The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
RFA's moving AGAIN?

I Don't think so, they haven't been based in Portland that long, & it would be madness to move them again. Cost, logistics, etc, etc...

SA
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
Looking from the outside, it seems that the RN is not very cost aware.

It seems that the RN/MoD is far too ambitious and optimistic in the design phaze of the specifics of a unit, while not give a thought to the overall technical conformity of the fleet.

Take the Type45, priced at 1bn pounds (each), it's a disaster, it might be a very cabable ship with a lot of fancy gadgets, but it's still a disaster. And the reason why it's a disaster is it's price tag, for which money other countries can litterally build a small fleet of frigates/destroyers. Each of such ships might not be as cabable as the Type45, (though for me it's a challenge to understand how a ship with comparable stats (speed endurence etc), comparable sensor suites, comparable weapon systems etc can be non-comparable to the Type45) though at the very minimum the larger number of units, and the possible flexibility that brings, seems to speak a clear lanquage.

Secondly to my untrained eyes it seems that the RN operates a lot of different types of f.ex. different weapon systems, sensor systems and propulsion systems. That must be very expensive in f.ex. maintenance, spare parts and above all training. There does not seem to be a very high degree of technical conformity across the navy, but maybe that's my ignorence.
 

Grim901

New Member
Looking from the outside, it seems that the RN is not very cost aware.

It seems that the RN/MoD is far too ambitious and optimistic in the design phaze of the specifics of a unit, while not give a thought to the overall technical conformity of the fleet.

Take the Type45, priced at 1bn pounds (each), it's a disaster, it might be a very cabable ship with a lot of fancy gadgets, but it's still a disaster. And the reason why it's a disaster is it's price tag, for which money other countries can litterally build a small fleet of frigates/destroyers. Each of such ships might not be as cabable as the Type45, (though for me it's a challenge to understand how a ship with comparable stats (speed endurence etc), comparable sensor suites, comparable weapon systems etc can be non-comparable to the Type45) though at the very minimum the larger number of units, and the possible flexibility that brings, seems to speak a clear lanquage.

Secondly to my untrained eyes it seems that the RN operates a lot of different types of f.ex. different weapon systems, sensor systems and propulsion systems. That must be very expensive in f.ex. maintenance, spare parts and above all training. There does not seem to be a very high degree of technical conformity across the navy, but maybe that's my ignorence.
There are very few people here who will disagree that too few Type 45's have been bought. But when you're talking about those other ships you seem to have a certain ship in mind. You say that there is a similarly capable ship out there that can be bought much cheaper, if there is, i'm not aware of it.

As for the lack of technical conformity across the fleet, I take that as a good sign. If the systems on the Type 45's were the same as the systems on the Type 22 (1970's vintage) then i'd be pretty worried. All large navies have a large range of systems that stem from the fact that these ships serve for over 30 years and not everything can be swapped out/upgraded cost effectively. And different weapons systems can also be incredibly valuable. There are plenty of examples where, for example, one type of air defense system has not stopped a missile, but another will.

As for training, i'm not entirely sure how it works, but don't the crew tend to stick with a ship for a long time, so a different engine on another ship won't be a massive problem.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
@Grim

I didn't say a "similarly capable ship" Instead I said "comparable". Which is understood as f.ex. the abillity to lead an area airdefense, attack air targets 100km a way, sail this and that long etc.

I would claim that there is a number of ships that fall in that category.

If the systems on the Type 45's were the same as the systems on the Type 22 (1970's vintage) then i'd be pretty worried.
Yes, though my question is why do you have 70ties vintage systems sailing??? (question mark intended if the system is obsolete) I mean when they designed the type 22 (and hopefully also the type 45) didn't they figure out a way to incrementally update the platform? with a aim of not only keeping the subsystems of the platform up to date, but also in that way secure conformity across the fleet (F.ex. this year we update all the SAM system on RN's ships, next year we do the navigational system on all ships - what ever...)

As for training, i'm not entirely sure how it works, but don't the crew tend to stick with a ship for a long time, so a different engine on another ship won't be a massive problem.
It's obvious that you need less "school infrastructure", less maintaining of competences and cababilities and less trained persons if you have one system as opposed to multiple systems.

If you have system "X", f.ex. a missile system. You need a huge infrastructure to make sure that system "X" will be adequately handled and fired the day it matters. You need technicians, mechanics, software people, operators, spare parts etc etc. All that requires maintenance and importantly maintenance of human ressources. The competences or rather qualifications tend to be spefific for the specific system.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
Take the Type45, priced at 1bn pounds (each), it's a disaster, it might be a very cabable ship with a lot of fancy gadgets, but it's still a disaster. And the reason why it's a disaster is it's price tag, for which money other countries can litterally build a small fleet of frigates/destroyers. ...
It's about £600 million for each additional ship. BAe actually promises less, but they've not had a chance to prove it. Still expensive, but nowhere near £1 billion. The £1 billion price tag includes the considerable development cost of PAAMS, divided by 6. Also, the build cost started very high for Daring, & has reduced for each subsequent ship. There's a lot of new stuff in those ships. I hope some of what's been developed is used in whatever we replace the frigates with, so we don't end up wasting money developing yet more new systems.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
Swerve

Yes, I think that the MoD claims 500M as the sail away cost. Though that does not change the fact that those 6 ships has had a cost of 6bn, but maybe the british taxpayers get's royalties every time a PAAMS system should be sold...?
 

windscorpion

New Member
Very good, i shall link to it from my mil blog

#1 is the key one, "Keep the Tesco shelves full, save the Royal Navy" is the slogan i burped up earlier.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
9. Supporting manufacturing, industry, research and science.

Isn't that a fine example of mistaking cause and effect?
I would claim that a very big problem is exactly that RN is obviously being used as a tool in UK industrial policy. When you use defense spending to boost industry you pump up costs and reduces cost-benefit, which leads to responsible people - like those that actually earn the money, or representatives thereof - to think "Well that's a money sink, shouldn't we use our money on something that give us more value?".
 

sandyboy

New Member
Yep I totally agree that defence industrial policy is a political football being abused by politicians and a gravy train for certain corporations. Never the less, equipping the RN still provides jobs in cutting edge manufacturing in this country that probably would not otherwise exist. It is not the fault of the RN that there is so much wastage - it's a combination of civil service bureaucracy/empire building and above all self-interested politicians and who have failed to keep greedy and even corrupt industries in check.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
provides jobs in cutting edge manufacturing in this country that probably would not otherwise exist.
Well isn't that one of the points that I never get tired of beating on:) : There is, from an economical point of view, no purpose in trying to keep an uncompetiative industry afloat by subsidies. What people forget is that the persons who are employed in these subsidised industries, could be employed in something with a future - something in which the collected tax revenue is not infact money that was given out to begin with, and these people are not the bottom of the barrel. It is extreamly easy to figure out better uses for our tax money than over pay company XXX for developing some item.

An example: In my country we have a very large shipping industry and it's part of the national ethos that, that is something we are good at. So succesive goverments have been very nice to exactly the shipping industry. So "our" shipping industry got a huge list of different tax rebates and stuff that you don't have to pay if you are a shipping company etc. And every year the "Branche Organisation of shipping" (kinda like a trade union of the owners of shipping industry) publishes "facts and Figures" that show how many billions that industry has "sailed home" as they like to put it. What they forget is that a large workforce is employed in that industry and the state simply doesn't tax them efficiently like they do the rest of us grunts who happen to be in a more earthly industry. So from the view point of the state and indeed the socity it would be better (as in a higher tax provenu) if we outsourced the shipping industry and had the people employed there, do the same stuff like the rest of us - in industries that doesn't need to be favorably treated, because we are infact competiative.

Where favorable treatment can be called for is a always short termed situation in which an promising industry is getting a start or if, an otherwise healthy industry, is in a situation where other international competitors are cheating (subsidies).
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
The real truth of the matter the most important influence of government is the handling of their monetary system. Many governments manipulate the value of their money, and as long as that continues, one way or another a subsidy exists. So we have gone from subsidizing the military industrial complex to the value of a nation's currency. Frankly, that is what governments do....
 

windscorpion

New Member
It might make more economic sense to outsource the manufacture of your armaments but it doesn't make more strategic sense.

Anyway the defence budget is being reduced by 2 billion and its unlikely to rise anytime soon. Any lingering hopes for more T45s has probably now gone :rolleyes:
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
but it doesn't make more strategic sense.
It makes a hell of a lot more strategical sense to be able to afford your army prober equipment.

The idea that France or UK should become more dependent on, say, Germany because they buy a german gun is stupid. Allready now Germany holds influence over respectively France and UK and they over Germany of a different and larger magnitude than weapons can achive.

In the modern world, conventional weapons holds no bargaining chip between large countries. People should understand that. If the french should want to influence UK or german policy they have much more effective means to that end.

Ofcourse you should only buy weapons of your dependable friends, that's given.
 

Grim901

New Member
It makes a hell of a lot more strategical sense to be able to afford your army prober equipment.

The idea that France or UK should become more dependent on, say, Germany because they buy a german gun is stupid. Allready now Germany holds influence over respectively France and UK and they over Germany of a different and larger magnitude than weapons can achive.

In the modern world, conventional weapons holds no bargaining chip between large countries. People should understand that. If the french should want to influence UK or german policy they have much more effective means to that end.

Ofcourse you should only buy weapons of your dependable friends, that's given.
@your first sentence: No, that is good financial and possibly political sense, but strategically it is always worse, if only slightly, to rely on anyone except yourself.

I think you've missed the point that our dependable friends (as France and Germany are now most of the time) can't supply our weapons/ships much cheaper than our own industries already. Obviously joint projects can be good for both sides if they meet the necessary requirements for each of us. There are plenty of examples of it eg. Eurofighter, and on the Naval side of things the PA2 might be a good future example.

The only places I cn think of that could build our ships A LOT cheaper are not dependable enough/skilled enough with advanced technology to be of any use to us.

I agree there are areas where there could be more cooperation could go on to streamline European procurement, perhaps that something that could happen with the C2 and C3 areas of FSC, but you have to accept that sometimes you have to build things yourself to get what you need. And it's not always ad to buy from your own country.

@Windscorpion: Wrong way round, there is £2 billion more than expected on this years defence budget for supporting overseas operation i.e. supporting our new UOR purchases. And who knows, maybe the Tory's won't be complete blithering idiots when they come in next year and will raise the budget.
 

windscorpion

New Member
According to this site its 2 billion less

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9268

"On a day in which very little was provided for the MoD in the budget, the Treasury revealed that in 2010-11, funding for the MoD will be slashed by £2bn from £38.7bn to £36.7bn, a cut of 5.16 per cent."

I just downloaded the budget red book or whatever from the Treasury site and the figures seem correct.

As to the what happens if you stop building things yourself question, 1 word : Astute
 

kev 99

Member
According to this site its 2 billion less

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9268

"On a day in which very little was provided for the MoD in the budget, the Treasury revealed that in 2010-11, funding for the MoD will be slashed by £2bn from £38.7bn to £36.7bn, a cut of 5.16 per cent."

I just downloaded the budget red book or whatever from the Treasury site and the figures seem correct.

As to the what happens if you stop building things yourself question, 1 word : Astute
I think it's more money this year due to a reporting change and less money next year:

MoD facing billions in cuts in 2010
Thursday, April 23, 2009

The MoD is facing a funding time bomb after Alistair Darling's yearly budget revealed that next year the ministry's funding will be slashed by £2bn.

On a day in which very little was provided for the MoD in the budget, the Treasury revealed that in 2010-11, funding for the MoD will be slashed by £2bn from £38.7bn to £36.7bn, a cut of 5.16 per cent.

The revelation is damaging to say the least for the department. Already the MoD faces an expensive procurement wish list that must be cut and a £2bn budget deficit in addition to the costly and ongoing war in Afghanistan. All of these problems were present in last year's budget.

For this year the department's budget will rise by £800m. Darling did promise an additional £50m for upgrades to service accommodations.

It is unclear how the MoD will come up with the savings. Treasury projections have the Mo D creating £315m in savings this year alone. To an extent these could be factored into the cuts next year but efficiency savings targets are not always met and often are grossly overestimated.

With the huge budget cut looming, the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, the oil pipelines run by the MoD and the an animal training facility for bomb sniffer dogs and horses will most likely be sold off to the private sector. For the last five months all three have been rumoured to be on the sale block. Other agencies that could produce a substantial profit and huge savings may also be reviewed for sell off.

In terms of procurement, more delays and cuts can be expected this year. Britain now appears likely to cut the A400M, especially after statistics acquired by the Conservatives showed that the RAF could save £900m from buying 25 C-130s instead of 25 A400Ms. The Nimrod replacement programme, one of the most severely delayed and over budget programmes in recent memory may also be axed and replaced by a cheaper off the shelf model from the US. FRES's future will continue to be held in limbo. Although ministers claim that the vehicle programme is still alive and that decisions will begin to be made early in 2010, this now appears highly unlikely given the £3bn pricetag. More delays can be expected.

Defence analysts have told Defencemanagement.com in recent weeks that the purchase of 150 Joint Strike Fighters is also highly unlikely. A purchase will be made, but most likely in the range of 75-80 aircraft, maybe less, one defence economist said.

All of this will serve as a backdrop to the ongoing war in Afghanistan which is requiring more money and troops on an annual basis as the intensity of the conflict grows. Defence Secretary John Hutton wants the MoD to focus its procurement spending on current operations. The Treasury has already expressed concerns about how much a troop surge will cost and has put a ceiling on urgent operational requirement spending for this year at £635m, £265m less than 2008-09. Anything over this amount will have to come from the MoD's own budget.

Darling's budget was expected to be bleak for most departments in Whitehall, but the MoD, already in financial difficulty, is far worse off today than it was yesterday.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9268
 

Grim901

New Member
Just to clear this budget thing up:

Windscorpion; your figures are right but the interpretation is not. THIS year ('09-'10) the funding is being given a £2billion boost over what was previously stated. The NEXT year ('10-'11) the funding will return to what it was predicted to be, basically the same as this year + inflation. So while it looks like a reduction, it's actually a return to normal after the surge of this year's budget.

The figures should back that up.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
Grim

I am 100% certain that if the Type45 had been in a free bidding round, it would have been substancially cheaper. Maybe it would still have been builded in the UK, I don't know. Maybe, or likely, it would also have been a different project. Becuse if the public send something into a free bidding round, the cardinal point becomes what it gets and not which gifts - and if that's too offensive for the weak hearted; then bones to chew on - one can hand out to friends.
 
Top