H.M.S. Speedy (P296, Speedy-class Hydrofoil)

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
19,771
Reaction score
10,230
Ladies and Gentlemen, HMS Speedy:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/lognu9/951_x_717_jetfoil_patrol_vessel_hms_speedy_p296/








Originally ordered in early 1979 as the first in a planned class of twelve patrol hydrofoils primarily intended for the offshore tapestry role, that is fishery patrol and the protection of offshore oil rigs in the North Sea. Procurement of the rest of the class however was disrupted by the change in government later that year. Despite this, there was considerable interest in not only procuring the remaining vessels, but also to expand the use of the class to non-tapestry roles such as MCMVs (mine countermeasure vessels) and Fast Attack craft.

Interestingly, there seem to have been some MOD shenanigans with regards as to her supposedly unsuccessful trials in 1982, and her eventual sale in 1986.
For example: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1982/mar/31/hms-speedy
 
I know Wiki refers to it as the first of a class of 12 but what is the basis for that statement? Everything I’ve read points to her acquisition as a demonstrator for what this type of vessel might be capable of.

1982 was of course the year after the Nott Review, and then the reassessment of the RN needs post Falklands. Speedy just doesn’t seem to fit the new model so why keep her.
 
I don’t know what Wiki’s source material for numbers is, there is nothing regarding ‘intended’ numbers in D.K.Browns Rebuilding the Royal Navy - just reference to being for trials and that the 1981 Defence Review cut her career short.
 
I know Wiki refers to it as the first of a class of 12 but what is the basis for that statement? Everything I’ve read points to her acquisition as a demonstrator for what this type of vessel might be capable of.

1982 was of course the year after the Nott Review, and then the reassessment of the RN needs post Falklands. Speedy just doesn’t seem to fit the new model so why keep her.
I think Brown (maybe Friedman) refers to around 12 submarine chasers being looked at in the mid-70s. Maybe someone is conflating the two?
 
I know Wiki refers to it as the first of a class of 12 but what is the basis for that statement? Everything I’ve read points to her acquisition as a demonstrator for what this type of vessel might be capable of.

1982 was of course the year after the Nott Review, and then the reassessment of the RN needs post Falklands. Speedy just doesn’t seem to fit the new model so why keep her.
I think Brown (maybe Friedman) refers to around 12 submarine chasers being looked at in the mid-70s. Maybe someone is conflating the two?
That, or a statement along the lines of 'up to twelve similar vessels were envisaged if trials showed promise' somewhere or other.

One of Wiki's references is a paper in RINA Transactions, echoing earlier discussion on a different topic.
 
There is some contemporary evidence of intentions that would fit the Wiki assertion.
Combat Fleets of the World 1980/81 says:
Ordered 29-6-78 for use in patrolling North Sea fisheries and oil rigs. If successful, up to 11 additional ships may be acquired.

Presumably there must have been mention of a requirement for 12 patrol vessels and with Speedy having being ordered for trials it was perhaps not a stretch of the imagination at the time to speculate that if the trials were successful that the RN would either order repeats or another hydrofoil vessel of similar design.
 
The civil version was operated by Belgian Railways on the Dover to Ostend service. A friend of mine and I went on one on the outward journey to Brussels in November 1984 but came back by ship.
They were quite popular in Belgium and a few years later ai bought a simplified plastic beach toy boat based on the design. Its still around in a box somewhere.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom