The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Troothsayer
New Member
Interesting snippet regarding Type 26 during a Q&A session at a recent iiss conference
Liam Fox:
Rather worrying the portrayal of Type 26 as the maritime equivalent of JSF, that means it'll come in at least 50% over budget!
Liam Fox:
This was said in the presence of Stephen Smith, defence minister for Australia. Given the recent notification in parliament that things were going 'rather well' in looking for partners does this indicate that Australia may be involved after all? I was always of the mind this was unlikely due to all the US equipment they buy these days.
Rather worrying the portrayal of Type 26 as the maritime equivalent of JSF, that means it'll come in at least 50% over budget!
The recent joint operations between the France and Britain, both at sea (off Libya), in the air (fixed wing operations) and on land (UK exercising in France and the FFL training in the UK) further enhances the cross-decking/exchanging of personnel between the two nations for mutual benefit. The recent comments by the head of the French fleet reflect a new reality, one where UK & French pilots/crews will be far more integrated. FAA pilots are already embedded with the USN, and I believe we will see the same relationship developed with France. If the third QE class carrier is retained as a training ship for both nations we should arrive at a situation were between France and the UK we will hopefully have 1-2 Strike carriers available in Europe for global deployment. for the majority of the year.
We should share aircraft carrier, say French - Telegraph
This represents a win, win situation until more money can be found to invest on national maritime assets. The French can delay the buying of a second carrier until they've had time to evaluate the QE class over that of the CdG (I suspect the second carrier will end up replacing the CdG). UK and French airframes can share deck space on both the designated operational carrier and training carrier (If and when one national asset is in refit). There will be more than enough T45/Horizon, Amphib, Frigates and RFA vessels to support a sizable UK/French task force to deal with another Libya scenario.
The recent Libya conflict and subsequent US decision to step back has forced the UK/French to work far more closely than before. They have more in common than most people care to admit , both are geographically aligned and will end up by 2020 with similar sized fleets with a nuclear capability.
We have to accept reality that until the F35C arrives the UK the military will have to relay on T45 (3 now operational) for AAW and Apache/Wildcat for maritime CAS. I can't think of a scenario where the RN will not be without US maritime air cover or operating in an environment where Apache and ground based fixed wing will provide enough support.
Apache aboard Ocean is about as good as it's going to get until the first QE arrives followed by the possibility of French/US fixed wing (with RAF/FAA pilots on exchange) until F35C appears on the scene. The ever quoted Falklands II scenario will have to be offset by better intelligence thus allowing reforger elements to arrive by C17 and an SSN to slip south.
Whilst 'old salts' might weep into their tot of rum over the French using a UK asset. Subject to timing the commissioning and work-up of the first QE could coincide with the refit of CdG. Our French allies could then transfer a flight over to the QE to allow for the operational joint training of UK/French crews aboard a single operational strike carrier. Whilst the embedded FAA/RAF pilots will be familiar with cat & trap, the RN ground crews will have to go through a severe learning curve.
I think the current Sea Typhoon propaganda is for one nations benefit only - India. It's a way for BAE to enhance the sale of Typhoon when competing against the French who are offering an existing land based/carrier capable aircraft.
Last edited:
I thought POW would get cats and QE would not at this stage, so that would not allow Rafale to operate off her...in fact we wouldn't have anything to operate offer here either other than helicopters!
Don't know what to make of this
Looks like we might be looking at buying P-8's
Nimrod U-turn blunder set to cost UK hundreds of millions - Herald Scotland | News | Home News
If we were to get them would we buy off the shelf and benefit from the US developments and upgrades ie AWACS, or try to keep some semblance of this industry intact in the UK and customise them?
Also if we are only buy 4 of them why not have just of kept the MRA4 we had more than 4 airframes complete and crews already training up on them.
If I was the suspicious type I would be wondering about this and the rush by the government to break up completed MRA4 airframes and machine tools. It might look like we are just giving up our industry to the US for some other yet to be seen trade.
Looks like we might be looking at buying P-8's
Nimrod U-turn blunder set to cost UK hundreds of millions - Herald Scotland | News | Home News
If we were to get them would we buy off the shelf and benefit from the US developments and upgrades ie AWACS, or try to keep some semblance of this industry intact in the UK and customise them?
Also if we are only buy 4 of them why not have just of kept the MRA4 we had more than 4 airframes complete and crews already training up on them.
If I was the suspicious type I would be wondering about this and the rush by the government to break up completed MRA4 airframes and machine tools. It might look like we are just giving up our industry to the US for some other yet to be seen trade.
I thought the decision had been made to fit both subject to availability of EMALS or what ever matures at the time of intended fit-out. The RN still ending up with just one operational carrier, the second mothballed for use when the first goes into deep maintenance.
If a second carrier is designated as a joint training asset as suggested by the French, you will still have to fit cat & trap.
What ever happens, the post Libya wash-up will reinforce the need for an expeditionary capability (backed by the army), that can't be sustained by a single strike capable carrier if as I suspect Ocean won't be replaced.
kev 99
Member
I suggest that if this did happen there must have been something 'wrong' with the MRA4s that required more money to fix.
The MR program is being used as a "how not to.." example in the US and Australia - broadly speaking. If it'd come in back in 2001 then it'd have been useful but the ASW and other sensors intended to be fitted were all fairly out of date and the airframes themselves were far past their sellby date. It's been an expensive route to get to this stage but if we end up with five P8's then the end result will be a more capable platform for the UK.
Ian
An absolute fiasco.
I'm surprised they are looking at the P8 if the UK is so cash strapped and suffering from a bow wave of large procurement projects.
With the demise of the Soviet submarine threat and purchase of Rivetjoint for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations I would of thought an unmanned solution would have been a far more cost effective solution to fulfill the maritime surveillance role. Something like weaponized MQ-4C Global Hawk?
Unless that is they go for the C17 approach and lease a small number out the 117 ordered for the USN?
I doubt it's a serious intention to buy anything right now we're flat broke- reading the article, some staff have been asked if they'd mind going to the states to work with the P8 and see how they go. We've pilots flying with the USN, I doubt that means we're buying Hornet next week. It may be an attempt to keep the skills alive or some longer term evaluation. For sure the recent Libya thing may have rammed home that having a maritime patrol aircraft makes sense.
An unmanned platform for overwater visual searches and surveillance makes sense and it may be that some of that can be done that way. The ASW side of things on the other hand needs a more capable platform.
Ian
Agreed reference AsW, but we need something that can be used for high-end open conflict surveillance right through to counter insurgency / piracy / anti-narcotic monitoring. For anti-sub work Global Hawk would have to act in a supporting role to an assigned T23/T26 AsW platform. Afterall the Nimrods were built to keep an eye on the Soviet fleet which is a shadow of its former self. Considering the size of the UK coastline and the fact we are surrounded by friendly's I seriously question the need for such a large fully manned platform like the P8 when there are more pressing priorities.
I much agree with riksavage's #6503 post.
I am niether french nor british, but if we for a moment look beyound national pride, national self-centeredness and national own-interest and viewed France and UK in a larger political perspective, I think most would agree that the two countries have similar large scale interests, are part of the same geopolitical region and ultimately their destiny and fortune are closely interwined.
In that view, alone, it makes sense to work closely together.
From an industrial point of view a close defense coorporation, or rather a "common market of defense" would also make good sense. Both France and the UK have large defense industries and constitute large defense markets, a joining of those markets would be of mutual benefit and strenghten UK and French defense industries which would also benefit the "buyers" (the defenses). If France and the UK in that way created a common market of defense that would certainly expand to the rest of the european common market, forming a large defense market - to the benefit of all.
As an hypotethical example (and with the benefit of hind sight), Let's assume that France and the UK 20-30 years ago had got the idea that around 2010 they would need 2 large carriers, each.
Assuming that Fr and the UK could agree on good metrics for the coorporation, and because of the size of the project, the larger market (more firms, more knowledge, more competition) we can expect that such a project would end up with a better result than the CdG and the new UK carrier project.
Also we could guess that France and the UK 20-30 years ago, also saw an idea in creating a single multirole fighter that also could be carrier based. The french have done this, but had the UK been part of such a project, the end result could have been much more ambitious.
I would bet that had that happened, France and the UK could have had 4 carriers equipped with modern fighters of the coast of Libya today, and not have spendt a single Euro/pound more than they allready has.
Further more UK/Fr would have had defense industries that could offer f.ex. a carrier to india, or china, or russia and expect to win the tender.
While there are huge dangers in working bilaterally (as have been seen in the horizon project) one can also see advantages. If there are many owners, one goverment can't (or is less likely to) mess up the project out of short sighted political gains - (One thing is to screw BAE or Thales, another thing is to screw your neighbouring country - not that it's impossible!)
But unfortunately we are left with short sighted national centric political solutions that have left France and the UK in decay.
And it is the fault of France and the UK that europe (including France and the UK) appears so weak in geopolitical security matters - because those two countries are the only ones who can lead the rest of europe in these matters.
What is annoying to me is that this weakness is not caused by poverty or lack of ressources - Europe, including France and the UK, has plenty of ressources to assert it self - but the weakness seems to originate in stupidity and short sighted politics amied at everything, but creating a strong defense.
As an eye opener I like to point to how things can be done: my country, Denmark, insignificant as it is, can design and build 5 large frigates (2 "ABS" and 3 state-of-the-art AAW frigates) for an aquisition cost of less than a single Type 45.
In that view I find that its not surprising that responsible politicians are pulling the plug on the RN - One for more than the price of five seems to disclose a problem of the sort that more money can't fix.....
I am niether french nor british, but if we for a moment look beyound national pride, national self-centeredness and national own-interest and viewed France and UK in a larger political perspective, I think most would agree that the two countries have similar large scale interests, are part of the same geopolitical region and ultimately their destiny and fortune are closely interwined.
In that view, alone, it makes sense to work closely together.
From an industrial point of view a close defense coorporation, or rather a "common market of defense" would also make good sense. Both France and the UK have large defense industries and constitute large defense markets, a joining of those markets would be of mutual benefit and strenghten UK and French defense industries which would also benefit the "buyers" (the defenses). If France and the UK in that way created a common market of defense that would certainly expand to the rest of the european common market, forming a large defense market - to the benefit of all.
As an hypotethical example (and with the benefit of hind sight), Let's assume that France and the UK 20-30 years ago had got the idea that around 2010 they would need 2 large carriers, each.
Assuming that Fr and the UK could agree on good metrics for the coorporation, and because of the size of the project, the larger market (more firms, more knowledge, more competition) we can expect that such a project would end up with a better result than the CdG and the new UK carrier project.
Also we could guess that France and the UK 20-30 years ago, also saw an idea in creating a single multirole fighter that also could be carrier based. The french have done this, but had the UK been part of such a project, the end result could have been much more ambitious.
I would bet that had that happened, France and the UK could have had 4 carriers equipped with modern fighters of the coast of Libya today, and not have spendt a single Euro/pound more than they allready has.
Further more UK/Fr would have had defense industries that could offer f.ex. a carrier to india, or china, or russia and expect to win the tender.
While there are huge dangers in working bilaterally (as have been seen in the horizon project) one can also see advantages. If there are many owners, one goverment can't (or is less likely to) mess up the project out of short sighted political gains - (One thing is to screw BAE or Thales, another thing is to screw your neighbouring country - not that it's impossible!)
But unfortunately we are left with short sighted national centric political solutions that have left France and the UK in decay.
And it is the fault of France and the UK that europe (including France and the UK) appears so weak in geopolitical security matters - because those two countries are the only ones who can lead the rest of europe in these matters.
What is annoying to me is that this weakness is not caused by poverty or lack of ressources - Europe, including France and the UK, has plenty of ressources to assert it self - but the weakness seems to originate in stupidity and short sighted politics amied at everything, but creating a strong defense.
As an eye opener I like to point to how things can be done: my country, Denmark, insignificant as it is, can design and build 5 large frigates (2 "ABS" and 3 state-of-the-art AAW frigates) for an aquisition cost of less than a single Type 45.
In that view I find that its not surprising that responsible politicians are pulling the plug on the RN - One for more than the price of five seems to disclose a problem of the sort that more money can't fix.....
That's journalistic speculation. There's no real evidence for it, & quite a lot against it.
Agreed that you're not going to go around shooting Harpoons at small boats, that's not what I was suggesting. I think we agree in this regard but we're just using different words to get there.
Might want to check your numbers re Harpoon costs though, I haven't heard any price tags quoted at anywhere near a million dollars...
EDIT: I did some quick looking around for what costs are publicly available, and there are indeed some sources stating unit cost is around 1.2 mil. However there are also sources stating less than half that, so I'm not sure... maybe one of the other, more learned guys in here could give some insight.
I maybe off a bit too as I think that those costs are for newer versions, whereas with what I can find on the net is the UK version is the UGM-84B (modified A) or the C model which varies depending where you look.
I will start by saying that I am not an expert here nor claim to be one. I am only interested in the conversation and am here to learn and contribute if I can.
Now to condem myself
I am not dissing the Harpoon and I am far from claiming the Exocet is any better. What I was trying to get at was the effectiveness of any currently fitted SSM (including the Harpoon) against modern frigates or even air defence vessels unless used in large numbers. Since 1982 umpteen billions of research has gone into every subsequent generation of frigate/destroyer in every Navy probably due to the SAM screen not working great in 1982. SSMs have advanced by generations also but I would hazard to guess that not by as much as they did in fact work in 1982.
I know this is really oversimplifying things as the factors involved are massive, but in ideal conditions at long range what are the chances of 1 British SSM (Harpoon) geting through the area defence, inner layer defence and point defence of a remotely modern frigate? Does this chance double with 2 being fired or do we need to fire off all 8 from the quad launchers before we get into the near guaranteed hit field?
I would imagine that without a serious blunder from the receiving frigate that the chances of impact are small and that the Harpoons would probably need to be launched in swarm to overwhelm the defence. I don't even know if the Harpoon launchers that the Royal Navy have are capable of quick succesion launching.
As said before the Harpoons are for taking out larger targets, but if the chances of hitting are remote what's the point of increasing the costs of the T26 further with the SSM system especially if it will contribute to the probable cost overuns.
It is for this I reason that dedicated ASuW should be primerily done by aircraft and subs. I do however remain open to correction!
I dare say the launchers will be salvaged from the outgoing type 23's so cost may not be a huge factor. Harpoon would almost certainly have to be launched in pairs to overcome a modern escort, but I understand it can be programmed to take in dog leg courses to arrive from different directions, so popping off a number in succession, spaced for efflux considerations, all arriving at more or less the same time, from multiple angles is possible.I will start by saying that I am not an expert here nor claim to be one. I am only interested in the conversation and am here to learn and contribute if I can.
Now to condem myself
I am not dissing the Harpoon and I am far from claiming the Exocet is any better. What I was trying to get at was the effectiveness of any currently fitted SSM (including the Harpoon) against modern frigates or even air defence vessels unless used in large numbers. Since 1982 umpteen billions of research has gone into every subsequent generation of frigate/destroyer in every Navy probably due to the SAM screen not working great in 1982. SSMs have advanced by generations also but I would hazard to guess that not by as much as they did in fact work in 1982.
I know this is really oversimplifying things as the factors involved are massive, but in ideal conditions at long range what are the chances of 1 British SSM (Harpoon) geting through the area defence, inner layer defence and point defence of a remotely modern frigate? Does this chance double with 2 being fired or do we need to fire off all 8 from the quad launchers before we get into the near guaranteed hit field?
I would imagine that without a serious blunder from the receiving frigate that the chances of impact are small and that the Harpoons would probably need to be launched in swarm to overwhelm the defence. I don't even know if the Harpoon launchers that the Royal Navy have are capable of quick succesion launching.
As said before the Harpoons are for taking out larger targets, but if the chances of hitting are remote what's the point of increasing the costs of the T26 further with the SSM system especially if it will contribute to the probable cost overuns.
It is for this I reason that dedicated ASuW should be primerily done by aircraft and subs. I do however remain open to correction!
Ian
It is for this I reason that dedicated ASuW should be primerily done by aircraft and subs.
I agree
Sea Eagle (ASM) - 'Anti-Ship' Missile
Just shows what a good anti ship striker the Bucc was, seems that 6 Buccs could coordinate 24 Sea Eagles from different axis of attack.
That seems far more preferable than risking an expensive frigate in a slugging match with an opponent armed with a comparable missile. Hopefully one day the F35 will provide the stand off antiship punch if required.
I agree
Sea Eagle (ASM) - 'Anti-Ship' Missile
Just shows what a good anti ship striker the Bucc was, seems that 6 Buccs could coordinate 24 Sea Eagles from different axis of attack.
That seems far more preferable than risking an expensive frigate in a slugging match with an opponent armed with a comparable missile. Hopefully one day the F35 will provide the stand off antiship punch if required.
Now that would reduce costs although I understand that these are older varients, with a range of about 65nm and the dogleging reduce this range further therefor putting the frigate an even increased risk due to the reduction of reaction time.
As I write this I am starting to see the Harpoon one one vessel as a 65nm deterrent rather than a purly offensive weapon.
I guess that two T26s in the CVBG would give the group a 65nm safe zone against enemy vessels at a relevently low cost. Although I still see these as wastefull against modern defensive measures, the16 Harpoons would work very well as an attrition effect, reducing the enemys sam numbers so that either air strikes of submarines could get in and finish the job.
Now that is the way to do it! The target would have a moment of seeing 30 approaching targets before 6 turned away.
Just reading up the Buccs could fire all 24 missiles within 10 seconds and could have gone in without radar using just a Nimrod or AWACS further out for the initial targeting. We really have lost all offensive capability apart from the SSNs.
vbombv
I don't know the answers.
Though I would say that a modern missile represents a serious threat to any surface ship in a real situation:
Months at sea, the weather is bad, men are tired and then suddenly an echo on the screen and an alarm - is it a friendly helicopter or a missile? one minute later the thing is very close...
Certainly there are procedures for all situations, but...
As far as I know, neither Sheffield nor Stark ever saw what hit'em, much has happened since, but the time from detection to impact/defeat has to be a crucial parameter. And at what ranges can you detect a sea skimmer? 20 km? or more?
I don't know the answers.
Though I would say that a modern missile represents a serious threat to any surface ship in a real situation:
Months at sea, the weather is bad, men are tired and then suddenly an echo on the screen and an alarm - is it a friendly helicopter or a missile? one minute later the thing is very close...
Certainly there are procedures for all situations, but...
As far as I know, neither Sheffield nor Stark ever saw what hit'em, much has happened since, but the time from detection to impact/defeat has to be a crucial parameter. And at what ranges can you detect a sea skimmer? 20 km? or more?