The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[AndrewMI]

Perhaps. It might make sense for the C2 to go into concept phase after the war in Afganistan, when you can afford to take a more circumspect picture.

There will be a few unallocated Goalkeeper systems flying about after T-22. 6 from invincible/illustrious and 4 from the T-22. 10 in total. I presume 4 will be fitted to each of the new carriers, leaving 2 spares.

How many Phalanx systems do we have? Although they are pooled, given there would be a "need" for upto 12 on T-45, 20 on T-26 as well as an unspecified amount on, for example Ocean, any LPH(R) or C3. Presumably we should be buying more in the future?

 

[StevoJH]

I wonder if there will be a C2 now or if a few of the T26 will be fitted for but not with. 2031 is a long time off but could it be the escort fleet will be 16 ships by then (6 T45 & 10 T26). We could be at 19 fairly soon if the 4 T22 get axed in defence cuts post the election?

Current plans at 6 T45 + 15 Frigates from the early 2020's until the mid-late 2030's when the number of frigates will increase back to 17. Thats also about the time that the T45's will start needing replacement.

 

[AndrewMI]

If the escort feet is 24 ships, with 6 air defence ships, that seems a little unbalanced to me (fleet being 6 T45, 10 T26 and 8 T27)

Not having the extra 2 T 45 i am sure will prove a mistake, or at least provide difficulties during their lifetime.

 

[StevoJH]

If the escort feet is 24 ships, with 6 air defence ships, that seems a little unbalanced to me (fleet being 6 T45, 10 T26 and 8 T27)

Not having the extra 2 T 45 i am sure will prove a mistake, or at least provide difficulties during their lifetime.

21 Ships. 6 T45's and 15 T23/T26 + 2 more T26 commissioned after the last T23's retire. --> 23 ships

 

[1805]

I think it will be unlikely now that the RN will see 23 escorts, with an elections and SDR in the next 12 months. A easy target is the T22, old and out of date Sea Wolf, with heavy crews.

 

[AndrewMI]

I think it will be unlikely now that the RN will see 23 escorts, with an elections and SDR in the next 12 months. A easy target is the T22, old and out of date Sea Wolf, with heavy crews.

The same does apply for the T23 remember.... albeit a VLS system.

The debate on Sky this evening should be enlightening. In reality i am not sure there is much "fat" that can be cut from procurement projects, other than in terms of wasteage, without radical re-organisation/reduction of force levels.

The more likely targets for cuts will be the welfare state inc the NHS. Although i do not have figures to support this, i believe spending in these areas have exploded since 1997.

the RN i think is the least likely of the forces to recieve cuts in long term projects, due to its immense flexibility.

 

[1805]

Thinking of cost savings someone mentioned building the SSBN with only 6 missiles, as the interstate risk is probably very low at present, you could build with say 8 silos and only fit 6 missiles. I don't know how many Trident missiles we have currently, I assume enough for all 4 boats, 64? If you went for say 24 missiles enough for 4 boats at 6 or 3 at 8?

 

[Grim901]

Thinking of cost savings someone mentioned building the SSBN with only 6 missiles, as the interstate risk is probably very low at present, you could build with say 8 silos and only fit 6 missiles. I don't know how many Trident missiles we have currently, I assume enough for all 4 boats, 64? If you went for say 24 missiles enough for 4 boats at 6 or 3 at 8?

We have 58 missiles I think, but we don't keep them all aboard and ready to fire I believe, usually only on the boat on patrol and the back up on standby.

It'd actually be cheaper just to use a common US missile compartment design (16 tubes) and leave a few empty if the 12 missiles per boat idea is used.

Designing with fewer tubes as you suggest makes it much harder to increase capacity should the threat level ever increase again (lets keep in mind the length of time these boats will be operating, you have to think ahead.).

 

[1805]

We have 58 missiles I think, but we don't keep them all aboard and ready to fire I believe, usually only on the boat on patrol and the back up on standby.

It'd actually be cheaper just to use a common US missile compartment design (16 tubes) and leave a few empty if the 12 missiles per boat idea is used.

Designing with fewer tubes as you suggest makes it much harder to increase capacity should the threat level ever increase again (lets keep in mind the length of time these boats will be operating, you have to think ahead.).

I would be surpised if 8 silos cost as much as 16, these are not really mass produced units and the design work is not going to be huge if your reducing by half. I obviously could confirm either way, as its a long way away. I did hear the RN was considering 12 silos, if this is the case they must see a saving.

On the subject of ways to save money, I wonder if a French missile would be cheaper or more expensive or for that matter whether the French have consider less silos?

 

[Grim901]

I would be surpised if 8 silos cost as much as 16, these are not really mass produced units and the design work is not going to be huge if your reducing by half. I obviously could confirm either way, as its a long way away. I did hear the RN was considering 12 silos, if this is the case they must see a saving.

On the subject of ways to save money, I wonder if a French missile would be cheaper or more expensive or for that matter whether the French have consider less silos?

Actually the reduction to 12 was more of a government policy decision ("look at us reducing our nuclear weapons, aren't we brilliant?"), that may not even actually be happening. And a 50% saving in design costs (assuming an even split) would probably save more than the steel required to build the units. Designing something as complex as a ballistic missile compartment (with built in future-proofing for the next gen. missile) actually does cost a fair bit.

And the French missiles will cost more because there are a lot less of them than Trident. Economies of scale will affect it. And I doubt the French are considering less since they don't need to replace theirs for many years.

 

[idiana]

though the Royal Navy is the 2nd. naval power in the world , that´s why they easily won the Falkland war

 

[MrQuintus]

Actually the reduction to 12 was more of a government policy decision ("look at us reducing our nuclear weapons, aren't we brilliant?"), that may not even actually be happening. And a 50% saving in design costs (assuming an even split) would probably save more than the steel required to build the units. Designing something as complex as a ballistic missile compartment (with built in future-proofing for the next gen. missile) actually does cost a fair bit.

And the French missiles will cost more because there are a lot less of them than Trident. Economies of scale will affect it. And I doubt the French are considering less since they don't need to replace theirs for many years.

Actually the compartment design is going to be pretty cheap, it's a development of the tech used to build the Ohio class SSGNs and the block III Virginias

 

[Grim901]

Actually the compartment design is going to be pretty cheap, it's a development of the tech used to build the Ohio class SSGNs and the block III Virginias

But for us to get those savings we have to use the common US compartment, thus my point about not using a smaller compartment.

 

[PeterCrisp]

though the Royal Navy is the 2nd. naval power in the world , that´s why they easily won the Falkland war

I think you underestimate how close the UK task force came to losing the Falklands war. Being British I'd love to say that the UK armed forces kicked arse but I'm afraid we just didn't. Had the Argentinians managed to sink a couple more support vessels and hold out a bit longer they could have had the task force in real trouble.
I'm not sure why they didn't just send all the aircraft they had all at once in one massive blob as I'm not sure even the harriers and air defence vessels could have done much against that.

The Falklands was far from easy.

 

[1805]

I think you underestimate how close the UK task force came to losing the Falklands war. Being British I'd love to say that the UK armed forces kicked arse but I'm afraid we just didn't. Had the Argentinians managed to sink a couple more support vessels and hold out a bit longer they could have had the task force in real trouble.
I'm not sure why they didn't just send all the aircraft they had all at once in one massive blob as I'm not sure even the harriers and air defence vessels could have done much against that.

The Falklands was far from easy.

Yes agree, but I love this picture:

View attachment 4061

One of the greatest moments.....Leach telling Margaret Thatcher that if we didn't retake them, we would be living in another country......re-birth of our national pride.

 

[swerve]

....I'm not sure why they didn't just send all the aircraft they had all at once in one massive blob as I'm not sure even the harriers and air defence vessels could have done much against that. ...

They couldn't.

Their bases were too far away. They couldn't take off, wait for others to take off, form up, & attack together: the attack aircraft couldn't carry enough fuel for that. They had to take off & fly more or less directly to the target.

Flying low, to give minimum radar warning, limited range still further, necessitating in-flight refuelling - and they had exactly two tankers. As it was, they're reported to have lost a few to fuel exhaustion, & the tankers were often (according to published accounts by their crews) operating right on their own limits, watching their own fuel gauges anxiously as they loitered waiting for someone who'd ditch if he didn't make the rendezvous. Even tankers are reported to have landed on fumes more than once, no margin, no fuel left to go round.

A stream of attackers, flying at optimum cruising speed & altitude to conserve fuel, was feasible, but that would just have presented the RN with a succession of easy, predictable, targets.

 

[PeterCrisp]

I keep forgetting how far away the islands are from the mainland as maps show it as right next to Argentina when in fact it's quite a long way away. Did the UK have a second task force if the first failed?

 

[swerve]

Did the UK have a second task force if the first failed?

Illustrious was being rushed to completion, & could have sailed in June to reinforce the task force if needed, but apart from that, I can't see anything else in the pipeline that would have made a difference.

It would depend on the nature of the failure, I suppose.

 

[Sea Toby]

I keep forgetting how far away the islands are from the mainland as maps show it as right next to Argentina when in fact it's quite a long way away. Did the UK have a second task force if the first failed?

There are other islands off the coasts of other nations in the same situation as the Falklands. We don't hear of the Canadians demanding the French islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon off the coast of Newfoundland. By the way both of these islands are much closer..

I can think of three large islands offhand that are divided by two nations, New Guinea, Ireland, and Hispanola.

The Baltic Sea island of Bornholm is closer to Sweden than Denmark. Closeness doesn't necessarily reward sovereignty...

 

[PeterCrisp]

Sorry for any confusion here I just meant it looks on a map like aircraft could just pop over to the Falklands from Argentina without to much hassle rather than it being a sovereignty issue.
Whether or not the UK deserves to keep control of the island is a matter for the islanders themselves and they seem to want to stay British for now.
You also now have the problem that it would not look great to give away land that men have fought and died for.