The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

I note with some satisfaction that the Trident missile system replacement, currently comprising four Vanguard-class submarines, has passed the vote in the Commons. Lets hope addional funds will be made available going forward.

It will be interesting to hear if the MOD receives additional funds following the budget announcement this month, fingers crossed. Press coverage pushing for an increase (Telegraph / Times & redtops) coupled with the publics support for the armed forces has sent the right message to the Chanceller, and convinced him wars actually do cost money, kit wears out and soldiers need looking after!

The attached link shows a Vanguard class submerine. I note with interest the rectangler plate running along the side (recent addition). One suspects this is part of an upgrade to the the sonar system - correct?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/te...opup.jsp?id=1515254&&offset=0&&sectionName=UK

 

[Simster]

In relation to this thread, a report written at the Lowy Institute seems to sum up some of the current decisions being made by the Labour govt. in Britain. www. lowyinstitute.org/PublicationGet.asp?i= 538

 

[Dave H]

It seems the current UK Government has the cheek to demand that successfull UK defence companies merge and consolidate before a 50 year lifespan carrier is finally ordered for a relatively small £3.8 billion......meanwhile the cost of the 2012 Olympics rockets to £9.3 billion which will soar further and be a month long flash in the pan. That really sums up the UK today. How about letting Paris host the Olympics and we finally get our carriers?!!

On another note the commons vote on Trident should at least put some sub building work into the yards post 2020, so it would seem that astutes will have to be built in the meantime to keep the technology in the meantime.

The first steel has been cut last month on the sixth Type 45 and I found a link from Wiki that suggests that we have so far ordered 7 of the SMART-L variant radars so perhaps one more Type 45 at the very least?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

That really sums up the UK today. How about letting Paris host the Olympics and we finally get our carriers?!!

Dave, that is such a silly statement - you know perfectly well that the Olympics is not sucking money from the MoD. If there was no Olympics the Treasury would be no more generous towards the armed forces than it is going to be.

According to all reports CVF is on course for an official decision this year. However if you say "it won't happen" six-hundred and sixty-six times it might just fail.

The first steel has been cut last month on the sixth Type 45 and I found a link from Wiki that suggests that we have so far ordered 7 of the SMART-L variant radars so perhaps one more Type 45 at the very least?

Depends where it's going - Saudi are interested in a couple.

 

[Systems Adict]

I found a link from Wiki that suggests that we have so far ordered 7 of the SMART-L variant radars so perhaps one more Type 45 at the very least?

Sorry, but the programme for the current 6 ship could actually need 7 (LRR) radars, (or so i'm led to believe).

6 for the ships & 1 for the blot on the landscape above Portsmouth at Portsdown Hill, commonly known as the M.I.S.C.

This set is being used to help take a large portion of the risk out of the testing & integration R & D that's needed with a new systems.

Once testing is completed it could be left there to used to develop the system further (or even a replacement for it !!), removed, refurbished & utilised in the spares process, for thru life support, or to fit to a new RN training facility that will be required for operation & maintenace.


Systems Adict

 

[rickusn]

Update:

From The Times
March 15, 2007


Navy deal launches system of incentives



David Robertson


The Treasury and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have agreed a £3.9 billion budget to build two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, The Times has learnt.
An announcement is expected before Easter after long talks between the consortium that will build the carriers — led by BAE Systems and Thales UK — and the Government.
The budget includes incentives to lower the price, with the shipbuilders taking a share of any cost reductions. This is seen as a key change in defence procurement and is likely to set the standard in future.
Under terms of the contract, the top price for the two ships will be £3.9 billion and it is hoped that savings will eventually cut that to £3.6 billion.
A further incentive programme will encourage the shipbuilders to share costs with France, which is also preparing to build a carrier. This could save a further £300 million.
Apart from BAE Systems, the consortium includes VT Group and Babcock. Thales UK is responsible for design.
The Future Carrier Alliance, as the consortium is known, is an attempt by the MoD to pool industrial talent and get away from the procurement culture of cost overruns and production delays.
Although Lord Drayson, the Defence Procurement Minister, is expected to confirm the decision to go ahead with the carriers by Easter, a formal contract is unlikely to be signed before the autumn.
The ships will be called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales and will form the backbone of the Royal Navy for 30 years. They are due to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Sounds good, rick. Confirms what I've heard previously about the Treasury agreeing to stump up the cash. When you add that to the other announcement in the Times that BAE and VT have agreed to get ShipCo going, looks like the RN will be able to celebrate next month (or maybe wait until the order is signed in the Summer/Autumn).

 

[Rich]

If the building process follows thru with the plans Ive seen for these carriers then they should indeed be impressive ships. One problem I have however is if the Brits want them big enough to retain the eventual option of installing standard decks why even build the ski jumps in the first place. Why not just build them as standard carriers and load them up with USN version F-35s?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

One problem I have however is if the Brits want them big enough to retain the eventual option of installing standard decks why even build the ski jumps in the first place. Why not just build them as standard carriers and load them up with USN version F-35s?

Because fitting them out that way costs a fair bit more money, and the MoD/RN is not flush with cash. Also they're not sure about whether they want STOVL or CTOL in the long-run yet.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Probably a silly question guys but, did the RN use air to air refuleing for the sea harrier (at sea i mean), if so how (what platform did they use, buddy). Also, what was the capability of the Airborn radar used on the invincible class?

 

[swerve]

Because fitting them out that way costs a fair bit more money, and the MoD/RN is not flush with cash. Also they're not sure about whether they want STOVL or CTOL in the long-run yet.

The RN & RAF have both been fond of STOVL for a long time. The RN loved being ablt to deploy spare Harriers on merchant ships & fly them over to the carriers in the Falklands war. MoD likes a joint RN/RAF F-35 force, with the flexibility to use all sorts of platforms. The CTOL option seems to be seen as a backup in case STOVL aircraft cease to be available.

I still think there's a case for completing the carriers as hybrids, with catapult(s) on the angled deck. Would enable the use of CTOL AEW aircraft, which would be a considerable advantage. Doesn't lool likely to happen, though.

 

[Dave H]

The point Im making Musashi is about the amazing mismanagement of projects that politicians are guilty of whilst at the same time beating industry over the head for far less costly blunders. The Govt audit offices point to Nimrod and Astute cost overruns as bad examples whilst in the case of the Olympics we see a £6 billion jump in the space of a year. The politicians lied in the first place. Add massive computer failure across government departments and the situation of farce is hard not to laugh at. A blunder that would pay for 25% of the Trident repalcement, 4 carriers or25 hospitals.

As to a wider point, no, the MOD budget wont be cut to pay for the Olympics as such but the overall "pot" from which all government departments beg from may well be. If its 9 billion now I dont think 12-15 billion will be far from the figure come 2012. I think, though I stand corrected if wrong, didnt Greece delay some military purchases to pay for their own costly Olympic spend? Im not saying we are the same as Greece (no disprespect to the Greeks).

The security of the project is also in the planning stages which will require some diverting of police resources and those of the military (excellent training of course) so it will have an impact across the board of government budgets, no matter how small.

Also as a side point, the lottery funding which is being stolen to pay for this error could indeed deprive grants to ex service personnel etc, not directly related to our defence but I think still important.

I think they will be ordered soon, though I have searched for comments from dour Gordon Brown and can find none. Hopefully the contract is signed pre June, then Blair goes and then Brown is stuck with the decision until He loses the election, by then we can hope Iraq and Afghanistan will be over and the funding for more warships will come through.

 

[Systems Adict]

Also, what was the capability of the Airborn radar used on the invincible class?

Try this link...


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/

 

[Systems Adict]

One problem I have however is if the Brits want them big enough to retain the eventual option of installing standard decks why even build the ski jumps in the first place. Why not just build them as standard carriers and load them up with USN version F-35s?

At the moment the decision hasn't been made on the equipment fit to be used for aircraft launching, although it is rumoured that they have been looking at a magnetic launch system that's being developed in the US.

To allow for this to be retro fitted, or the standard steam powered catapult, they have left the appropriate space envelop, & fitted the ski ramp option as it's tried & tested.

Systems Adict

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The Govt audit offices point to Nimrod and Astute cost overruns as bad examples whilst in the case of the Olympics we see a £6 billion jump in the space of a year.

Dave, you know why Nimrod and Astute overrun - the first because the original plan was to use existing, old airframes that did not have uniform specifications and the second because nuclear technology can be a difficult kettle-of-fish. As to the Olympics, the government lied to the people (whereas the builders know what it will cost).

Now, let's look at CVF. It has been carefully examined and planned. BAE has stopped low-balling costs as it knows asking for more money later is a problem. The cost deliberations are between the government and industry, not the populace - industry doesn't care what the politicians say in public, they want the money they require. So unless there are unforseen problems, which there shouldn't be with a conventionally-powered design, the budget should be fine - and there might even be a few savings off the top £3.9 billion figure.

 

[swerve]

...whilst in the case of the Olympics we see a £6 billion jump in the space of a year. ....

90% of which is presentation, i.e. including costs in the headline figure which were always going to have to be spent, but weren't included in the original headline figure, which was only for the cost of building the Olympic venue. That's gone up from £2.4 bn to £3.1 bn.

Other costs not in the original figure -
Infrastructure - £1.7 bn (roads, railways, bridges, etc)
Tax - which will, in any case, be paid by the government to itself - £840 mn
Security - £600mn
Contingency for overspend - £2.7 bn

...
If its 9 billion now I dont think 12-15 billion will be far from the figure come 2012....

Note the last figure above. It's actually £6.65 bn gross, less than £6bn net of tax, with a growth contingency of £2.7 bn. And that £6 bn includes the security costs you worry about impacting on other budgets.

So what have we really got? Someone has finally come clean about the real budget, which anyone who gave the original figures even a cursory glance realised was a multiple of them, & it's being misrepresented as the difference between the new figure & the old figure all being an increase in costs. Even fooled you.

But I agree with you about the lottery funding.

 

[swerve]

...Now, let's look at CVF. It has been carefully examined and planned. BAE has stopped low-balling costs as it knows asking for more money later is a problem. The cost deliberations are between the government and industry, not the populace - industry doesn't care what the politicians say in public, they want the money they require. So unless there are unforseen problems, which there shouldn't be with a conventionally-powered design, the budget should be fine - and there might even be a few savings off the top £3.9 billion figure.

One good thing about this is that the govt. appears to have decided to set aside what BAe says it will actually cost to build them (which I presume they've been able to justify - they've spent long enough analysing it), plus a small contingency, rather than trying to squeeze the price down to something unattainable & face a later cost explosion as all the cut corners have to be made good.

 

[overlander]

ships mothballed ??

i have read some time ago that the british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) had intentions that 18 ships would be mothballed, together with another heavy cut in the escort force reducing from 25 to 19 frigates and destroyers, some news about it ?? other question do you think that if conservatives win next election this situation could change and they would spend more money in defence, especially in the navy ??

 

[Dave H]

The Trident vote last week makes an interesting future debate at least on the basing of the Trident boats and their replacement. Of the 54 Scottish MP's, 33 voted against the Government decision to replace Trident and 21 in favour. A poll in the Scotsman after a Labour MP quit produced a 95% suport for him from those who polled (though who trusts pollsters?!)

Therefore we have a Scottish Parliament where the majority are against Trident and the deterrent itself. Will that mean that it will be politically untenable to continue to base a nuclear deterrent in Scotland.

Portland could perhaps be reopened?

 

[contedicavour]

i have read some time ago that the british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) had intentions that 18 ships would be mothballed, together with another heavy cut in the escort force reducing from 25 to 19 frigates and destroyers, some news about it ?? other question do you think that if conservatives win next election this situation could change and they would spend more money in defence, especially in the navy ??

I've read about similar rumours concerning the mothballing of the 2 Type 42s and the 4 remaining Broadsword Batch 3. Hence the reduction from 25 to 19.

By the way, I've just read that the Pentagon has asked the 2 builders of LCS to absorb any cost overruns or otherwise the funding for the continuation of the construction would be frozen... same issues different countries

cheers