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

[swerve]

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...

The quoted figures are for "a nuclear deterrent", not 4 subs. Definitely includes missiles & warheads, & could include lifetime operating costs. And it doesn't mean anything anyway: nobody knows where that journalist got his range of guesses.

 

[swerve]

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

Where do you get this stuff? What would we do with the other Typhoons we already have on order, & are committed to paying for?

 

[contedicavour]

Where do you get this stuff? What would we do with the other Typhoons we already have on order, & are committed to paying for?

Agree this sounds bizarre ; it would be the world's biggest bazaar if it really came to selling brand new Typhoons and still recent Challengers
Not to mention that the Trafalgars are useful for another 15 years and have Tomahawks aboard, so they are unsellable and this would be a colossal waste of money to retire them. :mad

 

[Big-E]

The quoted figures are for "a nuclear deterrent", not 4 subs. Definitely includes missiles & warheads, & could include lifetime operating costs. And it doesn't mean anything anyway: nobody knows where that journalist got his range of guesses.

If this is the case then that makes the figures going to the far end of the spectrum. SSBNs are much more expensive than silos. Both Blair and Gordon expressed their commitment to retaining the 4 level submarine based deterent. This means the Royal Navy is going to either make some serious sacrifices or ask for more funding. While this reporters figures are by no way set in stone it certainly gives us a picture of how expensive replacing the Vanguards with 4 more subs will be, which would be closer to the 45 billion USD. It's not like the BBC goes around making figures up without checking first. Defense is becoming expensive. Just look at JSF.

 

[mark22w]

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

FREMM is one option however for my money i'd replace the 4 T22's with a land attack - and stretched - variant of the T45 as a first step then upgrade all remaining T23's and extend their in-service life to buy some more time to decide what the RN requires post CVF/T45 programmes.

 

[contedicavour]

FREMM is one option however for my money i'd replace the 4 T22's with a land attack - and stretched - variant of the T45 as a first step then upgrade all remaining T23's and extend their in-service life to buy some more time to decide what the RN requires post CVF/T45 programmes.

This would really strengthen the RN, I agree.
However replacing the T22 with enlarged and multi-role DDGs would be very expensive and would certainly not be feasible on a 1-to-1 basis.

cheers

 

[mark22w]

This would really strengthen the RN, I agree.
However replacing the T22 with enlarged and multi-role DDGs would be very expensive and would certainly not be feasible on a 1-to-1 basis.

cheers

Agreed it could be expensive however it would keep the ship builders busy and would be personnel neutral (or even less). I think it important the T22 replacements provide similar 'flag' facilities, and finally this option might offset some of the pain of 'losing' T45 numbers 7 & 8. Naturally I don't want to see the latter two deleted however like others on this forum, I'm not holding my breath. The sensor fit would no doubt change with a view to role and funding... hwell

 

[contedicavour]

Agreed it could be expensive however it would keep the ship builders busy and would be personnel neutral (or even less). I think it important the T22 replacements provide similar 'flag' facilities, and finally this option might offset some of the pain of 'losing' T45 numbers 7 & 8. Naturally I don't want to see the latter two deleted however like others on this forum, I'm not holding my breath. The sensor fit would no doubt change with a view to role and funding... hwell

Yep right. When you say "land attack" which missiles do you have in mind ? Tomahawks specifically or would SCALP Naval be enough ? Because in that case FREMMs would be enough (and they have flag facilities).

cheers

PS : cheer up, the UK is winning

 

[overlander]

In 15 Years The British Forces Will Be Nearly Scrapped

i listen all these news to the defence corresponding paul beaver in bbc world tv, he said that he has very confidential information from british defence sources that the escort force will be cut next year from 25 to 20 escorts, 2 from the new built bay clas lsd,s will be sold overseas, 1 albion class will be mothballed, in the raf around 60 fighters will be withdrawal, tornado gr4,s and f 3 and harriers gr 7, in the army the challenger park will be cut to only 250, the total strenght of the 3 services will be cut to only 160000, of course he agree that the cvf project will be cancelled and 2 big lsd ships similar to the american wasp class or maybe similar to the projected replacements for the remaining american tarawa class will be built in place of it, and all of this only 2 years after the last heavy cuts in the british forces, so this way in 15 years the british forces will be a reduced force only for defence totally unable of credible military operations and the worst of all is that as beaver said the conservative opossition has the same ideas as the labour governement so it,s not probable that this heavy cuts reverse if they get the power, as you can read in the article of richard beedall www-beedall.com the chancellor of the tresor needs right now 1 blln ponds for national segurity more another 1 blln in the short term this together with the need to replace the 4 vanguards ssbn,s in around 15-20 years means that the british armed forces will be totally overstretched in the future and they will be not a credible forces to defend uk interest anywhere

 

[Big-E]

Why do people keep using beedall as a source... is he the oracle of the future RN?

 

[rickusn]

Hes much respected but no oracle. LOL

 

[perfectgeneral]

Re: Beedall

Why do people keep using beedall as a source... is he the oracle of the future RN?

He researches his site quite well and has collected a lot of useful information, but when he speculates about press articles and rumours, he is quite pessamisitic. Expecting the worst has been ingrained in him by government policy. Lets not confuse his sense of doom with the well compiled and factually acurate site as a whole.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Why do people keep using beedall as a source... is he the oracle of the future RN?

He is not usually wrong. Plus some good info, probably the best I have found.

 

[mark22w]

He researches his site quite well and has collected a lot of useful information, but when he speculates about press articles and rumours, he is quite pessamisitic. Expecting the worst has been ingrained in him by government policy. Lets not confuse his sense of doom with the well compiled and factually acurate site as a whole.

Agree fully. Useful background data but don't get sucked in too far... This is a site with a personal bias that not everyone shares.

 

[mark22w]

i listen all these news to the defence corresponding paul beaver in bbc world tv, he said that he has very confidential information from british defence sources that the escort force will be cut next year from 25 to 20 escorts, 2 from the new built bay clas lsd,s will be sold overseas, 1 albion class will be mothballed, in the raf around 60 fighters will be withdrawal, tornado gr4,s and f 3 and harriers gr 7, in the army the challenger park will be cut to only 250, the total strenght of the 3 services will be cut to only 160000, of course he agree that the cvf project will be cancelled and 2 big lsd ships similar to the american wasp class or maybe similar to the projected replacements for the remaining american tarawa class will be built in place of it, and all of this only 2 years after the last heavy cuts in the british forces, so this way in 15 years the british forces will be a reduced force only for defence totally unable of credible military operations and the worst of all is that as beaver said the conservative opossition has the same ideas as the labour governement so it,s not probable that this heavy cuts reverse if they get the power, as you can read in the article of richard beedall www-beedall.com the chancellor of the tresor needs right now 1 blln ponds for national segurity more another 1 blln in the short term this together with the need to replace the 4 vanguards ssbn,s in around 15-20 years means that the british armed forces will be totally overstretched in the future and they will be not a credible forces to defend uk interest anywhere

2 Bay class LSD and 1 Albion LPD to be sold? Then replaced with further amphib vessels albeit with limited air groups rather than CVFs?? I don't think the RN would be so keen with this idea. The Bay class LSD(A)s are excellent value for money and only 60 crew per vessel - teamed with the Albion LPDs and the Ocean LPH they will become some of the most worked RN assets in the near future.

Having recently built up the amphib capacity the RN is close to receiving the first T45 platforms and Astute SSNs. Numbers have been reduced yes, however the plans laid down some years ago are coming through - painfully slow, but real platforms and enhanced capability.

I struggle to see how this translates into a third rate coastal force

 

[swerve]

2 Bay class LSD and 1 Albion LPD to be sold? Then replaced with further amphib vessels albeit with limited air groups rather than CVFs?? I don't think the RN would be so keen with this idea. The Bay class LSD(A)s are excellent value for money and only 60 crew per vessel - teamed with the Albion LPDs and the Ocean LPH they will become some of the most worked RN assets in the near future.

Having recently built up the amphib capacity the RN is close to receiving the first T45 platforms and Astute SSNs. Numbers have been reduced yes, however the plans laid down some years ago are coming through - painfully slow, but real platforms and enhanced capability.

I struggle to see how this translates into a third rate coastal force

Don't you think it sounds like one of the regular blue-sky internal studies? If every internal MoD/Treasury analysis of how to achieve a particular level of spending was leaked, we'd see a story like this - but with different details - every month or so. Sounds really clever to sell brand-new, quite cheap, very economical to run, LSDs, then throw away all the money spent on CVF detailed design & start again with designing new ships (which most definitely wouldn't resemble Wasp-class ships, as they cost a fortune to run), able to operate only F-35B without the "future-proofing" option of CVF, or buying the US LHA-R design, which ain't much cheaper, according to current estimates.

 

[contedicavour]

Don't you think it sounds like one of the regular blue-sky internal studies? If every internal MoD/Treasury analysis of how to achieve a particular level of spending was leaked, we'd see a story like this - but with different details - every month or so. Sounds really clever to sell brand-new, quite cheap, very economical to run, LSDs, then throw away all the money spent on CVF detailed design & start again with designing new ships (which most definitely wouldn't resemble Wasp-class ships, as they cost a fortune to run), able to operate only F-35B without the "future-proofing" option of CVF, or buying the US LHA-R design, which ain't much cheaper, according to current estimates.

Agree. Besides, didn't the UK MOD commit itself to partnership with the French MOD on the CVF programme ? International programmes can't be erased that easily !

cheers

 

[rickusn]

" International programmes can't be erased that easily !"

Since when?

Apparently you dont read much history even recent.

 

[contedicavour]

" International programmes can't be erased that easily !"

Since when?

Apparently you dont read much history even recent.

Revise your statistics and do your own history reading : the % of national programmes cancelled due to budget cuts, compared with the % of international programmes cancelled, is at least 3 times higher in Western Europe.
I have enough examples to fill up a whole thread, here's an example : FREMM, Horizon, Typhoon were saved in Italy because international, while Dardo 2, Ariete 2, AMX upgrade were cut because national.
This is logical : it is much easier for a national MOD to cancel a national programme rather than renegotiate with several other countries and international contractors and lose the offsets.
Even if I am less familiar with what is going on in the US, I do remember several occasions when national programmes were cut (in artillery for example, or for combat helos such as comanche) rather than reducing international programmes (MEADS, JSF, etc).
One could even argue that JSF is resisting mainly because of the number of international partners in the programme.

 

[mark22w]

Don't you think it sounds like one of the regular blue-sky internal studies? If every internal MoD/Treasury analysis of how to achieve a particular level of spending was leaked, we'd see a story like this - but with different details - every month or so. Sounds really clever to sell brand-new, quite cheap, very economical to run, LSDs, then throw away all the money spent on CVF detailed design & start again with designing new ships (which most definitely wouldn't resemble Wasp-class ships, as they cost a fortune to run), able to operate only F-35B without the "future-proofing" option of CVF, or buying the US LHA-R design, which ain't much cheaper, according to current estimates.

Agreed. The flexibility of the CVF design represents far better value for money and with a 50 year in service life why would the RN want to limit its option to a VSTOL only LHA-R? The RN has the amphib fleet - it now needs carriers with a useful air group...