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

[overlander]

Richard Beedall And Paul Beaver Are Both Naval Experts

of course they are not the word of god the problem is that beaver have published some interesting book on naval matters and richard beedal just 2 years ago he was nearly exact to predict the heavy cuts of the R.N. he only mistake by one escort, he predicted 7 escorts to be cut and finally they were 6, one think is the common sense and other is that biritish politicians they have defence at the botton line and the less important matter in government, if gordon brown the chancellor of the tresor wants to cut 2 blln pounds he will get it and the most obvious candidate in the navy programme is to cancel the cvf program, of course we will see but some people have to recognize that is not normal so many delays in the order of the 2 cvf,s and it maybe that symply they are waiting the best moment to announce the cancellation, of course will not be good news for trade unions as they expected they will create around 10000 jobs with the construction of the 2 carriers but the reality is sometimes sad, by now it,s clear that 2 type 45 will not be ordered leaving the final number to 6 and of course i don,t kow if predictions of beedall will be exact but i am sure that another heavy cuts in the british armed forces will arrive shortly.

 

[perfectgeneral]

This is the same finance minister (Gordon Brown) who wraps himself in the flag, plans a budget increase for defence for the next three years and wants to build a new nuclear deterant. I know politicians are hypocrites, but they don't usually contradict themselves too quickly as it is hard to win votes that way.

The leaked study explanation seems quite plausable to me. The government have just started a strategic spending revue that will take a year or two to explore all the options. The UK is a very successful state, with a big budget to spend. Any cuts to meet bumps in the economic road won't be as draconian as fringe press speculation seems to fear and won't be directed solely (if at all) at defence.

 

[rickusn]

Examples and I have many:

Horizon UK left completely.

France and Italy cut their orders in 1/2.

The list is endless from the past.

CVF is far,far from a done deal.

FREMM no one has clue how it will turn out.

JSF no one has a clue how it will turn out.

 

[swerve]

This is the same finance minister (Gordon Brown) who wraps himself in the flag, plans a budget increase for defence for the next three years and wants to build a new nuclear deterant. I know politicians are hypocrites, but they don't usually contradict themselves too quickly as it is hard to win votes that way.

Especially not when they expect to be Prime Minister in a year or two, & will soon afterwards have to fight an election. And have spent a long, long, time building themselves up as Mr. Integrity & Mr. Prudent, who considers every decision long and hard & always keeps his word.

 

[contedicavour]

Examples and I have many:

Horizon UK left completely.

France and Italy cut their orders in 1/2.

The list is endless from the past.

CVF is far,far from a done deal.

FREMM no one has clue how it will turn out.

JSF no one has a clue how it will turn out.

Horizon and FREMM have 80-90% commonality, one could almost say they are the same programme. UK may have left us, but between the 2 types of ships France and Italy will build 30 over a 10-year lifespan. Greece is very close to ordering some more for its Navy, and there are negotiations with other navies (UAE for example). Without this programme MOD budget cuts would have further cut fleet strengths in both France and Italy.
JSF will exist despite all the cost increases. At least 10 countries will buy it. Again, without JSF commitments most European Air Forces would have cut their strength further. Now they can't or they lose the offsets negotiated when joining the JSF programme.
On CVF, if there hadn't been CVF France wouldn't have found the money to build a second carrier ! And the UK needs partners to share R&D or else the whole programme costs too much.
I could go on for ages : U-212 between Italy and Germany, Tornado back in the '80s (3 air forces, not bad), the Dutch-Spanish alliance on LPDs, the Tiger attack helicopter, NH-90 (6 countries and counting), Eh-101, obviously Eurofighter Typhoon, etc
To summarize : international programmes survive better because they cost less by sharing R&D and because political & industrial commitments are harder to erase.

 

[Supe]

I'm with Waylander on the dubious reality of 2 x CVF's being procured for the RN. Money will be spent on the next generation of nuke bearing Subs. I don't envisage cuts for the British Army though, not while they are deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

[perfectgeneral]

I'm with Waylander on the dubious reality of 2 x CVF's being procured for the RN. Money will be spent on the next generation of nuke bearing Subs. I don't envisage cuts for the British Army though, not while they are deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Are you prepared to say that the RN won't get two CVF? You seem to be saying that the funds will be diverted to procure the next generation of nuclear guided missile submarines. The budget for RN equipment procurement is large and steady enough to do both. Remember that the Trident/Vanguard system isn't decommissioned until 2024.

 

[contedicavour]

What is needed now is a good deal of public relations from the Royal Navy. The usefulness of the CVF is less obvious than in the past (especially the '80s after the Falklands), though in its role as core of any rapid reaction overseas force, the CVF is indispensable.
I would highlight the areas of the world where the British forces could not operate without support from a CVF-battlegroup : areas of the Middle East or of Africa or of South-East Asia without safe airports and developed harbor facilities.
Without such CVF battlegroups, the British Army would be off limits to wide areas of the world, so even if it did not suffer any further cuts in manpower, its capabilities would be seriously diminuished.

cheers

 

[swerve]

Are you prepared to say that the RN won't get two CVF? You seem to be saying that the funds will be diverted to procure the next generation of nuclear guided missile submarines. The budget for RN equipment procurement is large and steady enough to do both. Remember that the Trident/Vanguard system isn't decommissioned until 2024.

Exactly. Even with a pessimistic view of further programme slippage, Queen Elizabeth & Prince of Wales should be in service, paid for, by the time big spending on the Vanguard replacement kicks in. Biggest risk of a major funding overlap is if the govt goes for the (supposedly - I have my doubts) cheap option of a Vanguard life extension.

 

[contedicavour]

Exactly. Even with a pessimistic view of further programme slippage, Queen Elizabeth & Prince of Wales should be in service, paid for, by the time big spending on the Vanguard replacement kicks in. Biggest risk of a major funding overlap is if the govt goes for the (supposedly - I have my doubts) cheap option of a Vanguard life extension.

I fear an overlap could occur with the funding for T22/T23 replacements, which should start being built well before Vanguard replacement, and at the same time as the last of the T45s.
Hence my remarks about slashing R&D costs for new frigates and go for off the shelf FREMMs (although of course built in the UK with some minor changes to suit RN needs).

cheers

 

[perfectgeneral]

I fear an overlap could occur with the funding for T22/T23 replacements, which should start being built well before Vanguard replacement, and at the same time as the last of the T45s.
Hence my remarks about slashing R&D costs for new frigates and go for off the shelf FREMMs (although of course built in the UK with some minor changes to suit RN needs).

cheers

Only the T22s will need replacing. The T23 SLEP is pretty easy. They have seen a lot less of the north sea than predicted. I expect the T22s to be replaced by more T45 hulls adapted to the T22 roles. A tail end to the production run to add economy of scale. A batch of three perhaps.

 

[contedicavour]

Only the T22s will need replacing. The T23 SLEP is pretty easy. They have seen a lot less of the north sea than predicted. I expect the T22s to be replaced by more T45 hulls adapted to the T22 roles. A tail end to the production run to add economy of scale. A batch of three perhaps.

I understand the need and the proposal. What I'm less at ease with is that a T22 should be replaced by a big DDG such as the T45.
I know the T22 batch 3 are flagships with significant command facilities for overseas task forces smaller than the ones needing aircraft carriers.
Though why this would require ships equipped with Aster 30 (range : 120km) AAW missiles I'm less confortable with.

cheers

 

[Padfoot]

The carriers will be built. They say there are 60 billion barrels of oil around the Falkland Islands. Futhermore, it is said that the South Atlantic trench off the Falkland Islands, is believed to contain at least an 1.2 trillion barrels of heavy oil.

 

[Sea Toby]

Each generation of missiles evolves into smaller size and longer range. I have no problem with the range of both missiles. As the British surface warship fleet has dropped in numbers, and with better technology in the ships, the number of destroyers is bond to drop to.

In the future the British fleet will have new aircraft carriers with better aircraft, increasing the range of the outer air defenses of a task group. The new destroyers will also be better, increasing the missile range of their area defenses. Even with fewer ships these new air defense capabilities should provide better defenses.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Royal Navy of the future will be a better fleet than the current fleet.

 

[mark22w]

I understand the need and the proposal. What I'm less at ease with is that a T22 should be replaced by a big DDG such as the T45.
I know the T22 batch 3 are flagships with significant command facilities for overseas task forces smaller than the ones needing aircraft carriers.
Though why this would require ships equipped with Aster 30 (range : 120km) AAW missiles I'm less confortable with.

cheers

..an extra 2,500 tons, 5 metres in length and with 60 less personnel - not much of an ask

I think a T45 variant would be an ideal replacement (one for one) and with a mk41 vls rather than SYLVER launcher the mix to include TacTom as well as Aster 15 perhaps and/or possibly Aster 30 AAW missiles? The big question would be the sensor fit and primary purpose of these vessels. With a mix of T45 AAW Destroyers and T45 batch 3 land attack / flag variants a SLEP for the remaining Type 23s seems a sensible approach.

Fully agree with Sea Toby that less is more in terms of the future RN. Two platform types rather than three (T45 rather than FREMM) would also make sense. IMHO of course.

 

[contedicavour]

..an extra 2,500 tons, 5 metres in length and with 60 less personnel - not much of an ask

I think a T45 variant would be an ideal replacement (one for one) and with a mk41 vls rather than SYLVER launcher the mix to include TacTom as well as Aster 15 perhaps and/or possibly Aster 30 AAW missiles? The big question would be the sensor fit and primary purpose of these vessels. With a mix of T45 AAW Destroyers and T45 batch 3 land attack / flag variants a SLEP for the remaining Type 23s seems a sensible approach.

Fully agree with Sea Toby that less is more in terms of the future RN. Two platform types rather than three (T45 rather than FREMM) would also make sense. IMHO of course.

Makes a lot of sense. Though replacing 1:1 with T45s with Tomahawks and Mk41 would cost up to 1 billion USD for each ship (excl cost of the missiles) and would require - extra - some R&D work for integration of mk41 with the T45 sensor suite. I doubt the RN has sufficient budget available.

cheers

 

[swerve]

I think a T45 variant would be an ideal replacement (one for one) and with a mk41 vls rather than SYLVER launcher the mix to include TacTom as well as Aster 15 perhaps and/or possibly Aster 30 AAW missiles? The big question would be the sensor fit and primary purpose of these vessels. With a mix of T45 AAW Destroyers and T45 batch 3 land attack / flag variants a SLEP for the remaining Type 23s seems a sensible approach.

Fully agree with Sea Toby that less is more in terms of the future RN. Two platform types rather than three (T45 rather than FREMM) would also make sense. IMHO of course.

Bigger Sylvers (A70) are being built, for Scalp Naval (they'd also allow for the mooted "Aster 45", if it's ever developed). Too late for T45 except as a retrofit, but should be ready for a T22 batch 3 replacement a few years down the line. Nice to have a choice, eh?

Keeping the platform types down does make sense. Leave another hull type out of the equation until the T23s need replacing, & extend their lives so that's some way off.

 

[contedicavour]

Aster 45...

I wonder if Aster 45 will be developed. The Aster 30 already has 120-km range, though it lacks ATBM capability. At the same time, Italy, Germany and the US are working on MEADS ATBMs, so I'm not sure Italy at least would be interested (given budget constraints) to develop the -45 in parallel. That is, unless MEADS is abandoned...

cheers

PS : the A70 Sylver is standard on the Italian FREMMs, giving them the potential to launch Aster 30 and SCALP (if we join the French on this programme)

 

[McZosch]

I don't think, that any RN frigates will be equipped with Tomahawks.
I would rather bet on Storm Shadows. MBDA is in "advanced study phase" of a sea-launched version capable of VLS starts.

To support a 25-escorter-navy having (optimistically) 8 T45, you have to build 17 ships till 2020. The current policy seems in fact to go down to 20 escorters, if only 6 T45s are built even 18.

For the MSVD I think an "cruiser"-version of the Type 45 will do it.

Instead of slepping T23, I would rather go FREMM (i would also subscribe that for F125-class of the German navy) or a smaller version of T45 (around 5500 tonnes). Higher numbers would mean a significantly lower price per unit. Higher numbers mean higher potential for a emergency programme. Maybe, the parliament forces the RN to buy into the LCS-programme instead.

 

[swerve]

I wonder if Aster 45 will be developed. The Aster 30 already has 120-km range, though it lacks ATBM capability. At the same time, Italy, Germany and the US are working on MEADS ATBMs, so I'm not sure Italy at least would be interested (given budget constraints) to develop the -45 in parallel. That is, unless MEADS is abandoned...

cheers

IMO, probably not, unless MEADS falls apart, when the Italian & German money from that might become available.

I don't think, that any RN frigates will be equipped with Tomahawks.
I would rather bet on Storm Shadows. MBDA is in "advanced study phase" of a sea-launched version capable of VLS starts.

Are you thinking of Scalp Naval, or are you saying there are two projects for sea-launched VLS-capable missiles based on Storm Shadow/Scalp? If the latter, I'd be interested in the details.