Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Irish trawler 'given order to move on' by Royal Navy frigate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Mammoth or not is not a reason for not trying to make the Naval service fit for purpose. We spent weeks in Gibraltar with full crews, taking the CMS's to sea with RN mentoring until we were released to sail home across the bay of Biscay. The price would be low in relative terms. Biggest problem would be crew which perhaps could be adapted to a lesser number. Could be done with an embedded package to cover training, maintenance etc.
    I don't see how you think it would be "low" in terms of Defence spending, even without the manpower issue there are huge structural issues that would have to be dealt with, all for 2 hulls that are likely to be the older hulls with a very limited lifespan left within them, which would be even shorter by the time the infrastructure deficits could be dealt with.

    Comment


    • The Type-23 will be very old when they finally leave RN service.

      Here was the planned out of service dates as given in 2016 but some may slip due to the delay in the Type-31.
      https://www.parliament.uk/business/p...6-02-23/28004/

      Here is an overview of the status of the Type-23 refits:
      https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/pro...e-23-frigates/

      Comment


      • Another bump on the road is powerplant. The RR Spey Gas turbine is very troublesome, but is also maintenance friendly,(compared to other similar gas turbines where the RN has taken to swapping engines between ships to keep one operational. When deployed, the Type 42s usually ran with a spare turbine from one of the old carriers in a crate).
        We have no experience of operating gas turbine propulsion, and all that comes with it, and it would be a backward step in terms of fuel efficiency.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • I think most of us are agreed then so. Age of the vessels aside, this would only have been possible if we were already a small 'frigate navy'.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
            I think most of us are agreed then so. Age of the vessels aside, this would only have been possible if we were already a small 'frigate navy'.
            Pretty much, jumping to the Type 23 from nothing particularly hulls that are effectively end of lifing themselves (and would if the Type 26 program wasn't the screw up it is) doesn't really make sense, going in and building up to the EPC (or really any of the entry Euro designs) over the next decade with all the manpower/infrastructure coming on stream when needed rather than picking up "cheap" 23's would make more sense to me. I mean even the Main Gun for the 23's, if we are going up from the 76mm do we want the 4.5" that has limited world wide usage? Or just leverage off the RN for the years we'd have them?

            Comment


            • If the money was available it'd be better spent "beefing up" our existing fleet

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                I don't see how you think it would be "low" in terms of Defence spending, even without the manpower issue there are huge structural issues that would have to be dealt with, all for 2 hulls that are likely to be the older hulls with a very limited lifespan left within them, which would be even shorter by the time the infrastructure deficits could be dealt with.
                We are forever waltzing around thinking how do we do this as cheaply as possible. The Finns have 246 ships under some naval control with a Service of 2300 personnel. They are restructuring as they have some coast guard type chores mixed into their workload such as Oil pollution vessels. They are adding 3 x 3,900 t frigate/corvette type vessels to their inventory. The Brits were shedding Type 23's but have refitted a few with a view to filling gaps in their replacement plans. Something likewise is happening with Batches of the OPV's. By our terms of experience we keep our ships beyond 35 years and if something can be taken up with a refitting package and a ship load of ship type stores and full training at a discounted price!! Why not. We will never build one but out there needs one.

                Comment


                • I think the only reason the 4.5 exists is to be uniquely british. They did try to make it 155mm same as the Army SPG, but that plan died in cutbacks. T26 is getting a 5 inch and the T31e will probably have a 57mm Mk110.

                  With that in mind we should do like NZ did and buy in to someone else's new ASW ship programme. Would be nice if the Germans could lend us a F123 now and again, just for test drive. €303m each. 223 crew.

                  We are where we are as the phrase goes. Decades of neglect mean we find ourself at the stage where any attempt to provide even the basic level of detection or deterrent will cost us big, because we aren't replacing existing infrastructure.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Do we need an ASW capability?

                    The answer for a lot of us would be yes, and that will likely become stronger as we invest more in offshore wind energy etc. Is it currently on the DoD radar? No
                    So the hope will be that the Commission for Defence will identify the need and what is required to meet that need. What equipment and when it would be sourced would then have to be defined.

                    If we take a look at the Finnish Squadron 2020; it started back in 2008, it was officially launch as a project in 2015 and the 4 ships were ordered in 2019. The first vessel is due to be completed in 2022, with one ship a year until 2025. It is expected that these will then reach full operational capability in 2028. That is 20 years after the first planning was done.

                    If we transpose that to us the Commission will start in 2021 and so even if an ASW corvette/frigate need was identified this will not be clear until 2022 at the earliest. This could be equated to the 2015 project launch of the Finns. Taking the same timescales then the first ship would be ready in 2032! Of course that could be reduced by buying a "off the shelf" design with slight modification where necessary. There are plenty of options; the EPC, the Finnish Pohjanmaa-class, the Turkish Ada-class to name just a few.

                    But we need the time and we need to build up our ASW capability. Do we have ASW sonar operators? This is something we have all but lost and need to get back. All modern ASW corvettes and frigates rely on their organic helicopter to a large extent, do we have this? So something else we have to build up.

                    IMHO it would mean seconding people to other navies and air forces to gain experience before we put front-line ASW vessels into service. It could be supported by introducing some limited ASW capability to the P60 class. But the key will be having a long term plan and ensuring it is properly resourced.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      Another bump on the road is powerplant. The RR Spey Gas turbine is very troublesome, but is also maintenance friendly,(compared to other similar gas turbines where the RN has taken to swapping engines between ships to keep one operational. When deployed, the Type 42s usually ran with a spare turbine from one of the old carriers in a crate).
                      We have no experience of operating gas turbine propulsion, and all that comes with it, and it would be a backward step in terms of fuel efficiency.
                      Type-42 used Tyne and Qlympus engines not Speys. This combination was also used on the Type-21 and Type-22 frigates while the Invincible class had four Olympus engines. The carriers, the Type-42 and Type-22 all went to the breakers yard at roughly the same time period.

                      Comment


                      • Decades of neglect mean we find ourself at the stage where any attempt to provide even the basic level of detection or deterrent will cost us big, because we aren't replacing existing infrastructure.
                        We are too far behind the curve to buy second hand Type 23s and technology wise they in themselves are too old to upskill the Naval Service in terms of being a frigate operator into the future.

                        By our terms of experience we keep our ships beyond 35 years and if something can be taken up with a refitting package and a ship load of ship type stores and full training at a discounted price!! Why not.
                        The comparrision with the CMs to Frigate while worthy of mention is a quantum leap in technology that wouldn't be bridge by spending time working alongside the current owners to upskill. We would need to embed the key required people now , in the hope that they would be ready in 12 months time to even get it home, remember the RN way of running ships of this type is long way from where we are, even weapons wise. An even then you are still buying at best a 30 year old ship.

                        The best option would to be to take an option in a new build type and embed people with the relevant partners from the outset so and rotate an entire crew with those partners until the ship is built and that way have a crew available on commission.

                        Price of build as its a new build with partners while large wouldn't be excessive and like most new types weapons fit depends on the budget of the end user.

                        But then again you have to ensure your people are not going out the door within 12 months of completion so pay issues etc must be sorted.
                        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          The best option would to be to take an option in a new build type and embed people with the relevant partners from the outset so and rotate an entire crew with those partners until the ship is built and that way have a crew available on commission.

                          Price of build as its a new build with partners while large wouldn't be excessive and like most new types weapons fit depends on the budget of the end user.

                          But then again you have to ensure your people are not going out the door within 12 months of completion so pay issues etc must be sorted.
                          Most contracts of this type will have the support of the the buildersl government, so a Italian built vessel will have the support of the Italian government, the same with French built, Dutch built, German built etc. Also normally these nation employ the same or similar systems on their ASW vessels.

                          So given that from signing a contract to the vessel being completed it will be normally 4 years it could be part of the contract to have seconded crew(s) embedded on their vessel(s). This is similar to what the RAF did when they lost their Nimrods.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            There are rumours that the RN plans to sell some Type 23 FFGs to Greece.
                            The oldest was Comissioned in 1991, the newest in 2002. Cost £130m each when new. There recent refits saw updated Sonar, 3d Radar, etc
                            They were planning to start decommissioning in 2023.
                            Would there be any advantage to the Irish Naval service getting 2, if offered at a knockdown bargain price?
                            Crew of 185 (accom for 205) would to me be the main hurdle.
                            A few years ago it was rumoured to be Brazil. THe Hellenic Navy is facing a major re-equipping challenge but IMHO they will replace most of their frigates with a high end version of the EPC and teh French FTI. Can't really seeing them being interested in old RN units.

                            https://www.navalanalyses.com/2019/0...f-current.html

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              Type-42 used Tyne and Qlympus engines not Speys. This combination was also used on the Type-21 and Type-22 frigates while the Invincible class had four Olympus engines. The carriers, the Type-42 and Type-22 all went to the breakers yard at roughly the same time period.
                              I worded it wrong. T23 didn't need to swap engines about as much as the T42 was what I was attempting to say. T42 frequently exchanged engines with Vince,Lusty and Ark and the other way around too. The Spey was marginally more sturdy than the Olympus. (Nimrod was powered by an earlier version of the same powerplant).
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Most current gas turbine installations are industrial gas turbine derivatives such as the LM 2500 and Solar Centaur,Mars and Taurus engines. Navies have been getting away from modified aero engines because they couldn't meet the demand for long service life, that industrial engines deliver and the fuel economy of modern units if much better than aero-derivatives. I worked on RR Avons and Orenda J-47s on oil rigs and their owners couldnt have cared less how much they burned and they ran on either natural gas, kerosene or diesel,depending on what was available. A lot of Solar units went onto high speed ferries used in various cities like Hong Kong. Others operate as the lifting engine for hovercrafts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X