The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Locarnus]

Would a nuclear equipped F-35 (with a cruise missile I suppose) based on the carriers be much cheaper than a fleet of subs? Obviously it's a tad more visible than a sub until the boffins can make a carrier somehow disappear but it still gives global coverage and reach.

It would be meaningless to replace a second strike capability with an increased capability for only first strikes.

I am not sure you would see a full EU wide open market for defence certainly in all areas. Some in particular are seen as strategic.

Especially for regional econ, and thus for votes in some areas. And with large companies (eg BAE) involved, also for nationwide votes and party donations/support.

 

[AndrewMI]

I disagree. The whole point of CASD is that a potential foe must assume that the missiles are always ready to launch, detecting the boat (God forbid) would merely confirm that assumption.

Now, if we decided to employ some of those missiles in the global (conventional) strike role, that *would* cause confusion as a potential foe wouldn't know if any detected launch was conventional or nuclear.

WillS

You are correct, but Deep16 is correct also. You cannot blur the line between an SSN and SSBN. It is imperative that they are distinctly seperate boats (if detected).

What you cannot have is someone tailing a submarine, not knowing whether it is a "boomer" or not.

 

[Hambo]

Would a nuclear equipped F-35 (with a cruise missile I suppose) based on the carriers be much cheaper than a fleet of subs? Obviously it's a tad more visible than a sub until the boffins can make a carrier somehow disappear but it still gives global coverage and reach.

Thats not global reach, 500 miles for F35 plus 1000m range missile. At best one carrier would be at sea at anyone time, the best it could do would be to make 25knots towards the threat. A deterrent needs to be instant, not taking 2 weeks to get there on a carrier, or several days to fly with tanker support to a friendly airfield. An delay and the CND types would be screaming that we shouldnt retaliate, even when Leeds or Manchester is on fire.

The problem is we dont yet know the diameter of Trident E6, and from that the launch tube size, if we did it would be quite possible to design a modified Astute (batch 2) that can fire 4 or maybe 6 Tridents. 4 would be ok, that would be 40 warheads and decoys, enough to deal with most threats and potential ABM defences, meaning we would only need to buy a small number of missiles, still viable but cheaper.

Even better if the trident tube could accpet a plug in tomahawk module, maybe an 8-pack of tomahawks?. Then just knock out Astute Batch2's as infrequently as needed to keep the idustry alive.

Or build a new long range bomber based on an airliner, re-invent something like skybolt with hypersonic speed and keep a permanent airborne presence.......but that is pure fantasy and unnaffordable.

Or build a dozen silos in the penines for an ICBM and invest in an ABM system to protect them, again not one for the NIMBY's and probably against arms treaties?

Based on the life costs the deterrent isnt that expensive . The economy will pick up, the banks seem to be making profits again and if this coalition cut to far they will be out in four years .

 

[WillS]

You are correct, but Deep16 is correct also. You cannot blur the line between an SSN and SSBN. It is imperative that they are distinctly seperate boats (if detected).

What you cannot have is someone tailing a submarine, not knowing whether it is a "boomer" or not.

But wouldn't that happen already with the USN's SSGNs? Would a tailing boat/frigate/ASW aircraft know the difference between a boomer Ohio SSBN and a converted Ohio SSGN?

WillS

 

[swerve]

Would a nuclear equipped F-35 (with a cruise missile I suppose) based on the carriers be much cheaper than a fleet of subs? Obviously it's a tad more visible than a sub until the boffins can make a carrier somehow disappear but it still gives global coverage and reach.

No, it doesn't give global reach. It couldn't reach anywhere near as deep inland as an SLBM. Combine the range of current air-launched missiles, & the range of an F-35, & assume the carrier stays far enough offshore to not have to fight coastal defences, & you find that there are quite a few places it can't hit. Also, a carrier isn't 'a tad' more visible, but vastly more visible. One of the great advantages of SSBNs is that unless you're extremely good at tracking submarines you don't even know which ocean the sub is in.

 

[deepsixteen]

But wouldn't that happen already with the USN's SSGNs? Would a tailing boat/frigate/ASW aircraft know the difference between a boomer Ohio SSBN and a converted Ohio SSGN?

WillS

No. Which is why the idea is very scary from my perspective, the USSR didn’t like the introduction of trident as it is very accurate with potential to be used as a first strike weapon.

Fortunately it is unlikely that any of the potential enemies could detect the SSBN/SSGN unless they were very lucky or the driver messes up.

 

[deepsixteen]

Look at the launchers. They are not reloaded automatically from a magazine. To install a Sea Dart mount you would need a magazine directly below the launcher, there is no evidence that the magazine is located there in the T22.

Regarding the directors, even if it can handle the weight, where do you plan on putting them? There are also space constraints.

Maybe the 909 and 910 functions could have been combined into one set? Common practice in earlier vessels would suggest that the arrangement to reload would have a ready use magazine close to the launcher and at least one deep magazine with a hoist to the same deck as the ready use magazine and launcher.
As I said I have never set foot on a 22 the thrust of the conversation with 1805 is with regard to what constitutes an acceptable warship and what would have constituted an adaptable and successful vessel of the period. Obviously the 22 would have required considerable modification to mount a Sea Dart as fitted to the fleet but could a VLS have been used or a lighter single arm launcher?

I hope that times have changed and that the Type 26 is a versatile and adaptable design with plenty of export potential. Given the advantage of modern VLS systems I would hope that the capacity for a large number of cells is included even if not fitted initially as I suspect that this will give the ship a capacity to evolve given the wide range of missile systems that can be launched from them.

 

[deepsixteen]

WillS re #4615

Maybe I am I just gave my perception based on my experiences. I have been involved in many RAMP’s DAMP’s LOPR’s and old fashioned refits over the years and I can assure you that SLEP’ing an SSBN is going to be a very complex and time consuming task they were designed and built to last a set period as has been said no problems with the yard or purchasing.
The lifecycle of the boats was meant to suit the build program that new labour ended leading to the huge cost of resurrecting the submarine building program for Astute.

 

[Palnatoke]

A few years back when the RN and UKGovt called in the USN and NAVSEA to assist with fixing up the Astutes, the US Dept of Commerce conducted an industry assessment on the UK maritime industry.

This was done to identify some of the problems that led to the problems that the UK had with fixing some of the design issues - a classified version of that report was provided to the UK and USGovt and to Aust.

The key punchlines that rang bells for australia as well as the UK was that our shipbuilding industries were at risk as soon as there was only a single customer - commercial advantage could not be realised in an articially sustained (Govt order) environment.

Unfort submarines are one of those platforms where you don't have private customers to absorb some of the sunk development costs, some of the tech developments (although both passive and active array tech is now being used in other areas). Govts therefore have to make a strategic decision to wear the hurt and absorb any unnatural costs that come along. Its made worse by the fact that outside of the US and Russia, most other countries do not have shipbuilding entities with both skimmer and sub building capability - so the skills base gets challenged as well

I take it that we mostly agree.
Vis a vis subs, my impression is that, eventhough the art of building subs is special and the market small, there must still be a considerable amount of "cross over skills" to ordinarry shipbuilding.
And concerning a "European Common defense marked" We have serveral yards that do build subs (Sweden, Spain, Germany, France,UK) and we have evenmore customers to those yards.
Eventhough far from perfect, I am certain that at least the theory will be quite clear; that such a marked is preferable to the national-centric one-on-one approch done for the moment.
(Btw, american commercial shipbuilding is not in a desirable state, clearly suffering from the bad effects of protectionalismn. Though their millitary shipbuilding is in a relatively better shape than most European same, though that doesn't say a lot)

 

[FluffyThoughts]

The problem with a European-wide defence procurement is national-pride.

Best SSN: Astute (UK)
Best SSK: U-2XX (DE)
Best DDG: Daring (UK)
Best ASW: Type-23 (UK) (with T26 to follow).

Best CVX: QE (UK)
Best CVS: Cavour (IT)
Best LHP: Ocean (UK)?
Best LHD: BPE (Esp)
Best LPD: Bay (Ned/UK)
Best OPV: Swerve's 'Spanish Vessels'?

If you are French President what is in it for you? Your tanks are rank, your APCs don't have market-mass and your aircraft struggle to match the best value that the world offers. As long as national 'treasures' are protected no defence rationalisation can exist within a European context. :rel

 

[harryriedl]

The problem with a European-wide defence procurement is national-pride.

Best SSN: Astute (UK)
Best SSK: U-2XX (DE)
Best DDG: Daring (UK)
Best ASW: Type-23 (UK) (with T26 to follow).

Best CVX: QE (UK)
Best CVS: Cavour (IT)
Best LHP: Ocean (UK)?
Best LHD: BPE (Esp)
Best LPD: Bay (Ned/UK)
Best OPV: Swerve's 'Spanish Vessels'?

If you are French President what is in it for you? Your tanks are rank, your APCs don't have market-mass and your aircraft struggle to match the best value that the world offers. As long as national 'treasures' are protected no defence rationalisation can exist within a European context. :rel

at least on the whole most Euro armies are buying most of their stuff from the same companies EADS, BAE, Finnamerrica (and others) and US contractors which is better than having a million and one different companies even if there are slight national variations at least it isn't quite as bad as it used to be

 

[WillS]

I take it that we mostly agree.
Vis a vis subs, my impression is that, eventhough the art of building subs is special and the market small, there must still be a considerable amount of "cross over skills" to ordinarry shipbuilding.
And concerning a "European Common defense marked" We have serveral yards that do build subs (Sweden, Spain, Germany, France,UK) and we have evenmore customers to those yards.
Eventhough far from perfect, I am certain that at least the theory will be quite clear; that such a marked is preferable to the national-centric one-on-one approch done for the moment.

The problem here is that although there are a fair amount of European yards building high-quality subs (and all of the nations you've mentioned here are turning out units which, if not comparable, then are at least ideally suited to the needs of their nation) some of the technology is less transferable between European 'partners'.

There is for instance a lot of technology know-how that the US is willing to share with the UK (and Can/Aus/NZ - the "5 Eyes" group) but would not share with with the French, Germans or anyone else.

I suspect there's stuff in the Astutes that cannot be shared outside UK/US defence circles. I'm not so sure this is fundamental to sub building (reactor core, hull design) or relates to fit-out materials like comms gear and weapon systems. If it's the later, then pan-european cooperation is possible, at least in theory.

The practice may be that even amongst SSN operating nations, the basic design philosophy is too different to merge. I'm not for instance sure if the French tendency to build 'small' SSNs is for operational reasons (Mediterranean?) or because they're behind the curve when it comes to SSN building, have gone about it the 'wrong' way (building SSBNs before SSNs and then starting SSN building by adapting a conventional design).

On the subject of US yard quality, I've noticed quite a few stories over the past few years about build quality problems with US Navy ships, particularly the new LPDs.

WillS

 

[WillS]

The problem with a European-wide defence procurement is national-pride.

Best SSN: Astute (UK)

Are we sure it's just national pride? Despite all being on (or just off of) the same continent, European nations do have different operational requirements. Might not your list read:

Best SSN (for the RN's needs): Astute
Best SSN (for the MN's needs): Barracuda

?

WillS

 

[AndrewMI]

I don't think we will ever get cross european cooperation on many major projects. Experiences on such projects as eurofighter and horizon will cause problems.

JV's on weapon systems could be the way forward, as opposed to the "headline" piece of kit.

 

[AegisFC]

On the subject of US yard quality, I've noticed quite a few stories over the past few years about build quality problems with US Navy ships, particularly the new LPDs.

WillS

Pretty much the problem is restricted to Avondale Shipyard that for a variety of reasons hasn't been putting out good work and by all indications is about to go under. No major problems have surfaced from the other yards the USN buys from.

 

[deepsixteen]

Are we sure it's just national pride? Despite all being on (or just off of) the same continent, European nations do have different operational requirements. Might not your list read:

Best SSN (for the RN's needs): Astute
Best SSN (for the MN's needs): Barracuda

?

WillS

Probably some differences in what MN wants for instance they seem to set the patrol length shorter than the RN but without a doubt I would not really want any other power to have too much of an insight into our boats.

 

[Systems Adict]

I take it that we mostly agree.
Vis a vis subs, my impression is that, eventhough the art of building subs is special and the market small, there must still be a considerable amount of "cross over skills" to ordinary shipbuilding.

Cross over skills ??

Well, you might say that any welder can weld & any Electrictian can wire up & connect things, but some of the trades used in Sub manufacture are somewhat specialist & don't transfer too well.

The biggest issue with such cross-over is that as most yards in the Industry do what they know, i.e. they stick to what they're good at. This is partly down to the way they are internally managed & the setup of plant & machinery for manufacturing particular types of vessel. Switching types (surface ships to subs & back), is costly, labour intensive & is classed as 'overhead' (i.e. using company funds to do work that is, in effect adding no value to profits).

(Btw, american commercial shipbuilding is not in a desirable state, clearly suffering from the bad effects of protectionalismn. Though their millitary shipbuilding is in a relatively better shape than most European same, though that doesn't say a lot)

The BIGGEST difference in Quality between Europe, the UK & our American allies across the pond is down to regulatory control & design / build tolerance.

The UK builds (IMHO), to the highest tolerances wrt customer demanded quality control. Europe is 2nd, with the Americans 3rd.

Now don't take that statement the wrong way !

In the US, they specify that they want a ship of 'X' by 'Y' by 'Z', capable to do 'A', 'B' & 'C' at # knots, utilising 'US Defence Standards'

In Europe, they'll do something similar, but define that it must be built to STANAG's (European Defence standard regulations), so that it can be tested & proved that it can do the task it is designed for.

In the UK, well we do all that, then the customer brings along his own set of rules. This means that not only does the ship have to comply with health & safety regulations within the UK, Europe & the rest of the planet, but it must comply with the regulations as laid down by the UK MoD.

...& what does all this mean ??

COST !

To meet the extremely high standards set by this 'legislation', all equipment from the weapons systems, down to the last nut & bolt, or paint coating must be proved & tested, making it more expensive & actually limits who it can be sold to.

While providing our Military with the best equipment, that will last the life of the ship (possibly explaining why the likes of India, Brazil & Chile are / where keen to buy Ex-RN vessels & are still able to run them some 20 years after they were 'disposed of' by the RN !), we have in effect, priced British shipbuilding off the budgets of many nations.


But getting back to the comment (seeing as someone else hasprobably passed comment while I drafted this :lul), American shipbuilding is no better / worse than European, it's just we are better suited to commercial shipbuilding, as we (Europe) have acted / reacted to demand over the last 40 years, changing to meet the demand, switching from maintaining territorial fleets, to cutting costs to the bone & giving the customer EXACTLY what they want, by improving build technology & techniques, producing specialist commercial vessels quickly & to cost.

Having said that, our Military shipbuilding can't compete with the likes of American demand, as we don't have the labour specialised force, can't get into 'America's closed shop' & we don't have the facilities, as they've been closed / flattened / turned into housing / shopping malls, all for profit ! !

But that's just my tuppence worth...

SA

 

[aussienscale]

In my opinion I think what is happening now is a transfer of supremecy in naval ship building. What I mean by this is that for a very long time the UK was master of naval ship building and design, probably until WWII. Then the US war machine caught up and overtook them in design and building capacity, and what is happening now is that Europe has now clawed that back. Yes the US has a huge capacity to produce, but I think that the UK and Europe now lead the way in design and are adapting better to the new requirements of Navy's around the world. But as stated the UK laws are definately pricing them out of the market and the US "Bigger is Better" mantality make many of their designs to intensive manpower wise for many to operate. This leaves yards around Europe to pick up some very lucrative contracts. I think the US can/have seen this coming for some time, but have not had the ability (or political willingness) to adapt as quickly

 

[Palnatoke]

Cross over skills ??

Well, you might say that any welder can weld & any Electrictian can wire up & connect things, but some of the trades used in Sub manufacture are somewhat specialist & don't transfer too well.

The biggest issue with such cross-over is that as most yards in the Industry do what they know, i.e. they stick to what they're good at. This is partly down to the way they are internally managed & the setup of plant & machinery for manufacturing particular types of vessel. Switching types (surface ships to subs & back), is costly, labour intensive & is classed as 'overhead' (i.e. using company funds to do work that is, in effect adding no value to profits).

Still if you have a commercially viable yard industry, the tax payers don't also have to pay for the "welder" skill base or the high end ship construction engineer skill base. But yes, They will have to pay for the specialists.

The BIGGEST difference in Quality between Europe, the UK & our American allies across the pond is down to regulatory control & design / build tolerance.

The UK builds (IMHO), to the highest tolerances wrt customer demanded quality control. Europe is 2nd, with the Americans 3rd.

Now don't take that statement the wrong way !

In the US, they specify that they want a ship of 'X' by 'Y' by 'Z', capable to do 'A', 'B' & 'C' at # knots, utilising 'US Defence Standards'

In Europe, they'll do something similar, but define that it must be built to STANAG's (European Defence standard regulations), so that it can be tested & proved that it can do the task it is designed for.

In the UK, well we do all that, then the customer brings along his own set of rules. This means that not only does the ship have to comply with health & safety regulations within the UK, Europe & the rest of the planet, but it must comply with the regulations as laid down by the UK MoD.

...& what does all this mean ??

COST !

]To meet the extremely high standards set by this 'legislation', all equipment from the weapons systems, down to the last nut & bolt, or paint coating must be proved & tested, making it more expensive & actually limits who it can be sold to.

While providing our Military with the best equipment, that will last the life of the ship (possibly explaining why the likes of India, Brazil & Chile are / where keen to buy Ex-RN vessels & are still able to run them some 20 years after they were 'disposed of' by the RN !), we have in effect, priced British shipbuilding off the budgets of many nations.

I have a hard time buying the: "We can't sell our ships because they are too good for the customers" British shipbuilding is not better than than other european shipbuilding (Frankly the the opposite is obviously the case) and UK warships a likewise not better, as far as I can see.
I have little respect for "standards and regulations" if they don't materialize in specific functional cababilities/properties. Infact, if not, I am inclined to see "standards and regulations" as the excuse for not being able to do innovation.

But getting back to the comment (seeing as someone else hasprobably passed comment while I drafted this :lul), American shipbuilding is no better / worse than European, it's just we are better suited to commercial shipbuilding, as we (Europe) have acted / reacted to demand over the last 40 years, changing to meet the demand, switching from maintaining territorial fleets, to cutting costs to the bone & giving the customer EXACTLY what they want, by improving build technology & techniques, producing specialist commercial vessels quickly & to cost.

Yes, in comparison with the american commercial yards. My explaination is that the protection of american yards have resulted in inefficient shipbuilding. On the other hand not protecting the european shipbuilding has resulted in a sharp decrease in share of world market (I think 85% or more of ships are builded in Asia (measured by tonnage))

Having said that, our Military shipbuilding can't compete with the likes of American demand, as we don't have the labour specialised force, can't get into 'America's closed shop' & we don't have the facilities, as they've been closed / flattened / turned into housing / shopping malls, all for profit ! !

Agree.

 

[Palnatoke]

SA

To give a view of the problems.

A chineese yard worker is payed 1/20 the hour wage of a danish yard worker at Lindø yard (the last large yard in Denmark. Schedule to close). Eventhough Lindø easely build ships 4-5 times as efficient per yard hour as chineese yards, the chineese yards still holds a massive advantage.