The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Seriously gf, lighten up.

excuse me? someone weights their response to deny whats actually happening in the real world outside of the internet and I'm supposed to "lighten up" - he then throws out the canard of not changing his view until he sees something about how the relationship will change at a contractual level - when he should know damn well that the actual relationship details aren't on the internet in the first place. Lets get real and look at how it does actually work - not on some chest puffing fluffery which wants to ignore events already in play

I don't think anyone here believes there won't be operational issues/constraints behind the UK-French co-operation and no one here is arguing otherwise on a operational level nor really contradicting what you have said.

not from his tone and intent previously

I believe where rik is coming from is that that co-operation will not result in a massive breakdown in defence relations between the UK and US esp arising from ToT issues. I don't think anyone here believes it would happen either nor result in any scaling down of the "special" relationship.

again, who is talking about a massive breakdown, I am talking about real constraints - and the fact that he seems to be oblivious as to the real world constraints currently in place - let alone how they will change as a result of the formal alliance cordiale' says much This isn't speculation. Its happening now.

I agree with Rik's assessment that the cooperation is unlikely to be used as a back-door to French/US tech or IP esp in the light of already heavy joint cooperation between UK and the rest of Europe.

and yet you both seem to be unaware of what is provided the UK, what is kept out from France and how current contracts already have restrictions on what the french can see even at NATO levels. let alone 4I's issues

The UK-US relationship is vitally important to both countries and that will be a consideration when dealing with the operational constraints.

and thats the point - it cannot continue as is without effect - its become much harder. we're already seeing that access to some tech affecting all of us may be of concern to US State. This has got minimal to do with trust and sharing tech to the UK, its about the new constraints.

ignoring the reality of how it affects 4I's issues by factoring what France and UK will seek to share completely ignores the realities and difficulties that already exist. Its about partnership management with 3 different entities. Its foolish in the extreme to think that it will be a continuing kumbayah moment.

there are a number of programs (ewarfare, comms) where there are other members in the teams, sometimes its not the US that expresses those concerns, its the members themselves and will make submissions to the group about their own technology sets) This is not just an issue about the US State Dept, its about all members who currently share with the UK and who have their own nationalistic concerns about what they think France can see - this is the reality of it, its the real world, its not some internet fable going on here.

it won't and it isn't.

 

[aussienscale]

Totally agree with what GF is saying here ! Having come from a Communications background in the RAN and as a Defence Civillian, and also having worked at DSB and Prime Minister & Cabinet, I totally understand where he is coming from and the real impacts this will ( and as GF has said ARE now) have are issues much deeper than will ever be discussed here or in the newspapers.
Are the alliances between all the players important and long standing ? Yes of course, but the gravity of this goes much deeper than that, I could still refer to many specific reasons, but can't due to a little thing called The Secrecy ACT.
Are the French rubbing their hands hoping to get bits and pieces over time ? You bet they are, it would be like asking a kid not to peek ! Promise ? Sure (with gaps between the fingers)
Just like the Service Chief's shaking hands and all smiles saying we are working together, but behind closed doors

 

[1805]

I don't think you're going to save any money by buying Rafale - and I definitely don't think you'll save any money by buying Rafale and F35A in two small lots - you'll need two sets of spares, supply chains, pilot support and you'll have to do weapons integration twice for almost everything important.

Add to that that the Rafale isn't as capable as the F35C, and that the delay on the carriers is fitting them with Cats and traps and it looks less like a good idea.

Ian

Probably makes no sense to buy F35(a or c) if we buy Rafale. It could save money buying Rafale if you tie it to getting a good price for the PW. Issue is can we get out of F35?

It doens't matter if Rafale is inferior to the F35, as it is still more capable than we need and will have for the next 10 years if we don't. It could get use back into the game 4 years earlier. The longer the gap the greater danger the RAF will play another blinder and kill the carriers completely.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Probably makes no sense to buy F35(a or c) if we buy Rafale. It could save money buying Rafale if you tie it to getting a good price for the PW.

Except that we're not selling Prince of Wales.

 

[1805]

Except that we're not selling Prince of Wales.

True not at the moment, it is a suggestion based on logic and common sense to get the RN out of the mess it has dropped itself into. Its not ideal selling a ship before it's even complete, but you have to make compromises to get back on track.

I liken this to someone who irresponsibly buys a house they cannot afford off plan the market crashes. What do you do, you have to sell and take the loss you can't jsut keep going on in denial? But you can hopefully learn from your mistakes.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Except that we're not selling Prince of Wales.

Yes you are. It says in the SDR that HM Govt will consider selling one of the CVFs if they can secure a carrier sharing agreement with another country. Just signed the agreement a few days ago. One of the CVFs would be ideal for the French Navy as it would save them the billions it costs to keep the CdG fuelled and operating and is more capable and common with their new partner in the “Marine Royal”. Arguments that the French only buy French are not sustained in the new environment in which the French are trying to save as much money as the British.

Buying Rafale will not solve the RN’s funding crisis. It is not about non recurring cost of purchasing the F-35 vs Rafale it is about the recurring costs of personnel, fuel, spares etc. The British carrier holiday 2010-20 saves a huge amount of money by not needing the same levels of recurring expenditure. It also allows 10 years to raise the cash for the non recurring costs. To simply change the sticker price of the aircraft in this dynamic does not provide the lee way to move forward the reintroduction of a fully armed and operational carrier. Also from a whole of government perspective buying Rafale sends all that money overseas rather than F-35 which keeps a lot of it in the UK for local content on the JSF project.

 

[StobieWan]

Probably makes no sense to buy F35(a or c) if we buy Rafale. It could save money buying Rafale if you tie it to getting a good price for the PW. Issue is can we get out of F35?

It doens't matter if Rafale is inferior to the F35, as it is still more capable than we need and will have for the next 10 years if we don't. It could get use back into the game 4 years earlier. The longer the gap the greater danger the RAF will play another blinder and kill the carriers completely.

But the delay on getting the carriers into service is related to reworking them for cat and trap. If the sole driver was just to get them into operation for 2015/16 then we'd be best off with F35B. Instead, it's going to take that further period to rework for cat and trap. The F35C is still (I believe) very much on schedule to deliver in time for the actual operational dates for the two carriers.

Neither is the the Rafale cheap - it's been down selected in every competition it's been involved in so far on that basis - it's a little bit cheaper than the F35 but the difference isn't so much. 10 years? What's the point? Screw up an entire program just to get something that works now? The carriers are meant to last fifty years - and if we buy F35, that may well be the last aircraft we need to buy for those carriers.

If we get the F35, we get VLO, an excellent radar, EODAS, participation in a multinational workshare, and if the F136 engine gets built, we could very well choose to take all of the cabs with a British built engine inside, which will account for a substantial part of the saving you might see from the Rafale purchase.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

The smartest thing I can think of to happen right now is for the French to invest in the existing carriers we're building - each of us needs about a carrier and a third to keep something at sea or available to sail at all times. If we could get some common agreement about a comms and radar fit, such that the French could lease at any time, either carrier, then we'd be in the position of both parties having the availability they need at all times without having to have two carriers each. We don't seem to have the requirement or finances to put two carriers to sea but we could both use the ability to draw on a reserve carrier while the family car is being serviced.

So, fit both the QE's out to work as common assets such that we can operate either one at will, meaning we keep the mileage low on both ships, the French can arrange to borrow one while the CdG is in dock, we position officers from both Navies on each ship as exchange postings as liaison, we'd need common radios and other comms gear to work with the escorts etc It answers some of the questions over our heads about sharing resources and it saves awkward faffing around trying to work out what to do when we're taking a spanner to the carrier we use for work.

We're going to struggle to fit out the second carrier with cat and trap anyways - get the French to come to the party in terms of fitting out both in return for leasing agreements.

As long as we both get what we want - independent access to carriers we can operate alone, and a process to pool resources and capabilities when we need to.

All this talk about selling one of the QE's makes less sense - the French can't afford to buy it and we're struggling to operate both.

Ian

 

[1805]

The smartest thing I can think of to happen right now is for the French to invest in the existing carriers we're building - each of us needs about a carrier and a third to keep something at sea or available to sail at all times. If we could get some common agreement about a comms and radar fit, such that the French could lease at any time, either carrier, then we'd be in the position of both parties having the availability they need at all times without having to have two carriers each. We don't seem to have the requirement or finances to put two carriers to sea but we could both use the ability to draw on a reserve carrier while the family car is being serviced.

So, fit both the QE's out to work as common assets such that we can operate either one at will, meaning we keep the mileage low on both ships, the French can arrange to borrow one while the CdG is in dock, we position officers from both Navies on each ship as exchange postings as liaison, we'd need common radios and other comms gear to work with the escorts etc It answers some of the questions over our heads about sharing resources and it saves awkward faffing around trying to work out what to do when we're taking a spanner to the carrier we use for work.

We're going to struggle to fit out the second carrier with cat and trap anyways - get the French to come to the party in terms of fitting out both in return for leasing agreements.

As long as we both get what we want - independent access to carriers we can operate alone, and a process to pool resources and capabilities when we need to.

All this talk about selling one of the QE's makes less sense - the French can't afford to buy it and we're struggling to operate both.

Ian

I think you are missing the key element of a deal, mutual benefits. Why would the French get us out of a crisis and buy one of our carriers (they have the designs to build their own at their leisure). Not just to get the fit out work of installing US catapults??

Thats why Rafale for PW could work.

One thing that does make me laugh is how people on here crow on about the need to have x number of ships to maintain a carrier capability at all times; when the RN has already given up that capability for 4 years and we are now facing potentially another 10 years.

Lets get real and get one with a more than capable aircraft (Rafale). The operational money can be found if people look. You don't operate 16 RFAs, and 15 MCMV when you can't guarantee the sky above you.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think you are missing the key element of a deal, mutual benefits. Why would the French get us out of a crisis and buy one of our carriers (they have the designs to build their own at their leisure).

Because they are in a crisis as well compounded by paying the cost of a new buid CVF every eight years just to keep the CdG sailing. Also they can buy one of the CVFs at a fraction of the cost (the UK would have to foot at least 1/3 to 1/2 od the bill) of building a third, customised one in France.

 

[gf0012-aust]

and also having worked at DSB and Prime Minister & Cabinet,(

which reinforces that you will know exactly where I am coming from here.

the problem is that unfort some of these debates automatically trigger defensive reactions as though its a slight upon the UK and that the US will be willfully chucking a tanty just because of the alliance entente' with France

its not, its about constraints, its about the reality of whats already happening.

I would argue that anyone who has worked at the executive level, anyone who has dealt with ITARs, anyone who has worked with the spooks, anyone who has worked in procurement involving sensitive US technologies within the 4-5I's community would be more than aware of the current tech sharing arrangements with the UK and why there are clear and present realities with respect to France. It's basically common knowledge at that level. Anyone who has worked at this level already knows what constraints apply to France - even within some NATO members not in the 4I's group.

I can think of Denmark, Norway and Germany as immediate examples.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Because they are in a crisis as well compounded by paying the cost of a new buid CVF every eight years just to keep the CdG sailing. Also they can buy one of the CVFs at a fraction of the cost (the UK would have to foot at least 1/3 to 1/2 od the bill) of building a third, customised one in France.

We had a backbrief about UK problems today, the push to go to the new alliance cordiale is fundamentally based upon the fact that the UK procurement is imploding and that bad prev decisions are coming home to roost. They are running out of money and are looking at savagely pruning other capabilities.

Their whole procurement process is now up for review.

 

[KiwiRob]

Here's an interesting mockup image.

I have no idea how accurate this would be, to me it looks like the dry dock is too small.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Here's an interesting mockup image.

I have no idea how accurate this would be, to me it looks like the dry dock is too small.

That is one seriously cool image mockup though

 

[StobieWan]

I think you are missing the key element of a deal, mutual benefits. Why would the French get us out of a crisis and buy one of our carriers (they have the designs to build their own at their leisure). Not just to get the fit out work of installing US catapults??

Thats why Rafale for PW could work.

One thing that does make me laugh is how people on here crow on about the need to have x number of ships to maintain a carrier capability at all times; when the RN has already given up that capability for 4 years and we are now facing potentially another 10 years.

Lets get real and get one with a more than capable aircraft (Rafale). The operational money can be found if people look. You don't operate 16 RFAs, and 15 MCMV when you can't guarantee the sky above you.

I'm not suggesting the French buy a CVF at all - I'm suggesting they spend a bit of money helping us get both fitted out to common standards, standards to which they would have considerable input, in order to secure a leasing agreement for a carrier for some time.

In other words, they spend less money than they would on getting a whole carrier and get less than a whole carrier, which is about what they need -but both sides would have the capability to stand up a carrier at all times - which I think is the only way to look at running a carrier at all.

There are some other possibilities from sharing carriers as well - we could go to the French and fund a few more E2's, and stand up a common shared fleet of AWACS birds, keep the existing training and conversion system run by the French in place so we provide pilots and operators for the aircraft and we get into a joint early warning capability with a cadre of pilots and systems people who are very well versed in working with each other and with the various escorts and other elements of the two respective Navies.

In any event, if you look at the SDR, you'll notice that the key feature is that every attempt has been made to put off any expense in the term of the current government. All of the exciting stuff comes up after the LibCon term has gone the way of all things flesh. If they can't find the cash to keep the JHF running (which I think would make considerable sense) then buying 50 foreign aircraft isn't going to be palatable.

Ian

 

[aussienscale]

which reinforces that you will know exactly where I am coming from here.

the problem is that unfort some of these debates automatically trigger defensive reactions as though its a slight upon the UK and that the US will be willfully chucking a tanty just because of the alliance entente' with France

its not, its about constraints, its about the reality of whats already happening.

I would argue that anyone who has worked at the executive level, anyone who has dealt with ITARs, anyone who has worked with the spooks, anyone who has worked in procurement involving sensitive US technologies within the 4-5I's community would be more than aware of the current tech sharing arrangements with the UK and why there are clear and present realities with respect to France. It's basically common knowledge at that level. Anyone who has worked at this level already knows what constraints apply to France - even within some NATO members not in the 4I's group.

I can think of Denmark, Norway and Germany as immediate examples.

Ok, here is a quote that is in the public domain:
"Russia will buy a Mistral-class helicopter carrier from France only if the technology is passed on , Prime Minister Vladimir Putin"

Think about it guy's, this is a basic example of the implications ! As GF has said, if you have never worked with and within these areas forget it ! If you guys even had an inkling of the work and negotiations that go into even just a basic MOU, let alone tech sharing etc !! Pfffft
Forget it

 

[swerve]

We had a backbrief about UK problems today,...

Their whole procurement process is now up for review.

As it should be. When one looks at the last 20 years of AFV procurement, for example, you realise that our procurement process has become a self-sustaining monster, in which the actual goods to be procured are an optional extra. We spent a billion pounds on not buying AFVs. Every penny was gobbled up by the process, with nothing to show for it except the employment of thousands of people shuffling paper & attending meetings, & a few prototypes in warehouses or scrapyards.

We haven't done quite as badly in ships & aircraft in terms of nothing to show, but the wastage of money has been at least as bad. Helicopters where an MoD-mandated 'money-saving' specification decision doubled the price & caused them to enter service several years late, & at a basic spec which we could have had off the shelf for much less than the price which the 'money-saving' measure was meant to reduce the price to. Millions spent on not omitting guns from Typhoons, because of another MoD-mandated 'money-saving' move. The list is frighteningly long.

I constantly come across claims that MoD procurement staff are overworked, but we employ an extraordinarily large number of them. As far as I can see, a lot of them are busy doing things which would be better not done. Decimation is inadequate: I think we need to cull at least half, starting with the senior officers who insist that nothing OTS is good enough, & we must have Gucci UK-only specially-built or customised everything - which often means we get it not at all, or it doesn't work when we do get it, or it's so late that we end up hurriedly buying or borrowing OTS kit to fill the gap, & that either works well enough to prove that the UK-specific stuff isn't needed, or is bought so quickly & with so little testing that we find out too late it's unsuitable & money down the drain & we still have the requirement so have to get some other OTS kit in a hurry . . .

OK, rant over.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I constantly come across claims that MoD procurement staff are overworked, but we employ an extraordinarily large number of them. As far as I can see, a lot of them are busy doing things which would be better not done. Decimation is inadequate: I think we need to cull at least half, starting with the senior officers who insist that nothing OTS is good enough, & we must have Gucci UK-only specially-built or customised everything - which often means we get it not at all, or it doesn't work when we do get it, or it's so late that we end up hurriedly buying or borrowing OTS kit to fill the gap, & that either works well enough to prove that the UK-specific stuff isn't needed, or is bought so quickly & with so little testing that we find out too late it's unsuitable & money down the drain & we still have the requirement so have to get some other OTS kit in a hurry . . .

OK, rant over.

substitute "UK" with "Australia" and you could render the fabric of space and time and witness similar problems.

it's not unique to the UK, we have a series of problems which get brass plated to make things look like they're all "A OK"

we have just as many horror stories that are mutton dressed up as lamb, usually the press however is off looking in the other direction getting cheap sound bite editorials, so they always miss the point with somewhat persistent amateurism...

 

[1805]

As it should be. When one looks at the last 20 years of AFV procurement, for example, you realise that our procurement process has become a self-sustaining monster, in which the actual goods to be procured are an optional extra. We spent a billion pounds on not buying AFVs. Every penny was gobbled up by the process, with nothing to show for it except the employment of thousands of people shuffling paper & attending meetings, & a few prototypes in warehouses or scrapyards.

We haven't done quite as badly in ships & aircraft in terms of nothing to show, but the wastage of money has been at least as bad. Helicopters where an MoD-mandated 'money-saving' specification decision doubled the price & caused them to enter service several years late, & at a basic spec which we could have had off the shelf for much less than the price which the 'money-saving' measure was meant to reduce the price to. Millions spent on not omitting guns from Typhoons, because of another MoD-mandated 'money-saving' move. The list is frighteningly long.

I constantly come across claims that MoD procurement staff are overworked, but we employ an extraordinarily large number of them. As far as I can see, a lot of them are busy doing things which would be better not done. Decimation is inadequate: I think we need to cull at least half, starting with the senior officers who insist that nothing OTS is good enough, & we must have Gucci UK-only specially-built or customised everything - which often means we get it not at all, or it doesn't work when we do get it, or it's so late that we end up hurriedly buying or borrowing OTS kit to fill the gap, & that either works well enough to prove that the UK-specific stuff isn't needed, or is bought so quickly & with so little testing that we find out too late it's unsuitable & money down the drain & we still have the requirement so have to get some other OTS kit in a hurry . . .

OK, rant over.

So true, on the positive side, if you can call it that, this approach has so bought us to the brink this time, hopefully a better process will come out of this. We can hope.

 

[Systems Adict]

Type 45 #4 heads out for Sea trials....

Saw this on the BAE website....

News - BAE Systems

SA