The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

RNAS Yeovilton might be upset

Naval aviation exhibitions of airships, seaplanes, bi planes, Sea Harriers and helicopters- Fleet Air Arm Museum


Very worth a visit by the way - they have a mocked up carrier deck with an F4-K, a Bucc and a Gannet, plus a tour of the carrier island plus all the rest of the shopping list barring the missiles.

Ian

I'm sure they wouldn't mind, in fact if the Council maintained the ship, I bet Yeovilton could look after the aircraft as an extension of the FAA museum, I bet they have quite a few aircraft they can't display, they could rotate them.

I think it would also help to raise the profile of the RN/FAA, they could even put the single F35b there when they have finished with it.

BTW good link, its a long time since I have been there and looks very good.

 

[jawaboy]

Its a brilliant idea but i bet no one in the government would sanction it.

 

[1805]

I agree I can't see the MOD/RN going for it, but then that almost guarantees its a good idea if they don't like it!

But I could see Portsmouth Council liking it; the addition of HMS Invincible full of aircraft/exhibits, to HMS Victory/HMS Warrior, has got to make the Historic Dockyard the most significant maritime attraction globally and a huge local and international tourist attraction?

Also who is going to buy Invincible for anything other than scap, if they could get a recently refitted and 6 years younger HMS Ark Royal for probably little more.

 

[SASWanabe]

I agree I can't see the MOD/RN going for it, but then that almost guarantees its a good idea if they don't like it!

But I could see Portsmouth Council liking it; the addition of HMS Invincible full of aircraft/exhibits, to HMS Victory/HMS Warrior, has got to make the Historic Dockyard the most significant maritime attraction globally and a huge local and international tourist attraction?

Also who is going to buy Invincible for anything other than scap, if they could get a recently refitted and 6 years younger HMS Ark Royal for probably little more.

not to mention Ark Royal stll has its engines...

 

[MrQuintus]

Then you understand more than anyone in the MoD or RN.

The SDSR presents options, one of which is that one carrier (unspecified) may be sold. IIRC it's third on a list of three, & is dependent on allies being willing & able to cover gaps in service of the main operational carrier. Another (higher-ranked) option is for both carriers to alternate in service. The only thing definitely stated is that only one will be operational at once.

Only 1 was ever going to be available to deploy at any one time anyway, except in an all up emergency, each is supposed to give 250 day availability per year, which is enough to cover a 6 month operational period and all associated trials and testing.

 

[overlander]

Very sad times for the glorious royal navy, it would not be strange that in the second decade of the century the only operational carrier could be sold, british politicians have demonstrated that defence is a minor matter for them, even the anti military spanish government with the same deficit than Britain and twice unemployment is not able to make such a heavy cuts in the navy.

Interesting to know how the falklands will be defended if necessary without carriers strike capability.

By 2025 the escort force maybe reduced even more, sad very sad for me, I think that the cuts have no limits for british politicians as they have demonstrated.
3

 

[StobieWan]

Very sad times for the glorious royal navy, it would not be strange that in the second decade of the century the only operational carrier could be sold, british politicians have demonstrated that defence is a minor matter for them, even the anti military spanish government with the same deficit than Britain and twice unemployment is not able to make such a heavy cuts in the navy.

Interesting to know how the falklands will be defended if necessary without carriers strike capability.

By 2025 the escort force maybe reduced even more, sad very sad for me, I think that the cuts have no limits for british politicians as they have demonstrated.
3

Selling the second carrier is third on a list of three options and I suspect it'll stay a long third as I can't think of anyone in the market for the darn thing.

Ian

 

[1805]

Very sad times for the glorious royal navy, it would not be strange that in the second decade of the century the only operational carrier could be sold, british politicians have demonstrated that defence is a minor matter for them, even the anti military spanish government with the same deficit than Britain and twice unemployment is not able to make such a heavy cuts in the navy.

Interesting to know how the falklands will be defended if necessary without carriers strike capability.

By 2025 the escort force maybe reduced even more, sad very sad for me, I think that the cuts have no limits for british politicians as they have demonstrated.
3

This is a very poor situation, but hopefully the RN can demonstrate that at least one carrier can be maintained in service. This should not be taken by them as a given because they have it somewhere on a piece of paper, it will be an uphill battle as we will have been without fighter capability for 13 years and the RAF will be quick to point this out.

It is important to remember who is responsible here, not to find a scapegoat but to prevent this happening again. The RN must meet its requirements within budget. We really are in danger of still having one of the largest defence spends globally but fielding forces inferior to many smaller countries. Punching well below our weight.

I think it is very unlikely there will ever be a fight over the Falklands again, but its not completely inconceivable (unlike when we would use a independent nuclear deterrent). Is democracy so imbedded in Argentina, a military coup would never happen again? Would it be difficult for Argentina to take the Falklands anyway?

How about: SF land by submarine take out the 4 Typhoon and deny the use of RAF Stanley to reinforcements, followed by a para drop safely away from any defences. Para’s arrive and secure the runway and then heavier kit is landed.

 

[1805]

Selling the second carrier is third on a list of three options and I suspect it'll stay a long third as I can't think of anyone in the market for the darn thing.

Ian

I wouldn't rely on positioning on a list of options, the Government was quite clear it would have cancelled both if it had been able to do so. Surely Brazil would be interested, the old Foch will be 57 years old in 2020.

I would rather sell one to guarantee one earlier, than risk both. All this worrying about short gaps in service seems like fiddling while Rome burns, when we have already accepted a 13 year gap.

 

[StobieWan]

I would rather sell one to guarantee one earlier, than risk both. All this worrying about short gaps in service seems like fiddling while Rome burns, when we have already accepted a 13 year gap.

How does selling one carrier guarantee anything of the sort? The money will just go back to treasury if it were sold and Brazil haven't any budget for a carrier -their defence budget is barely 3.5 bn right now and they're spending 5-7bn on the FX fight program plus buying multiple surface escorts, so the carrier buy for them is at least five years or more away.

Anyone else in the market for a carrier? India? No, they've got plans for five in total, including an indigenous built - plus if I were them, I'd grab the Ark in a flash)

Selling a carrier can't generate any benefits in the short term that I can see - the one you want to sell won't be marketable until after the one we can use will be afloat and carrying out trials with EMALS so that argument seems moot?

Ian

 

[1805]

How does selling one carrier guarantee anything of the sort? The money will just go back to treasury if it were sold and Brazil haven't any budget for a carrier -their defence budget is barely 3.5 bn right now and they're spending 5-7bn on the FX fight program plus buying multiple surface escorts, so the carrier buy for them is at least five years or more away.

Anyone else in the market for a carrier? India? No, they've got plans for five in total, including an indigenous built - plus if I were them, I'd grab the Ark in a flash)

Selling a carrier can't generate any benefits in the short term that I can see - the one you want to sell won't be marketable until after the one we can use will be afloat and carrying out trials with EMALS so that argument seems moot?

Ian

I would not sell QE because the RN needs carrier aviation back sooner rather than later, so the one to sell is PW and that would pobably fit in with Brazil. I think you have the Treasury quite wrong, they only show an interest at the end when projects have been messed up. If only they did feel confident enough to challenge at the being or during a project's life, we would be in a better state. I am not saying the Treasury is always right but think about it form their angle, you have a department that consistently wastes money on a vast scale?

If we need short term cash to get QE & some F35 then sell 2 T45. Oh and they need 10 years to convert to EMALS...they are havin' a laugh, you could build a carrier from scratch in that time!

 

[StobieWan]

I would not sell QE because the RN needs carrier aviation back sooner rather than later, so the one to sell is PW and that would pobably fit in with Brazil.

If we need short term cash to get QE & some F35 then sell 2 T45. Oh and they need 10 years to convert to EMALS...they are havin' a laugh, you could build a carrier from scratch in the time!

Well, the thing is, you can't sell the PoW til it's ready to float - or at least, you won't generate any receipts til well after the QE is commissioned - so that won't work to generate any cash - even assuming that any money coming in will work it's way back to the Navy.

Selling a pair of T-45's is just an *awful* idea, right at a time when we're desperately short of hull numbers. We can ill afford to lose ships at all, let alone brand new vessels with first rate systems. You've raised it before and I cannot understand or agree with the argument.

I'm not sure where you get a figure of 10 years from as the total ISD slippage is four years, partly caused by the fact that the catapults themselves simply are not in production as yet. How do you come up with ten years?

Ian

 

[swerve]

Only 1 was ever going to be available to deploy at any one time anyway, except in an all up emergency, each is supposed to give 250 day availability per year, which is enough to cover a 6 month operational period and all associated trials and testing.

Isn't that average, not for a single year?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Isn't that average, not for a single year?

Wasn't the QEs were intended for 46 weeks each of ops per yr with 6 month refit every 6 years according to hansard?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Separately, noted in Hansard also (11 Oct 10) the 2 x CVS Illustrious & Ark Royal together spent avg ~230 days at sea every year between 2006 to 2009 with annual operating costs of ~GBP140m a year.

Anyone who buys the CVS may need to deal with GBP 60 to 80m each year in operating cost (which includes contractor support but also depreciation which may be less depending on sales price).

Its going to be far far more with CVF.

 

[riksavage]

Wasn't the QEs were intended for 46 weeks each of ops per yr with 6 month refit every 6 years according to hansard?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Separately, noted in Hansard also (11 Oct 10) the 2 x CVS Illustrious & Ark Royal together spent avg ~230 days at sea every year between 2006 to 2009 with annual operating costs of ~GBP140m a year.

Anyone who buys the CVS may need to deal with GBP 60 to 80m each year in operating cost (which includes contractor support but also depreciation which may be less depending on sales price).

Its going to be far far more with CVF.

I was under the impression the new CVF is designed from the get-go to be much more efficient to run than an Invincible Class with a similar sized crew footprint (not including full air group). The all electric drive is far more fuel efficient. A full compliment of F35C's on the other hand will ramp up operating costs, hence in normal peace time conditions we only likely to see 1 or 2 sqn's deployed on rotation to keep the pilots carrier certified.

Quote take from Carrier Alliance site:

"The HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will have increased survivability as a result of the separation and distribution of power generation machinery throughout each ship. The class has been designed with twin islands, which separates the running of the ship from the flying operations resulting in greater visibility of flying operations.

The Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System enables a streamlined crew to operate a vessel much larger than the carrier which it replaces, meaning that each ship will have a total crew of 679, only increasing to the full complement of 1,600 when the air elements are embarked.

Affordability of through life support has also been a key driver in adopting a commercial design. Key operational spaces can be readily reconfigured and additional equipment inserted in a cost effective and timely manner to suit the future requirements of the Armed Forces and the nation.

The ships will use an electric propulsion system that enables the prime movers to operate more efficiently and therefore burn less fuel, saving running costs."

Invinciple Class manning levels:
Troops: 348 Air Group personnel
Crew: 726 Ships company
TOTAL: 1074

Assuming CVF will almost never operate at full capacity unless on a war footing or during a major NATO exercise the crew levels should hover around the same level at 1100

 

[1805]

I was under the impression the new CVF is designed from the get-go to be much more efficient to run than an Invincible Class with a similar sized crew footprint (not including full air group). The all electric drive is far more fuel efficient. A full compliment of F35C's on the other hand will ramp up operating costs, hence in normal peace time conditions we only likely to see 1 or 2 sqn's deployed on rotation to keep the pilots carrier certified.

Quote take from Carrier Alliance site:

"The HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will have increased survivability as a result of the separation and distribution of power generation machinery throughout each ship. The class has been designed with twin islands, which separates the running of the ship from the flying operations resulting in greater visibility of flying operations.

The Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System enables a streamlined crew to operate a vessel much larger than the carrier which it replaces, meaning that each ship will have a total crew of 679, only increasing to the full complement of 1,600 when the air elements are embarked.

Affordability of through life support has also been a key driver in adopting a commercial design. Key operational spaces can be readily reconfigured and additional equipment inserted in a cost effective and timely manner to suit the future requirements of the Armed Forces and the nation.

The ships will use an electric propulsion system that enables the prime movers to operate more efficiently and therefore burn less fuel, saving running costs."

Invinciple Class manning levels:
Troops: 348 Air Group personnel
Crew: 726 Ships company
TOTAL: 1074

Assuming CVF will almost never operate at full capacity unless on a war footing or during a major NATO exercise the crew levels should hover around the same level at 1100

Applying the same logic, as it is only planned to operate one ship at any time, compared to 2 Invincibles(or Ocean) there will be a manning saving of c1000.

 

[1805]

Well, the thing is, you can't sell the PoW til it's ready to float - or at least, you won't generate any receipts til well after the QE is commissioned - so that won't work to generate any cash - even assuming that any money coming in will work it's way back to the Navy.

Selling a pair of T-45's is just an *awful* idea, right at a time when we're desperately short of hull numbers. We can ill afford to lose ships at all, let alone brand new vessels with first rate systems. You've raised it before and I cannot understand or agree with the argument.

I'm not sure where you get a figure of 10 years from as the total ISD slippage is four years, partly caused by the fact that the catapults themselves simply are not in production as yet. How do you come up with ten years?

Ian

Just to be clear, I would only sell 2 T45 for a guaranteed carrier and fixed wing fighters back NEAR the 2016 in service date. It still leaves 4 ships, which is less than I would prefer but I would accept say a 10 year capability gap on AWD to reduce the more serious carrier gap. I can understand why you might be concerned about funding replacement T45 eventually, but surely there is more risk in a long gap with no fixed wing capability. Also there are plenty of AWD in the USN/Europe to make up task groups. I accept hull numbers hence the interest in cheaper ASW focused patrol frigates.

The 10 years comes from a 2020 in service date, yes its only 4 years slip, but I don't see why they can't work on the redesign/planning and installation of EMALS from now. The technology must be fairly advanced as it will be in USN service c2015.

 

[StobieWan]

Just to be clear, I would only sell 2 T45 for a guaranteed carrier and fixed wing fighters back NEAR the 2016 in service date. It still leaves 4 ships, which is less than I would prefer but I would accept say a 10 year capability gap on AWD to reduce the more serious carrier gap. I can understand why you might be concerned about funding replacement T45 eventually, but surely there is more risk in a long gap with no fixed wing capability. Also there are plenty of AWD in the USN/Europe to make up task groups. I accept hull numbers hence the interest in cheaper ASW focused patrol frigates.

The 10 years comes from a 2020 in service date, yes its only 4 years slip, but I don't see why they can't work on the redesign/planning and installation of EMALS from now. The technology must be fairly advanced as it will be in USN service c2015.

We *might* be able to get away with less AWD as in all likelyhood we'd work around the USN who of course have a large quantity of them, but I'd frankly have kittens about letting go of a single one of 'em.

Carrier ISD?

Navy Matters | Future Aircraft Carrier Part 1

2016 and 2018 originally for the QE and PoW - and bear in mind, at least 18-24 months and a billion were piled on by the previous government choosing to delay construction work to move the costs around.

This is one of the conundrums around defence spending - with production cycles being stretched to suit political aims, leading to rising costs. It needs fixing, but changes have to come from both sides.

Emals integration is underway but remember they're converting the layout from a through deck to an angle deck, fitting traps, landing systems etc - and EMALS doesn't exist as a production item yet -- the first sets are to be fitted to the US carrier on the slips without prior sea trials on a training or test vessel.

And let's face it, the decision was more or less arrived at with the intent of pushing the ISD back to beyond the life of the parliament.

On cheaper Frigates, un-sourced report from the Scotsman:

New frigate's spec to be cut - Scotsman.com News

No details and no hard evidence to back it up - and of course it really depends on where the specification cut arises from.

Ian

 

[swerve]

...Anyone who buys the CVS may need to deal with GBP 60 to 80m each year in operating cost (which includes contractor support but also depreciation which may be less depending on sales price).

Depreciation shouldn't be recorded as a cost for warships. It's already accounted for by the purchase price, & you're not calculating a profit & loss account like a commercial enterprise.

 

[1805]

We *might* be able to get away with less AWD as in all likelyhood we'd work around the USN who of course have a large quantity of them, but I'd frankly have kittens about letting go of a single one of 'em.

Carrier ISD?

Navy Matters | Future Aircraft Carrier Part 1

2016 and 2018 originally for the QE and PoW - and bear in mind, at least 18-24 months and a billion were piled on by the previous government choosing to delay construction work to move the costs around.

This is one of the conundrums around defence spending - with production cycles being stretched to suit political aims, leading to rising costs. It needs fixing, but changes have to come from both sides.

Emals integration is underway but remember they're converting the layout from a through deck to an angle deck, fitting traps, landing systems etc - and EMALS doesn't exist as a production item yet -- the first sets are to be fitted to the US carrier on the slips without prior sea trials on a training or test vessel.

And let's face it, the decision was more or less arrived at with the intent of pushing the ISD back to beyond the life of the parliament.

On cheaper Frigates, un-sourced report from the Scotsman:

New frigate's spec to be cut - Scotsman.com News

No details and no hard evidence to back it up - and of course it really depends on where the specification cut arises from.

Ian

Very interesting about the intent to try and move T26 costs from c£500m to £250-£350m.