Navy Command to 2030

[marktigger]

it was mentioned earlier about a dedicated Carrier escort design......isn't that what HMS Bristol was for the CVA 01 program!

[Spinflight]

Yes, AAW focussed of course.

Meant to be 4 of them to escort the two carriers.

[Aethulwulf]

'Sprint and drift' doesn't actually mean drifting!

No, but it doesn't mean 15 knots either.

Yes it does - for the T26.

[shark bait]

Is that 15 knots an official figure? I don't recall that being stated anywhere. If so that comes close to the 'average' speed of a task group, around 18 knots I think.

That means it can spend considerably longer listening the the T23.

For comparison the polar ship is designed to acoustically silent at 11 knot's. The T31 should be built to sit a little above that.

It strikes me as though a T31 with a good optimised hull, and a T26 with an excellent optimised hull could strike a winning balance between listening and sprinting.

[Spinflight]

Regardless of the actual figures making a ship that can go fast, within reason, is a hell of a lot cheaper than one that can cruise quietly.

[Aethulwulf]

I'm sure that 15 kts has been quoted as the maximum speed of the T26 when running on silent electric motors - but I can't find a reference at the moment.

We will have a long wait until the first of type sea trials before we really know what the design will achieve.

I don't know anything about the polar ship. Why is it designed to be quiet at 11 kts?

[shark bait]

The polar ship is interesting because it's built with resilient mounted machinery, a refined hull form, and non cavitating propeller. All that allows it to be silent for operating it's so at 11 knots.

That's very similar to the features we would like to see in an ASW frigates, only the polar ship is using its sonar for surveys, rather than finding subs. All achieved for £200 million.

[bobp]

The polar ship is interesting

I agree considering the Research Labs, UAV and mini submersibles she will be carrying. £200m is a good price.

[shark bait]

It's 130m and 13,000 tonnes of British shipbuilding. It's the only benchmark we have for building a complex shop in the UK outside of BAE.

We'll have to see how it's delivered, but on paper it does appear good value, and gives me hope the T31 could replicate some of that success.

I think it demonstrates a good ASW platform is achievable on a budget. It's exactly what the T31 need to be as it's the only way it can address the escort shortage.

Clearly won't be as highly optimised as the T26, but it's perhaps still good enough when operating along side one.

Reminds of of the French who have their FTI to complement the FREMM. Some official said they had to make the choice between "a super quiet hull and an average sonar" or "an average quiet hull and a super sonar" . Can't afford both, but a compromise may be acceptable. The French appear to be choosing the second option, something the Royal Navy should copy.

[Spinflight]

Is it at all possible, theoretically, to design the T31 in such a way as to fulfil the ASW Escorting role you describe, whilst keeping it exportable? And at a reasonable cost?

Having another think about this there might be a way... Would require quite a radical departure from tradition though.

Basically using foam sandwich CFRP, which is only half the weight of steel. The largest vessels ever made with this stuff are the Swedish Visby's, at 73m, however they reckon it is cheaper overall when through life costs are taking into account for vessels under 130m. Basically you pay more upfront ( though not that much more) and recoup the cost in fuel and maintenance over the ship's lifetime.

There's a couple of buts. Namely two vessels using this construction type which have gone up like Roman candles, though I doubt the Swedes would have put them into service if they hadn't solved the problem. Another problem is that all of our shipyards are set up for steel and lots of welding rather than laminating and whatnot. Quite how the modular construction proposed for the Type 31 would work I do not know.

Northrop had tooled up to basically offer a larger Visby for the American's LCS, though it was rejected out of hand after a Norgie minesweeper built of the same stuff burnt itself to the waterline.

The advantages though are interesting. Improved shock resistance, lower acoustic signature and a non magnetic hull. The former and latter quite important if you happen to be trying to clear mines. The Visby's for instance double as minehunters with ROVs though they also sport a towed array, variable depth sonar and hull mounted sonar. They would probably be closer to 1500 tonnes if constructed from steel. It also appears to lend itself to stealth shaping, top weight isn't as much of an issue. Hence potentially you can get rather high speed along with less horsepower. They don't rust or need extensive hull maintenance.

In a panic of a resurgent Russia the Swedes are planning a couple of larger and improved Visby's, called the K40. I can't really find much on them other than some vague Visby + and ++ silhouettes though they are apparently to be about 2000 tonnes and somewhat more blue waterish, medium calibre gun and medium range SAMs. There's some suggestion they are going to be a multimission type with a well deck though details are difficult to find.

Of course this does rather chime with the idea of the Type 31 also meeting the MHC requirement. Might be more exportable too, maybe not the entire hull though as the Indians have bought a few frigates with steel hulls and CFRP superstructures. There's also been quite some advances since the Visby's were built. BMW claims to have speeded up the entire process and now uses CFRP for many of it's body parts.

On the whole probably a bit too brave for the traditionally conservative RN. The Swedes built theirs to high speed vessel certifications rather than Naval ones, which I doubt would impress the Andrew. The Rolls Royce design team seems to have nordic connections so maybe they might be plotting something. We'll see.

[dmereifield]

Is it at all possible, theoretically, to design the T31 in such a way as to fulfil the ASW Escorting role you describe, whilst keeping it exportable? And at a reasonable cost?

Having another think about this there might be a way... Would require quite a radical departure from tradition though.

Basically using foam sandwich CFRP, which is only half the weight of steel. The largest vessels ever made with this stuff are the Swedish Visby's, at 73m, however they reckon it is cheaper overall when through life costs are taking into account for vessels under 130m. Basically you pay more upfront ( though not that much more) and recoup the cost in fuel and maintenance over the ship's lifetime.

There's a couple of buts. Namely two vessels using this construction type which have gone up like Roman candles, though I doubt the Swedes would have put them into service if they hadn't solved the problem. Another problem is that all of our shipyards are set up for steel and lots of welding rather than laminating and whatnot. Quite how the modular construction proposed for the Type 31 would work I do not know.

Northrop had tooled up to basically offer a larger Visby for the American's LCS, though it was rejected out of hand after a Norgie minesweeper built of the same stuff burnt itself to the waterline.

The advantages though are interesting. Improved shock resistance, lower acoustic signature and a non magnetic hull. The former and latter quite important if you happen to be trying to clear mines. The Visby's for instance double as minehunters with ROVs though they also sport a towed array, variable depth sonar and hull mounted sonar. They would probably be closer to 1500 tonnes if constructed from steel. It also appears to lend itself to stealth shaping, top weight isn't as much of an issue. Hence potentially you can get rather high speed along with less horsepower. They don't rust or need extensive hull maintenance.

In a panic of a resurgent Russia the Swedes are planning a couple of larger and improved Visby's, called the K40. I can't really find much on them other than some vague Visby + and ++ silhouettes though they are apparently to be about 2000 tonnes and somewhat more blue waterish, medium calibre gun and medium range SAMs. There's some suggestion they are going to be a multimission type with a well deck though details are difficult to find.

Of course this does rather chime with the idea of the Type 31 also meeting the MHC requirement. Might be more exportable too, maybe not the entire hull though as the Indians have bought a few frigates with steel hulls and CFRP superstructures. There's also been quite some advances since the Visby's were built. BMW claims to have speeded up the entire process and now uses CFRP for many of it's body parts.

On the whole probably a bit too brave for the traditionally conservative RN. The Swedes built theirs to high speed vessel certifications rather than Naval ones, which I doubt would impress the Andrew. The Rolls Royce design team seems to have nordic connections so maybe they might be plotting something. We'll see.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing

[ArmChairCivvy]

Northrop had tooled up to basically offer a larger Visby for the American's LCS, though it was rejected out of hand after a Norgie minesweeper built of the same stuff burnt itself to the waterline.

The official version was that even though the tech transfer deal was signed, it all proved "too difficult".

I can't really find much on them other than some vague Visby + and ++ silhouettes though they are apparently to be about 2000 tonnes and somewhat more blue waterish,

Those are from the times when the Visby (bgger) was bid for Singapore, a contract won by the French
- then their Lafayette to Formidable design was speeded up (at the cost of a 1/3 of their range) and fitted with CEC (the smallest ships to have it)
- Saab has had a hand, though, in the Coastal Combatants currently being launched

the Indians have bought a few frigates with steel hulls and CFRP superstructures.

- as D says, v interesting
- from whom; how many; for how much?

[marktigger]

I think the key phrase about CFRP was "Burnt itself to the waterline" The navy still haven't goten over the way the type 42 and type 21's burned in the falklands. Unless there is a major improvement in fire suppression they will be very stand offish. Also how easy is this stuff to repair in damage control?

[Spinflight]

Such things are matters for the MoD Mark. Assessing the vulnerability to fire, ballistics or explosives. To be fair they are remarkably good at this sort of stuff, when the budget allows.

Saab reckons they are, or can be, more resistant and seem to do a brisk trade as consultants for whichever tinpot dictator decides to build stealth missile boats. some interesting designs with huge masts to increase radar range.

I doubt they'd be easy to repair, then again I'm not convinced steel ships are either. As topweight and speed become increasing requirements the quality of steels used has gone up in order to reduce their thickness and therefore weight. I suspect most modern ships of frigate size would be write offs if they took serious damage. Compartmentalisation is used to ensure that damage can be mitigated, though I doubt anyone but the Swedes have put much thought into damage control with the newer composite structures.

For instance the American LCSs with their aluminium frames are only designed to stay afloat long enough for the crew to abandon ship apparently. Rocket fuel plus aluminium.... Not a good combination.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the quality of steels used has gone up in order to reduce their thickness and therefore weight. I suspect most modern ships of frigate size would be write offs if they took serious damage. Compartmentalisation is used to ensure that damage can be mitigated

I was doubting the ridiculous price of 777s, but this same thing has been applied to them: for air-portability, titanium has been used for many parts. Not field-repairable at all, so you will need to stock up with a lot of spare parts (and deploy some with the guns!?... or just take an extra along, for swapping one gun out, without having to "retire" the crew , too)

[shark bait]

Field repairs are a dying art, as complexity and tolerance's tighten up it becomes too difficult. Easier and cheaper to fit a new part. All the more reason to double down on commonality to ease the logistical challenges.

[Spinflight]

Even better to share commonality with other nations such that upgrades and maintenance can be pursued even after a system has been neglected due to other priorities.

Take our M109s, we sold them off to buy AS90. Those M109s have since been back to the US to be upgraded with 52 calibre barrels and whatnot where we can't afford to upgrade our AS90s.

We keep on going down the bespoke path and paying for it.

[shark bait]

The army do, the rest don't.

• RAF platforms are entirely common with other operators.
• RN platforms are not common, but share commonality at system level.
• The army has a fair bit of bespoke kit it can't afford to maintain, and now finds itself in a right shit state

[Spinflight]

Yeah and with more cuts to come it's going to be in an even shitter state.

The RN can point to it's need to protect the deterrent and carriers, can even make a persuasive case for increased funding. The RAF isn't in bad shape, offer up lots of politically valuable Istar assets which make politicians look good.

Meanwhile the Army decides to maintain more horses than tanks, more uniforms than you could shake a stick at, at least twenty percent of it's strength undeployable or medically unfit, much of it's kit either obsolete or becoming so and unable to cut battalions due to capbadge internal wars.

Meanwhile it treats it's reserve as an embuggerance that can't be trusted with a proper role. They could, years ago, have retained all sort of capabilities by giving the TA tanks, heavy arty and other bits and pieces which weren't needed in sandy places.

[shark bait]

Throws up a though.

Arguably the force in best shape is the RAF, which enjoys a strong industry with plenty of international collaborators.

The force in the worse shape, arguably the Army, has poor industrial support, and lots of bespoke kit.

Is there anything conclusive in that observation, or is it merely coincidental?

[Spinflight]

It's coincidental in that the only service which has gained more capabilities and funding during relentless cuts is the RAF. Each SDR only the RAF has been the winner. Even though a lot of their programs, especially Typhoon, have been of dubious value.

Much of the industry devoted to building the Army's kit has disappeared because the Army has had little need for high intensity geared kit and has reduced in size. An over strength pound has meant little chance of exports. Lots of UOR type stuff but by their nature they've been from all over the shop. Light infantry just don't generate the industrial demand that armoured formations do.

[marktigger]

Yeah and with more cuts to come it's going to be in an even shitter state.

The RN can point to it's need to protect the deterrent and carriers, can even make a persuasive case for increased funding. The RAF isn't in bad shape, offer up lots of politically valuable Istar assets which make politicians look good.

Meanwhile the Army decides to maintain more horses than tanks, more uniforms than you could shake a stick at, at least twenty percent of it's strength undeployable or medically unfit, much of it's kit either obsolete or becoming so and unable to cut battalions due to capbadge internal wars.

Meanwhile it treats it's reserve as an embuggerance that can't be trusted with a proper role. They could, years ago, have retained all sort of capabilities by giving the TA tanks, heavy arty and other bits and pieces which weren't needed in sandy places.

in case you weren't following events in places hot and sandy the TA were heavily involved to and actually in some areas provided better assets than the regulars. It was good to see the TA dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st C and the MoD also dragged kicking and screaming to recognise their worth and provide them with proper terms of service and proper training.
The army is a mess as reconfiguring the whole thing for one sideshow operation has been a disaster. The focus should have been maintained on High end warfighting. And the rush to convert the army to a light role counter insurgency force should have been stamped on.

[AndyC]

It’s almost exactly two years since the 2015 SDSR and things have moved ahead, but at a slower pace than is really required by Naval Command. I have updated the main article to include what we've learned from the national shipbuilding strategy and the attachment to reflect the changes that have been announced and their implications.

I have not included the media speculation about the Royal Marines and the amphibious capability. Partly because it appears not to be happening http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -cuts.html and partly because I suspect the whole thing has been a co-ordinated political/media campaign to get more money out of the Treasury.

I have also included the information provided by the First Sea Lord which both clarifies the role of the Carrier Strike Group and deals with some of the issues relating to the Royal Marines https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... al-lecture

[Lord Jim]

The First Sea Lord's speech is interesting but it was explained what "Carrier Strike" involved. Does having a single squadron of 8-12 aircraft meet that criteria? We all know what the aspirational numbers add up to, but are we going to see MoD and Government headlines announcing that the RN has regained its Carrier Strike capability when the first F-35B squadron stands up and completes carrier trials?

[ArmChairCivvy]

headlines announcing that the RN has regained its Carrier Strike capability when the first F-35B squadron stands up and completes carrier trials?

Instead of just IOC, Carrier Strike - I think - will be declared in 2026
... NAO will write about this all sometime in the spring