The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

kev 99

kev 99

Member
ASFC said:
Politics is the reason why. The Labour Govt likes the idea of running HM Forces on a shoe string.

It wouldn't surprise me though if some ships in the FSC program end up with PAMMS...........
Click to expand...
Or a derivative of it.

MBDA have already stated that the user interface for CAMM is being based on PAAMS.

What are the odds of the Royal Navy purchasing a light-destroyer class? Something under 5500-tonnes, but with a comparable AAW-load as the Type-45.
Click to expand...
It's not the size of the vessel that makes Type 45 so expensive its the electronics, deleting the hanger isn't going to do a great deal except make a less useful vessel, it might also reduce stability as well.
 
G

Grim901

New Member
FluffyThoughts said:
Ok, this has been bugging me for a while....

What are the odds of the Royal Navy purchasing a light-destroyer class? Something under 5500-tonnes, but with a comparable AAW-load as the Type-45. [Get rid off the helo' for starters!]

I know that the Sampson/PAAMS system cost an-arm-and-a-leg, but a smaller AAW escort should, surely, boost Her Majesty's Royal Navy...?:unknown
Click to expand...
If you remove the helo from the Type 45 you basically lave it incapable of any duty except AAW and minimal ground support.

With any luck some of the C1/C2's for the FSC will at least have PAAMS with Aster 15's to cover the AAW role.
 
T

TimmyC

New Member
VT's idea of FSC comprising C1,C2 & C3 is still just a concept as far as the UK treasury is concerned.
It's my belief only the replacing of absolutely critical platforms is ever going to be likely; new roles for vessels remain in dreamland.

What really are critical roles?
NATO’s doctrine once believed amphibious operations would only ever be carried out to friendly ports. With UK and Dutch marines deploying in plenty of time to the northern flank that was Norway, as hostilities would be clearly visible on the world stage this negated the need for dedicated military amphibious ships, it was thought commercial ferries could be commandeered to fill the role quite happily. Now with the hindsight of the Falklands conflict, this now seems quite incredulous! (Canberra aside..!) So, I ask could we see a time in the future when MCM vessels are deemed altogether irrelevant? If so, there goes C3 out of the window.
The vessels C1 & C2 would be replacing are T23 & maybe T22. These were originally submarine hunters which have been modernized into much more capable general purpose frigates, retaining their excellent ASW capabilities. It’s just my personal view of course but you don’t need two classes of ship to replace these platforms- just C1 or C2, but not both.
Having seen what happened to the order book of the excellent T45, you get an idea of the possible quantity of any replacement in FSC.

I hope I’m wrong as I’d love to see the RN capable of deploying in numbers where there needed most in the world. The chancellor better start printing out even MORE bonds just to catch up with current annual MOD costs. I wonder how many years it will be before there are concrete designs & orders regarding the replacement of our frigates. We all wait with baited breath regarding the outcome, let alone the specifications.
 
G

Grim901

New Member
TimmyC said:
VT's idea of FSC comprising C1,C2 & C3 is still just a concept as far as the UK treasury is concerned.
It's my belief only the replacing of absolutely critical platforms is ever going to be likely; new roles for vessels remain in dreamland.

What really are critical roles?
NATO’s doctrine once believed amphibious operations would only ever be carried out to friendly ports. With UK and Dutch marines deploying in plenty of time to the northern flank that was Norway, as hostilities would be clearly visible on the world stage this negated the need for dedicated military amphibious ships, it was thought commercial ferries could be commandeered to fill the role quite happily. Now with the hindsight of the Falklands conflict, this now seems quite incredulous! (Canberra aside..!) So, I ask could we see a time in the future when MCM vessels are deemed altogether irrelevant? If so, there goes C3 out of the window.
The vessels C1 & C2 would be replacing are T23 & maybe T22. These were originally submarine hunters which have been modernized into much more capable general purpose frigates, retaining their excellent ASW capabilities. It’s just my personal view of course but you don’t need two classes of ship to replace these platforms- just C1 or C2, but not both.
Having seen what happened to the order book of the excellent T45, you get an idea of the possible quantity of any replacement in FSC.

I hope I’m wrong as I’d love to see the RN capable of deploying in numbers where there needed most in the world. The chancellor better start printing out even MORE bonds just to catch up with current annual MOD costs. I wonder how many years it will be before there are concrete designs & orders regarding the replacement of our frigates. We all wait with baited breath regarding the outcome, let alone the specifications.
Click to expand...
I think that's the whole concept behind C2. They use the same hull as C1 but don't put in all the fancy and expensive electronics and weapo ns systems, so it looks like they're adequately replacing the number of frigates when really only the C1's are a direct replacement for they Type 23's.

I also read sopmewhere they want to start bringing in C2's to replcae the last 4 type 22's around 2015, which is what thy're spendiong the money saved from the reduced type 45 buy on.

But you're right, unless there is a radical shift in thinking I doubt they will buy enough hulls. But i'm pretty sure they are now planning on using the C1,C2,C3 idea and I think that if anything they'll spring for C3, because they can use it to replace MCM and the parol vessels, so making an even further reduction in overall number of hulls.
 
O

outsider

New Member
The MOD claim they will be spending £14 billion on the RN over the next 10 years. The new carriers cost £4 billion, leaving £10 billion.

Also there's been talk that MARS maybe postponed or a cheaper option procured.

Additional Type 45's have been cancelled. It doesn't look like we're getting huge numbers of C1/C2/C3 in the next 10 years.

So just what is the other £10 billion supposed to be being spent on?
 
T

TimmyC

New Member
Good question. An air wing for the carriers must be the greatest expense. However it's not just about new procurement, sailors and shore staff need to be paid and fed, hierarchy isn't cheap either.
If anyone is in a better position as to the answer of the annual running costs of the RN, please feel free to educate us lesser folk.
 
G

Grim901

New Member
outsider said:
I should clarify - the £14 billion is for procurement.
Click to expand...
I'm sure a chunk will go to Vanguard + trident replacement (planned in service date is early 2020's), but apart from that the only major procurements are MARS and FSC, so on the surface it looks promising but, this government hasn't actually met a large scale procurement promise in many years so the budget will almost certainly end up less.
 
O

outsider

New Member
Grim901 said:
I'm sure a chunk will go to Vanguard + trident replacement (planned in service date is early 2020's), but apart from that the only major procurements are MARS and FSC, so on the surface it looks promising but, this government hasn't actually met a large scale procurement promise in many years so the budget will almost certainly end up less.
Click to expand...
The MOD are also considering postponing the Vanguard and Trident replacement and SLEPing/upgrading in the meantime. Plus they claimed they would be spending an additional £1 billion a year (new money) on the Vanguard/Trident replacement anyway, so this wasn't going to come out of the £14 billion.

But I think you are right, the budget will almost certainly end up less. I think they actually have no intention of spending the £14 billion, that they claimed.
 
G

Grim901

New Member
outsider said:
The MOD are also considering postponing the Vanguard and Trident replacement and SLEPing/upgrading in the meantime. Plus they claimed they would be spending an additional £1 billion a year (new money) on the Vanguard/Trident replacement anyway, so this wasn't going to come out of the £14 billion.

But I think you are right, the budget will almost certainly end up less. I think they actually have no intention of spending the £14 billion, that they claimed.
Click to expand...
They're already putting in £200 million a year for Vanguard replacement. They reason they were talking about SLEPing was because it'll take about 17 years to get a new SSBN into service and with the first Vanguard due to be decommissioned in 2017 without SLEP, there's a possible gap in continuous at sea deterrence, making a SLEP necessary. Even so this can only add about 5 years to a Vanguard Submarine.

It's lucky the money isn't going to be coming out of the £14 billion because they're estimating that 4 new subs will cost about that with R&D.
 
O

outsider

New Member
Grim901 said:
They're already putting in £200 million a year for Vanguard replacement. They reason they were talking about SLEPing was because it'll take about 17 years to get a new SSBN into service and with the first Vanguard due to be decommissioned in 2017 without SLEP, there's a possible gap in continuous at sea deterrence, making a SLEP necessary. Even so this can only add about 5 years to a Vanguard Submarine.

It's lucky the money isn't going to be coming out of the £14 billion because they're estimating that 4 new subs will cost about that with R&D.
Click to expand...
I heard the MOD are going to conduct a feasibilty study to see see if it will be possible to extend the life of the Vanguard submarines further, up to 2030 or even beyond.
 
G

Grim901

New Member
outsider said:
I heard the MOD are going to conduct a feasibilty study to see see if it will be possible to extend the life of the Vanguard submarines further, up to 2030 or even beyond.
Click to expand...
Well the 2006 study said 5 years was the most they'd be able to get out of it, but that might have changed. I'm sure they could do longer but for the amount it'd cost it probably wouldn't be much use.
 
A

ASFC

New Member
outsider said:
The MOD claim they will be spending £14 billion on the RN over the next 10 years. The new carriers cost £4 billion, leaving £10 billion.

Also there's been talk that MARS maybe postponed or a cheaper option procured.

Additional Type 45's have been cancelled. It doesn't look like we're getting huge numbers of C1/C2/C3 in the next 10 years.

So just what is the other £10 billion supposed to be being spent on?
Click to expand...
Source?

Outsider said:
I heard the MOD are going to conduct a feasibilty study to see see if it will be possible to extend the life of the Vanguard submarines further, up to 2030 or even beyond.
Click to expand...
Source?

I haven't seen the MOD claim they are spending £14Billion on the Navy anywhere, and AFAIK the Vanguards is still due for replacement starting 2023 (with a SLEP in the meantime).

As for FSC, there is no point speculating until something concrete comes out of the MOD/Navy/Govt.
 
G

Grim901

New Member
outsider said:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8097
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ed131008.htm
http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/latest-news/Royal-Navy-giant-sales-into.4749322.jp
Click to expand...
Those articles suggest that the £14 billion has already been eaten into quite effectively as it covers purchases from around 2000 onwards. Since that's the case I doubt there will be much left in this current "massive" procurement policy. Hopefully they'll put a new one into place soon so we can actually start buying ships again.
 
harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
CVF construction has started!!!!!:D
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...ndLogistics/90mContractsForWorkOnCarriers.htm
It also has some small contracts for fixtures and fittings steel cut in December at DML Appledore.
£90m contracts for work on carriers
An Equipment and Logistics news article

16 Jan 09

£90m worth of contracts have been announced for steelwork, modular cabins, galley equipment and other components for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers, HM Ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.
Artist's impression of the Future Carrier

Artist's impression of the Future Carrier
[Picture: MOD]

The key contracts announced today, Friday 16 January 2009, which are expected to sustain some 190 jobs nationwide at peak production, include:

• £50m for steelwork for bow sections of the two carriers, to be carried out at Babcock's Appledore Shipyard in Devon, sustaining some 150 jobs at peak production;

• Galley equipment, £3.4m, Kempsafe Ltd (Southampton);

• Modular cabins and wet spaces, £23m, McGill Services Ltd, sustaining about 40 jobs at peak production (Billingham, County Durham);

• Furniture to be installed throughout the ships, £4.4m, McGill Services Ltd;

• Windows, £1.3m, Tex Special Projects Ltd (Ipswich);

• Doors and hatches, £3.9m, McGeoch Marine Ltd (Inchinnan, Renfrewshire);

• Aircraft electrical supplies equipment, £4m, Ultra Electronics PMES (Rugeley, Staffs).

Early steelwork for the bow unit of Queen Elizabeth commenced in Appledore in December.

After visiting Appledore Shipyard in North Devon, MOD Defence Equipment and Support's Director of Capital Ships, Tony Graham, said:

"Walking on the prepared steel plate destined to become an internal deck on HMS Queen Elizabeth gives everyone at the shipyard a sense of expectation. We have been making progress in engineering and procurement on this programme but we can now see the reality of a ship in build.

"Later this year we will see production start in the main shipyards, where the overall scale of the carriers will become clear. Just days into 2009, there is a real sense of excitement among the partners and confidence in the momentum behind this project."

"Just days into 2009, there is a real sense of excitement among the partners and confidence in the momentum behind this project."

Tony Graham, MOD

Geoff Searle, Programme Director of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, on the tour of the site, said:

"After many years of design, engineering and planning work across the whole of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, it is fantastic to be in Appledore to see physical proof of the project moving into the next phase. It is also an excellent example of how this iconic project will involve companies in many parts of the UK, creating and sustaining thousands of jobs, like those of the 14 new apprentices taken on here in Appledore, the first for six years."

Today's announcements form part of the £3bn manufacture contract, which was awarded by MOD to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance in July 2008.

The Aircraft Carrier Alliance – a single integrated team formed from BVT Surface Fleet, BAE Systems Marine, Babcock, Thales UK and MOD – will deliver the carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Work on the ships is expected to create or sustain 10,000 jobs in the UK at its peak.

So much for it being canceled :nutkick
 
G

Grim901

New Member
Just read an article about Daring arriving in Portsmouth today. Apparently they've given PAAMS it's new designation of 'Sea Viper.' Now that is a cool name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top