The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

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

If there is any truth to that article (and I think there probably is) then we can probably expect T26 to be a solely ASW Frigate, basically an updated T23, forget about any deep strike weapons or flex decks, in fact other than CAMM they probably won't get anything in the way of new weaponry at all and will almost certainly feature only a single hanger, maybe without the dog kennel on the BAE concept art. It's basically the merging of the C1 and C2 types from the FSC programme but all the bells are probably going to be knocked off the C1. If correct it will be significantly worse than the FREMMs the Italians and French are getting, and we won't be getting any more than the 13 needed to make escort numbers up to the 18 as identified by the SDSR.

Basically a cost cutting exercise only.

 

[StobieWan]

If there is any truth to that article (and I think there probably is) then we can probably expect T26 to be a solely ASW Frigate, basically an updated T23, forget about any deep strike weapons or flex decks, in fact other than CAMM they probably won't get anything in the way of new weaponry at all and will almost certainly feature only a single hanger, maybe without the dog kennel on the BAE concept art. It's basically the merging of the C1 and C2 types from the FSC programme but all the bells are probably going to be knocked off the C1. If correct it will be significantly worse than the FREMMs the Italians and French are getting, and we won't be getting any more than the 13 needed to make escort numbers up to the 18 as identified by the SDSR.

Basically a cost cutting exercise only.

Type 23 (ironically) started out life as a dedicated ASW asset - and evolved in batches to become a very capable and flexible asset.

They could build in much of that flexibility by selecting strike length silos - preferably Mk41 as there's a wider range of things you can launch from but Sylver 70's would be useful.

Ian

 

[1805]

If there is any truth to that article (and I think there probably is) then we can probably expect T26 to be a solely ASW Frigate, basically an updated T23, forget about any deep strike weapons or flex decks, in fact other than CAMM they probably won't get anything in the way of new weaponry at all and will almost certainly feature only a single hanger, maybe without the dog kennel on the BAE concept art. It's basically the merging of the C1 and C2 types from the FSC programme but all the bells are probably going to be knocked off the C1. If correct it will be significantly worse than the FREMMs the Italians and French are getting, and we won't be getting any more than the 13 needed to make escort numbers up to the 18 as identified by the SDSR.

Basically a cost cutting exercise only.

It will be interesting to see just how many FREMMs the Italians and French get, once the bond markets decide who's next on the rack after Eire.

 

[kev 99]

Type 23 (ironically) started out life as a dedicated ASW asset - and evolved in batches to become a very capable and flexible asset.

They could build in much of that flexibility by selecting strike length silos - preferably Mk41 as there's a wider range of things you can launch from but Sylver 70's would be useful.

Ian

I honestly can't see Type 26 getting any sort of vls beyond what is required for CAMM.

Type 26 will get main gun (Mk8 mod 1 forget about the 155mm won't happen), a couple of 30mm, Harpoons, Stingray launchers and CAMM and that's it. Harpoons, Naval Scalp, Fire Shadow are pipe dreams; I can't see any of them happening.

 

[StobieWan]

I honestly can't see Type 26 getting any sort of vls beyond what is required for CAMM.

Type 26 will get main gun (Mk8 mod 1 forget about the 155mm won't happen), a couple of 30mm, Harpoons, Stingray launchers and CAMM and that's it. Harpoons, Naval Scalp, Fire Shadow are pipe dreams; I can't see any of them happening.

From the various mockups so far, the CAMM launchers will be the trainable 8 cell boxes so it's possible their cost savings have been to delete the VLS cells entirely - perhaps leaving the space in the hull for later batches. Hard to tell at this stage.

Ian

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Care for a light CV... anyone?

HMS Invincible has been put up for auction by 5 Jan 2011 (without engines , propeller, unworkable electricals and no firefighting eqmt) with a min ~GBP 3m bank guarantee.

Disposal Services Authority

Sales decision should be within 3 months thereafter as that is the bid validity period.

 

[riksavage]

The basic T26 fit-out will IMHO include Artisan, CAMM, 30mm, towed array and I still believe 155mm. BAE have already done most of the hard yards and built a test rig. Moving to 155mm will save money in the long run the same way the FLAADS land, sea and air application will. Both FLAADS and the 155mm option make for a more attractive export proposition because you are reducing the supply chain requirements across a nations three services (assuming they use 155mm land based arty). I also understand CAMM has a limited use against land/sea based targets. Having Wildcat aboard with it's heavy weapons load capacity (SeaSkua II, .50 & Torpedo) coupled with a rotary UCAV will bring over the horizon surveillance and attack capabilities, this may negate (not replace like for like) the need for Harpoon if money remains very tight?

With Astute having such a high TLAM carrying capacity, fitting a similar missile system to all T26 may be deemed an unnecessary luxury particularly when F35C's become operational with their deep strike capabilities. The RN can't afford everything, F35C/Astute are 1st in class assets, which will rob Peter to pay Paul. Whilst having TLAM fitted to the surface fleet is great, I can't see a scenario where the UK would be required to fire such a deep strike weapon without there being an Astute class within striking distance, after all they are only 15 days sailing time from most coastlines.

At the end of the day the T26 needs to provide AsW for the ARG and give the RN enough hulls for stand alone missions across the globe. Assuming 3 are dedicated to the defence of a QE (along with 3 T45's), then we should have 9 more hulls on training, global deployment or in maintenance. With the last generation of T23 being upgraded with CAMM limited numbers can be retained allowing for the T26 to be drip-fed overtime in two batches of 6

I'm hoping funds will be made available to upgrade the T45 fleet with 155mm and CAMM (replacing the A15). Quad packed CAMM will bring the T45 AAW short/long range loadout up to the desired level of 64.

 

[1805]

Just seen on the ITV London News a piece suggesting HMS Ark Royal be preserved as a museum in one of the old London Docks in LB of Newham (KGV). Not sure it will get anywhere....prefer Invincible in Portsmorth.

 

[swerve]

I'm hoping funds will be made available to upgrade the T45 fleet with 155mm and CAMM (replacing the A15). Quad packed CAMM will bring the T45 AAW short/long range loadout up to the desired level of 64.

How do you get 64 with 48 cells?
60 is easy (44 + 4 x 4), as are 63 (43 + 5 x 4) & 66 (42 + 6 x 4), but not 64.

 

[Moebius]

How do you get 64 with 48 cells?
60 is easy (44 + 4 x 4), as are 63 (43 + 5 x 4) & 66 (42 + 6 x 4), but not 64.

I think he meant to say something like 64 short ranged missiles.
(T45 loadout is 32 A30s and 16 A15s (replace A15s with quad packed CAMMs = 64 short ranged missiles) On the other hand he may have discovered a new type of math that ignores every rule we have ever learned.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

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.

Just quoting Hansard that the numbers included depre. If you want to criticise that practice, take it up with HM govt.

 

[1805]

I think he meant to say something like 64 short ranged missiles.
(T45 loadout is 32 A30s and 16 A15s (replace A15s with quad packed CAMMs = 64 short ranged missiles) On the other hand he may have discovered a new type of math that ignores every rule we have ever learned.

As money is tight and assuming we have already brought A15s it doesn’t make much sense to fit CAMM to the T45s at this stage.

I don't think we have any firm information on what type of VLS CAMM will be compatible with, but If the T26 is to be cut down to help keep hull numbers at a workable level; it makes sense to keep the number of VLS silos to 8 (i.e. 32 missiles the same level as the T23). We will then have a ridiculous empty hull, but it will make helicopter operations easier.

 

[StevoJH]

As money is tight and assuming we have already brought A15s it doesn’t make much sense to fit CAMM to the T45s at this stage.

I'm fairly sure that only Aster 30 was purchased. Swerve mentioned it a while back I believe.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

They did fire aster 15s as part of the longbow trials which I understand was only for the UK. If Aster 15s wasn't purchased for that, where did those come from?

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=EN&news_id=270

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_Aster-15---30-PAAMS_89.html

"Three PAAMS systems were ordered in 1999 along with the required Aster 15 and Aster 30 Naval missiles to equip the first-of-class air defence vessels for each of the three countries."

 

[kev 99]

I'm fairly sure that only Aster 30 was purchased. Swerve mentioned it a while back I believe.

We definitely bought Aster 15s and we tested them from the Longbow barge as Weasel states.

 

[swerve]

I'm fairly sure that only Aster 30 was purchased. Swerve mentioned it a while back I believe.

No, not me. I don't know what was bought: all I could have done was quote a public report.

 

[swerve]

Just quoting Hansard that the numbers included depre. If you want to criticise that practice, take it up with HM govt.

Other countries aren't bound to use our governmental accounting conventions, & often don't. They may, for example, choose to net out tax in government accounts, or exempt government purchases from tax (we do neither), & this should be allowed for when making comparisons.

You were referring to the operating costs of for a foreign navy of a ship bought secondhand from the RN. Depreciation is subject to how they choose to account for spending, & so should be left out, as should capital charges (subject to how they choose to finance any purchase & account for that purchase) & taxes.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

No, not me. I don't know what was bought: all I could have done was quote a public report.

Other countries aren't bound to use our governmental accounting conventions, & often don't. They may, for example, choose to net out tax in government accounts, or exempt government purchases from tax (we do neither), & this should be allowed for when making comparisons.

You were referring to the operating costs of for a foreign navy of a ship bought secondhand from the RN. Depreciation is subject to how they choose to account for spending, & so should be left out, as should capital charges (subject to how they choose to finance any purchase & account for that purchase) & taxes.

It would be interesting to read that public report. Perhaps you can repost or point out to where it was originally posted?

My understanding was that Aster 15s were purchased by the UK at least in the first 3 phases of FSAF which was for production by UKAMS (and later bought by MBDA) but that's like in 2003. Much has changed since then.

At to the depre figure, the 60 to 80m figures are Hansard figures which includes depre.

Lords Hansard text for 24 Jan 2005 (250124w03)

Your contention is that "depreciation shouldn't be recorded as a cost for warships". Your words not mine. I'm just stating that it was recorded as part of the operating cost by the UK MoD. Having said that, I re-read the link and should have qualified that it was capitalised cost of refit and not purchase which makes sense for inclusion as part of operating cost (though in accounting terms it would not be opex but capex).

The capitalised cost incurred by MOD would not be included as part of the buyer but if one is comparing the difference between the 2 costs, logically you would need to exclude capitalised cost incurred by MoD for a fair estimate of the actual operating cost by the buyer unless a refit is required. That was the thrust of my original post.

 

[swerve]

It would be interesting to read that public report. Perhaps you can repost or point out to where it was originally posted?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

I have no memory of posting anything about the purchase of Asters by the UK.

If I did post anything, it would have to have been a quote from a publicly available source, because I have no knowledge of the matter & no other possible sources of information on it. But since I have no memory of posting anything, this is hypothetical.

The operating costs in that Hansard link are interesting: £61.9mn for a ship which is not scheduled to be at full readiness for the entire period, & £87.9mn for a ship at full readiness, & including depreciation of refit costs. That sets limits for the base operating cost which are narrow enough to be usable. Any buyer should therefore expect to have to spend maybe £70-80mn per year, adjusted by any difference in domestic prices (e.g. India has lower labour costs, so could take something off that figure) & planned operating tempo.

Thinkdefence quotes Hansard with operating costs of several classes of ship, including the Bay class at about £17mn, or 20-25% of an Invincible class.

Unfortunately, the other operating costs given there aren't very useful, because they include too much, & with no breakdown.

 

[vbombv]

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.

Looks like the US have EMALS well underway and working, either that or they have a lot of spare Hornets:

http://defensetech.org/2010/12/09/super-hornet-could-launch-from-electromagnet-catapult-by-christmas/