After SDSR 2015

It makes for some interesting reading, that’s for sure.

This is a very good summary from the ukarmedforcescommentary blog picking apart the official detail released on the headlines of SDSR2015:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/bits-and-pieces.html

F35 will get SPEAR 3 in the MBDA form not SDBII, JNAAM likely to be the Meteor for the F35 and new variants of PWIV. No Stormshadow for the F35!

The UK wants the V22 but can’t afford it (unless they sell of some of the Chinooks I suppose….)

Lots of other information but not necessarily aviation

Could that crane be mounted on top of a telescopic hangar looking at the hight of the structure it is on now it looks to be about 3 m if it could be lifted so a hangar for a wildcat could be fitted that it job done best of both worlds

First lesson of cranes is that they are always installed as close to maindeck level as possible. Height is an enemy when you are on a platform that relies on beam and displacement for lateral stability….on a monohull most notably so (one reason why I am such a large fan of SWATH for this mother-vessel type role). I would strongly suspect that deckhouse the crane is seemingly ‘bolted to’ will be a strengthened housing for the base of the crane and its control gear….moving it then will not be an option. You could, I imagine, change to a knuckle jib type crane similar to this….

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242404[/ATTACH]

…and mount that on a transverse/athwartships deckhouse such that the jib would open out over the top of a retracted telescopic hanger immediately aft of it….that would be at the penalty of a much reduced weight-at-reach loading on the crane though. This would be an easily contested approach, given the existing design, though as the crane is going to see an awful lot more use, in routine ops, than a telescopic hangar would!. Cradles for UUV/USV type vehicles would sit on the flight deck, if deployed, so you wouldnt get aviation and UUV/USV capability concurrently anyway….our current MCMW fleet obviously doesnt have aviation capabilities either so its no loss in that sense of course!.

Could that crane be mounted on top of a telescopic hangar looking at the hight of the structure it is on now it looks to be about 3 m if it could be lifted so a hangar for a wildcat could be fitted that it job done best of both worlds

Tempest414
As it now seems we are committed to five 90m OPV,s can this hull be fitted with the Hunt class type 2193 sonar or the Sandown class type 2093 sonar. If so then I think the UK should commit to building a further 12 90m,s over a 12 year period modified to have a telescopic hangar which can work as a mission bay giving the navy 17 multi mission hulls

No hull mount sonars. The RN have extended support on the Remus 600’s and have been trialling this: http://www.atlas-elektronik.com/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/products/Mine_Warfare_Systems/ARCIMS.pdf

ARCIMS, like Thales Halcyon, is equally adept at streaming a sidescan towfish and feeding that picture back at a much more useable datarate than possible through a UUVs acoustic modem. For the Remus all thats required is a command data system that can integrate the picture and a crane cable of lifting the launch cradle. ARCIMS/Halcyon needs at most a couple of 11m capable davits or, at very least, that sizeable crane again. Those OPVs could offer quite a lot of MHPC capability to be fair….just by hanging on to that hoofing big crane!.

I wasn’t so much talking a cheap Frigate because as you say I cannot see any frigate being cheap. I was rather referring to a specialist frigate that can do away with some of the traditional functions of a frigate because it will always be around other vessels that can provide that function. They could then be a dedicated & specialized fleet escort freeing up the 8 “full” T26’s to perform other task.

I really struggle with the idea of a cheaper “general purpose” T26. As I said, I’m nothing but an interested bystander so I don’t understand the finer points, but I struggle to understand what a cheaper general purpose T26 look like? What systems and functions would you lose? Would the loss of these systems make it next to useless if a war were to actually break out? I don’t really see how you can make it cheaper without having a big HMS Clyde in which case just make more river classes.

You are by no means alone with this position. The politicians are, likely, hitting bended knee praying that something cheaper than a T26-lite is feasible and would dearly love to be presented with a solution along the lines you hint at. The reality is that the systems are already defined by T26. Mk45 for’d/Sea Ceptor/ASCG & (maybe) Harpoon as weapons go. 997 radar, Radamec 2500 EO (or whatever theyre called now!) etc. Any departures from that into cheaper sensors or 76/57mm guns etc means adding new systems to those supported by the service. In wholelife terms that cuts out the cost advantage of going with the smaller, less useful, ship design.

You can fit a 5″, small VLS, SSGW, chopper and appropriate sensors in a pretty modest hull, of course, the Kiwi Meko’s will have something very similar on less than 120m and under 4000ton full load. Problem is as stated….no room for growth….no room for much else at all in fact. As a service we learnt that painful lesson with the Leanders and 21’s.

Then we come to price….the Malaysian Gowinds are vessels pretty much dialled in to the suggested requirement….they are over £300mn a throw though. The outline concept price for T26 was £400mn per unit and that was with the active tail (itself about £20mn a set). You suspect that figure for T26 to be optimistic but when you see a, fairly pedestrian outfitted, 110m CODAD patrol frigate bouncing in at the money quoted you have to ask, if BAE can get within 25% of that price, no sane cost-benefit calculation would come down for the smaller ship.

Other that that is the simple expedient that we’ve tried this ‘specialist frigate’ design concept before. The original Type23 bore no relation whatsoever to the Duke class we know today. Originally it was little more than a tug for a Dowty 2031Z tail, a Sea Wolf system and a couple of 30mm REMSIGs!. Its perceived job….its only perceived job….was patrolling GIUK and the Atlantic basin and helping our cousins run Reforger should the need arise. What did arise of course was the Falklands conflict….and then we get the lessons learned of too-specialised ships having no tactical flexibility. Net result T23 as a properly capable frigate and T22B3 being the class T22 always should have been.

Dont know whether its a hideously sad observation that we have so may recent examples of making glaring mistakes in shipbuilding terms. T21, near-miss on T23, T42 being rebuilt smaller and cocking-up the bows. Fundamentally though the problem is nearly always we build too small and then run into trouble down the track. The one time we dont, when the T23 got its lessons-learned reprieve, we build a proper ship thats going to give service far longer than anticipated and is being upgraded to far higher capability levels than it was designed with. Conclusion there writes itself.

No news on Argus or Diligence out of service dates. They’re just not shown in the projected 2025 fleet.

Regarding the loss of the hospital role, I’d be more concerned about the loss of the forward support capacity that Diligence provided to the submarine force.

Any news as to when Ocean, Argus and Diligence come to the end of service? Is there any chance that one of the Bays may be converted to be a casualty Clearing Ship?

Ocean will go when the first QE2 class comes on line around 2018

Any news as to when Ocean, Argus and Diligence come to the end of service? Is there any chance that one of the Bays may be converted to be a casualty Clearing Ship?

It’s a commonly asked question. The short answer is that there is no such thing as a cheap frigate these days!.

Not if you want the kind of comprehensive capabity set discussed. Most of a ships costs are in its black boxes. Sensors, weapons, comms, EW etc. Put the same fit in a small hull as the big hull and you get an expensive small hull with no room for growth and development. See Royal Navy Type21 Amazon class frigate.

We have sunk more than a billion into the design of T26 to date. That money is spent, gone and will never be seen again. If we can leverage that design into a more austere GP frigate layout we make that billion do more for us. Effectively we divide it across 13 hulls and not just 8. That means unit cost for the 1st 8 T26s drops by more than £50mn and we save having to shell out another billion designing the cheap corvette!.

The net result being we end up with additional units of the same basic T26 type which we will already b set up to support and deploy all the emerging offboard systems being trialed now likely for a similar cost to the ‘from-scratch’ light frigate.

This really does sound like one of those political smokescreen announcements that, when we get close to winding up T26 units 5 and 6, will be reversed to ‘BAE has done such a great job with the new frigate and has found huge build savings so we’ll reward the great workforce and leadership by continuing into building a batch2 modified design’.

I’d stake 20 pounds on that today! :highly_amused:

I wasn’t so much talking a cheap Frigate because as you say I cannot see any frigate being cheap. I was rather referring to a specialist frigate that can do away with some of the traditional functions of a frigate because it will always be around other vessels that can provide that function. They could then be a dedicated & specialized fleet escort freeing up the 8 “full” T26’s to perform other task.

I really struggle with the idea of a cheaper “general purpose” T26. As I said, I’m nothing but an interested bystander so I don’t understand the finer points, but I struggle to understand what a cheaper general purpose T26 look like? What systems and functions would you lose? Would the loss of these systems make it next to useless if a war were to actually break out? I don’t really see how you can make it cheaper without having a big HMS Clyde in which case just make more river classes.

However I do bow to your superior knowledge and I take your point about design costs 🙂 .

Do you think that would be something that the navy would be interested in? I always imagined that mine sweepers require numbers to preform an effective sweep?

Plus those vessels are 600&750 Ton and the Batch 3 Rivers are 2000 ton displacement. would they not be similar or more expensive to run whilst diminishing hull numbers and possibly capability from a counter mine perspective?

I personally like the idea of the larger fleet of more capable river classes. It always seems wasteful and overkill to me to have a T23 doing counter piracy and patrols in low threat area’s.

Yes I understand that. I am saying is if the sonar’s from the Hunt & Sandown classes will fit and work on a 90m hull then we should move on and build 12 more MHPC on that hull which in the long term could bring down logistics costs. dose anyone think a 2093 sonar could be deployed off a standard 90m OPV with a little work?

I know what you are saying and I agree that’s what should be done, but in reality the MHPC will be that far off in the future that I doubt the MOD will have given it that much consideration.

The 2 extra OPVs are make work hulls built to plug the gap in orders until the T26 design is ready to be ordered. In all probability they will be built to the cheapest possible spec; so expect them to be the same or have minimal changes to the Rivers Batch 2 that are currently being built.

Yes I understand that. I am saying is if the sonar’s from the Hunt & Sandown classes will fit and work on a 90m hull then we should move on and build 12 more MHPC on that hull which in the long term could bring down logistics costs. dose anyone think a 2093 sonar could be deployed off a standard 90m OPV with a little work?

I would like to think that all 13 T26’s will be built as Jonesy has said and this is just away of not committing to them now.

As it now seems we are committed to five 90m OPV,s can this hull be fitted with the Hunt class type 2193 sonar or the Sandown class type 2093 sonar. If so then I think the UK should commit to building a further 12 90m,s over a 12 year period modified to have a telescopic hangar which can work as a mission bay giving the navy 17 multi mission hulls

The 2 extra OPVs are make work hulls built to plug the gap in orders until the T26 design is ready to be ordered. In all probability they will be built to the cheapest possible spec; so expect them to be the same or have minimal changes to the Rivers Batch 2 that are currently being built.

I would like to think that all 13 T26’s will be built as Jonesy has said and this is just away of not committing to them now.

As it now seems we are committed to five 90m OPV,s can this hull be fitted with the Hunt class type 2193 sonar or the Sandown class type 2093 sonar. If so then I think the UK should commit to building a further 12 90m,s over a 12 year period modified to have a telescopic hangar which can work as a mission bay giving the navy 17 multi mission hulls

Well, we can hope. That’s a hell of a lot of money to design a frigate which uses lots of OTS stuff, though, especially one intended to be economical to build. Where did it go?

I can’t help thinking about what T45 cost, including UK-PAAMS development. T26 should be much, much, less for design & development.

Ah. I see that it’s £127 mn for the Assessment phase (less than half T45, allowing for inflation), & £859 for the Demonstration phase, including (according to Think Defence) about £600 mn for some long lead items & shore facilities. I think that’s probably really a lot less than a billion for development.

I’m no expert on these matters but what would be the potential of, instead of general purpose (cheap) frigates, the royal navy was to look at a new type of escort corvette.

I assume that a large proportion of the escort fleet’s resources will be spent following one of the QE around or taking part in other task forces of high value. I also assume that a QE won’t leave port without a Type 45 in tow.

Why doesn’t the Royal navy commission a class of perhaps 4 Corvette’s which essentially acts as a moving gun/missile/ASW platform in conjunction with a type 45 as fleet escort. It could be designed without a flight deck as it will always be with a carrier, with proper links could have a basic radar as it would always be with a type 45, Low storage as it will always have resupply ships close by and a relatively small crew. Significant savings could be made on omissions of these factors. This would free the Type 26’s to perform other duties especially in times of war you could potentially significantly increase the availability of T26 by decreasing the amount assigned to each carrier group. The ship could h

I’m sure my idea will have massive holes poked in it but I was really just curious about its feasibility.

It’s a commonly asked question. The short answer is that there is no such thing as a cheap frigate these days!.

Not if you want the kind of comprehensive capabity set discussed. Most of a ships costs are in its black boxes. Sensors, weapons, comms, EW etc. Put the same fit in a small hull as the big hull and you get an expensive small hull with no room for growth and development. See Royal Navy Type21 Amazon class frigate.

We have sunk more than a billion into the design of T26 to date. That money is spent, gone and will never be seen again. If we can leverage that design into a more austere GP frigate layout we make that billion do more for us. Effectively we divide it across 13 hulls and not just 8. That means unit cost for the 1st 8 T26s drops by more than £50mn and we save having to shell out another billion designing the cheap corvette!.

The net result being we end up with additional units of the same basic T26 type which we will already b set up to support and deploy all the emerging offboard systems being trialled now likely for a similar cost to the ‘from-scratch’ light frigate.

This really does sound like one of those political smokescreen announcements that, when we get close to winding up T26 units 5 and 6, will be reversed to ‘BAE has done such a great job with the new frigate and has found huge build savings so we’ll reward the great workforce and leadership by continuing into building a batch2 modified design’.

I’d stake 20 pounds on that today! :highly_amused:

I’m no expert on these matters but what would be the potential of, instead of general purpose (cheap) frigates, the royal navy was to look at a new type of escort corvette.

I assume that a large proportion of the escort fleet’s resources will be spent following one of the QE around or taking part in other task forces of high value. I also assume that a QE won’t leave port without a Type 45 in tow.

Why doesn’t the Royal navy commission a class of perhaps 4 Corvette’s which essentially acts as a moving gun/missile/ASW platform in conjunction with a type 45 as fleet escort. It could be designed without a flight deck as it will always be with a carrier, with proper links could have a basic radar as it would always be with a type 45, Low storage as it will always have resupply ships close by and a relatively small crew. Significant savings could be made on omissions of these factors. This would free the Type 26’s to perform other duties especially in times of war you could potentially significantly increase the availability of T26 by decreasing the amount assigned to each carrier group. The ship could h

I’m sure my idea will have massive holes poked in it but I was really just curious about its feasibility.

Regarding the two QE class carriers. What do they mean by one being “modified” for amphibious work? I thought they were already capable of that? That it was built into their design. And does this mean Ocean will not be replaced?

There are in to mind two big points in favour of T26 light as the patrol frigate

1. So long as we avoid gold plating the basic hull, building lots of the same unit (and common logistics) is actually going to be cheaper than two cleverly small classes of different vessels

2. The one thing that those patrol frigates will need is endurance. When T22s were sent down south for the FIGS role it was not uncommon for the lovely big resonance chamber above the sonar (you know the only actual modern, cutting edge bit of kit on the ship) to be filled with toilet rolls and other consumables. T26 light should have plenty of empty compartments for storing consumables without needing to cripple its mission systems.

I wonder how they plan the reduced MCM force structure; will they keep all of the remaining more adaptive Hunt’s and pay off three Sandown’s or will they go for a force of six of each class which would support the 9th MCM Squadron deployment of two of each (namely two preparing to deploy, two deployed and two on post deployment maintenance).