donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not interesting for me. In long term, UK do not have enough future order of escorts to be built them faster.
If we want to build more than 8 T26's we will have to accelerate the build schedule or the T45 replacement timetable will slip.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think item-3 and 4 must be merged, to secure continuous investment for foreseeable future (say, 30 years from now). I do not think there is enough money to support 3 yards (H&W. CL, Appledore) with RFA, MHC and LPD-R. As such, (sorry to say but) Appledore dropping out is not bad. CL/H&W can build any of them, but Appledore cannot RFA vessels.
I think the commercial partnership that I have proposed between CL and H&W should be just that,
commercial. I believe this is important to ensure competitiveness going forward. The drumbeat of MOD orders is crucial but shouldn't become life support like it has on the Clyde. Cammell Laird has enjoyed a bumper time recently with the RFA maintenance contracts and the RRS SDA build. Harland & Wolff has successfully diversified into the wind energy sector and is now starting once again with commercial vessel refits including cruise ships. This commercially viable business model is vital. It will maintain efficiency and competitiveness in the future which should ensure the RN/RFA get the ships they need at a price the UK taxpayers can afford.
As for Appledore, I think it is a pity HMG didn't fight harder to save it but the yard has seen hard times before, maybe the last chapter hasn't been written yet. The location of the OPV/MHPC/Corvette yard isn't that important, but I would like to see it somewhere on the south coast. Too much has been moved to Scotland already and to move more in the current climate would be strategically nonsensical.
Scotland should get the frigate factory as promised and I am proposing a similar investment into a OPV/MHPC/Corvette factory on Englands South Coast. This should be designed from the start as a scalable development, one that could easily be reconfigured and adapted into a full blown frigate factory if Scotland ever did vote to leave the Union. I believe this makes solid strategic sense.
This Warship and Small Vessel facility would specialise in building all OPV's and MCM/Survey vessels for RN, the coastguard cutters for the border agency as well as all of the UK's fisheries protection vessels. It should be modestly sized with a small but highly skilled workforce together with modest overheads to match. This facility should be viable with a regular drumbeat of orders from HMG. Exports must not be relied upon and with proper planning they shouldn't be necessary.
Repulse wrote:I think BAE thought this was always an option all along with the Avenger design. Another T26 and 3 Patrol Sloops (FIGS, WIGS and GiGS) been my favourite for a while, and remains so.
The Avenger design has a lot of potential but I think Leander would make a better basis for such a configuration. It's interesting that when BAE first floated the Avenger concept, the reception it received was almost entirely negative.
If RN was to change tracks and go down the Global Patrol Vessel route I would like to see it being much bigger than the 111m Avenger. I would like to see it being Enforcer based and built mainly to commercial standards, around 150m X 24m and with a 1000sqm deck garage, 2 Chinook capable landing spots and a crew allocation of around 60 with accommodation for an additional 350. I would replace the well dock with a steel beach/ramp and make it LCM/LCVP/CB90 and LCAC capable.
Tempest414 wrote:
- 6 x Type 45 with 40 CAMM added to give a missile load out of 88 missiles and upgrade to BMD standard
- 10 x Type 26 with 60 CAMM and 30 cell Mk-41 VLS
- 15 x Venari 95 100 meter Multi mission ships with
As ever, a great list but I would go in a slightly different direction.
Tempest414 wrote:- 6 x Type 45
I would aim to fully maximise the T45 platform by introducing both a BMD and a TLAM capability. I would give serious consideration to deleting ASTER 15 all together and replacing with amidships CAMM and/or CAMM ER.
Something like this,
48x ASTER 30
48x CAMM (Amidships)
16x TLAM/BMD
Tempest414 wrote:- 10 x Type 26
At this point I would not look to upgrade the entire T26 fleet further. Instead I would introduce a split build of 4x enhanced T26's, 6x downgraded T26's and 2x severely downgraded T26's as dedicated TAPS vessels.
Something like this,
Four Enhanced T26's (GCS):
32x TLAM/ASROC
48x CAMM
No other changes
Six Downgraded T26's (Escort):
24 CAMM
Mk45 and auto mag removed
57/76mm fitted
TLAM capability removed
8x Mk41 cells for ASROC
Mission Bay simplified
Crew allocation reduced
No other changes
Two Severely downgraded T26's (TAPS):
12 CAMM
Mk45 and auto mag removed
57/76mm fitted
TLAM capability removed
8x Mk41 cells for ASROC
Mission Bay and hanger removed
Replaced with double Merlin hanger and 2 Merlin spot flight deck
Crew allocation reduced further
No other changes
The GCS version would be the cruiser that many think the T26 could and should be.
The Escort version would be the frigate that RN really needs to retain its sovereign capability to escort its own task groups.
The TAPS version would be a dedicated sub hunter. Firmly at home in the North Atlantic and economical enough to increase numbers if deemed necessary. This very basic T26 might be appealing to a different sector of the export market.
Tempest414 wrote:- 15 x Venari 95
Again with the MH(P)C platform I would look to introduce a split build.
Donald is correct in saying that increasing cost will reduce hull numbers and a large proportion of the budget will be required for the development and procurement of the off board systems. This produces a bit of a dilemma. Do you go higher spec and accept lower hull numbers or keep the spec low and maximise hull numbers?
Why not both?
If the MHC vessels ends up something like a Venari 85/95 it will probably have a beam around 16m and a top speed of no more than 18 to 20knots. Great for MCM and survey work but not ideal for patrol duties. Could the solution be to design a Venari type vessel that can accept an additional 15m to 20m central block containing another engine room, deck garage and hanger extensions, additional EMF accommodation, and additional medical facilities?
This would result in 115m to 120m vessel with a top speed of around 22/24 knots, a large hanger with a Chinook capable landing spot. A 500sqm deck garage
plus a LCVP/CB90/LCAC capable working deck. Add in an extensive medical facility and an EMF of around 60 to 80, it would one very useful and cost effective addition to the fleet.
Whatever the MHC produces, it's unlikely to ever be deemed a serious combatant, but even so, it could still prove to be a very important part of achieving a well rounded and truly balanced fleet.