV Patrick Blackett could quickly provide useful mass. TRAPS – Towed Reelable Active Passive Sonar – GeoSpectrum Technologies Inc
You’d have thought SEA’s KraitArray was a no brainer, given that the RN have been testing it for some time on USVs and a UUV, and even brought in SEA to help tweak the algorithms on the Captas 4s. It’s extensible from 50m to 150m. Then Atlas have made one specifically to fit on the Arcims boats we already have, SeaSense.
I’d have thought 40m was far too short to get into frigate-substiture territory. Even multistatic.
Looks like the rivers might be in line for a capability upgrade hopefully.
Why? They do their assigned tasks very well as they are.
Start building them at Appledore, why not? Towed array and Mk 41 sea ceptor (if they are deep enough to fit) corvettes.
Not one mention of RN manning and how to address it. The only real reason we are laying up ships now is because there is no one to crew them.. S*d the 23 accommodation standards.. young lads would love it (as long as they have access to social media).. Address the manning, and we are more than half way there to a respectable sized navy.
You bombs and bullets warriors just remember, you need people to man it, locate it, direct it, fire it!
Rather presumptions to assume that all new joiners are fine with cramped accommodation, otherwise why would they be increasing the size of spaces.
Thats simplistic nonsense – you clealry have no idea about how massively over budget and time re-lifing the T23s has been and how wasting even more on 2 more for not even 5 useful years is an appalling potential waste,
Hello 2010 SDR and the following austerity, your time is up , please return to the dock
No, it’s well known that the T23s are beyond their planned service-life and been over worked. Which is why refits and LIFEXs often hit delays when unknown issues are discovered. Frankly it’s amazing Argyle is the first whose refit has been abandoned because resolving the issues for a few more years service at huge expense.
The issue is not the T23s being pulled from decommissioned because they’re no-longer economically serviceable. The issue is the prevarication and delays in building their T26 replacements, resulting in a drop in numbers.
That’s interesting. Make part of the RN like an RNR Home Fleet that is based in UK. Never away for more than 10 days except during a major emergency or war.
> Containerised or bolt-on capabilities that are cheap, minimum viable solutions that can provide mass and offensive power are urgently needed.
Doesn’t seem like even that is even achievable. The goal of adding NSM to the first 3 (of 11) ships ‘at pace’ apparently means adding it to 1 (now broken down) ship after 18 months with no test firing.
Procuring COTS Proteus was announced in 2022, purchased in early 2023 and now in mid-2024 she’s (so far as I can tell) surveyed precisely no cable or pipeline or targets of interest. DE&S trumpeted it as a triumph of rapid work though.
A more lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s naval power. Paper
Really good read, But building a SSGN would mean ordering it now or in a few years.
only 12 aukus subs 6 for UK 6 for Australia? thought UK was going for 8 overall.
8 t83 yes
2 extra t26 yes
4 extra t32 maybe depending on what its got. FFBNW 8 cell
Arsenal ships hmmm sounds good, can existing vessels be converted faster and at a cheaper price?
What existing vessels? There’s nothing applicable to become an arsenal ships or them missile stocks to justify one
Cargo ship. In a hot war.
In the paper they mention river’s strip everything but crew.
the UK’s exploration of the arsenal ship concept by procuring a single LOSV as soon as feasible, this could be based on the proven River class OPV hull (stripped of everything apart from minimal crew quarters and packed with VLS), to act as a testbed platform. This will allow for the Royal Navy to evaluate the utility of arsenal ships. If the extra VLS capacity is evaluated to be more beneficial than the loss of flexibility the Royal Navy can acquire more – potentially multiplying the effort by following the Australian approach and replicating the US design.
Doesn’t seem worth the time and cost when we have other priorities. Autonomous vessels are still unproven, and take away from funding for crewed ships which can actually operate independently.
Just by more manned T31. These optionally manned arsenal ships basically spending the same if not more money to get a ship less able doesn’t make any sense.
I think you will find that they are suggesting 12 SSN(A)s for the UK alone, as per 1SLs comments last year we are looking at building at least 8 SMs to replace 7 Astutes. It’s only his current thinking granted, but you have to start somewhere.
I posted this a while back. I wonder if a joint programme might be possible?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/04/south-koreas-dsme-to-design-arsenal-ship-for-rok-navy/
Not really, we don’t have funding for new GP escorts, let alone arsenal ships.
The fantasy fleet will never happen.
What can and should be done is:
1.Just keep building more T31s. Not great ships, but good ones. The price is right and they can be upgraded. With their larger size (relative to most “frigates”), they are well suited as launching platforms for larger numbers of missiles and this IMO is their best use. Maybe you can get another five (5) authorized as Batch II. Forget about “T32” unless it is a variant of the T31 baseline. Otherwise too much effort and expense for far too few ships of a different design.
2.Get in on the USN-RAN optionally manned small arsenal ships. A few of these in the RN would go a long way towards fielding “a more lethal” Royal Navy.
3.Build at least 8 AUKUS nuclear submarines. Ten would be ideal, but 8 is probably achievable even with the current feckless political class, and 8 > 7 Astutes. In a better world I would also like to see a class of 6 or 8 AIP submarines to free up the nuclear boats for AUKUS and other blue water global deployments. If the UK doesn’t want to invest in these (or can’t), South Korea and Japan already build very good submarines along these lines. So why not just buy them off the shelf? Japan is already cooperating with the UK on a sixth generation fighter.
4.If we are going to view the T83 as “destroyers” (in my view at least the larger design variants are actually cruisers), then I guess 1 for 1 replacements for the T45 is about the best we can hope for.
This is the best case scenario I think.
Out of all of that I’d say Conventional subs are the least believable part, why introduce another class of sub instead of building a few more Aukus.
Why conventional subs? Because:
I’d say we would be starting from scratch on conventional subs at this point. But my further point is, they absolutely can’t be acquired from abroad, and is it worth investing in a whole new production like when the government fails continuously to be interested in sustaining shipbuilding.
And from a cost perspective it would be a major effort to reintroduce them.
Reasonable objections to be sure.
I am thinking that the startup cost would be worth it because in the long run, AIP / conventional submarines are still a lot cheaper than nuclear boats and there is no after service massive disposal cost, either. From the perspective of overall cost to build, operate, maintain, and divest all of the assets in a modern navy, I still think reconstituting this capability makes sense in the big picture and in the long term. Building non-nuclear boats, in other words, means you get more bang for the pound with your most expensive assets, the nuclear submarines.
Is there a constitutional or other government requirement in the UK which prevents the off the shelf acquisition of foreign-built military equipment? I wouldn’t think so given how much back and forth there is between the US and UK in this regard, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
I’m not sure of any specific law or such, but as a general rule, any Royal Navy vessel is to be constructed in the UK, using foreign designs might be more up in the air, seeing as T31 is based off one.
OIC, so you are thinking that the added cost of transferring (and presumably adding some modifications) to any hypothetical foreign AIP design would nullify the other benefits. Hmm. I’m not sure about that.
In the meantime, maybe the next generation of UUVs will solve the problem of adding mass to the RN, depending on how far out they could range from SSN motherboats. I still say this capability is not yet mature and is unlikely to be so when SSN AUKUS construction gets started in the near future. Another reason why I am advocating for some non-nuclear submarines in the RN. For what it’s worth in a thought exercise.
Its not the modifications of the design, it would more require an entirely separate submarine line, or an expansion of the barrow facilites and workforce, as theyll be at capacity for at least the next decade.
Perhaps it would be possible to create another facility on the South Coast and have someone like MSubs partner with BAE. Or even bring in foreign partners such as Saab or Mitsubishi. It would take a while to start up and we couldn’t expect it to start producing useable submarines for a while.
The real problem is there is no money to build them, not enough trained builders in the area, no RN crew to run them, and no money to create the infrastructure to maintain them. Although Devenport Basin 2 after the Type 23s are gone, perhaps.
By working with MSubs (who are building Cetus) and looking at far higher levels of autonomy than you’d find in the Taigei and maybe even Blekinge, this might help reduce the crewing problems in our next generation of nuclear subs too.
Saab have an expeditionary design of the Blekinge it bid for the Netherlands. MSubs have experience with battery AIP, autonomy and modularity, just not with scale. So perhaps MSubs/Babcock/Saab could create a company that would make something like that an ambitious but possible starting point. If we had the desire and the money.
The Japanese have moved away from AIP systems on their SSKs, starting with their last two Soryus and continuing into the Taigei class. They have gone for high density Lithium ion batteries instead, putty more batteries into the space where the AIP system used to be. Apparently they believe the trade off in costs versus endurance are worth it.
I thought battery driven was just another form of AIP, and I’m pretty sure it’s what XLUUVs like Manta use. I agree it could well be the right solution for any UK SSKs as the HMG is already sinking significant money into battery technology research.
Hi Jon, yes battery drive is a form of AIP, but, said batteries need recharging, or you are limited to the endurance a single charge gives you.
In the case of SSKs, they used a twin mode of propulsion, Die on the surface or snorting, and battery power when dived. Dived endurance is broadly based on the size of the battery compartment/s and their efficiency. The faster you go, the quicker you discharge the battery.
In terms of SSKs.
AIP is another propulsion source that doesn’t require the SM to be on the surface or snorting or use the main diesel engines – it has its own O2 supply. It generally comes in two different forms, either a closed cycle Die engine – Sterling engine, or chemical fuel cells. Both systems can be used to either propell the SM or recharge the battery.
The system is limited by the amount of O2/ chemicals that can be stored and as a rule of thumb can provide the SM with approx an extra 15 days of dived endurance at 4-5 knots. What it can’t do is recharge the main battery at the high rate it’s diesel engines can. On the flip side, having relatively few moving parts makes it very quiet.
The Japanese have gone for more high capacity Lithium ion batteries (v expensive and not without hazards), instead of their previous Sterling AIP engine. It is thought that this has given them an extra 40 day dived endurance using this system.
I think that I would have to disagree with your conclusions in the main.
We are supposedly building 8:SSN(A)s to replace the 7 Astutes. Adding two more would cost broadly the same as 5 SSKs with crew numbers roughly comparable.
Their year in running costs and refits would be markedly cheaper then that of the two extra SSNs, and they would add much more utility to the SM service.
There are as I’m sure you’re aware, some tasking that SSKs are better suited to. Yes SSNs can conduct those same tasks and do, it’s not really the best use of such limited assets though.
Given that we have bought a foreign design for T31s, I don’t see why we couldn’t jump onto another foreign designed SSK – T26/Taigei for example and build it in the UK, notwithstanding a capable workforce or dockyard facilities to build them.
Just because we kicked SSKs into touch in the early 90s doesn’t mean it as necessarily the right option capability wise, indeed it was a purely financial decision, which cost the RN a lot of goodwill with our NATO SSK neighbours.
Building SSKs in the Uk is completely unfeasible there just isn’t the yard\workforce available. Barrow will be too busy with SSN(A) for RN and the backends of the RAN boats.
Unfortunately it is a total non starter at the moment, as you point out, hence my comment ‘capable workforce/dockyard facilities ‘.
It doesn’t mean that it’s something that we shouldn’t necessarily consider however. A force structure of something like 4/9/5 -SSBN/SSN/SSK would create a far more rounded SM force adding much needed mass and capability to the SM service.
If, we did decide to go down the SSK route, then the earliest we could probably build them would be on completion of the Dreadnought programme. DDH is large enough to accommodate 3-4 SMs in build at a time. Ideal speculation on my part of course, but achievable, certainly if the will is there from HMG/MOD and the requirement of course.
“Its a total non starter but…”
That is the truth of it. If there is any spare capacity at Barrow we would be much better off adding to SSN numbers. If there is a desperate need for SSK then we should swallow our pride and import some.
How do you arrive at 9 SSN and 5 SSK?
Back in the late 80’s(88/89), we had 15 SSNs and 9/10 SSKs. Given that the T boats were coming online and we were losing the C&V class from 91 onwards, left us with approx 12 SSNs until the S boats started to be withdrawn over the late 90’s. Replacing the 9 O boats with 4 Upholders (cut from an original 12) was always a financial decision. If we needed 12 then we arguably need at least 5/6 now, as all that has happened is we have run our small SSN fleet into the ground sooner then we should have. Costly 2 year refits on 30yo hulls is not a financially astute position.
12 Astutes is really the number we should have had, but didn’t. 1SL has muted that he was looking at at least 8 SSN(A)s, their is no real reason why that shouldnt be back upto the 12 we require given the timeframe for building them over several decades from the mid 30’s onwards.
Forgoing 3 thus leaving 9 would release funding for approx 7-8 modern SSKs (A26/Taigei types). Allowing for a little wriggle room with whats left should let you procure 5/6 new SSKs. 5 would be the minimum or its not worth it, whilst 6 would be more preferable.
“UK has not-that-long-ago experience” the last Upholder was launched in 92. That’s 32 years ago. Most of the people involved in building them that weren’t at a very junior level are retired. If the U.K. was to go back to building non nuclear subs they would be starting from scratch.
yes. Britain could build someone’s else SSK design and fit its own sensors and weapons.
That might require a new site
Yes and no. Submarines are just tubes filled with lots of tubes. It is just a question swapping out a kettle for a pair of donks. I humbly suggest BAE wouldn’t be too lost. Then there is BMT with their concepts which though not actual designs would be a good starting point. And there is nothing wrong from buying from abroad. Both Sweden and Japan make good SSK’s.
The quickest and lowest-cost way to augment the RN’s frigate fleet is to order more T31s. A sixth ship could be ready in about 2031-32, and it’s well-known that unit cost comes down as more ships get built.
If the T31s had some sonar & ASW capability in addition to their current planned armament then they would be very useful vessels. Sure, they’re not the dedicated anti-sub specialist that is the T26, but they come in much lower cost; the RN could buy two or so T31s for the cost of an extra T26.
Such a T31a should also be of interest to countries like New Zealand, who need low-cost GP vessels that can address a variety of threats across huge areas of ocean.
Eh, more likely new zealand will hook onto Australia’s 2nd tier frigate plans.
T31s in build definitely can’t retrofit any kind of ASW gear, and while new ones with ASW gear would be useful, there’s alot of other programs that take priority
If by ASW gear you mean sonar they could be easily retrofitted to T31. The Danish IH have hull sonar and their Absalon cousins are being fitted with tails to act as ASW frigates. The Polish version of T31 is getting both bow and a tail. So all very doable.
I think what @Hugo is alluding to is a bow sonar system, as you can pretty much fit a TA system to any ship – especially in a podded container type system.
Retro fitting our T31s with a bow system is v expensive as a bow arrangement wasn’t built into our initial design/build. Fitting a TA system is however most certainly achievable.
Depends on if theres space reserved, pretty sure youd have to cut a hole in the back. But overall it seems unlikely as the RN cannot generate the additional ASW crews necessary.
But yes the bow was build as a solid piece, nowhere to install a bow sonar.
Adding bow sonar would be an easy task you would just remove the bow section and replace with a version designed for sonar. IH has that design and so will Polish Swordfish T31. The design is sat there in Babcock’s CAD system. A short docking period would be required to do the work.
Deconstructing the front of the ship is not a short or feasible thing, and it’s pointless because the navy doesn’t have the support for more ASW vessels.
They knew any sonar they added would be neglected like those on the T45 so instead saved on the cost
Best guess, next ASW escort the navy will get is T83 in like 2 decades
It isn’t deconstructing the front of the ship and it would be a relatively short and completely feasible job.
Retrofitting bulbous bows, not too dissimilar to what is being proposed, is getting quite a common job in the marine industry. Damen have just signed a deal to do some more ships for CGA-CGM
I would be careful using the word “feasible”. I wouldn’t say it was easy but I wouldn’t say it was hard either. Far from hard.
It’s a known design. The bow will be built in a block. Something like this,
And a look at the real thing,
It’s very feasible. A lot easier to do than say chop 16m off a design as they did with T42 B1/2.
The Chinese and Russians aren’t going to stop building submarines. And many states are buying them.
Just ignoring something doesn’t mean it will go away.
Type 45’s sonar was a poor piece of equipment. I doubt it would have been neglected if it had been fitted with the UMS 4110 CL as intended way back in the day.
Agree to disagree on the T45 sonar but the fact they didn’t even put the dome for a sonar in without the equipment, is a pretty clear indicator they’re not going to install them on the T31.
Yes the problem isn’t going away, but neither are the budget limitations. Hopefully the T83s love upto their number and have a better ASW focus.
Got any more info about the T42 B1/B2, assumed they came with sonars.
All the T42s came with a mainframe bow sonar, which was the same as that fitted to our T22s, ST2016 I believe it was for the majority of their time in service.
Not sure if they also upgraded and got ST2050 when the T22s did though.
The reason T31s aren’t even plumbed for a bow sonar is financial pure and simple. Whether it’s the cost of said systems and or manpower, it’s all costs. Totally barking for a frigate that is designed to be a ‘loner’.
No they didn’t. T2016 / T2050 was hull mounted and was roughly level with the bridge. The sonar instrument space was 4 Golf section under the sonar rates mess (on the Edinburgh anyway 89 – 92).
It is clear now that Type 83 will be to replace Type 45 and not a cruiser like the Italian DDX. So it is probably 10-15 years away.
When i mentioned number i was referring to the 8X being Multi role destroyers, not just air defence like the T45s. Seems like they want them to be capable of ASW too.
Also not sure what you mean by the italian part, but theyre also replacing only 2 of italys destroyers.
I reckon we should aim for (realistically):
2 More T26 – to extend production line as T83 will undoubtedly be pushed back since T45’s are all undergoing massive refits atm.
3 More T31, to increase numbers to 8. Not sure it is worth fitting with sonars etc now, just get more and at same spec as upgraded T31.
2 More SSNAUKUS.
More MCMV (off the shelf) and MROSS (HMS Scott+Enterprise replacement)
The US Navy is finding rearming ships at sea with missiles is no longer an option, but a necessity with the recent experiences shown in the Red Sea, Ukraine, and the potential outbreak of conflicts in Asia. This requirement has now become a top priority.
The US Congress subcommittee says the Navy is not moving fast enough to figure out how to better push munitions to its ships at sea and wants to know what is being done to fix the problem.
The RN with its half a dozen deployable destroyers and frigates having a small missiles complement is in an even more dire state
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/03/05/rearming-us-navy-ships-at-sea-is-no-longer-an-option-but-a-necessity/
Yes. if this can be done with returnable rocket boosters to a barge , surely the simpler re loading problem at sea can be solved with modern electronics and micro electromechanical actuators
puffery
Could you put this down on paper how exactly this will work? The navies around the world would save a lot of effort.
I gave an example of a highly complex system landing vertically on a floating barge . Musk doesnt patent his most secret ideas to prevent you know who from stealing them so ‘we dont know how it does it ‘ just that it works ( after trial and error).
A simpler problem of loading a vertical object into a floating vessel just needed the same problem solving thinking along with modern marvels called MEMs to stabilise the system.
The whole idea of missile vertical launch was created by ‘thinking differently’ from same old approach – based on how guns fired by loading and pointing them. !
My background isnt electro-mechanical engineering so I cant create it
Who is talking about patents? so you have no ideas at all? just more puffery like school boys
Those in the know absolutely say Musk doesnt believe in patents as it tells everyone his secrets.
The technology to bring a space rocket to land back vertically on a floating barge certainly would be feasible for a electro-mechanical stabilisation to reload VL at sea.
Your generation, as I said couldnt imagine VL at all, and missiles launch was based on the technology and approach of big calibre guns.
Its fine that you dont have the technical background see the glass as 80% full already
Aster from new Jacques Chevalier BRP to Charles de Gaulle.
Continuation
last photo
Notice how you cannot put a crane truck like that in a current frigate or destroyer.
Whats this at the back of the vessel Proteus ?
They must have faced the same naysayers when the Enigma codes were cracked and they made the jump to making it productionised.
Some people cant see the wood for the trees
More evidence of the USN first steps – in harbour reloading from a ‘crane ship’
Possibly a workable idea, but not that many similar capable ships on the fleet.
As someone who has taken off rotor blades when on board an Invincible Class carrier. Which would be a similar concept of removing a VLS launcher and then replacing it.
To me the biggest issue was the bit between the blade and the crane, i.e. the wire rope. The crane and the aircraft were in the same motion as the swell. But the wire tries to stay perpendicular with gravity and not with the sea’s motion, so it swings away. A means of solving this would be a hinged and articulated arm. So that everything stays in the same relative motion.
I could see it put into 4 cables guides for each missile container corner linked to the VLS corresponding corner.
Explain how that works, and why it is not in operation already?
So you talked to Elon Musk also? lol
Haha. You should read more and get out more.
It was done previously but the tech was primitive and clumsy and the Cold War ended so wasnt updated .
Now its different
“Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX says, “We have essentially no patents. Our primary long-term competition is China. If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book.”
https://hbr.org/2021/03/elon-musk-doesnt-care-about-patents-should-you
And she sailed before rhe strike!!!
All
This conundrum is what General Eisenhower once called, in his very last public speech as US President, the Military-Industrial Complex.
(Dwight called it that because Deep32’s phase – “capable workforce/dockyard facilities” – does not have quite the same ring to it!).
Unfortunately, in the three and a half decades since the end of the first Cold War – an historic event which was officially marked by David Hasselhoff singing on top of the Berlin Wall – the UK has seemingly forgotten how to do Military & Industrial Complexes……………..
Furthermore, and most-probably because they have been over-promoted during peacetime, our current batch of serving naval officers and MOD civil servants really don’t seem to know how to do even the basic stuff = stuff I would describe as Military and Industrial Simple.
————————–
First of all, the key problem with the UK now procuring any / all types of new warship(s) is that we simply don’t now have anything like the right numbers of experienced and professional qualified engineers and naval architects who are able to properly design them.
Secondly, as Deep 32 and others have quite-rightly noted above, we now simply don’t have the industrial base left. Thus the UK has very few shipyards left.
Thirdly, and by far and away most importantly, within the RN and MOD generally there are remarkably few professional qualified engineers, especially in the upper echelons………
.
That means all of the key engineering and industrial decisions in UK defence – including all of this week’s very-pompous and frankly hopeless announcements – are usually made either by Oxbridge educated arts graduates and/or by Oxbridge educated science buffoons and/or subcontracted out to Whitehall’s large army of management consultants (aka the overpaid scum and vermin).
That complete and utter lack of any professional engineering skills throughout the upper echelons is the real reason why both the RN and the MOD have never been an “intelligent client” when it comes to buying any type of warship and/or weapons system……………..
Therefore, as has also been quite-correctly noted by several others posting directly above, Norway and Sweden and Japan and South Korea (and I would add Israel and Switzerland to that list) always run rings around the UK when it comes to both effective weapon systems design and also warship procurement.
As the FSS saga once again shows us, overall the RN/MOD is best described as a VSC (Very Stupid Client).
———————–
FSS
When I was reading NL today, I had very-definite feeling of Deja-Vu.
As of today, the ongoing FSS fiasco has all of the very-same makings as to what happened with the grand cock-up during the Bay class procurement twenty five years ago (In summary, RN gets three ship’s in service: however us taxpayers paid-out the dosh for six).
Then, as now, BAe’s bean-counters decided to poke their noses into a quite-correctly awarded government contract between a foreign ship designer and a UK shipyard (once again, its called having a sulk – because they had come a poor second)
So, what happened next?
Well, I’m not telling you, because you can read the National Audit office report yourselves!
Quite simply, there is no shipyard in the UK which now has the resources capable of designing and building the “quite-complex” FSS within the timeline which the RN/RFA now needs them in service.
If Navantia pulls out now, which – after the quite-bizarre shenanigans of the past fortnight I reckon is probably a 50/50% risk – the RN would be right back to square one. The RN would be jumping out of the frying pan, and landing straight in a very hot fire.
Thus Navatia need to be kept on board…..so the top half of FSS can be built in Belfast.
Any short-term loan which H&W needs could be easily secured on the value of the land in Belfast.
– and, with Fort Vicky now rapidly falling to pieces, FSS is needed out at sea quite quickly
And it is worth remembering that, without the FSS being commissioned into service with the RFA, the RN can only effectively act as a coastal defence force.
—————————–
Accordingly, having read the right load of nonsense published by MOD / RN earlier this week, I personally believe that “probably” now the only way forward, to get the Royal Navy quickly geared-up to something approaching a half-decent fighting strength, is as follows;
Escorts
As I have posted before, and as other have said above, solving this conundrum is a simple matter of getting enough warship hulls (platforms) into the water = as soon as possible.
We do not have either the time, nor the resources, to be developing any new ship designs.
Therefore MOD should soon be ordering, both to the currently-agreed design and also sticking at the contractually-agreed prices:
Four number T26 ASW frigates = because Mr Putin’s Red October SLBM’s are the single biggest threat to the UK homeland. Four number T31 GP frigates = because we need enough ships to cover the big wide ocean.This would ensure sufficient workload, for at least the next ten years, for both Glasgow and Rosyth. This would allow both BAe and Babcock to invest in the workforce and infrastructure they need for delivering on a “proper pipeline” of new-build warship work over the next ten years.
Then the RN can retire their remaining T23’s as quickly as possible (so without wasting any more cash on large quantities of WD40 and, when that has proved to be inadequate as an anti-corrosion measure, any more steel hull patches).
Conventional Submarines
Simple fact of the matter is that there is only one yard left in the UK which is now capable of building any type of submarine. However Barrow is now fully booked up: full up to above and beyond bursting point (see next). Secondly, as has been quite-rightly noted above, we haven’t got any modern UK-made SSK design “on the table”.
However, as Sweden is now in the NATO alliance, there is a very obvious short-term measure.
It would be quite easy for the MOD/RN to go out and buy six SAAB built coastal submarines. These are all excellent bits of kit, with long duration underwater endurance; excellent sensors and a good weapons fit. These designs are essentially “off the shelf” and would be very useful in all European waters: especially in the littorals.
Buying off the shelf from a NATO partner would also send a very strong message to the over-paid bean-counters who run BAe = pull you socks up….because SAAB’s sub building yard (Kockums) is both immaculate, and very professionally run. It makes Barrow look like a right sh**hole.
Nuclear Submarines
Simple fact of the matter is that the whole of the infrastructure of the entire Barrow submarine building complex is now totally and utterly inadequate.
However, BAe are still in “corporate denial” about quite how bad it has become……….
First and foremost at Barrow is the very-urgent need to improve the quite-dreadful road and rail transport connectivity into the town. This is essential, such that the shipyard can both recruit, and occasionally draw on, a much-wider wider pool of skilled people
Secondly, to build AUKUS efficiently, Barrow now needs an all new assembly hall. This must have some properly heavy-duty / high capacity cranage: so large enough to “tilt and turn” the fully fitted out modular sections (i.e. as they do with the US Virginia Class)
Thirdly, would be to repurpose part of the sit, to dispose of the RN’s many old and rotting nuclear submarines. The front half of the old sub would become razorblades; the rear end would be sent for disposal, disposed of as a complete sealed unit. This would be remarkably easy, simply because Sellafield is just a few miles further along the very-same cart track (sorry A road) from Barrow. One very simple infrastructure project would free up a vast amount of space at Devonport..
However at least RR have woken up to the fact that all of their nuclear infrastructure in Derby needs replacing. So we might eventually have a few new reactors that work….even if the submarine hulls they are to be fitted into arrive several years later…
And I honestly fear that if investment in some proper infrastructure at Barrow is not made quite-soon, then I can confidently foresee the AUKUS hulls being built overseas
Underwater Battlespace
At a conference held at the Defence Battlelab in Dorset about 12 months ago one serving RN officer – whom I will not name here, simply because I really do respect him for his frank honesty – made it quite clear that the RN has simply forgotten how to operate below 350m (That is 1000 feet, or 12,000 inches, if you voted to leave the EU in 2016).
Therefore the RN are now having to relearn these deep diving techniques from the experts in the commercial deep-diving sector
Thus HMS Proteus yet another example of DSTI “over-promising and underdelivering” when it comes to their high-tech projects. Start sacking those people who made those over-blown promises to ministers…
MRSS
Start properly designing these six ships – from scratch on a clean sheet of paper (my post earlier this week)
Summary
When it comes to the current RN equipment budget the closest analogy would be:
“Regularly Flushing Toilets (note 1) with Twenty Pound notes”
Thus the current RN leadership often remind me of a much-younger me………………….
At aged eight and three quarters I asked my mum “can I have some more pocket money please? She replied “is that to replace all the money you lost last week, when you didn’t tell me about the big hole in your trouser pocket?”
When it comes the age old excuse for “bad management “, top of the list (in any big organisation) is always that age-old excuse of “we haven’t got any money”. However, if questioned, the person making this statement is usually found not to have a clue about what he or she spent last week: let-alone have a grip on the organisation’s overall annual accounts
So how would this big shipbuilding and infrastructure replacement programme be paid for by a now-a-bit-skint-after-covid UK over the next decade?.
It would be remarkably easy……
Cut the £1 billion plus per annum DSTI/DASA /QinetiQ research budget: by at least half. Most of this is currently being wasted on projects which are of great interest to nerdy scientists, but which are currently nowhere close to becoming effective weapons systems. They are currently funding loads of **** (note 2). With their remaining R&D money, MOD should only be funding only those proposals where there is a very-realistic chance of it becoming an effective weapons system. Half a billion quid a year buys one big new warship per year.Sack at least one-third of the current senior officers serving in the RN. Why do we need more than one hundred senior officers, all over the grade of Commodore and above, who are only employed to send electronic memos to and from each other? Stop wasting any more money on refits of those old warships. Especially stop refitting old submarines. These should all have been sent to the knacker’s yards, to be converted into razorblades, many many years ago. Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. Sorry: I really must get into the habit here on NL of calling them heads !!!!!
Note 2. I got a big round of applause last year when, at the aforementioned industry conference down at the Defence BattleLab in Dorset, I noted the MOD and RN was spending too much money on – I quote my own words: “very-trendy cyber-s**t“. I wasn’t far off getting a standing ovation.
And where exactly are we getting the funds for these fantasy extra warships and submarines, or sailors for that matter.
Your proposal to save funds are extremely unlikely to ever be considered
And zero chance we’d be buying submarines from a foreign yard.
Hugo,
I shall ignore, for just for a moment or two, what you have said above……
Lets now look the hard evidence: the hard “pounds shilling and pence” —
The Annual Costs of Running The RN Fleet Out at Sea
Several months ago, I posted here onto NL a set of MOD’s own financial figures: showing how much the RN fleet cost to run, in total, when it was out a sea doing “The Business” (i.e. the annual totals of money spent on personnel (at sea), fuel, food, ammo for target practice, booze for the wardroom Nelson Night etc etc),
Once the RN fleet is actually out on the water, doing what it is supposed to be doing as its day job, it is actually surprising cheap to run…..
Many NL readers were very surprised by how little that number of quid’s was …..
RN Budget
Over half of the entire RN budget every year (Note: that is “per annum” in the military jargon), is spend on land = buying its equipment from its suppliers.
(Important note: if you are up for understand percentages = half is 50%)
So, just last year, from this evidence (which is called “open source” in the jargon) with just BAe Systems and Babcock alone, the MOD spent a cool £10 billion quid.
Much of that equipment went to the RN…….
UK National Defence Expenditure
MOD UK Defence in Numbers 2023 (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Please note that this document was published before the recent announcement, by Mr R Sunak of No 10: that the government now wants to increase UK defence spending from 2% to 2.5% in the very near future.
(Footnote. I very strongly suspect that the timing of this announcement, so this government wanting to more money spent on national defence, “probably” has something to do with a Mr V Putin wanting to occupy No10 when Mr Sunk leaves Downing Street later this year. However I may have got that mixed up, because I understand several other people also want the top job. However, simply because I live in key marginal constituency, they both need to be aware that I shall, of course, be making that key decision in the privacy of the local polling booth later in the year)
UK Shipbuilding
Furthermore, this document once again shows that the government is committed to spending 25 billion quid on naval shipbuilding over the next decade.
As the RAF and British Army don’t use warships, I can only assume that all of these new and refurbished warships are for the RN…. (however, Hugo, please feel free to correct me if I have got this key assumption wrong!)
Accordingly, the potential UK shipbuilding policy I laid out in my post of yesterday is not a fantasy fleet. It is what should be quite easily be achieved IF – but only IF – the RN spends its £25 billion quid’s wisely over the next decade.
Foreign Purchases
As for your frankly-snobbish comment about not buying warship (conventional submarines) abroad I have only two words in reply = “why not?”
In summary
You need to wake up and smell the mustard = the RN and MOD is grossly inefficient when it comes to their equipment procurement.
Our naval dockyards (both new built and repair) cost far too much and produce far too little (much of which is often late down the slipways and defective when it does eventually arrive…… .)
Conclusion
I shall repeat what I said earlier:
“When it comes the age old excuse for “bad management “, top of the list (in any big organisation) is always that age-old excuse of “we haven’t got any money”. However, if questioned, the person making this statement is usually found not to have a clue about what he or she spent last week: let-alone have a grip on the organisation’s overall annual accounts”
I strongly suspect you are one of those kids who, aged eight and three quarter’s, would carry on whinging and moaning until their mum gave them some more more pocket money. If so, then I believe you are uniquely well qualified to be senior civil servant in MOD’s defence procurement team: because frankly that is what they do all day = whinge and moan “I haven’t got enough money”.
The RN needs to sew up the very big hole in its trouser pockets: before the aforementioned 25 billion quid of taxpayers money – money which is now-fully-committed by the government to naval shipbuilding over the next decade – goes to waste…
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
For the benefit of you younger readers, the BAe AEW plane was one of the great defence procurement fiascos of the 1980’s. The BAe Nimrod could either use its fuel to fly, or it could use its fuel to to cool its radar systems: however it could not do both simultaneously. BAe’s top accountants, who were in charge of keeping the AEW gravy train rolling down the tracks, described this issue as being an MTG (Minor Technical Glitch). After all, why would one want an Airborne Early Warning plane to fly?
Far too many here who say little but take great delight in having a go at others. Disqus or similar would allow us to ignore them. The trolls would soon bore off when deprived of attention.
That’s a bit harsh on Pete
If you could attempt to be less of a condescending dick you might be able to have a genuine conversation with someone.
Also are you seriously suggesting the 2.5 percent is ever going to happen? It’s purely electioneering.
And a government that won’t be in power in 6 months can hardly spend 25 Billion on shipbuilding in the next decade.
And my point about foreign procurement is it would undermine the current policy of rebuilding British industry, and goes against years of statements arguing against foreign procurement of warships.
Would also point out there has been zero mention of conventional subs, and therefore its more like fantasy fleets wishing they’d suddenly decide to buy them.
Procurement is hugely inefficient, and you think that’s going to suddenly change somehow?
There’s no suggestion of an MOD epiphany anytime soon.
Hugo,
When it comes to “electioneering”, I am often reminded of two phrases uttered by the late Labour PM Harold Wilson back in the 1960’s:
—————————-
If you think your crystal balls can predict the results of the next UK general election: think again!
In the very recent local elections held near here, the Labour Party failed to win even a single council seat in Pendle. That is in the very heart of the so-called “Red Wall”.
Frankly anything could still happen at the next general election: and it probably will….
—————
Can I politely point out to you that the world has significantly changed since the last UK general election in Dc 2019….
If the MRLP (Monster Raving Looney Party) had put into their last general election manifesto in 2019 any one of the following five high-level defence policies for the UK = then we would all have been rolling about in hysterics:
That :
Accordingly, as I believe I might just possibly have hinted at in my original post (above), the MOD’s equipment procurement policies (and priorities) must now “move with the times…..”
I don’t do fantasy: I do Harsh Realities
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS And why on earth the UK did not commit to increase its defence expenditure back in 2018 – when deadly WMD’s were used by those aforementioned commies in Salisbury High Street – god only knows..
For those of you reading NL who do not understand military TLA’s (Three Letter Acronyms) – those deadly Chemical Weapons such as novichok used in Salisbury High Street are defined in international law as WMD’s; Weapons of Mass Destruction
“As the RAF and British Army don’t use warships”…
Err, I’m pretty sure the RAF have been using the RNs aircraft carriers…
I suspect in the early 20th century you’d have advocated cutting the research budgets of “nerdy scientists” that were working on what would become radar and sonar…
As for cyber warfare… Ask Maersk if this is wasted money, given they almost went out of business as collateral damage from a Russian cyber attack on a Ukrainian software-house. Had Maersk gone under the impact would have been far greater than the Houthis could ever achieve in the Red Sea.
Or maybe ask the Iranians, who had a fifth of their nuclear centrifuges destroyed by the Stuxnet attack. Far less hazardous than another Operation Opera.
Hate to disappoint but Hitler and Stalin both got standing ovations.
Means nothing.
ps: you desperately need a new joke writer…
The government’s policy is to significantly increase R&D spend and to ringfence it. So that’s not going to happen. Of course half the R&D budget is wasted; that’s how R&D works. The problem is you don’t know ahead of time which half it will be.
Fortunately the R&D budget spent on Quantum Inertial Navigation Systems to remove dependence on GPS satellites seems to be going well.
Damn those “nerdy scientists” for proving their value…
Hi Irate, I do agree with what you’ve stated above. However, there is one massive hole in all these arguments. Which is manpower! According to Janes, this is the main reason Argyl is being pensioned off to BAe as a training ship. There is not enough manpower to train those going on T26/31 and to “man” the T23s for tasking. It’s not just the RN that’s suffering manpower issues, but all three services. But I would also definitely include the RFA. Who have been disgustingly neglected over the years. Where they are now run by a bloody Civil Servant (WTF!).
There must be a better answer to the recruitment and retention problem. So far I have seen very little released apart from the few soundbites by Ministers, stating they are actively looking into the issue.
First on the priority list is to get rid of the privatised recruitment process. It is a liability and not fit for purpose. Someone within the MoD needs to grow a set and stop the contract. It should go back to being run by the services.
Secondly, should we look at bringing the RFA under the fold of the RN? So at least both are under the same work, pension and pay schemes. Perhaps there is a case of using the RFAs as a means of marrying retention with a part time scheme? Where those nearing the end of their service life or reached a certain age can transfer to the RFA. As I know a lot of people didn’t really want to leave, but weren’t given any other options.
I could go on amount the normal housing issues etc. But without getting swearing the oath, there’s little point in trying to fix everything else. When it takes upwards of year to get to that point. You know something is drastically not working. It must become the top of the MInisters.
We need a 6th Type 31 and them all to get an ASW fit out.
We need a 9th Type 26. Some work should be done towards area AAW capability for T26.
And to get some momentum into Type 83 we need to join the Italian DDX program. It’s the size of ship the RN needs. I doubt we will get 6 T83 anyway.
We are where we are. It’s a mess. This government and its replacement will no doubt put other things before defence. We need to ensure the escorts are as well armed as possible. And we have a submarine available. It’s the best we can hope for.
To give the current design of T26 an area anti-air capability. A few things would need to be added, especially if Artisan had to be kept. The first is a dedicated 3D search radar. This would do the volume searching and significantly reduce the workload put on Artisan. Thereby allowing Artisan to do the threat analysis and tracking. The obvious choice would be to fit the S1850M. As that’s already in-service and has the logistics, maintenance and training already sorted. The upfront cost will be primarily related to buying the radar system itself.
The second for the area defence, MBDA have pulled off a blinder. By expanding the CAMM to medium and extended range. It will only require a few tweeks to the CMS to calibrate the operational use of the missile. So depending on the space available, a T26 would be able to provide a layered defence out to an effective range of 100km at least using CAMM, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR. By using its existing CAMM farm space and allocating some CAMM-MR to the MK41 VLS.
This would be significantly less costly than trying to integrate Aster or any of the US Missiles. But would give the ship a very good area capability.
..
Great points!!
The US has recently conducted a successful test launch of a PAC-3 MSE interceptor from a Mk 41 VLS.
https://www.twz.com/sea/successful-patriot-interceptor-test-from-naval-vertical-launcher-is-a-big-deal
Thank you. This could be expanded across T31 too.
We can’t afford not to do it in a way. Though guns across the flotilla would need a upgrade too. Then there are the lasers. All backing up the EW.
The ships might survive long enough to shoot at something themselves…….
Why go to Patriot type missiles when there is the naval SM range already doing much the same thing.
It’s very worrying each time ships have some future fictional in service dates beyond 2030s… am I the only one thinking that our looming next conflict could be imminent counted in months not years?
Aaron,
You forgot to point out that both previous world wars started in August
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)