Royal Navy Outlook

I’ve been looking through Royal navy equipment on the web and there is some interesting stuff i never new they had. If anyone has info on them or has any other equipment that is different from the usual stuff please reply.

Here is a RM hovercraft. How many they have, what ships they operate off or if there are any other types i don’t know

The navy also operates the BV206 that the viking was developed from. I never new this and its not listed on the RN site. How many and for how long i don’t know. They also have a few leopard 1 tanks that have been converted into beach vehicles. It seems an odd chassis to use.

When reading about history and the Falklands i saw that HMS Onyx had sank one of the Round table class after it had been destroyed by fire and bombs. Does anyone know anything about the role this submarine played in the war. All i’ve seen so far is that it played quite and important part with SBS and had other roles. It was because it was small and non nuclear that it got the special forces role. That got me thinking, did the UK do the right thing retiring all there non nuclear submarines? Maybe they should of kept what are now Canada’s Victoria class. Conventional subs seem to be good for some roles. I would still keep the nuclear for the big roles like out in the ocean chasing other boats but there would be role for a very quiet and smaller submarine where speed isn’t a main factor. The USN seems to keep a sub or 2 for special missions etc. Does the RN have a sub that has some different equipment on it that it uses for special missions? There used to be one of the Swiftsure class i think HMS Spartan that had a dry deck shelter but i was under the impression that when this was retired the capability was lost.

Warship Business Gives Boost to UK Economy

(Source: BAE Systems; issued November 9, 2009)

Portsmouth, UK – A report published today has revealed that BAE Systems Surface Ships, formerly BVT Surface Fleet, added almost £600 million to the UK economy and supported almost 15,000 jobs last year, demonstrating the economic and social value of the warship industry to the UK.

The study by the University of Strathclyde’s Fraser of Allander Institute examines the direct and indirect economic impact of the warship business, recently brought under full ownership of BAE Systems. It covers employment, wages, turnover and contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for BAE Systems Surface Ships’ operations in Glasgow, Portsmouth and Filton for the year 2008/09*.

Key findings for BAE Systems Surface Ships:

— Total turnover generated amounted to £1.12 billion
— Its operations contributed £231 million directly to GDP, with an additional £366 million created in the wider economy through the knock-on effects of wage and supplier payments
— It employed around 6,700 people directly across its UK sites, with a further 8,200 supported elsewhere in the UK
— This means that for every 100 people employed directly, a further 122 jobs were supported in the wider economy
— The business generated a total of £426 million worth of wages across the UK, including £199 million paid directly and re-expenditure accounting for a further £227 million
— Every £100 paid directly in wages to its employees supported a further £111 worth of wage income elsewhere in the UK

Alan Johnston, Managing Director of BAE Systems Surface Ships, commented: “The findings of the study demonstrate that our business and the warship industry continue to thrive in the UK and the number of people who benefit from the shipyards continues to increase year on year.

“Despite the current economic climate, we have seen significant growth in the past year and have the strongest future order book that this industry has seen in many years. Our long-term partnering agreement with the Ministry of Defence will help to sustain key industry capabilities in the UK and we will continue to invest in our people and facilities to ensure that, as part of BAE Systems, we remain at the heart of British industry.”

The report reinforces the importance of BAE Systems’ commitment to working closely with its supply chain and industrial partners to drive innovation, enhance efficiencies and develop the skills necessary to ensure the long-term contribution of the warship industry to the UK economy. Its Surface Ships business has quadrupled its commitment to research and development to £2.5 million and continues to invest in skills to provide a strong base for its future domestic and export business.

The Fraser of Allander Institute is a research unit of the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. The Institute carries out research on regional issues generally and the Scottish economy in particular, including forecasting and the analysis of short-term and medium-term movements in Scottish economic activity.

BAE Systems is the premier global defence, security and aerospace company delivering a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology solutions and customer support services. With approximately 105,000 employees worldwide, BAE Systems’ sales exceeded £18.5 billion (US $34.4 billion) in 2008.

His site is the best source for information on the RN, he’s devoting his time to real work and family atm although i hope he does appear again when he has time and there is more information for him to work with. There has not been much happening for him to write about but with any luck that will change.

The T45 does have many great modern technolgies incorporated and many nations have not yet done that hence why i think the design should still be sound in future although you are very much correct alot can happen in 11 years. Many new warship designs have huge amounts of space for updates hence why hull sizes have increased so much. I hope we are all still here in 5-7 years time as well to talk about it but who knows. Your opinion is as important as anybody else’s opinion especially here on the Internet for all i know you are somebody with a great depth of knowledge about warship technologies.

I’ve read navy matters for many years now, its a shame he no longer up dates the site. I think the rn jumps in at the right time, 45,electic propulsion, awesome radar and the rest, its really a stunning ship in my unimportant opinium. Thats my point about the C1-3 set up, in a few years time they will have a good idea about whats current, whats on the horizon, what they might want to need to leave space for incase it comes to fruition. Right now we are looking at whats available now. Is that anygood for 11 yars in the future?I think this thread will be exciting in 5-7 years time.

The C1-3 idea is an extension as far as i am aware before that there were different programs, the best place to check would be Mr Beedalls Navy Matters. Basically what they want is one thing what the Government wants is no doubt slightly different. The Navy needs hulls in my opinion and they need to be flexible especially the C2-3 which have broad mission criteria whereas the C1 has a specified primary role of ASW.

Yes this may be years away but defence projects move at a snails pace the need for the design to be finalised is still a few years off and the start of building further off, yes there will be new technology but it depends if we can afford it. The problem also with waiting for new tech that is just on the Horizon is that you need to jump in at some point.

The C1-3 idea is an extension of the future surface combatent program from 2004 ish? I feel that the idea of what will make a good escort(?) in the 2020 time frame is very difficult to determin, I would guess the RN has an idea what the want but it is changable. Honestly what is a good idea? Exellent asw, land attack, or just gp? There a few years from having to comit to a solid idea that they can develope. May be it will be 10x C1 10xC3 and no C2?

I can see your point but what i am saying is that the people who make the decisions will ask the Question why do we need this ship (C1) when we can have this (C2) that looks the same and has identical equipment albeit missing things, but costs less? It might happen and i don’t have much faith in the process if im truly honest so i think there is a higher chance that it will happen.

The way i would like to see things pan out is for the C1 being a Type 45 destroyer hull but fitted with the equipment from the 8 updated Duke class that would be the easy low risk thing to do. I would also say it has a decent chance of happening vs a whole new hull design, the superstructure on the Type 45 is ok and would need little modification. The reason i say this is bacause the C1 is meant to be a specialist ship designed to fight subs so must have some features that cost money e.g. silenced equipment and the T45 already has some of these features built in. It also is meant to be a hot war ship designed with all the expensive military features built in. The C2 is meant to be a cheap jack of all trades and i think a common C1 and C2 hull would be a compromise and would work out pushing up the cost.

Thats just my take on it, we all have our own opinions and i know my own is a bit barmy.

Flubba, that is my point exactly, I can see only a small number of fully equipped C1 being purchased, maybe as few as 6 but between 12 and 16 C2 also being purchased. The old trick of “Fitted for but not with” will surely be attractive to the bean counters and the PR people will be able to say that the C2s are actually C1s, which will be accepted by most people. The old arguements that a unit rarely needs its ASW gear or SSMs will come to the fore.

On the plus side though if equipment levels allow 4-6 C2s to become C1s in a surge than things aren’t so bad.

Erm! i would love to keep them but remind me who is in power and what they have been doing since they have been in power. The only reason they would keep building them is to keep people voting red simple.

Stan, i agree with the point that Type 23’s should have continued witha few more hulls built.

Why not just keep all those we built, instead of flogging some off cheap?

Lord Jim, You do have a very good point but if the hulls were common i think there would be trouble with getting adequate numbers of C1 when you could get a C2 cheaper. I’m in with the crowd that want to use a modded Type 45 hull for C1 and i think others know my other choices for C2 and C3.

Stevo, I see what your getting at but i don’t like state owned enterprises that much if im honest. Although i do think something along the lines of what you are saying would be a good idea although i would have it in a status like Network Rail, Government owned but run like a private company with full autonomy in most areas. I know the EU would not allow such a thing to exist and i think some international bodies would have a problem with it so it might alienate the country a tad.

Stan, i agree with the point that Type 23’s should have continued witha few more hulls built. I would add that T45 program should have been brought forward and the full 12 built and then once the T45 is done CVF should use the capacity until we have frigate designs ready to go. There is a spanner i must add though, if we continued the Type 23 line where would the capacity have came from for the Bay class, Albion class and Wave class. It is simple to suggest that the shipyards production capacity could have been kept higher but that might not have worked as there is no will to spend money on the armed forces. Ideally i think we need a proper long term build strategy that is agreed across the parliament and with clauses that would cause pain to those trying to cut numbers and capability. Kev is right numbers would be cut no matter what although the older frigates could be sold as new frigates are finished although this would be a bit daft cost wise.

AE90, The papers and the armed forces always have problems with cuts but the problem is the people that vote do not have a problem with military cuts. Let’s face it the people of this nation no longer give a damn about the armed forces if you get them to list what they care about the services won’t make the list, granted it might be slightly different atm because of the stories they hear about the current wars. In general however they just simply are not interested and the same goes with the politicians, there was a video i watched recently and it was the BBC (i think) asking people to place tags into sections on a board about what should be cut and what should not be cut. Care to guess where the Armed Forces ended up 99% of the time and where the NHS ended up 99% of the time.

We have to just face it for 99% of the people the NHS and Social Protection are sacred cows that must never be ‘cut’ no matter how little use they do and how much of a failure they are.

Anyhow on the subject of UAV’s, I think they would be very handy but they are very limited to watch or kill. If they can be easily carried without taking up space that could be used for something else then so fair enough, i would still rather a Lynx was carried for any vessel that is large enough to support it. Im talking about the C3 here btw, UAV’s and a Lynx = Good, UAV’s No lynx =Bad, Lynx No UAV’s = Ok. That’s just my opinion on it, manned aircraft are much more flexible so i would rather have that than something less flexible.

paying them off early wouldn’t be looked at too fondly by those that print tomorrows chip wrappers.

the need for the perpetual production of vessels is something that has been forgotten (although originally T42 replacements were due as soon as T23 finished falling off the slips.) and applies to submarines too (Decade between Vengeance and Astute, 16 years between Triumph and Astute.)

Talk of building more T23s isn’t helping me rid myself of the fixation with a new GP T23 mk.2 with WR-21s, leccy motors, Artisan, CAMM, A modern looking superstructure with a bridge dominated by HUGE windows(everyone knows the better it looks the better it performs, hence Nimrod mk.3), Merlin and Camcopters totting LMM…

Just thinking how small douse the platform have to be to operate camcopters could you operate them off the mine hunters, (thinking very small anti mine craft or to use the mine hunters as patrolers)

Nice to see that I’m not the only one thinking the RN could do with some Camcopters armed with LMM. personally I think once the RN get round to looking at Helo UAVs they will want something larger like Fire Scout.

They can sell T22B3’s and possibly a couple of the early T23’s still. :dev2:

paying them off early wouldn’t be looked at too fondly by those that print tomorrows chip wrappers.

the need for the perpetual production of vessels is something that has been forgotten (although originally T42 replacements were due as soon as T23 finished falling off the slips.) and applies to submarines too (Decade between Vengeance and Astute, 16 years between Triumph and Astute.)

Talk of building more T23s isn’t helping me rid myself of the fixation with a new GP T23 mk.2 with WR-21s, leccy motors, Artisan, CAMM, A modern looking superstructure with a bridge dominated by HUGE windows(everyone knows the better it looks the better it performs, hence Nimrod mk.3), Merlin and Camcopters totting LMM…

But then the polies would never have been able to cut the numbers to divert funds elsewhere:eek:

They can sell T22B3’s and possibly a couple of the early T23’s still. :dev2:

They should have continued T23 construction until the first T45 began construction and the T45’s should have been a multi-year contract for 12 right from the start. 😛

But then the polies would never have been able to cut the numbers to divert funds elsewhere:eek:

they never should have stopped building Type 23’s should have been continual.

They should have continued T23 construction until the first T45 began construction and the T45’s should have been a multi-year contract for 12 right from the start. 😛

they never should have stopped building Type 23’s should have been continual.

Stevo, are you thinking of something along the lines of a massive PFI setting up shipping company under the guise of military needs. Something like how the Point class RO-RO ships were procured? I suppose it could work clever thinking although i don’t think people elsewhere would be too chuffed and i wouldn’t be suprised if there was some Euro BS in the way.

Yes, except government owned and only competing for contracts which arent already being fulfilled by UK registered ships. The aim would be to eventually ensure that the majority of cargo delivered to the UK arrived on british registered hulls.

“Just in Case” 😛

Oh, and order say 6-10 more T-45’s and I think you could probably justify a large fleet of basic(cheap) ASW/GP vessels to fill out the rest of the fleet.

For arguments sake. Stretch the river class out of all recognition. Space for TAS under the flight deck, Hanger for Merlin, torpedo tubes, space for 16 VLS cells forward *if*CAMM can be quad packed, 32 otherwise, a couple of 25mm or so cannon along each side of the superstructure and the 4.5″ gun off the T23. Probably end up with a ship about the same size as a T21 or Leander. And it would probably be suitable for mass production (<1 year production time, as shown by HMS Clyde which commissioned less then two years after being laid down, and that was in a peace time situation).

I am starting to believe that the C1 and C2 will evolve into the same design with the C1 fully kitted out and the C2 “Fitted for but not with”. This would allow a C2 to replace a C1 when it goes in for refit but have the required systems transplanted. Otherwise the C2 can deplay to areas “as is” when a platform with a greater capability than a C3 is required. Finally if a surge is required a number of C2s could be fitted out as C1s.

I can also see that the above could lead to a dumbing down of the C1s but I believe this will happen anyway with them having the capabilities of a T22B3 with Aster 15 instead of VL Seawolf with the appropriate new radar etc.