Prospect the Union has responded to an announcement by the Prime Minister on the Type 31e frigate programme.
Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said:
“It is welcome that this announcement has finally been made following damaging delays from government that caused huge uncertainty for the industry.
Events in the Gulf this summer have shown that 19 frigates should be an absolute minimum for the Royal Navy. So this first order of five warships must be followed up by further orders. This will maintain the drumbeat of production and make sure further capability gaps do not occur.
This government has a lamentable record on shipbuilding, with yards closing and skills lost. These workers need more than warm words and a new tsar, they need concrete action.
These frigates were always going to be built in the UK, but workers need a cast iron guarantee from the prime minister that new naval support ships will also be built in our yards and UK workers will not be left high and dry while vital work and taxpayers money is sent abroad.”
The good General Secretary as with most Union leaders, has an aggro tone whenever he opens his mouth. They are never satisfied. Perhaps he should offer vastly better productivity and a big improvement in quality in return for the Taxpayers money.
Which bit of Mike Clancy’s statement do you disagree with? Or is it just the words Trade Union that give you indigestion!
Personally? The bit where he says “this government has a lamentable record on shipbuilding”, as if it’s specifically Boris, who’s been in power for literally a minute, that’s caused the collapse of British shipbuilding.
He’s the head of a shipbuilding union, yet he doesn’t grasp the fact that ships are planned decades in advance.
Nit-picking…you know very well that he means the party that has been in power since 2010! If he wants to criticize Boris then he has every right to, although he didn’t. Even Johnson Junior thinks his behaviour is beyond the pail.
You mean the governments that actually finally announced the construction of the T26 and T31? As opposed to the Labour governments that ran down the fleet, cut the T45 order down from 12 to 6, and spent a decade coming up with a dozen different frigate concepts instead of actually building them?
There are dozens of things to criticise Boris and the previous Tory governments on, but based on recent history they’re not the ones fucking up shipbuilding.
Selective memory again! Labour did make cuts to the Navy..and ordered the two largest aircraft carriers ever produced for the RN. If my memory is accurate, RN cuts by Thatcher’s government (the telegraphing of British disinterest in the South Atlantic by the projected withdrawal of Endurance) led directly to the Falklands war. There’s none so blind as those that just don’t want to see! Humbug!!
It’s hardly selective, I’m just staying within a relevant time frame. If you want to bring up Thatcher, we can bring up the Labour 1966 white paper. None of that’s relevant to now though, is it?
You seem to be missing my point: Clancy specifically phrased his comment to target this government for issues that were caused decades ago by different governments. He’s just trying to run down Boris for something that has nothing to do with him.
What absolute bunk. You want to stay in a relevant time frame….of course it is relevant; successive post-war governments have bungled defence issues. There isn’t much to choose between them. Clancy was criticising poor government planning…in case you haven’t noticed, it is the Conservative Party that is in power and has been since 2010. Wouldn’t be much point in criticising Labour then…according to you!
C and H…Gentlemen..
Facts,
Under Labour’s last years we lost, without replacement, one carrier,six attack boats,and seven destroyers. Six Type 45’s were cancelled.
Since 2010 we have lost two carriers, Ocean, five destroyers ( two had already been laid up)and four frigates.
Make of it what you will…
Hence my comment about ‘not much between them’!
It was the Conservatives who cut the escort fleet from 23 to 19, cut a landing ship, cut MCMV’s – and then took the best part of a decade before ordering the frigates…..
Spot on Callum, and we still paid the same price for 6 instead of 12, one of reasons RN is short of ships now.
I’m not sure the parties which exist today are likely to implement policies which remotely compare with those of the past. Where is that likely to leave us?
I also had a run-in with some militant remnants of the ’70s about three years ago, although I wouldn’t really agree to it being the average shipyard worker, not anymore anyway.
They tried to intimidate the apprentices, by staring at them during a (Collective Bargain) vote on wages.
Even when they (militants) were out-voted in the final vote by about 100 to 3, they still stood scanning the canteen to bully the young ones.
I’m only glad that the apprentices felt less intimidated by being around the more moderate, majority workforce!
Prospect is a relatively Moderate Union; a Non-Political-Party Union, with no affiliation to Jeremy Corbyn’s Socialist Labour Party.
I wouldn’t put Mike Clancy in the same category as “aggro tone” Militant followers of Corbyn.
Note I use the term “Relatively Moderate”.
I have no experience of The Clyde Yards, but I find other yards far less militant than in the 70s.
As you know, shipyards can be breeding grounds for militant workers, hence my annoyance at Corbyn, rallying behind Cammell Lairds minority “Militant Union” remnants, in support of strike action. I’m only glad that intelligent compromise between the workers and management won the day!
Define, ‘Heavy plate.’ I worked on warships and understand the construction. By the way, you need to proof read your posts.
Oh, I see! You write this way as a norm, you high-handed, semi-literate buffoon in need of a fat lip.
Andy, spreading the work around will make British shipbuilding inefficient because all those blocks, hundreds of miles apart, have to be transported. This costs money. This is why no successful shipbuilding country does it this way (France, Germany, Korea, japan, China). We cannot do it this way in Britain either or we will never be competitive.
I thought the idea was you could build several blocks at different yards, all at the same time, rather than at one yard consecutively thus massively REDUCING cost with some offset for transporting the blocks for final assembly.
Don’t see Clancy referring to the Clyde once in this statement. Clancy is from Everton, so more likely to be a militant English shipworker. And prospect are a union who represent professional, managerial and technical staff in Central government, utilities, defence, telecoms, nuc decom, air traffic control and science.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of your obsessive rants about the Clyde and how poor old England is bullied and neglected. If you stopped for a moment to read the article you’d realise that more orders could go to Birkenhead, Belfast, Rosyth, Clyde, Portsmouth, Devonport, The North East…anywhere should the government order more.
Slow down, read, then see if you can have a Clyde rant.
I agree with his sentiments, but I would think that the ‘commitments” should come from him on quality and specifically that no more GLUE be used.
Of course Andrew and you know this because you sit on the executive board and have first hand experience in all things Clyde ship building . What a silly statement which isn’t based on anything factual and is nothing more than “opinion”. Here’s something you should consider practically every nation on earth has parts that are wealthy ,parts that are poorer , parts where industry is based , and party’s where the service sector ,financial or technology is centred. I.e in uk financial services is primarily in London not Liverpool or Manchester, in the USA , tech innovation is in Silicon Valley California not New York or Seattle and surface warship construction in the uk is guess what ? On the bloody Clyde . That’s just the way it is. No point complaining. Are the ships coming out of those yards badly built ? Years behind schedule ? If not then what’s the problem? Maybe the Clyde should swap with Barrow and take on Submarine construction and Barrow can do surface or how about each yard in the Uk builds 1 or 2 ships each just share it all about? Would that be better?
Not often I find myself agreeing with unions, even if their tone leaves much to be desired
I agree with him.
Yards closing due to no orders while we keep workers abroad employed is illogical.
As always, a journalist needs to be on hand who know their onions to contradict politicians. 5 Frigates is not ship building coming home, it’s window dressing.
I agree Daniele, it doesn’t improve the deployment numbers either!
Daniele it’s 5 frigates (t31) as an INITIAL batch. They may be ordered in batches of four or five like the river class OPVs
Agree with the content AND the tone of the comments, but for me its as much to do with the defence of our island nation as it is to do with the jobs of his members….
Nearly took you to task there Geof until I realised there are two Geofs, or should I write geof. A bit confusing that!
Sorry Mate its not 19 Frigates , if only it was ,its 13 as I understand it, the balance is 6 destroyers,
Like most Union leaders and Oliver Twist he always wants more , So do we all, but Comeing from the Unions its hard to take , they would strike at the drop of a Hat,
Clacy’s statement echoes precisely the views that have been expressed, ad infinitum, on these pages for a very long-time! And these views are ‘hard to take’ coming from someone who represents the interests of shipyard workers? Sometimes, the utter humbug that is expressed on these pages is gravity defying!!!
Ah yes… Let’s keep building more ships we don’t have the naval manpower for.
Andy, I don’t even know where to start with that, honestly. Maybe go for a long walk and have a proper think about the world.
Unfair Comment andy!
Fiji, Nepal, Gahna…represented by brave and committed service personnel, who on many occasions, have fought with courage in all of today’s theatres of war.
We clearly need to recruit & train up more crews as well as making the working experience far better for serving personnel. What has happened to us when we’ve got into this apalling situation of record tiny escort fleet, massive capability gaps, MOD budget black holes, under manning &difficulty retaining what experienced crew we do have? If a sabateur had done this to us it would be treason & I think HMGs over recent decades is constructively guilty of just that.
I agree, to become a citizen of this country, why shouldn’t they put time in to serve. It doesn’t have to be military, it could be with the NHS, local council, charities etc. But basically a form of national service. This method would sort the wheat from the chaff.
Should we just keep letting people in until we are outnumbered in our own country? Does everyone realise that we can’t just keep letting more in forever, we do indeed have to draw a line somewhere? With over 20% of our country already non indigenous wouldn’t you say we have already let in (more than) enough? Do you think China, Turkey, Thailand, Pakistan, India, Korea, etc. are over 20% non indigenous and still letting more in?
At last census 12.7% of UK population were born outside the UK. Even if the trend continued from previous years still someway short of 20%.
Or by indigenous do you mean the 19.5% who in 2011 said they were ethnic minority. Cause if you do your point is clearly invalid and you’re just a bigot.
This isn’t even about the Clyde…
There needs to be a coordinated approach and time line to building, maintaining, upgrading, decommissioning, scrapping and recycling vessels that takes into account resources and availability from ship yards and British steel producers. Weapon systems commissioning and decommissioning would also need to be factored in.
The current ad hoc approach has shown to be unsustainable in that less ships are being built, with less capabilities and costs going up.
Yes, exactly!
Hmmm less capabilities? Not sure how you think ships built in 70’s and 80’s are more capable than what’s coming out of the yards in 2019-?
I’ve said it in another thread but I’ll say it again here. I think that for once there is just possibly something that some of us can do about this.
When the Cameron government announced the T31e program one of the stated aims was to potentially increase frigate numbers (or maybe he said “escort numbers”, I am sure the exact wording is available from Hansard). For anyone here who has an MP who cares about defence and who ever speaks about it in the Commons it might well be worth contacting them, pointing out that one of the stated objectives of T31e was to increase frigate/escort numbers, and to suggest that your MP uses that ammunition to ask a question in the house (either at PMQs or during a defence debate) as to whether more that 5 T31e will be built and to point out in their question that, if only 5 are built, that would leave HMG having failed to achieve one of its key stated aims with the T31e program namely to increase frigate/escort numbers.
For once, as well as military considerations, there might be added political pressure that can be applied in terms of making HMG not want to be seen to have failed to achieve one of the stated T31e program objectives. To do that though keeping that initial objective of the T31e program in the public/parliamentary eye is critical to creating that possible HMG embarrassed-to-fail attitude which is why I think some defence-friendly MP’s reminding the government of that original aim of the program, probably at fairly regular intervals, would be helpful.
Sadly my local MP is most definitely not defence-friendly.
All recent governments have cashed in the peace dividend by cutting our armed forces. Red or Blue, they all as bad as each other.
Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you though – must be hangry for ships 🙂
With the Royal Navy having a elephant in the room called Trident, I think the politicians feel that the RN has already got the largest share of the defence cake, maybe, and to avoid giving RN any more funding as much as possible?
Ridiculous to include the nations Strategic Defence as part of the RNs “piece of the cake”
And dont forget : we are an island nation
I think the first comment is a little unfair the Boris Johnson regime got this moving ASAP. Also the project is well within its timeline. The delay earlier in the year had to be made as there were not enough bidders & OK some clarification had to be made and this could be an error.
I don’t think anyone could disagree with the following 3 paragraphs. Though in the 3rd I would take out this government and put all governments since about 1990s and beyond.
If future ship procurement can run like the T31 (although still away to go) then not only may we get equipment on time on budget but without massive waste of money and a reality check to BAE they can’t just charge what they like. Also makes clear to MOD if they set price, requirements and engage with industry then less time is wasted.
Ok perhaps it is a slight anomaly being an altered foreign design. But with there now being competition a reasonable set price procurement can be achieved in the future, it also allows the competition to take over a failing project should it be deemed necessary.
I believe more ships of all classes are required we are now in a cold war in all but name and whether we like it or not.
Whichever way you look at it the government has completed the carriers, has proceeded with the Dreadnought’s, has continued with seven Astute boats, has agreed to eight T26’s and five T31’s ( another five please ), four Tide’s and is committed to new solid support ships. Overall not bad.
What is needed now is for all existing ships to carry their full weapons and sensors fit.
I also believe there is sense in looking at SSK’s for the North Atlantic and escorting the SSBN’s out and a class of powerful FPB’s or a modern corvette design for service in and around the gulf.
Nice and positive as always Geoffrey.
Totally agree with everything there Geoff, we will soon have a very modern and capable navy, just need the full fit of weapons, planes and helicopters. Also agree with ssk’s Or a number of large autonomous subs if the tech is soon to be there. For SSK, we could just buy the design of the Gotland class and modify it with some of our tech. £150 million a unit and we would be supporting a very close ally. A class of 8-10 would be a serious uplift in capability and free up the astutes for stuff further afield and be proper hunter killers. With the CSG duties coming up, the astutes alone are going to be very stretched.
If we go down the diesel electric submarine route I would go for the Wyvern, a British design. Even 5 of them would be a serious uplift in capability.
I would even be happy with another Astute.
Hi Stephen..I think five is about as far as we ever likely to go , if ever! I don’t know about Wyvern. Her weapon set look very limited. Any idea of price?
Hi T.S. Yes ..A 26 or T 212 which the Norwegians are looking at, either way we are working with both as good allies. Five boats maybe?
“19 frigates a minimum” I agree, but I’ll be happy with 16 minimum to replace the 23s. Oh and We have 19 destroyers and frigates!
I would challenge the unions to work with Babcock and BAE and improve quality, cost and working practices, otherwise its just hot air and bravado.
At the end of the day it is their members sticking on screws with glue (which is indefensible) and not taking pride in their work.
The only way this all becomes sustainable is if we have a Frigate Factory, a Large vessel facility, submarine facility and a small ships centre of excellence. I don’t care where they are located, I care that we have an industry (including steel factories supplying these yards and the car industry) that we can maintain and sustain.
Each needs a sustainable throughput which is doable given the RN’ size (see below for an 86 ship RN)
1 x CVF every 25 years
1 x Large vessel every year 20 over 25 years
1 x C1 Global Combat Ship (T26) every even year 13 over 25 years
1 x C2 Global Mission Ship (T31) every odd year 13 over 25 years
1 x C3 Multi Mission Ship (T82) every year – 25 every 25 years
1 x Submarine every 2 years – 13 every 25 years
100 x small vessels (sub 30m) every year – 2500 every 25 years.
Note: 25 year lifecycle based upon reactor lifespan and QEC lifespan (ie 2 x 25 year lifecycles).
The above is not too dissimilar to current hull numbers, as it will provide a RFA/Navy of 86 ships, add in border control, ferry. lifeguard, and RNLI requirements and surely we can sustain an industry capable of investing in itself.
An added benefit of a long term approach is we rid ourselves of expensive life extension programmes as it is clear when a ships replacement will come into the fleet.
Again, the unions have a role to play here by ensuring they are a partner, meeting these deadlines and not trying to bleed either the company or govt dry, a clear understanding of profit share should be developed between all parties to ensure this works.
I more or less agree with you Pacman. We can support 4 shipyards in Britain with R.N./R.F.A., the occasional civilian ship (ferries, etc.) and refit work.
Clyde – frigate factory for our high end destroyers and frigates
Rosyth – Type 31 production centre
Cammell Lairds – R.F.A. & civilian ships
Barrow – our submarines
Things like O.P.V.s and M.C.M.V.s, etc. would be shared between the yards or given to whichever yards most need it. Same with refit work. There would be some crossover too, for example if a few R.F.A. ships were to be built and say Rosyth had no work then some would be given to Rosyth, etc.
These 4 yards should be invested in so we have modern, state of the art facilities and equipment with which to build our ships, which will in turn make our shipbuilding efficient, cost effective and competitive. All ships should be built on one site as far as possible to keep costs low.
He is not wrong. The delays have been epic. We need to get numbers of these ships in the water and our salespeople out around the world.
These ships are our protection! Having so few is a joke! I would be fine if we had 19 multipurpose ships like the yanks destroyers…, but we don’t…
Cam
I couldn’t agree more – T26 needs 2 upgrades
1. Sampson or its successor radar
2. 48 Mk41 instead of 24
Then we need to order another 5 to ensure we have a fleet of 13 Arleigh Burke type Destroyers that merge our high end ASW and AAW assets into 1 hull form for negligible additional cost.
This decision needs to happen soon, we can use the work done for the Canadian and Australian builds to create a mast capable of taking Sampson and the Mk41 is to ensure we have the ability to make this something the RN has not had since WW2.
I would imagine this would cost an additional £30m per ship or thereabouts which spread over its lifespan is nothing.
If you fit Simpson radar on a T26, it would Topple Over!
Also you would have to remove the main gun amd rise the deck to fit 48 Mk. 41 cells on T26 and cost an extra $30m+.
Not at all Meirion x
T26 already has strike length vls fore. And could accommodate midship quite easily
It can also accommodate Sampson with some additional work or we can adopt the Australian caefar radar and use their mast configuration
It certainly won’t topple over or even list it’s massive and has been engineered for multiple radar configuration.
With a radar coming in at less than £20m I think it’s n upgrade worth doing now as it is currently T26 weak spot
The T26 will accommodate the caefar radar, it is not as tall as the Simpson, above the water line. Tall towers on long thin ships don’t do well in the water, they topple over, that is a fact!
That is the reason why the T45 has a beam of 22m, in order to accommodate the weight, and height of Simpson radar above the water line.
Otherwise it would only be a T26 size, of 20.5m.
It will take the RN years to learn how use a new type of warship! The old ticonderoga cruisers will need hundreds of millions of spending to bring them them up to date. Then there is the manning issue. This idea would totally drain the RN!
Non Starter!
The hazard perrys are carped out like old bangers!
The simple answer is, those nations navys are strapped for cash! Much worst then the RN
Funny how he misses to mention the unions lack of integrity. Such as the River2 class “glued on bolt heads” incident!
Probably because it was neither relevant nor the responsibility of his trade union. BAE is responsible for its own quality control…any failures in that process must be attributed directly to BAE management!
I agree, but that all depends on who is doing the quality inspections doesn’t it and whether they report it up the chain? So is that a failing of the management, or the integrity of the person doing the work and latterly the inspections?
BAE sells the product…it is up to BAE to ensure that the product reaches the required standard. Whoever is doing the QC work….even if it is Strathclyde Girl Guides….its BAE management responsibility to ensure that it is done correctly…full stop.
If Scotland is to get every single last R.N. ship, bar none, they can’t also have the R.F.A. ships on top of that, whilst England gets nothing. The government seems to think Scottish shipyards and their job losses are the ONLY ones that matter, and do anything to prevent it, yet whenever an English shipyard completely closes down (Swan Hunters, Portsmouth, Appledore, etc.) they do precisely nothing to help.
The next big order is the solid support ships, they must go to an English yard, with Cammell Lairds being the obvious choice. They too will be losing jobs as work on the R.R.S. Sir David Attenborough comes to an end, is it ONLY Scottish shipyard job losses that count? There are more than enough ships in the R.N./R.F.A. so that at least some can be built in England, and I don’t mean being palmed off with a poxy few blocks either, we pay, by far, the most money towards it, we are not surviving on left overs. If Scotland is going to be our centre for warship building then Cammell Lairds can be our centre for R.F.A. ship building, the relatively steady orders will allow them to invest in new facilities and avoid job losses.
Funny bunch unions never moan about lack of spending on RnD or in investment in robotics etc that could help their industry win more commercial contracts. They’d probably be happy if we went back to riveting ships together.
Interesting article on save the Royal Navy website, arnament for type 31s initially will be
Bofors 57mm mk110 gun, 2x bofors 40mm mark 4 guns- so excellent point defence, anti uav, anti speed boat swarm weaponry and CIWS equivalence, the rate of fire from these 3 gun systems should be massive, around 500+ rounds a minute delivered highly accurately with a host of various deployable rounds, armour piercing, direct fire, shotgun rounds, airburst and proximity fused fragmentation.
Sea ceptor vl systems + 8 cannister launched NSMs
So pretty good initial fit. I would like an anti mine/ anti torpedo point defence system but other than that happy with initial fit. In the future strike length mk41 vl tubes can easily be fitted.
Now we just need to get 10 of these into Royal Navy service as a minimum.
Going will the smaller cal 57mm would be a bit of a break with tradition, I’d expect it to have either a new 5″ or even a 4.5 mk8 as we’ll have some lying about. It gives the vessel a proper NGS capability which makes it more versatile. If they are thinking of upping anti swarm armament on a platform that size I’m sure there’s enough space to bolt on a few more 30 mils or whatever.
Pointless. We can buy the steel work pretty much at peanut prices all over the world, starting next door in eastern europe.
But, for what it’s worth, can somebody explain to me, what exactly the “e” part of T31 is? As far as I can see, it is a licensed danish design with minor adjustments, german or finnish engines, french sonar and CMS, dutch radar and swedish guns.
Short of Sea Ceptor, everything of real value in this vessel comes from abroad, so it’s basically a T31″i”, with “e”s going to the nations involved.
And this for a 5,700 ts mega corvette, while the IDFN builds 2,000 ts multirole frigates out of a MEKO A100 baseline.
Folks maybe someone can help me out here, with the T31s being put together in Rosyth do we have a shipyard with a large enough dry dock to build the two-three FSS at 40,000 tons. Or does this mean that the FSS project will go to Spain.
With these five ships being confirmed what does the RN need now to bring it back up to strenght that is affordable and to give it the flexibility to meet brown and blue water requirements.
To start a further five T31s would be more than useful one every 18 months from 2028 until 2035 thats a further five T31s, surely thats doable.
HMS Albion and Bulwark needs to be replaced, I would like to see them replaced with two HMAS Canberra type vessels.
The Astutes are good subs, but with only 7 there is not enough yet we cannot afford 1.2 billion each for lots of new ones. I would imagine that the follow on Astutes would be based on the Dreadnought class and on a like for like replacement. In a hot scenario 4 of these subs are already commited one for each of the carrier groups, one for the amphibious group and one for the SSBN at sea. This leaves three with one undergoing refit and one working up that leaves one to go hunting which is what they were designed to do. So instead we should build a class of air independent subs based for example on the Japanese Soryu class, we could possibly build three of these for the cost of one Astute, nine would do nicely. They could work in the GIUK Gap, North Sea, Med, Red Sea and Persian Gulf. I find it strange that we use Astutes in the Med when even in WW2 the Severns were seen as to big to operate there.
Now comes my personal bee in the bonnet patrol boats yes I know we have the OPVs but they are not ships of war they are the police force for the sea good for fisheries patrol etc but not much else. Frigates and destroyers are not very useful in the Islands of Scotland, Gib, Cyprus, Brunei, Carribean Islands etc, they are also at risk in the red Sea, Persian Gulf and the Straits of Malacca. What we need is a small fast hardhitting boat with good sensors. A modern version of the Hamina class, 12 would do nicely thankyou very much. Two could be forward deployed for example to Oman where they would be joined by a T31 who would use it more powerful sensors and act as a mother ship, the same principle would work in Brunei or the Caribean. In Scotland they could work independently in the Islands using their towed array to sweep our sub lanes. Yes the little Hamina’s have towed array designed for operations in brown waters.
Personally I would take the OPVs out of the RN and create a new Coast Guard using the OPVs, Border Patrol cutters and the other odds and sods that patrol the UK waters. They should be under the control of the Home Office.
So how much would this list cost
the extra five T31s 1.25 billion
nine SSKs 3.6 billion
two Canberra type 2.2 billion (Albions replacement)
12 Fast missile boats 1.5 billion
Total 8.55 billion, if we started to build now until 2035 that would mean an extra 600 million per year on top of the current expenditure on new build. God we waste that on government computer networks that don’t work.
The RN would also need an extra 2,800 crew to man these vessels with two crews for each boat. The Canberra style ships would be manned by the crews of Albion and Bulwark. But again as it is an additional ten year build out plan it would be a slow build up. With current plans and these possibilities it could mean 400,000 tons of warship/support ships to be built in the next 15 years. Thats not including the Bays/Points or Argus replacements which would be potentially a further 190,000 tons to be built
I included the 2.2 billion for the LHDs but this would be needed as the Albion class would need to be replaced in the next 10 years.
So what would the fleet look like if I could have my way
RN
2x CVF carriers
6x T45 by 2035 they will need to be replaced by the T4X
8x T26
10x T31
12x FMB
2x LHD
4x SSBN
7x SSN
9x SSK
12x Minehunters/ ROV support vessels
2-3 new concept ships to carry out electronic survailance/ EW warfare/ ROV/UAV mother control ships. HMS Albion design with a hanger or lift would be good for this. In fact if the LHDs were to be built as a priority then the Albions as long as the hull and machinery is ok could be rebuilt to carry out this task. The vehicle deck could be with the addition of a lift be used for UAVs and the well deck for ROVs.
LHDs could or rather would be used in major natural desasters so as such could be partially funded by the international aid budget say by 25%.
RFA
3x Tide
2x Wave
1x Fort
3x FSS
4x Bays Replacements
1x Argus replacement
4x Points replacements
Bay/Point/ Argus and possible future hospital ship could be partially funded by the international aid budget 25%. Argus replacement could also be used by the merchant navy to train crews and training for helicopter pilots for North Sea Rigs and could then be funded also in this way to the sum of a further 10%.
The fleet would be more ballanced, highly capabile units for blue water task groups and capabile units to operate in the blue-brown waters.
There would be a case for a new or a reintroduction of a capability that the RN has not had for several decades the mother ship/ support ship. With T31s, Fast Missile Boats and SSKs being forward deployed there will not always be a supporting infrastructure and we do not have the resources for a limited Marine assault in multiple regions. So build a ship that is a base for maintance, refuelling, restocking food spares etc and rearming. Give the crews rest, replacement crews, carries 120 Royal Marines, has level two 20 bed medical facilities and has headquater command and control facilities where it can work as an emergancy embassy if need be. A floating, movable RN/RM Frontline Base.
Logical thinking and dreaming over.
Take a look at the Dutch Karel Doorman and tell me what a fleet of 9 of these would do to the RN (hanger space for 54 Merlins for a start)
They are better than all the large ships noted above in almost every metric, with one exception, they are not docks. But this could be mitigated by the purchase of ship to shore connectors.
The RFA/RN would be better off with the following for its large surface fleet.
5 Tides
9 JALSS (Karel Doorman’s)
4 FLOFLO’s
The requirements of T26/T45 need to merge into a single class of 13 with the money saved moving to purchasing more T31 or a new corvette.
Pacman 27, I like the look and capabilities of the KDs and tend to agree that they could and should be the replacement of the Bays and Argus, possibly be a base ship design for a deidicated hospital ship and could without any issue become a mother ship to UAVs and ROVs so yes 7-9 of these would be nice. They would need some reworking as they would need to have a speed of about 22 knots for what I am thinking as they would work with the LHDs. I Like their ability to operate offshore in the command and control function and their ability to be used as amphibious combat fleet stores ship however they do seem to be light in the amount of Royal Marines they could carry, it looks like somewhere around 120-150. I am possibly wrong in this and will stand corrected. They could I suspect work in the Anti Submarine role as part of an anti submarine group with 6 Merlins on board, this is one of the reason that I would like to see the containerised towed array sonar for the T31, two T31s and one say KD could operate in the GIUK Gap. I suspect that they could operate as a forward deployed helicopter support ship with heavy maintance carried out on board. So all in all they are or have the ability to be a very good all round ship.
The reason for a HMAS Canberra style LHD is that it would become the large general purpose combat ship.
1. They would be used in the classical role for the Royal Marines,
2. be able to land an armoured battlegroup 1000 men 12 battletanks and 110 supporting vehicles (hostile beach, Falklands come to mind),
3. be able to work as a large anti submarine carrier with 18 Merlins and Wildcats possibly with 4x F35Bs for anti submarine group air defence
4. be able to work as a escort carrier again 10 Merlins anti submarine, 2 Merlins CrowsNest and 8 F35Bs this role is especially for large scale reinforcement convoys from the USA to Europe or UK to Northern Norway,
5. the amphibious landing comand and control centre
6. and finally in the heavy humanitarian role for desaster relief with heavy relief equipment and one of the vehicle decks converted for example to a field hospital.
You don’t want a CVF operating as an Amphibious platform as they don’t operate close offshore very well the draught is to deep etc, you don’t want a CVF operating in the Anti Submarine role we did that in WW2 and lost two carriers that way and you don’t want a CVF operating close to a convoy distant cover say 100 miles away yes close no and you don’t want a CVF operating as an Amphibious Comand and Control Centre.
As for the T26 design becoming the future T4X, there is a lot of discussion about that and in many ways it could be the way foreward. However for the Royal Navy it would mean a change in its radar concepts. The RN seem to like the concept of a dedicated survailance radar and a weapons radar, whereas Canada and Australia that will be using the T26 concept seem to go for a combined system as does the US and Japan. If we look at the T45 radar package at the moment it would not fit on a T26 seperation between the radars would not be enough. To carry a good quantity of long range anti air missiles would also mean that the large mission bay would have to be sacrificed whilst increasing the danger to the ship as the missiles would be midships above deck. The Aussies have only 32 Mk41s forward for there T26 variant. That would mean approximatly 16 tons extra weight above deck for the missiles midships,plus the weight of the launchers and auxillary equipment then the armour protection this will be all in all about 50 tons. Theoretically it should be able to take it as the T26 is designed to take in the mission bay containers but you will also need to remenber that the long range missiles of the RN Aster15/30 are hot launched, the heat would damage the radar arrays. Never a good idea. So its not that easy.
Sometimes I wonder if for the Anti Air destroyer the RN would be willing to sacrifice the helicopter and its hanger for a second main gun and missile VLS aft. The reason that I think about it is that I cannot imagine an Anti Air Destroyer if operated correctly operating on its own, they are carrier or surface action group escorts. They have no towed array so triangulation to prosecute a submarine target will be difficult, and without a towed array where to do you send the Helicopter to go and look. Operating as part of a group she will have Anti Submarine Frigate Helicopters and CrowsNest from the carriers with her. So if the RN would be willing to sacrifice the Helicopter and its hanger on its Anti Air destroyers it could use the T26 with the T45 radar package have two 5in guns, 72 Sea Ceptor missiles and 48 Mk41 VL tubes and keep its mission bay whilst having the noise levels and I suspect a better rader signiture of a T26.
Hi Ron,
We don’t have money for that and for me I wouldn’t do it if we had. The reasons I like the KD class are as follows:
1. These ships are excellent as both stores and amphibious support.
2. They have 6 landing spots for Merlin 2 for Chinook and we can hanger either in same numbers
3. they can accommodate a company of Marines easily – possibly 2 Companies in surge with all their equipment.
4. They have similar storage to that required by the FSS and that
5.Standardisation (reducing cost) and ensuring the fleet as utility at all times (it is not long ago the Albion’s were up for scrapping as too niche).
Like all things this is a compromise and I accept those compromises as I believe a fleet of 9 of these would provide so much more utility, especially when paired with S2S connectors. They can use the Aegir hull form (same as Tides) and the money saved can purchase S2S connectors and importantly more helicopters.
Your comments about the Canberra class model I disagree with, 1 or 2 of these with 6 helicopters each on board could provide all the screening cover required in a carrier group and a T45 itself can hold 2 Merlins so in reality a carrier group has plenty of landing spots for the Merlins, allowing the CVF to be loaded with F35’s, problem is the CVF can hold 60-80 air assets so is massively under utilised anyway and we just don’t have the need for a dedicated mistral or Canberra class.
Mothership, Hospital, Humanitarian Aid, amphibious support, mini helicopter carrier, but most importantly solid stores and logistics ship, as that is what will keep this in the water and running. The VFM is amazing.
They would replace 2 Albion’s, 3 Bays, Argos, 2 Waves and 3 Forts.
The Point class I would replace with FLO/FLO’s and build some mega modules as required – far cheaper and the FLO/FLO’s can also generate review when not needed.
The Karel Doorman would Not be suitable as anti-
sub hunters, they make too much noise. That is the job of smaller vessels like T23, and maybe even T31.
Also the RN can not afford any more aircraft carriers!
I agree that we do not have the money and as for the noise I am certain we can do something about that if they were to be used in such a role.
What I am trying to say is that we as a nation have a problem, we have the fifth largest EEZ in the world, we have overseas territories that rely on the UK for their protection. We depend on the sea to survive, I don’t mean the Iphone stuff but the basics such as food and oil. Our sea lanes face mutiple threats from low level piracy to high threats such as potential enemy nuclear hunter killer submarines. It is possible that some of these threats we might have to face alone such as the Falklands conflict or the situation with our oil tankers.
So it is my personal opinion that the Royal Navy needs to be built out but we need platforms that could serve a multitude of purposes. I have said that I would like to see the T31 program expanded to beyond 2028 and possibly a containerised towed array for 50% of the T31 numbers. HMS Albion and Bulwark would need to be replaced in about ten years time as will the Bays so the idea would be to have a ship that can fulfil these roles but if possible that they could be used for another role if need be such as a helicopter platform for anti submarine work. Is it ideal no I would prefer an anti submarine carrier cruiser but we can’t afford it.
It would be too expensive to apply noise damping tech on to a large ship like a Karel Doorman vessel, more so then a T26! Leave sub hunting to specialist vessels like T23 or T26, or aircraft like P8s etc.
Right, because the purpose of a warship is to provide jobs.