The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Hopefully the near term pain to get the budget in order will result in a longer term future for the RN. Teh fact is the two carriers are being built and they will be quite a capability.

The GFC really bit a lot banks and took the government coffers with them hence the need to balance the books. From the Asutralin perspective we did well due to the style of bank regualtion adotped over the last 15 years (both sides had a role in this) but I am less positive about the future given the current national debt.

 

[kev 99]

Yeah, for sure. But what should they do? From a RAF perspective the Tornados and EFs bring alot more to the table than the Harriers.

With the Tonis they are able to perform deep strike, CAS, interdiction, maritime strike and can employ Storm Shadows. The Harriers on the other hand are good for...

While I am sceptical of the Nimrod decision I fully understand the motivation behind retiring the Harriers.

I really understand that the RN has alot of fans here and I don't say this in a negative way.
But IMHO blaming the other services is wrong and I understand 1805s position.

The army is the service that is deep in the shit since nearly a decade and one can't blame the RAF for trying to save as many of their capabilities as possible.

Tornados can't do Maritime strike, unless the Government stumps up cash for integration of an anti ship missile. Currently the only UK armed forces aircraft that can operate an anti ship missile is the Lynx with Sea Skua.

 

[1805]

Yeah, for sure. But what should they do? From a RAF perspective the Tornados and EFs bring alot more to the table than the Harriers.

With the Tonis they are able to perform deep strike, CAS, interdiction, maritime strike and can employ Storm Shadows. The Harriers on the other hand are good for...

While I am sceptical of the Nimrod decision I fully understand the motivation behind retiring the Harriers.

I really understand that the RN has alot of fans here and I don't say this in a negative way.
But IMHO blaming the other services is wrong and I understand 1805s position.

The army is the service that is deep in the shit since nearly a decade and one can't blame the RAF for trying to save as many of their capabilities as possible.

I think we are in broad agreement. Although you could argue that the EF/Tornado duplicate capability and without the Harrier we will lack robust tactical battlefield support.

I agree at the decision point the Harrier didn't really have a stong case: active numbers were smaller (c30-40?) it could only do light attack lacking any medium range aam capability. I'm not sure I would say the RAF saw the situation coming and engineered this but they certainly saw it before the RN and steered it in the direction they wanted.

The RN has mismanaged carrier airpower since the 60s. Developing the FA2 even at the time clearly was not a sound move, when an AV8B version was an option. However once the RN gave it up, carrier airpower has been at risk ever since.

 

[Waylander]

@Kev 99
I stand corrected. I thought Sea Eagle is still in service.
Nevertheless the Tornado is a much more versatile platform.

@1805
I wouldn't say that without the Harrier the UK lacks a robust CAS platform.
Right now the Tornados operate in Afghanistan and as they can employ LGBs and Brimstone they bring enough to the table. Not to forget that they have guns...

The only advantage the Harrier had was it's ability to operate from shorter runways (from a RAF point of view). Keeping it would have meant less operational Tornados or EFs. Easy choice...

 

[swerve]

Brazil will be in the Market for a carrier then?.

Brazil wants two carriers (for obvious reasons), & the navy doesn't expect to be able to get funding for two carriers the size of CVF. It would also prefer to build locally, & there's pressure from within the armed forces & Argentina to sort out a joint programme, in which Brazil builds three carriers, including one for Argentina.

Given the choice between one wholly imported CVF, & two locally-built carriers plus a chance of an export sale, both industry & the forces will push extremely hard for the latter, & there'll also be a lot of pressure from Argentina - a friendly neighbour.

Difficult to see a CVF sale succeeding in that environment.

The only other possible customer is India, & India also wants to build locally.

Basically, we'd have to almost give 'em away to override the local interest groups & make a sale.

 

[1805]

@Kev 99
I stand corrected. I thought Sea Eagle is still in service.
Nevertheless the Tornado is a much more versatile platform.

@1805
I wouldn't say that without the Harrier the UK lacks a robust CAS platform.
Right now the Tornados operate in Afghanistan and as they can employ LGBs and Brimstone they bring enough to the table. Not to forget that they have guns...

The only advantage the Harrier had was it's ability to operate from shorter runways (from a RAF point of view). Keeping it would have meant less operational Tornados or EFs. Easy choice...

I am not saying the Tornado can't do CAS but the report from Afghanistan appear to indicate the Harrier was more useful. I think ditching the Tornado would not have effected the EF negatively, it might have even helped it. In fact the Tornados are older and will require overhauls, that said I can't see them lasting much after the F35 introduction so it's probably not to serious. I agree the GR7-9 was not much value to the RN, the options were missed years back with the FA2.

Mind once we are out of Afghanstan, unless we are directly attacked I can't see any operations of size under this Government.

 

[1805]

Brazil wants two carriers (for obvious reasons), & the navy doesn't expect to be able to get funding for two carriers the size of CVF. It would also prefer to build locally, & there's pressure from within the armed forces & Argentina to sort out a joint programme, in which Brazil builds three carriers, including one for Argentina.

Given the choice between one wholly imported CVF, & two locally-built carriers plus a chance of an export sale, both industry & the forces will push extremely hard for the latter, & there'll also be a lot of pressure from Argentina - a friendly neighbour.

Difficult to see a CVF sale succeeding in that environment.

The only other possible customer is India, & India also wants to build locally.

Basically, we'd have to almost give 'em away to override the local interest groups & make a sale.

Yes Brazil would like to create the local employment but the complexity of such a ship combine with what is likely to be a bargain price means you can’t rule them out. I would be very surprised if the ARA went back into the carrier game when you look at their current approach to defence. Even a JC1 type vessel would be ambitious and I personally think a complete waste of money.

Back to Brazil the UK/RN could do with getting back in there before the French clear use out of a once UK dominate market.

 

[swerve]

I am not saying the Tornado can't do CAS but the report from Afghanistan appear to indicate the Harrier was more useful. I think ditching the Tornado would not have effected the EF negatively, it might have even helped it. In fact the Tornados are older and will require overhauls, that said I can't see them lasting much after the F35 introduction so it's probably not to serious. I agree the GR7-9 was much value to the RN, the options were missed years back with the FA2..

Apart from using shorter runways (not important since Kandahar was improved), what could Harrier do that Tornado couldn't, & was useful in Afghanistan?

Ditching all the Tornadoes would have left us with either (a) no carrier air because the Harrier force was entirely occupied supporting operations in Afghanistan, or (b) using Typhoon in Afghanistan. We had too few Harriers (thanks, Blair/Brown/etc) to do Afghanistan & anything else with them. That would leave us now with Typhoon having to cover all other taskings, & we don't have very many of 'em. It'd be very difficult to both carry out all taskings and fit in the accelerated integration of Storm Shadow, etc., which we'd want to do because of all the capabilities lost by withdrawing Tornado.

 

[swerve]

Yes Brazil would like to create the local employment but the complexity of such a ship combine with what is likely to be a bargain price means you can’t rule them out. I would be very surprised if the ARA went back into the carrier game when you look at their current approach to defence. Even a JC1 type vessel would be ambitious and I personally think a complete waste of money.

Back to Brazil the UK/RN could do with getting back in there before the French clear use out of a once UK dominate market.

Argentina depends on the government. At present, the forces are being starved of money, something like 0.6% of GDP. If that returned to anything like a normal level, Argentina could afford a carrier. They're flying off Sao Paulo every now & then, BTW.

To tempt Brazil, that bargain price would have to be such a bargain that as I said, we'd practically have to give the carriers away. Don't underestimate the industrial lobbies over there.

To get back into the Brazilian market we need to offer them what they want, not what we want to sell. They're losing interest in our ships because we're making that mistake. They want ships with some area air defence capability, & fairly soon, for example - & we're offering the as-yet-undesigned Type 26 with self-defence missiles against Italian FREMMs with Aster 30. Doh! Same here: the navy might like CVF, but 65000 ton carriers are almost certainly politically unsupportable. To have a good chance of making a sale, we need to offer what they want, & that's a smaller design they can build a couple of & support themselves.

We might be able to sell them some of the surplus OPVs & corvettes sitting around, or a Bay class, but that's because they actually want such ships.

 

[ASFC]

We might be able to sell them some of the surplus OPVs & corvettes sitting around, or a Bay class, but that's because they actually want such ships.

I'm in agreement with swerve.

What CVF does give us is the ability to design a carrier that the Indians/Brazilians might be interested in, rather than trying to force them into a deal for a CVF......

 

[1805]

Argentina depends on the government. At present, the forces are being starved of money, something like 0.6% of GDP. If that returned to anything like a normal level, Argentina could afford a carrier. They're flying off Sao Paulo every now & then, BTW.

To tempt Brazil, that bargain price would have to be such a bargain that as I said, we'd practically have to give the carriers away. Don't underestimate the industrial lobbies over there.

To get back into the Brazilian market we need to offer them what they want, not what we want to sell. They're losing interest in our ships because we're making that mistake. They want ships with some area air defence capability, & fairly soon, for example - & we're offering the as-yet-undesigned Type 26 with self-defence missiles against Italian FREMMs with Aster 30. Doh! Same here: the navy might like CVF, but 65000 ton carriers are almost certainly politically unsupportable. To have a good chance of making a sale, we need to offer what they want, & that's a smaller design they can build a couple of & support themselves.

We might be able to sell them some of the surplus OPVs & corvettes sitting around, or a Bay class, but that's because they actually want such ships.

Well I completely agree with you on the need to "sell people what they want not what we want to sell" This is the problem British shipbuilding has been suffering from for the last 40 years. The RN's lack of interest in a serious industrial strategy is such a contrast with Brazil that is thriving on counter trade deals. We could learn a lot from them.

But I don't think the Brazilians could buy a design/build locally a meaningful CV for £1bn and as I have said before what better airdefence could they get than 2 T45 (or even 2 RN T45 & 2 local built).

As for ARA why would they want a carrier, there is no strategic value for them in having one.

 

[1805]

Apart from using shorter runways (not important since Kandahar was improved), what could Harrier do that Tornado couldn't, & was useful in Afghanistan?

Ditching all the Tornadoes would have left us with either (a) no carrier air because the Harrier force was entirely occupied supporting operations in Afghanistan, or (b) using Typhoon in Afghanistan. We had too few Harriers (thanks, Blair/Brown/etc) to do Afghanistan & anything else with them. That would leave us now with Typhoon having to cover all other taskings, & we don't have very many of 'em. It'd be very difficult to both carry out all taskings and fit in the accelerated integration of Storm Shadow, etc., which we'd want to do because of all the capabilities lost by withdrawing Tornado.

I wasn't arguing against the Tornado v Harrier GR7-9 decision as it was. My point was the path was set many years before by a number of RN mistakes and clever RAF footwork anticipating the situation.

 

[1805]

I'm in agreement with swerve.

What CVF does give us is the ability to design a carrier that the Indians/Brazilians might be interested in, rather than trying to force them into a deal for a CVF......

The RN needs cash, to ensure it has at least one carrier with a decent air group. It’s much better to sell what has sadly become a white elephant than let it rot in reserve for a decade and sell if for an even lower price as we did with the Upholders. Brazil, India & China could all be options. If the RN was clever it would offer one of the Ts to Brazil to enable them to get use to an SSN, then push the French out with the offer of a RN Asute and assistance to build more locally. The same approach could be tried with India maybe even Canada?

 

[KiwiRob]

The RN needs cash, to ensure it has at least one carrier with a decent air group. It’s much better to sell what has sadly become a white elephant than let it rot in reserve for a decade and sell if for an even lower price as we did with the Upholders. Brazil, India & China could all be options. If the RN was clever it would offer one of the Ts to Brazil to enable them to get use to an SSN, then push the French out with the offer of a RN Asute and assistance to build more locally. The same approach could be tried with India maybe even Canada?

Do you think that if the RN sell assets they get to keep the cash, I doubt it, if they sell it they lose it and that's that.

 

[1805]

Do you think that if the RN sell assets they get to keep the cash, I doubt it, if they sell it they lose it and that's that.

You have the situation round the wrong way. The RN is over spent and effectively in overdraft, they need the case to survive not expand. However deals are always to be done with the Government. If the RN can demonstrate it can be a positive contributor to employment/exports it will help its wider case. You don't think those carriers would ever have been ordered if they were not being constructed in Labour’s Scottish constituencies.

What I am suggesting is simply do what the French/Swedes/Israelis/Russians and everyone else is doing, but the RN is too arrogant to lower itself to helping British industry. In the past the RN has given up its ships for replacement later. Look at the Russian defence industry, once it realised it had to export or die it got out there and did deals.

The more we make the lower the unit price, its export or have no RN. What are you suggesting....do nothing and watch others countries secure the orders....how will that help?

 

[StobieWan]

Tornados can't do Maritime strike, unless the Government stumps up cash for integration of an anti ship missile. Currently the only UK armed forces aircraft that can operate an anti ship missile is the Lynx with Sea Skua.

Really? Because the MarineFleiger operated them in that role for about ten years - no idea what missile was being used but it was certainly a role the German Tornadoes were tasked with.

Besides, for light anti shipping, you could just bring some Brimstone along I guess - they'd be pretty much sorted for anything smaller than a Corvette type target.


Ian

 

[StobieWan]

I am not saying the Tornado can't do CAS but the report from Afghanistan appear to indicate the Harrier was more useful. I think ditching the Tornado would not have effected the EF negatively, it might have even helped it. In fact the Tornados are older and will require overhauls, that said I can't see them lasting much after the F35 introduction so it's probably not to serious. I agree the GR7-9 was much value to the RN, the options were missed years back with the FA2.

Mind once we are out of Afghanstan, unless we are directly attacked I can't see any operations of size under this Government.

The dice on the Harrier downselect was cast ages back once the fleet numbers had dropped to 38 or so - at that point it wasn't possible to generate enough numbers for both the the RN and the RAF - taking the "Joint" out of JHF. Given that the best way to make some solid savings was to totally drop *one* of the two airframes, that pretty much meant that the Harrier was going if large and effective cuts were made.

The actual capabilities of the two aircraft are almost irrelevant in that sort of environment - you're just stuck with a big hole in the budget you need to fix and dropping the entire supply chain, support staff and training requirement for one type is very cost effective. Personally I think it sucks but that's how it plays.

Ian

 

[swerve]

Really? Because the MarineFleiger operated them in that role for about ten years - no idea what missile was being used but it was certainly a role the German Tornadoes were tasked with.

Besides, for light anti shipping, you could just bring some Brimstone along I guess - they'd be pretty much sorted for anything smaller than a Corvette type target.

Ian

The Germans used Kormoran, which IIRC has been retired. No reason why another anti-ship missile couldn't be integrated, except money. Hmm . . . what do the Italians have integrated? Any anti-ship missiles? They make some . . .

 

[StobieWan]

The Germans used Kormoran, which IIRC has been retired. No reason why another anti-ship missile couldn't be integrated, except money. Hmm . . . what do the Italians have integrated? Any anti-ship missiles? They make some . . .

Still in service apparently and onto Kormoran 2 by all accounts.

I'd go get the Norwegian Strike Missile onboard if I had a choice, as it'll fit inside the F35's bays.


Thing is, there ain't no money for it - they're willing to let aircraft they've paid for get converted into kit kat wrappers and beer cans rather than spend money on flying 'em (MPA4..) I doubt homeland anti ship missions are top priority either.

Ian

 

[swerve]

But I don't think the Brazilians could buy a design/build locally a meaningful CV for £1bn and as I have said before what better airdefence could they get than 2 T45 (or even 2 RN T45 & 2 local built)..

Here we go again . . .

You keep ignoring the main factors, i.e. politics & industry. It's like the new fighters: the Brazilians don't want just aircraft carriers, they want an aircraft carrier building industry. They're not thinking about buying a ship, but a long-term capability. They know that buying an already-built ship, even at a giveaway price, won't get them that. As well as industry & the navy wanting home-built, there are also political obstacles to ships as big as CVF. I keep saying that, & you keep ignoring it.

As for what they could get for £1bn, well . . . . considering what Cavour cost, & that costs are lower in Brazil, I reckon they could get most of a 40000 ton or so carrier. For £2.5-£3 bn or so they could probably get two, which is what they want.

Type 45 is expensive. If we sell two for knock-down prices, what do we do for naval air defence? How much would it cost to replicate that capability? You're proposing we gut the RN, & sell off ships for a fraction of what they cost to build, or would cost to replace. Also, the Brazilians could almost certainly build Italian FREMM copies for much less than Type 45s, & while not as capable, they'd be perfectly capable of handling anything they're likely to come up against. They'd also give the possibility of commonality across the fleet, if they get a mix of AAW & other (e.g. ASW) models, which we can't offer with the T45.

You're still letting your vision of the future needs of the RN override what you know about the need to sell what the customer wants, & trying to foist on Brazil what you think we can sell, not what they want or need.

What I am suggesting is simply do what the French/Swedes/Israelis/Russians and everyone else is doing, but the RN is too arrogant to lower itself to helping British industry. In the past the RN has given up its ships for replacement later.

The RN has already given up most of its fleet, & is about to give up even more. Two carriers, an LSD, support ships, & four frigates are in the process of going, some of them to be replaced later. It's doing what you ask (apart from building ships to exportable designs, where I agree with you), but you want it to go even further, to the point where we'd hardly have a navy.