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

[perfectgeneral]

50 >>>25 escorts

Agree fully.

Give me the proposed RN with 2 CVFs and 6 T45s over the Invincible/T42 combination of the 1980's any day of the week. As to the 50 escorts Overlander mentions I'm not sure what the 'Ikara' Leanders or Tribal class frigates would provide other than personnel nightmares... The later T22 and T23 frigates were and indeed are a step change in capability.

Reality check is smaller numbers, increased punch, greater flexibility.

Sensor fusion makes each ship more effective, but without a 60 knot capability, there is a drop in presence. It's a big world. Intel may ensure that you are in the right place at the right time on 80-90% of occasions, but no back-up when wrong-footed or beaten is a bad place to be.

personnel need not be an issue since the new ships require less crew. The crews of the eight type 42 and four type 22 ships are enough for sixteen type 45 ships and a spare watch. I also think a few spare/standby basic hulls awaiting transfer/installation of equipment would reduce reinforcement build time substantially.

It isn't an issue of money any more than it is of manning levels, it is a question of priorities.

 

[overlander]

Last News, The Future 2 New 2cvf Carriers Maybe Cancelled

enter in www.beedall.com and read at the end of the page the article that 1 british newspaper publish, the chancellor of the tresor gordon browns wants to cut an adittional 1 blln. pounds from defence so it seems to be that like in 1966 with the cva 01 the cvf carriers will be only a dream and if only one year later that the british navy reduced its escort force from 32 to 25, withdrawal of sea harriers and cuts in the mine hunter force other heavy cut it.s under way maybe true that finally in a few years the british navy will be reduced to a coastal force as richard beedall says in his editorial, a sad final for this historic navy, really labour government will be the most terrible enemy for the british armed forces.

 

[harryriedl]

the problem with www.beedall.com is that he is very sinical [sorry can't spell] is that is very gloomy rember how long it took HMs Ocen to be bulit they ask for the capbalitly in 1980s but it wasn't delivered till the late 90s i know im being rough with the dates its just he is being very negative

 

[Sea Toby]

Having sold a third carrier to France, I doubt seriously whether any of the two British carriers will be cancelled. Downsized 10-15,000 tons maybe, cancelled no. Without the carriers the UK would have to build more submarines and destroyers.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Having sold a third carrier to France, I doubt seriously whether any of the two British carriers will be cancelled. Downsized 10-15,000 tons maybe, cancelled no. Without the carriers the UK would have to build more submarines and destroyers.

Unfortunately I can! I see the RN losing the carriers and ending up with three enlarged strategic projection ship that will also be an amphibious lift. The RN has been here with the last time they lost the carriers.

That’s not definite, but it is a possibility.

 

[Big-E]

. Without the carriers the UK would have to build more submarines and destroyers.

They have to build more subs and DDGs with carriers, they have to be protected. If the RN does cancel her carrier program she will be effectively withdrawing herself from the seas with no need of a large escort force... whats the point without anything to escort.:hitwall

 

[Wild Weasel]

It's quite possible that there are a great deal of people in the UK who fail to see a need for a carrier battle group, or any other type of ocean-going combattants.
Trust me, I have met quite a few.
While I have considered them to be a bit too cynical and/or idealistic for their own good, they usually can't be persuaded otherwise.

As there have been very few instances of naval warfare since the Falklands conflict, ( Aside from the United States frequent usage of her own carrier groups ) I think many in the UK see expeditionary naval power as an extravagance they can live without.

This situation places an even greater burden on the US Navy, which is often bashed by these same people as an unwanted "world police". Unfortunately, this sort of attitude could be difficult and even more costly to rectify in the future. Building and operating carrier task forces is certainly an expensive business- and will only become more so in years to come. Perhaps it has already become cost-prohibitive for the UK?

Hopefully, the NATO, and/or EU partnership can fill in the gaps, should a real international crisis arise, and the UK's lack of flat-tops becomes insufficient to project a credible force of naval power.

 

[Big-E]

Hopefully, the NATO, and/or EU partnership can fill in the gaps, should a real international crisis arise, and the UK's lack of flat-tops becomes insufficient to project a credible force of naval power.

Basically you would be relying on France to project your diplomacy. Bad idea.:drunk1

 

[Wild Weasel]

Yes, that would be rather unfortunate. But then, there's not much I could very well do about it, either.

 

[Big-E]

Yes, that would be rather unfortunate. But then, there's not much I could very well do about it, either.

I would rather see an Anglo/US sphere rather than the UK looking towards Europe for help, we are related after all.

 

[contedicavour]

Aren't you being too pessimist here ??

I've read the last posts on this thread and I've got the impression there is an attack of pessimism here
No way the UK will stop the new carrier programme, it's an essential part of the strategic projection the UK armed forces need for most of tomorrow's overseas missions.
If cuts will come, it will be in other parts of the UK Navy, may be the numbers of SSNs, or by building smaller carriers more in tune with the merchant marine's building standards.

Cheer up !!

 

[Whiskyjack]

Until you realise that there are senior UK military (non navy) and political figures that are against the CVF programme. I agree that something will be bought, but what and when remains to be seen.

Of course there is a political element here, if I wanted the contractor to sharpen their pencils I would announce a cut in defence spend and whisper about a major project cut and wait and see.

 

[Big-E]

I don't know, somethings got to give if they have to fork out 48 billion for 4 SSBN replacements. Navy only gets so much money.

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't know, somethings got to give if they have to fork out 48 billion for 4 SSBN replacements. Navy only gets so much money.

Perhaps it wont get that dear and it will also be spread over several decades. If the UK doesn't get too ambitious they might be able to keep the cost down...

Brown backs Trident replacement

Trident will be decommissioned by about 2024

Mr Brown's speech
Gordon Brown has signalled that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.

Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5103764.stm

 

[contedicavour]

I don't know, somethings got to give if they have to fork out 48 billion for 4 SSBN replacements. Navy only gets so much money.

Honestly if it came down to this, choosing between CVs and SSBNs, then my choice is clear : build the new CVs and abandon the replacement programme for the SSBNs. In exchange, put nuclear warheads on the TLAMs on the new Astute SSNs being built, it should be enough as a nuclear deterrent against any potential enemy.

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

While I would like to see another 2 more Destroyers built, up to 8, the British still have 16 frigates in their inventory. After the destroyer program, I'm confident a new frigate program will commence, more than likely similar to the new French and Italian program using the Aster 15 surface to air missiles. The new frigates will be networked with the destroyers better than the current Type 23s and Type 22s.

However, I am more worried about the attack submarine force numbers even though the Astute program is in process. The frigates in the British navy today are far better than the old Type 21s and Type 12s, which when you consider their capabilities in today's world were nothing but OPVs. Hhowever, I can see the British copy the French and acquire light frigates or larger OPVs to use as patrol vessels for some of their dependencies. As I have posted on other threads, with the price of frigates going up, and the price of OPVs much cheaper, there is no need in the future to waste frigates in fishery protection or coast guard roles.

The Vanguards cost the British around 1 billion pounds each, or 8 billion pounds. Their replacements which won't have to be paid for yet, a decade or more away long after the carrier program, can't possibly cost twice as much. Since the Trident SSBNs are very accurate, a newer model can't be that much more expensive. While I can see the British reducing in half their number of warheads and/or missiles for the SSBNs, I don't see the British losing their nuclear deterrent. There is a lot of prestige on the line.

 

[contedicavour]

While I would like to see another 2 more Destroyers built, up to 8, the British still have 16 frigates in their inventory. After the destroyer program, I'm confident a new frigate program will commence, more than likely similar to the new French and Italian program using the Aster 15 surface to air missiles. The new frigates will be networked with the destroyers better than the current Type 23s and Type 22s.

However, I am more worried about the attack submarine force numbers even though the Astute program is in process. The frigates in the British navy today are far better than the old Type 21s and Type 12s, which when you consider their capabilities in today's world were nothing but OPVs.

Fully agree. To develop on your point, frigates start resembling destroyers more and more. When a frigate has AEGIS-type radars, can launch 30-km range AAW missiles and is fitted for but not with 120-km range AAW missiles (the Aster-30), and BTW the ship is 140 metres and 6000 ton, you could start calling this a destroyer...
So once you have 2 dozen mega-FFGs/DDGs, frankly this does the job even for a Navy like the RN which still has business all around the world.
The key point however, as you mention, is that the new FFG programme had better start fast and provide ships close to T45 size & weaponry. A programme already existed to replace the T22s but it was stopped for budget reasons last year.
The UK's MOD should start looking closely at FREMM, adapt it to RN needs and start building it without wasting years on R&D ...

cheers

 

[Big-E]

The Vanguards cost the British around 1 billion pounds each, or 8 billion pounds. Their replacements ... can't possibly cost twice as much. Since the Trident SSBNs are very accurate, a newer model can't be that much more expensive.

Didn't you just read the report??? Anywhere from 10 to 25 billion pounds for 4 subs. Thats 18.3 Billion USD to 45.8 billion USD. Your talking an average price of 8.08 billion USDs per sub if you go with the median price!!!

BTW 1 billion pounds each equals 4 billion for 4 subs, not 8...

Brown backs Trident replacement

Trident will be decommissioned by about 2024

Mr Brown's speech
Gordon Brown has signalled that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.

Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5103764.stm

 

[Sea Toby]

I was under the impression a PAMs missile silo could be installed where the Seawolf missile silo is on the Type 23s. I would attempt to get at least 25 years of service from the Type 23s. However, the four remaining Type 22s are reaching their pay off dates, and should be replaced with the FREMMs or something similar.

The British don't have to build from scratch and develop new ships every time any longer in today's world. Notice how well the Norwegians have done with a basically a Spanish design. Notice how well Greece, Turkey, Portugal, New Zealand, and Australia have done with similar versions of the MEKO 200.

Its not so much the price of steel or the design of the ship that is expensive. Most of the price of a new warship is the price of its combat data weapons systems and other sensors. The same can be said of submarines, although submarines can have nuclear power plants which cost more up front than a diesel electric plant.

So its not the cost of a new strategic missile or submarine, its the costs of the combat data weapons systems and development of a newer model missile which will be expensive.

 

[overlander]

Rumours On Further Cuts On Briotish Armed Forces

apart from the declaration of the chancellor of the tresor rumours indicate that beside the cancellation of the cvf project also the force of typhoons will be cut to only 100, the tornado gr4 force cut to only 115, the challenger tanks to only 250 and the jsf orders will be cut to only 90, the astute class will be built as planned but the modernized trafalgar class will be withdrawal from service bringing the total number of ssn,s to only 6 or even 5 furthermore the service personnal in the 3 services will be reduced in 25000 men, in my opinion this is a real scrapping of the british forces and cuts growing and growing