Doubts About Royal Navy,s Cvf And T 45 Future Ships

[alexsa]

here is the list of cuts in the planned equipment for naval forces.

from planned 12 type 45 only 6 will be built

from planned 150 jsf fighters only 100 will be ordered as a maximum

plans to develop the replacements for the 4 remaining type 22 and type 23 by now cancelled

withdrawal of sea harriers

reduction in the number of escorts from 32 to 25

from planned 2 new cvf carriiers only one will be built

the only good news for the R.N. has been the improvement of amphibious capability with the 6 new lpd.s. 2 albion class and 4 bay class that together with the lph hms ocean makes britain the most capable amphibious force in western europe but in general numbers the R.N. is declining very fast.

Interesting view and, while I hope it does not come to pass, it may be valid. the wording of your post as "planned cuts" suggests an authoritive source. Is this the case or is it an opinion?

From other posts it has been suggested the cuts are to fund projects like CVF and JSF.

 

[mark22w]

Reductions in numbers do not equate to reductions in capability, far from it.

The future RN is being planned and built around the two CVF platforms – I really think the term ‘impossible’ is just a little alarmist. The logic of two not three platforms is understandable, but two down to one is simply not viable.

I agree the loss of Sea Harriers is unfortunate and to some degree the result of penny pinching in the past (upgrading the FA2 from the old air frames rather than building on the Harrier II) but I think a calculated risk looking at how aircraft have been used in recent years i.e. ground attack. Don’t get me wrong, the JSF is required and in sufficient numbers, but at say 36 per platform this is well within scope.

Six T45 Destroyers (still hoping for two additional units) is a significant improvement in capability over the older T42’s and this confirms the RN firmly at the top table of European naval forces.

The plans for the replacement T22 and T23’s is under review. There will be replacements, but the numbers and types are to be determined. A real issue is the longer service times required for new vessels (consider the 50 year life for CVF and T45) so the need to get the right platform with sufficient growth potential is key as is understanding the likely requirement for platforms to 2060 and beyond...

The new Astute class SSNs are overdue but coming on stream, and the launch date for the first has now been confirmed for 2007.

A replacement decision for the Vanguard SSBN is approaching and the RN needs to watch the US to decide if extending the Vanguard SSBNs or building new is the better option. I suggest a good time to look at the appropriate mix of SSBN / SSN platforms and the option of combining the two into one type cannot be excluded. A reduced number of smaller diameter ‘strategic’ missiles together with land attack conventional and ssm types would make a future force of Astute batch II’s an interesting proposition. Pure conjecture of course.

I think in summary it has been good news of late for the RN amphibious capability; next comes the air defence destroyers (2009 on); followed by new carriers (2013 on); not forgetting of course new SSNs, support ships, and then future frigates in due course…

Quite an ambitious programme for any navy, and not something that can happen overnight. Smaller yes, more balanced and capable - absolutely

 

[contedicavour]

Reductions in numbers do not equate to reductions in capability, far from it.

The future RN is being planned and built around the two CVF platforms – I really think the term ‘impossible’ is just a little alarmist. The logic of two not three platforms is understandable, but two down to one is simply not viable.

I agree the loss of Sea Harriers is unfortunate and to some degree the result of penny pinching in the past (upgrading the FA2 from the old air frames rather than building on the Harrier II) but I think a calculated risk looking at how aircraft have been used in recent years i.e. ground attack. Don’t get me wrong, the JSF is required and in sufficient numbers, but at say 36 per platform this is well within scope.

Six T45 Destroyers (still hoping for two additional units) is a significant improvement in capability over the older T42’s and this confirms the RN firmly at the top table of European naval forces.

The plans for the replacement T22 and T23’s is under review. There will be replacements, but the numbers and types are to be determined. A real issue is the longer service times required for new vessels (consider the 50 year life for CVF and T45) so the need to get the right platform with sufficient growth potential is key as is understanding the likely requirement for platforms to 2060 and beyond...

The new Astute class SSNs are overdue but coming on stream, and the launch date for the first has now been confirmed for 2007.

A replacement decision for the Vanguard SSBN is approaching and the RN needs to watch the US to decide if extending the Vanguard SSBNs or building new is the better option. I suggest a good time to look at the appropriate mix of SSBN / SSN platforms and the option of combining the two into one type cannot be excluded. A reduced number of smaller diameter ‘strategic’ missiles together with land attack conventional and ssm types would make a future force of Astute batch II’s an interesting proposition. Pure conjecture of course.

I think in summary it has been good news of late for the RN amphibious capability; next comes the air defence destroyers (2009 on); followed by new carriers (2013 on); not forgetting of course new SSNs, support ships, and then future frigates in due course…

Quite an ambitious programme for any navy, and not something that can happen overnight. Smaller yes, more balanced and capable - absolutely

Fully agree ! The UK is doing a good job leveraging a smaller budget. One could have been tempted to make more radical choices (such as preserving the number of escorts but changing CVFs with smaller carriers), but overall the Royal Navy is there to stay as Europe's biggest.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

GD: "Methinks they're counting on French Horizons to fill the gaps in case of crisis, so it is a matter of loss of independent capability with only 6 Darings."

Rick: "Seeing as how only two Horizons are being built for France?"

CC: "Well if we keep cutting budgets in Europe, one day we'll have to merge assets for good in order to preserve a decent fighting force.
Since the Darings are very similar to the Horizons (Sampson radar apart), the ships could operate side by side very easily."

That doesnt answer the question of how two Horizons can fill any gaps.

And "very easily" is debatable.

LOL The French will have two carriers of their own and only four AAW escorts. Two of which are obsolete now.

But they will fill in gaps for the Royal Navy?

BS

Most overseas missions will be Anglo-French or even European. A British CVF may sail with French or Italian Horizons as escorting DDGs.
Regarding the compatibility between Horizon and Darings, I was referring to the fact that both ships have the same missiles. The EMPAR on a Horizon can guide the Asters launched from a Daring for example. Not bad

cheers

 

[rickusn]

LOL

"The EMPAR on a Horizon can guide the Asters launched from a Daring for example. "

That should make things interesting if the UK and France have a falling out.

Ill believe it when I see it.

And still doesnt answer the question of how two Horizons fill in any Royal Navy gaps.

Again I repeat thats crap.

If anything having having six Darings should mean the RN would fill in French gaps as they will have two Carriers and two LHD's vs the UK two carriers and one LPH.

But once again reality shouldnt intrude on dreams I guess.

LOL

 

[Grand Danois]

This has been going on routinely since 1999 (Saint Malo Summit was in 1998). I can't see why DDG's should be exempt from this.

- HMS SOMERSET RETURNS FROM ADRIATIC - The crew of HMS SOMERSET will be reunited with their loved ones when the warship returns home to Plymouth on Friday, 30 April after a three-month deployment to the Adriatic. During her time away, SOMERSET was attached to a French task group, which has been playing a full part in Operation Allied Force involving NATO air strikes against Serbia. The Type 23 frigate, one of the most modem warships in the Royal Navy, sailed from Devonport Naval Base on 2 February for what was supposed to be a training mission with the French Navy in the Gulf and Indian Ocean region. The aim of the deployment was to develop the defence relationship between France and the United Kingdom as agreed by Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Jacques Chirac at last December's St Malo summit. HMS SOMERSET was the first Royal Navy ship to be under the command of a French Admiral for 145 years. As the crisis in Kosovo deepened, the task group - which also consisted of the French aircraft carrier FS Foch, the anti-aircraft frigate FS Cassard and the French support vessels FS Jules Verne and FS Meuse - was diverted to the Adriatic. On arrival in the area, HMS SOMERSET undertook an intensive period of training with the French. This included a degree of 'cross pollination', where members of the ship's company changed places with their French counterparts. With the breakdown of the Rambouillet peace talks and the start of NATO air strikes against Serbia, the task group was placed on a new operational footing. On 21 March the crew of HMS SOMERSET went into defence watches -working six hours on and six hours off - and remained so until leaving the theatre on 23 April. This ensured all vital weapons, sensors and communications equipment were manned and capable of responding immediately to any potential threat. During this time, the ship witnessed Tomahawk missiles being launched from nearby US warships and the UK submarine HMS SPLENDID and was able to constantly monitor NATO aircraft. Her primary role was to protect the FS Foch from Serbian attack as the aircraft carrier played a full part in Operation Allied Force.

Despite the significant demands of being on defence watches for days on end without any port visits, morale among the largely young ship's company remained high with every man and woman playing their part in the efficient running of the ship in such a challenging environment. The Commanding Officer of HMS SOMERSET, Commander the Honourable Michael Cochrane, said: "My team have shown enormous flexibility during this deployment. We have gone from expecting to exercise with the French Navy in the Indian Ocean to operating with them in the Adriatic. We have spent long periods at sea but the commitment, determination and dedication of the team has not wavered. I believe their thoroughly professional approach stems from an inherent desire to end the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo."

HMS SOMERSET handed over to her relief ship, the Portsmouth-based frigate HMS GRAFTON, on 23 April before sailing for Plymouth the following day.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3284/changeNav/3533

And also - Warships Home From Circling The Globe -

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3437/changeNav/3533

 

[rickusn]

Again I say WTF has that have to do with two Horizons filling any gaps for the RN?

Its ludicrous and nonsensical.

 

[Grand Danois]

Again I say WTF has that have to do with two Horizons filling any gaps for the RN?

Its ludicrous and nonsensical.

Here is the rationale.

• The RN will get 6 T45's and it is too few.
  
• The French Navy will get 4 PAAMS equipped Horizons and FREMM. Way too few.
  
• Coordinating availability of the the assets would make them go further for both parties.
  
• There is a consistent and established track of integrating frigates and destroyers into each others sea-air battlegroups. I would expect to see Horizons in RN battlegroups in due course. Found another one, btw. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3871/changeNav/3533
  
• Joint and multinational in the EU context is what is on the tables, eg the UK/Dutch amphib battlegroup should be able to include Dutch AAW frigates.

As an independent capability* 6 are too few, but in the wider EU context there should be enough AAW assets to go around. So RN focus on amphibs and CVF is good IMV.

An (weak?) analogy could be the British realization in the early 20th century that it could not maintain the Two Power Standard with the expansion of the Japanese, US and German fleets leading to the Entente Cordiale... So if security is based in collective security then avoidance of duplication of effort has merit.

Worth a thought?

* [edit: providing adequate cover for several battlegroups]

 

[rickusn]

You made my point:

"The French Navy will get 4 PAAMS equipped Horizons and FREMM. Way too few."

Especially as how no one knows how the FREMM program is going to turn out.

So the French having two Horizons will do nothing to fill any gaps in the Royal Navy.

That RN/MN units can and have operated together is not the issue.

What effect TWO HORIZONS has on UK shortfalls is.

If the French cant supply enough AAW escorts(and two is far too few) for its HVUs it certainly cant fill any shortages for the UK.

"avoidance of duplication of effort"

There is no such thing going on.

Do you just dismiss Frances two new LHD's?

Do you just dismiss the fact that both navies have plans to maintain two carriers?

The plans for both navies make them look very duplicative too me.

Although the MN will have far fewer AAW ships. So they surely cant fill any RN gap in this regard.

And therefore if such navies cant fulfill its own needs it cant fill any gaps in anothers. Especially if there is a crisis where there is no overlapping concern.
Does Falklands ring a bell?

 

[Grand Danois]

The consequence of what you say would be that the RN would have max 3 AAW ships for a Falklands II. All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere where their capabilities is probably not in the same demand...

What would be the upper limit of an independent RN operation be in the future with a final number of six Type 45's?

 

[mark22w]

Six T45s are indeed too few however there is still hope that sense will prevail and two additional units will be ordered. The outgoing 1st Sea Lord was very keen to emphasise the need to maintain eight as a minimum.

The interoperability of RN & MN escorts demonstrates what is possible and is a useful force multiplier however it is not IMHO the solution to insufficient numbers of escorts. It wouldn’t have helped in the Gulf in 2003 and who knows where and when the RN will next sail into harms way but odds on it is with the USN...

 

[rickusn]

GD: "All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere ..."

Your not getting it.

In fact you keep evading your original contention taht the RN will have to rely on Frances two Horizons..

Furthermore what "eight other European PAAMS ships"?

Only two for France and two for Italy are for sure.

Although the FREMMs should be little inferior however they will be optomised for other warfare taskings ie ASW/LandAttack.

Italy will soon have two small carriers along with its amphibious ships to provide for.

But neither country or the Netherlands which you mentioned also are going to cover RN specific taskings.

These navies(along with others) may act in concert at times but its almost certain that all will retain independence and the UK for sure.

And all I see in the European navies is duplication of effort for that very reason.

As for how many T-45's could be involved in a Falklands type effort. Depends. Could be all under the most optomistic of conditions or could be just a couple under the most pessimistic.

But still doent matter because neithre France, italy ot the Netherlands are going to undertake RN responsibilities anywhere else.

Why?

Because they have their own!!!!!!!And have minimal capability to provide for them.

Your original contention makes no sense and your attempts to widen the agenda doesnt hold water.

If indeed there is to be a European Navy that will provide for all the responsibilities that those nations now undertake independently(albeit with limited platforms) those nations sure are spending alot of money duplicating capabilities.

And one of your contentions is that this is not happening.

In fact if any of them could scrape together more funding they would increase the level of duplication further not less.

Sorry but your contentions just dont hold water.

 

[Big-E]

Nationalism is too strong to see this as of yet... hence no unified EU force structure.

 

[contedicavour]

GD: "All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere ..."

Your not getting it.

In fact you keep evading your original contention taht the RN will have to rely on Frances two Horizons..

Furthermore what "eight other European PAAMS ships"?

Only two for France and two for Italy are for sure.

Although the FREMMs should be little inferior however they will be optomised for other warfare taskings ie ASW/LandAttack.

Italy will soon have two small carriers along with its amphibious ships to provide for.

But neither country or the Netherlands which you mentioned also are going to cover RN specific taskings.

These navies(along with others) may act in concert at times but its almost certain that all will retain independence and the UK for sure.

And all I see in the European navies is duplication of effort for that very reason.

As for how many T-45's could be involved in a Falklands type effort. Depends. Could be all under the most optomistic of conditions or could be just a couple under the most pessimistic.

But still doent matter because neithre France, italy ot the Netherlands are going to undertake RN responsibilities anywhere else.

Why?

Because they have their own!!!!!!!And have minimal capability to provide for them.

Your original contention makes no sense and your attempts to widen the agenda doesnt hold water.

If indeed there is to be a European Navy that will provide for all the responsibilities that those nations now undertake independently(albeit with limited platforms) those nations sure are spending alot of money duplicating capabilities.

And one of your contentions is that this is not happening.

In fact if any of them could scrape together more funding they would increase the level of duplication further not less.

Sorry but your contentions just dont hold water.

Fine, let's suppose that indeed the Franco-Italian Horizon and FREMMs aren't enough to fill the gap in the RN's DDG force.
Good old Europe will just have to live with this and make sure that we don't end up overstretched in dangerous overseas missions.
Still if it really came to a big crisis we'll put together a patchwork of Horizon, FREMM, Daring, Spanish Bazan, Dutch De Zeven Provincien and German F125. Would have been much better to have NFR90 ships for all, but that's still the 2nd largest DDG force in the world after the USN.
With the newer ships being light years ahead of the old Sea Dart- and SM-1-equipped DDGs.
Honestly I think there are much worse gaps in the EU countries' armed forces than numbers of DDGs starting from sealift and airlift capabilities.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

Our AAW FFGs (US classify them as DDGs) are the F124 not F125.
F125 is still in the phase of planning and it is not going to be an AAW vessel.

 

[Grand Danois]

GD: "All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere ..."

Your not getting it.

In fact you keep evading your original contention taht the RN will have to rely on Frances two Horizons..

I offered an expanded an clarified response with regard to my premise. If you insist on the original wording - one line - then you will be correct that it in the narrowest interpretation probably will be a rare event to see MN PAAMS ships in the UK dominated battlegroups. But it will happen.

Furthermore what "eight other European PAAMS ships"?

Only two for France and two for Italy are for sure.

Four Horizons are being built so far. The MN plan on building a PAAMS variant of the FREMM as a replacement for their two cancelled Horizons. The Italians haven't deleted their last two (yet?). But... the future will tell.

Although the FREMMs should be little inferior however they will be optomised for other warfare taskings ie ASW/LandAttack.

And a PAAMS variant.

Italy will soon have two small carriers along with its amphibious ships to provide for.

But neither country or the Netherlands which you mentioned also are going to cover RN specific taskings.

These navies(along with others) may act in concert at times but its almost certain that all will retain independence and the UK for sure.

And all I see in the European navies is duplication of effort for that very reason.

As for how many T-45's could be involved in a Falklands type effort. Depends. Could be all under the most optomistic of conditions or could be just a couple under the most pessimistic.

But still doent matter because neithre France, italy ot the Netherlands are going to undertake RN responsibilities anywhere else.

Why?

Because they have their own!!!!!!!And have minimal capability to provide for them.

Your original contention makes no sense and your attempts to widen the agenda doesnt hold water.

If indeed there is to be a European Navy that will provide for all the responsibilities that those nations now undertake independently(albeit with limited platforms) those nations sure are spending alot of money duplicating capabilities.

And one of your contentions is that this is not happening.

In fact if any of them could scrape together more funding they would increase the level of duplication further not less.

Sorry but your contentions just dont hold water.

I am not saying there will be a unified European Navy! Navies will stay independent with national and international tasks. The size of undertakings any individual country in Europe is and will be able to do is not that great. Any sizeable effort will be multilateral by interest and necessity.

As to duplication of effort and specialisation. Carrier and amphib capability is called for in the European context, so no there is no redundancy which is implicit in duplication of effort. Only the larger navies can undertake such jobs. Naturally they are focusing on that.

The smaller navies are purging their FAC and SSK components and building AAW/ASW/multimission frigates. Specialisation. The larger navies will have less escorts or are steady at low numbers. Less duplication.

Another example is the fledgling Estonian Navy which comprises a coast guard and a MCM sqn. They have just bought a few Sandowns from the RN and an additional command/support vessel (a former Danish minelayer). This is with the intention of a commitment to the NRF MCM Group 1. It will be interesting to see how far they will get wrt tempo of ops and sophistication.

Trend is for specialisation and less duplication.

 

[rickusn]

"Trend is for specialisation and less duplication."

LOL

It is not.

The move away from FACs is because of their limited utility.

Less escorts is the consequence of increased costs/inadequate funding and nothing more.


"As to duplication of effort and specialisation. Carrier and amphib capability is called for in the European context, so no there is no redundancy which is implicit in duplication of effort. Only the larger navies can undertake such jobs. Naturally they are focusing on that."

These navies are updating their platforms across the board:

Carriers
Surface Combatants
Amphibs
Submarines
Logistic Ships

Redundancy and duplication are rampant.

"The larger navies will have less escorts or are steady at low numbers. Less duplication."

Less numbers again are the result of increased costs and inadequate fuding.

Estonia is building a navy with what it can afford.

Sorry but your seeing things that you would like to see but arent actually happening.

 

[Big-E]

The only time you would see these Carrier taskforces would be under NATO auspices plus you would have USN forces in the mix as well so the EU running these types of force modulation with each other isn't going to occur without US particapation IMO.

 

[perfectgeneral]

I agree that it may make sense to build one or 2 smaller carriers the size of the Ocean and capable of using the JSF for the smaller overseas missions.
In this case one large CVF may be enough for the major overseas missions, provided that conflicts can be expected enough time in advance to adapt the maintenance schedules and have the single CVF ready when it is needed.
In Italy our 240-metre 27,000 ton Cavour carrier can carry up to 20 JSFs plus 4 Eh-101 AEW helos. It costs us 1.5 billion USD approx.

cheers

I can't help but agree that four to five Cavours would have been a great replacement for the Invincibles ($6.5-7.5bn quoted for two CVF). Maybe we had to concentrate our air arm on two ships to limit the crews required. What is the comlpement (crew) of a Cavour class carrier? Naval technology quotes 451 plus aircrew of 203, that's 654 x 4 = 2616. Compares pretty well with 1500 x 2 = 3000. Wait, the Naval Technology site also states that the Cavour class only hold 8 VTOL aeroplanes or 12 HELOs. So we would need six to get the joint fleet air arm afloat. Where do you get your figures for 20 JSF plus 4 HELOs from?

 

[mark22w]

The size of the CVFs is dictated by the requirement to carry a useful air group and I recall reading (somewhere) has more to do with interoperability with the USN. An air group of 36 F-35’s would make it possible to supplement US carriers and if necessary provide a ‘comparable’ attack capability to rotate with US carriers. I think it was an interview with the outgoing 1SL.

Please note I said comparable

As to a larger number of smaller platforms my prime concern apart from air group would be the numbers of escorts required to accompany them and their restriction to VSTOL operations.

The CVF, with a planned 50-year service life can be adapted to operate CTOL aircraft – something the smaller platforms are simply not designed for.