Military Review

Britain began construction of patrol ships

22
BAE Systems begins construction of patrol ships for the British fleet. A contract of £ 258 million began to be implemented at shipyards in Scotland, reports Military Parity with reference to "ASDNews".

Britain began construction of patrol ships


British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said that "this order will benefit the workers and their families in Clyde and will benefit the economy of Glasgow." He also noted that "cutting the first steel for the head TFR was performed using a laser machine."

On the patrol ship, the deck is enlarged to accept powerful Merlin-type helicopters. The lead ship, named HMS (the ship of Her Majesty) "Forth" should be transferred to the Royal Navy in 2017. The second and third ships will be named HMS "Medway" and HMS "Trent".
Photos used:
www.militaryparitet.com
22 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Giant thought
    Giant thought 13 October 2014 16: 03
    +5
    The British do not want to become a secondary maritime country, but cling to the title of maritime power.
    1. nfoma80
      nfoma80 13 October 2014 16: 10
      +9
      Yes, no three watchdogs consolidate the status of a sea power. just updating the composition no more.
      1. 1812 1945
        1812 1945 13 October 2014 16: 40
        +1
        Quote: nfoma80
        Yes, no three watchdogs consolidate the status of a sea power. just updating the composition no more.

        There is another version: they make targets for the exercises of the Russian Navy.
        1. jjj
          jjj 13 October 2014 16: 52
          +3
          They build everything, and the British also go to be like people
          1. Viktor Kudinov
            Viktor Kudinov 13 October 2014 17: 14
            +1
            repeat Not all of them were stolen ... There is something to guard the watchmen. fellow
      2. lelikas
        lelikas 13 October 2014 17: 22
        +1
        Quote: nfoma80
        Yes, no three watchdogs consolidate the status of a sea power. just updating the composition no more.

        Judging by the picture, you have to be a very brave helicopter pilot to get on such a tiny little one.
  2. Stanislav 1978
    Stanislav 1978 13 October 2014 16: 05
    +5
    It’s a pity the Scots did not steal from them, otherwise they would have agreed a long time. Or maybe you would have to build new shipyards.
  3. Dibur
    Dibur 13 October 2014 16: 07
    +4
    So this is an ordinary border guard. Guns 30 mm. Let them bathe in their bathroom.
  4. surovts.valery
    surovts.valery 13 October 2014 16: 08
    +5
    Small Britain is getting smaller. There are no more money and ambitions for aircraft carriers and destroyers. I hope this is the final transition to the coastal fleet. And then, they will leave the geysoyuz and will modestly pump the remaining oil and catch flounder in the North Sea. It remains to strangle their offshore and one memory of the Great British Empire.
    1. Dreamwriter
      Dreamwriter 13 October 2014 16: 14
      +6
      No, well, patrolmen are always needed. Protecting the coast with solid corvettes, frigates and destroyers is expensive and expensive. Another thing is that the guard is mediocre, with not the best performance.
    2. Magic archer
      Magic archer 13 October 2014 16: 20
      +15
      Well, why not? The new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth is being built, the Daring destroyers are considered one of the best in their class! Yes, and Astyut boats have long been in the series. So not everything is so bad in Britain.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 October 2014 18: 51
        0
        Quote: Magic Archer
        The new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth is being built, the Daring destroyers are considered one of the best in their class!

        "Queen" and "Prince" limey finish building only because of the terms of the contract. Their lordships, mindful of the fate of the past "Queen Elizabeth" (CVA-01), who was killed on the slipway by the Laborites, wrote in the contract that the penalties for refusing to build would be greater than the value of the contract.

        But the Limes' AB turned out to be epic: the displacement is greater than that of the Forrestal, but at the same time the speed is only 25 knots, there are no catapults, there are no aerofinishers, there is no corner deck either, and the air group is only 36 Lightning IIs (and this is the maximum , the standard is generally 24 aircraft).
        1. Demetry
          Demetry 13 October 2014 19: 19
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          But the Limes' AB turned out to be epic: the displacement is greater than that of the Forrestal, but at the same time the speed is only 25 knots, there are no catapults, there are no aerofinishers, there is no corner deck either, and the air group is only 36 Lightning IIs (and this is the maximum , the standard is generally 24 aircraft).

          Well, yes, planes are no higher than the roof. But the displacement, nevertheless, is smaller than that of Forrestal. 65 against 000. And the length is 81 against 000 meters.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 13 October 2014 19: 42
            0
            Yes, you are right: 65 kt for the "Elizabeth" is a full displacement, not a standard one.
            True, it is always indicated that the maximum displacement of AB RN with all modernizations can reach 70 kt.

            Nevertheless, 24 aircraft in the air group is not even funny. "Clemenceau" proudly lifts up a Gallic nose. smile
    3. UralMan
      UralMan 13 October 2014 17: 21
      +2
      to disperse the parliament, to cut off the head of the queen, they have always done so in other centuries.
  5. Dreamwriter
    Dreamwriter 13 October 2014 16: 13
    +1
    Hmm ... Well, according to the available information so far, this patrol boat is inferior to ours and "Ocean" and "Hunter". What is characteristic - after all, the British used to make some of the most advanced ships.
  6. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 13 October 2014 16: 15
    +2
    I wonder when they were seriously called the sovereign of the seas? This project is clearly not much of their power
    1. Demetry
      Demetry 13 October 2014 16: 48
      +3
      Quote: FC SKIF
      I wonder when they were seriously called the sovereign of the seas?

      Until 1942 they were the strongest at sea. And then the Americans removed them from the pedestal.
      At my leisure, I calculated how many ships they had in World War II. The list is very impressive.
      Battleships and Lin. Cruisers - 20
      Monitors - 4
      Cruiser + assist. cruisers 102 + 57
      Aircraft carriers shock + escort 12 + 51
      Destroyers New + Old + American 237 + 79 + 50
      Escort destroyers 86
      Frigates 295
      Corvettes 370
      U-Boat 240
      Tralshch 200-1300t - 847
      Armed trawlers and drifters - 3700
      Mobilized escort ships at 1500-6000 tons - 74
      Boats
      Torpedo 675
      Artillery 810
      Rescue + Patrol - 850
      Landing ships 1000-10000t - 260
      Landing boats 10-600t 8900 (or 8400)

      It was a giant fleet. Well, after the war, he gradually squandered. Because the economy has ceased to be the first in the world.
      1. Non-war
        Non-war 13 October 2014 18: 49
        +3
        It was a giant fleet. Well, after the war, he gradually squandered. Because the economy has ceased to be the first in the world. - Well, the United States had the strongest economy before the war, and not the British. But the point is not that after the war, Britain ceased to exist as a great colonial power, the main diamond split from the crown - India, which was the basis of British power. the British economy sank, and holding a large fleet is a very expensive pleasure, the British simply could not keep up with the Americans for money, for example. Well, in itself, the need for a large number of warships disappeared, the main task before the Second World War for the Grand Fleet was to protect the colonial communications, on which the British economy depended, and after the loss of the colonies there was nothing to protect and accompany.
        1. Demetry
          Demetry 13 October 2014 19: 30
          +1
          Quote: Non-war
          Well, the United States had the strongest economy before the war, and not the British.

          Well, yes, it just happened to the British gradually and not instantly. In WWII, they ran the battleships built back in 1915, when the American Navy was still a baby.
          And so I agree. The economy slipped, the need for a huge colonial fleet disappeared.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 October 2014 19: 16
        +1
        Quote: Demetry
        Until 1942 they were the strongest at sea. And then the Americans removed them from the pedestal.

        They removed them from the pedestal in 1921 - after the Washington Conference. Although the Island Empire overcame in WWI, supporting the fleet and at the same time fighting on land.

        Quote: Demetry
        Battleships and Lin. Cruisers - 20

        Compare with USA: 4 Iowa LCs, 4 Sodak, 2 NorCa, 3 Colorado, 2 Tennessee, 3 New Mexico, 2 Pennsylvania, 2 Nevada, 2 New -York "and 2 LKR type" Alaska ". Total - 26 LK and LKR.

        Quote: Demetry
        Aircraft carriers shock + escort 12 + 51

        Heh heh heh ... 38 British escort convoys were built in the USA. And based on British AV American planes.
        There were 33 shock aircraft in the USN in WWII. And to them - 77 escort aircraft.

        Quote: Demetry
        Destroyers New + Old + American 237 + 79 + 50

        The Yankees have only two EM series - Fletcher and Allen M. Sumner - totaling 242 keels. But there were also 45 Girings, 72 Bristol, 24 Bensons, other pre-war trifles and 119 smooth-deckers.

        Quote: Demetry
        Escort destroyers 86

        474 in USN.

        Quote: Demetry
        295 frigates
        370 Corvettes
        Tralshch 200-1300t - 847

        Again, Limes have Lend-Lease on.
        The Yankees have 371 patrol ships, 100 frigates and patrol boats, 59 hunters for submarines and 738 minesweepers.
        1. Demetry
          Demetry 13 October 2014 19: 26
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          They removed them from the pedestal in 1921 - after the Washington Conference. Although the Island Empire overcame in WWI, supporting the fleet and at the same time fighting on land.

          Honestly, I didn’t quite understand what you wanted to prove? I wrote that BEFORE 19452. I did not take into account the years of the war, since there, since the 42nd year, the Americans clearly pulled themselves up and doubled or tripled their fleet. What England, for natural reasons, could not do.
          Therefore yes. Quantitatively until the 42nd year, plus or minus parity with the United States, but I think the quality of the English fleet was higher.
          Namely, from the 42nd year, the American shipbuilding conveyor went to work. What do you want, they built the aircraft carriers in a conveyor way.
          Here in the photo immediately going to eleven escort!


          So what you wrote only complements what I wrote.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 13 October 2014 20: 01
            +1
            Quote: Demetry
            Honestly, I didn’t quite understand what you wanted to prove?

            The fact that the British were no longer the strongest at sea long before 1942.

            Quote: Demetry
            I wrote that BEFORE 19452. I did not take into account the years of the war, since there, since the 42nd year, the Americans clearly pulled themselves up and doubled or tripled their fleet. What England, for natural reasons, could not do.

            In pre-war "big pots" RN and USN had parity. Conditional on the decisions of the Washington Conference.

            Quote: Demetry
            Quantitatively until the 42nd year, plus or minus parity with the United States, but I think the quality of the English fleet was higher.

            Oh oh
            Do you remember the air group of the English AB? Torpedo bombers who had problems catching up with the LK in a headwind (this is not an anecdote, but real reports on the attacks on the Italian fleet in Mediterranean and the attack on Tirpitz). Fighters that four of us could not shoot down a torpedo bomber - rifle caliber, however. Not from the good life, the limes switched to "wildkets - martlets".
            On battleships - not everything is rosy either. I will not talk about the new KGV-type aircraft, which, for technical reasons, could fail up to half of the guns in battle. But the towers of the old "Rodney" were able to shoot 16 volleys without problems only in 1934, and all the shortcomings were eliminated only in 1939. And the epic blunder of the designers, who forgot the lateral loads during rolling, because of which the tower was beating against the supporting ring of the supporting balls, mounted on a barbet ...

            So they did not stand out with lime quality ships. And the training of personnel in both fleets was at the level.
            Here is a standard course of artillery preparation in American LC (at the end):
            http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/USA_BB_2/10.htm
            1. Non-war
              Non-war 13 October 2014 20: 47
              +1
              The fact that the British were no longer the strongest at sea long before 1942. - I will join my discussion and support Demetry, all the same, Britain until the beginning of World War II remained the leading maritime power. The 1922 Washington Naval Agreement seemed to balance the forces of the American and British fleets, but the Angles still had an advantage. First, the British fleet had many naval bases in its colonies (Gibraltar, Southeast Asia, India, South Africa, etc. ), which allowed him to control important sea lanes in the oceans, while the American fleet hung out mostly on its shores and in Hawaii (well, the Philippines probably had a bit of ships). Secondly, the combat value of the ships themselves and their crews was the British have higher, they still went through the naval battles of the First World War with the Germans, the combat experience was huge, as far as I know, the Americans didn’t. Well, after Pearl Harbor, when the Americans made a breakthrough in shipbuilding - no doubt, the British went into their shadow.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 14 October 2014 11: 11
                +1
                Quote: Non-war
                Firstly, the British fleet had many naval bases in its colonies (Gibraltar, Southeast Asia, India, South Africa, etc.), which allowed it to control important sea lanes in the oceans, while the American fleet was hanging out mostly off its shores and in Hawaii (well, in the Philippines there were probably a bit of ships).

                That's right - the US controlled their routes in the World Ocean (plus controlled the Panama Canal - the Air Force and powerful coastal defense). The USA of those times, complete with South and Central America, was self-sufficient. Moreover, they were the largest oil exporter - on which they caught Japan in 1941.

                Quote: Non-war
                Secondly, the British had higher combat value of the ships themselves and their crews, they nevertheless went through naval battles of the First World War with the Germans, the fighting experience was huge, as far as I know, the Americans didn’t have anything close to it.

                Yeah ... that's just the whole combat British experience related to WWI. In addition, over the 20 interwar years, with all the reductions (bringing the fleet to the rebellion of 1931), the combat experience remained with the highest command staff. And there he was leveled by wise instructions from above.

                The enormous combat experience of WWI did not prevent the British from twice plunging into the standard trap of the Germans and Italians in the Mediterranean: first, the torps and bombers "pulled out" the aircraft carrier's BVP, taking it to low altitudes away from the AB, and then the "pieces" approached and dumped their cargo almost without hindrance ( and the BVP could only gnaw at his elbows - for there was no height or BK anymore). And only a miracle saved the "Illastries" and "Formidebl" from sinking (because the armored deck did not save).
                And if you remember, with what effort the limes were catching the Bismarck (while missing the Prince)? And after all, they almost missed the German - a little more, and the British LK would no longer have enough fuel. And how epic the torpedoes from the "Arc Royal" were unloaded on their own cruiser - and by the one whose silhouette they should have known by heart: "Sheffield" was part of the same "compound H".
            2. Demetry
              Demetry 13 October 2014 21: 06
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The fact that the British were no longer the strongest at sea long before 1942.

              We look purely by the number of ships of the main classes. Since I blurted out about the 42nd year, the starting point and take 01.01.1942/XNUMX/XNUMX.

              So the ships.
              USA - England
              Battleships and LK 16 - 15
              Aircraft carriers 7 - 7
              Heavy cruisers 16-14
              Old Light Cruisers 10 - 23
              New Light Cruisers 12 - 29
              Old destroyers 117 - 114
              New destroyers 102 - 92

              So, killed 10 minutes so superficial numbers.
              At the same time, the same Americans had 2 battleships with 305mm cannons, part (unsinkable) stood gouged in Pearl Harbor.
              At the same time, part of the American old destroyers was converted into military transports. How many of these should be subtracted from the American did not count.

              Plus, the British by this hour have mobilized a bunch of auxiliary cruisers and other ships (and this is thousands).

              You can argue for a long time who was a personal sailor, but by that time the Americans had profiled their Pearl Harbor, and the British had given Italians in Taranto and weaned Count Spee.

              And this taking into account the fact that during the 2,5 years of the war they lost a lot of ships.

              So, purely quantitatively, they have a slight advantage over the Americans, and PURE MY OPINION is that the British, all things being equal, were better sailors by the 42nd year. Well, at least because of the vast experience of WWI and 2.5 years of WWII.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 14 October 2014 12: 01
                0
                Quote: Demetry
                USA - England
                Battleships and LK 16 - 15

                2 "Kings", 2 "Nelsons", "Rhinaun", 4 "Queens" (2 of them sit on the ground), 4 "R". Total - 13.
                15 LK does not come out with lime.
                Quote: Demetry
                Aircraft carriers 7 - 7

                From the modern ones - "Illustrious", "Victorious", "Formidable", "Indomitable". Plus the ancient "Furious", "Eagle" and "Argus".
                Against Sarah, Lex, Big E, Yorktown, Hornet, Ranger and Wasp.
                Compare Lex to Illastries? Or "Big E" with "Victories"? wink
                But what if we take into account the air groups (which on the last three Britons are only comparable with escort teams)?
                Quote: Demetry
                At the same time, the same Americans had 2 battleships with 305mm cannons, part (unsinkable) stood gouged in Pearl Harbor.

                At the same time, the Americans have twice as much LC on the stocks as the limes. And with 16 "GK, not 14".
                By the way, do limes have 2 LCs lying on the ground in Alexandria?
                Quote: Demetry
                At the same time, part of the American old destroyers was converted into military transports. How many of these should be subtracted from the American did not count.

                There is one nuance here: the Yankees' smooth-decked ships were universal ships, and they often changed their class, turning from floating bases and high-speed TRs to air defense systems.
                Well, do not forget that some of them went to lime.
                Quote: Demetry
                Plus, the British by this hour have mobilized a bunch of auxiliary cruisers and other ships (and this is thousands).

                The Americans preferred not to mess with the ersatz, but to start the conveyor.
                Quote: Demetry
                You can argue for a long time who was a personal sailor, but by that time the Americans had profiled their Pearl Harbor, and the British had given Italians in Taranto and weaned Count Spee.

                Uh-huh ... and also profiled Phillips squadron, 2 battleships from the ABC fleet and managed to lose the Royal Oak right in the main base. Oh yes, AV Koreydzhes, Ark Royal and Glories were also lost (the latter was lost in a unique way - in a battle with surface ships). And they merged the Norwegian landing operation.
  7. taburetka
    taburetka 13 October 2014 16: 21
    +1
    These patrol ships are only useful for intercepting smugglers and drug couriers!
    1. MAXUZZZ
      MAXUZZZ 13 October 2014 16: 53
      -1
      .... Which sail from Mexico on "bananas" laughing
  8. Axis
    Axis 13 October 2014 16: 24
    +3
    Why do they need them?
  9. Demetry
    Demetry 13 October 2014 16: 25
    +5
    Yes, he should not be the most formidable. This is a simple patrol ship for easy patrolling. For war they have frigates and destroyers.
    The ship is made like patrol boats built for Trinidad and Tobago (inherited from Brazil)



    The Brazilians have about the same weapons in the patrol version. 30mm machine gun and helicopter.

    And another one was made on this project in Thailand - Krabi 551. The Thai, however, added a 76 mm gun more.
    1. FACKtoREAL
      FACKtoREAL 13 October 2014 16: 45
      +1

      similar to ours ...
  10. Fire
    Fire 13 October 2014 16: 40
    0
    British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said that “will this order benefit workers and their families?” What kind of show-offs? The head of the Ministry of Defense should even be obliged to deal with the security of his state, but not as an economy of the population !!! Oh, this Michael F a l about with wassat
  11. viktor52
    viktor52 13 October 2014 16: 43
    +1
    What is a powerful helicopter I have no idea the photo warbler which is the site absolutely can not hold the defense without the support of the fleet and coastal defense systems
  12. MAXUZZZ
    MAXUZZZ 13 October 2014 16: 49
    -1
    And what if those ships gathered in a geyropa from whom to guard, if not a secret?
  13. Non-war
    Non-war 13 October 2014 17: 16
    +3
    Quote: FC SKIF
    I wonder when they were seriously called the sovereign of the seas? This project is clearly not much of their power

    Dear, read something on the story, it will be useful to you. Especially study the world history of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries and what place Britain occupied with its sea power. Have you heard of the concept of two fleets? Let me tell you - the British navy in its strength and strength was ahead of the navies of the second and third sea powers combined. So much for the mistress of the seas.
    1. IAlex
      IAlex 14 October 2014 03: 27
      0
      Where did you get 58250?
    2. IAlex
      IAlex 14 October 2014 03: 27
      0
      Where did you get 58250?
  14. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 13 October 2014 17: 20
    0
    at £ 258 million began to be launched at shipyards in Scotland ..
    Michael Fallon said that "this order will benefit workers and their families in Clyde and benefit the Glasgow economy."

    As I understand it, they threw a bone to Scotland that they were deceived during the referendum .. ??? bully Stingy for London ...
    1. Demetry
      Demetry 13 October 2014 17: 38
      +2
      Quote: MIKHAN
      As I understand it, they threw a bone to Scotland that they were deceived during the referendum .. ??? bully Stingy for London ...

      Well, actually, over half of the British Navy is being built at Scottish shipyards. And that means it will be built on.
      1. Vitaly Anisimov
        Vitaly Anisimov 13 October 2014 18: 01
        +1
        Quote: Demetry
        Quote: MIKHAN
        As I understand it, they threw a bone to Scotland that they were deceived during the referendum .. ??? bully Stingy for London ...

        Well, actually, over half of the British Navy is being built at Scottish shipyards. And that means it will be built on.

        So it is .. but this statement looks like a handout from Scotland like "Look how we care about you jobs we create .." bully
      2. The comment was deleted.
  15. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 13 October 2014 17: 51
    +1
    Quote: Demetry
    Quote: FC SKIF
    I wonder when they were seriously called the sovereign of the seas?

    Until 1942 they were the strongest at sea. And then the Americans removed them from the pedestal.
    At my leisure, I calculated how many ships they had in World War II. The list is very impressive.
    Battleships and Lin. Cruisers - 20
    Monitors - 4
    Cruiser + assist. cruisers 102 + 57
    Aircraft carriers shock + escort 12 + 51
    Destroyers New + Old + American 237 + 79 + 50
    Escort destroyers 86
    Frigates 295
    The Germans, Japanese and Italians helped him to "shrink"

    Corvettes 370
    U-Boat 240
    Tralshch 200-1300t - 847
    Armed trawlers and drifters - 3700
    Mobilized escort ships at 1500-6000 tons - 74
    Boats
    Torpedo 675
    Artillery 810
    Rescue + Patrol - 850
    Landing ships 1000-10000t - 260
    Landing boats 10-600t 8900 (or 8400)

    It was a giant fleet. Well, after the war, he gradually squandered. Because the economy has ceased to be the first in the world.
  16. saag
    saag 13 October 2014 17: 57
    0
    This is such a sweet pill of Scotland, after a failed referendum
  17. doctor
    doctor 13 October 2014 18: 07
    0
    After the referendum, these shipyards became sabotage.
  18. IAlex
    IAlex 14 October 2014 03: 20
    -1
    For sure, it would be time already, or the ships of the Russian Navy may suddenly appear and disappear, or even worse than Iran, or even the DPRK or the PRC ... And they will have time to notice even the most outstanding ones so that Cameron can again be epic ...
  19. Wolka
    Wolka 14 October 2014 05: 23
    0
    and what they still have to do, the Torri are rapidly losing their position in the world, because their politics are no longer there, and therefore the Yankees are singing and lacing in the tail ...