Clyde shipyard continues to churn out warships

Alas we probably dont have the crew numbers for that. We should probably long lead time those ships though, so the yards actually have something to do once this burst of work finishes

Should the RN have 30 surface combat ships, yes. Can the UK afford 9 T83s to replace the 6 T46s, probably not. What we could do is a bit diffrent but get us a fleet that is flexible. To replace the 6 T45s we could order 3 T83s with 96-112 missile cells, Sejong the Great would be a starting point for the design and 6 AAW T26s, call them T46. The AAW version of the T26 would have the forward Sea Ceptor cells replaced with Mk41 giving 5 blocks of Mk41s and the 24 CAAMs midships. If the 5 inch was replace with a 57mm then six blocks of Mk41s should be possible. Artisan radar and mast would be replaced with an intergrated mast for an upgraded SAMPSON and a four plane fixed array SMART L MM/N such as Sea Fire. That gives an extra three extra surface combat ships. Then the next program would be the T32s, these should be Muti Role Combat Vessels, the Babcock concept of a stretched T31 is a good start point. Each able to land 120 Marines, I for one would prefer the Damen Crossover Combattant concept is a better all round vessel. If we go for the Babcock design which makes in many ways more sense then a further 6 of these ships could be ordered.

There are two valid issues cost and manning. So first lets look at cost of build, by reducing the number of T83s from 6 to 3 the cost is reduced by 50%. Yes 50% the reason for this is that the second build the AAW T26 would have the same radar, engine etc as the T83 but a reduced missile load and command and control capability. As each T83 would cost somewhere in the region of £1.5-1.7 billion that would be a saving of £4.5-£5.1 billion for the three ship reduction. This saving would then be spent on the AAW T26 as she would be AAW then its T46, as they would cost about £1 billion each it would mean a extra £1.5 billion would need to be found to increase the fleet numbers by three further ships. Also by keeping the T26 ASW capability in the AAW version we have increased the fleets tails by six hulls. The diffrence in cost between the ASW and AAW T26 would be the extra Mk41 blocks and the radar/intergrated mast.

That gives a fleet of 22 ships, 14 ASW tails and nine AAW ships with three command ships. The on duty carrier has three AAW ships, two with a tail and the UK has three AAW ships for GBAD with BMD capability, with a further three in refit. Not bad for an extra £1.5 billion, so, so far so good.

Now comes the major investment the T32 and the MRSS vessels. We will start with the requirements for the MRSS. With the decommissioning of Ablion and Bulwark the Royals need a platform for 250 Marines. That means a well deck for two LCVPs or 1 LCU, boat bays for four CB-90s type boats and four helicopters ( two Merlins and two Apaches). The ship would need a speed of 25 knots to keep up with a carrier group which would mean two RR MT30s plus four MTU 8000 series. The ships should also have two RAS postions one for solid stores and one for fuel so they could act as auxillery replenishment ships. These ships should also have an extensive workshop and medical capabilities as well as a gym, sauna, theatre and NAAFI bar. Remember the guys could be forward deployed for some time and the ships would be ‘motherships’ for the escorts, the crews of the escorts need a break. I don’t know why but I keep coming back to the Dokdo or Trieste class as the base design.

The escorts would be the T32s. As I said I like the Damen Crossover however, this would be not cost effective. So the Babcock stretched T31 it is, as most of the ship would be the same as the T31 I would think that they would cost about £150million more so a total build cost of £2.5-£3 billion for six ships. If they could have 2 blocks of Mk41s and 24 CAAM cells midships that would be good.

With three MRSS and 6 T32s that would give three Amphibious Response Groups, one in the Southern Hemisphere, one in the Northern and one in refit/repair etc. Each group could land up to 400 Marines in a single lift and a follow on of about 100 and a further 100 in surge capacity. So for an extra £4.5 billion we have increased the fleet by 9 surface combat ships and a further £1.5 billion for the three MRSS. A further 3-6 MRSS should be built with reduced speed and reduced amenities.

The T46 the way I think is not a T83. The T83 would have Admiral staff and be the command and control ship for the carrier escort group, she would carry up to 112 Mk41 cells and be about 12,000 tons. She would have AAW BMD area defence ASTER, local Air defence CAAM Anti Ship and Land Attack capability FCASW. The T46 would be AAW area defence ASTER with five blocks of Mk41 forward, local air defence 24 CAAM midships, Anti Ship NSM and ASW capable able to act as a ASW squadron flagship e.g. with 2 T26s but her main task is to operate with the carriers in the AAW area defence and ASW role. The T26s are ASW with local air defence.

Yes it sounds expensive yet again maybe not. If BAE and Babcock were told now that they have the follow on orders for the T46 and T32 then the long lead items could be ordered such as engines, gearboxes, radars etc. As these would be the same as the current run then production of these items need no design, tooling etc. Saving money and time. If BAE and Babcock knew that they have a continuation order then the workforce will not be forced to relocate and the companies will not need to reemploy and retrain, again saving time and money.

I also agree with Supportive Bloke as this expansion to the fleet would take time we could recruit and train crews. Yet with new ships and better conditions I could see that more people would like to join the RN. By the way people do not always do a job because of the money but because they feel that the job is worth while doing, that also means being respected for the job they do.

So fantisy fleet, I don’t know, we are planning the T83, and MRSS, we are talking about the T32 so these are not ship types that are not in some form being thought about. What I have tried to do is have cost effective solutions to improve hull numbers and give the surface fleet flexibility. If I wish to have a fantisy fleet I would include in the numbers 4 HMAS Canberra type ships, 4 not three MRSS and 8 not six T32s to form four Amphibious Assault Groups. Two groups per carrier. Yet the 4 Canberra LHDs would cost the UK the same as one QE carrier so not a bad return for the flexibility. It’s just wishful thinking.

As for the sub fleet I am not sure, do we need a SSN to clear the path for our SSBNs leaving or coming into the Clyde? I am not sure on that it seems a bit over kill. Can we afford SSNs and AIP subs not really, can we afford only SSNs with 3-4 VPMs not sure. I seem to remember numbers such as 12-15 SSN-AUKUS for the RN, I also seem to remember that they will have payload modules. Can we afford 12-15 subs with 3-4 VPMs, do we need them. No. What I suggest is the 4 SSBNs, 4 SSNs with 4 VPMs and 8 SSNs. The VPM sub would escort the carrier and carry out deep strike land attack, 2 on hunter killer duties. That the Aussie want SSNs with 4 VPMs I can understand and it works for them due to the Pacific being a huge ocean that you can hide in. The RN has a more confinded area of operations for their SSNs, North Atlantic, Norwegian Sea, GIUK Gap, in this case the hunter killer role is more important. However, that would be an extra £9 billion+ for the 5 extra subs. Then again when I look at cost we do seem to get good value for money in our subs.

I do wonder if a more cost effective solution to sanitise the SSBN route incoming and outgoing would be a corvette with a good tail? The total expected cost of 3 T83s, 6 T46s, 3 MRSSs and 6 T32s would be £16.2 billion. The cost of 6 T83s would be 10.2 billion. So for the extra £6 billion I have increased the fleet numbers by 9 surface combat ships and 3 MRSS ships. Now for the extra cost of wishfull thinking, of 4 LHDs, 8 T32s and 4 MRSS ships an extra £4.2 billion above the £16.2billion. If the complete project was to be completed including my wishful thinking then the Uk government would need to invest into new ship construction above the current spend of about £3 billion per year for 8 years. It would give work to thousands if not tens of thousands until the mid 2040s. Who knows because of the drum role we might even get more exports.

This would not include submarines as I do not know enough about cost and tech.

Yet when I look at the cost, and the return it would make the UK one of the most powerful nations at sea. With my wishful thinking of 4 LHDs we could land 4 armoured battlegroups anywhere we need, giving the Army a flexibility they have not had in 80 years. As well as being able to launch up to 100 F35Bs from all six decks and 60 Merlin helicopters as well as 4000 troops, 56 MBTs, 48 artillery units and 1760 Royals. Again anywhere in the world where we need to. We would be able to deal with the Russian navy with the aid of our European allies without the US Navy and have a GBAD capability that we do not as yet have.

It means a Falklands would never happen again, Norway would be reinforced with up to 8,000 troops within 96 hours, the UK has a mobile air defence and that the UK can stop Russia from breaking into the Atlantic, whilst having the ability to carry out offensive strikes. Not a bad return on the £3billion per year for 8 years extra cost of new equipment. Also remember that about 40% comes back to the government in tax.

Idea and rant over, Sorry.

by then we’ll all have died of old age the fleet Will NOT GROW until the 2040’s.

is it April fools already? churning out it’s a disgrace and the Clyde should be told in no uncertain terms that their performance is unacceptable.

Numbers still matter, that mistake was made with the T45. Although 1 T45 could essentially do the same job as 2 type 42s ( and more) it can still only be in 1 place and the 2 T42s can be in 2 places and if the one T45 breaks you have no ships but if one of the T42 breaks you still have 1 ship… also radar horizons mean two ships will always provide better radar cover than one..even if it has better sensors…it still cannot look through the sea.

Yes at the present pace the RN will likely drop to a low of 11 escorts.

T23 was supposed to work like that, we’ve clearly abandoned that idea

The Treasure resents spending on defence, according to a former Treasury manderin who was recorded for TV (can’t remember which channel).

I would pass a law that required all Government spending took into account direct tax returns on spend but also credits secondary economic impacts, etc. spending in local shops. The Treasury already has a evidenced process/formula for doing this and it is quite happy for other sectors to use it, so why not defence?

In the UK 1% of the work force is employed in Primary industries (farming, mining, etc.), 9% are involved in secondary industries and 81% tertiary employment (shops, lawyers, etc.) with the rest employed in research and development. So spending any spending in defence that drives money into the local economy can support a huge number of jobs in the tertiary sector. This is process is reasonably well understood although difficult to measure, as I say, there are processes and formula out there that can provide acceptable ball park figures.

Cheers CR
PS Percentages above are from online A level study materials 🙂