The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

Putting aside the procurement arguement for 5 minutes, you've yet again decided to increase the size of the fleet by an aircraft carrier and an LPD against Government plans, and yet you constantly state the size of the MOD budget is too large and have stated that you want to see it reduced. Where is the extra money coming from to buy these additional ships and where is the money coming from for their running costs?

I think you assume I am about cutting the RN. I would re focus some of the spend, but broadly think we should maintain a balanced fleet, able to support the army and provide a degree of power projection/ global presence.

The current level of funding is sufficient to do this if things are done in a more efficient way. Small example but how many recruitment offices (it’s 100s btw) does the MOD maintain...this should all be done online; do we want people who can’t complete an online application form handling complex systems? An adequate MRP could have been sourced for ¼ of the cost of MR4? Despite what people say about the NAO’s view the 2 carriers will cost more than£6.5bn. I think you have said before it will always be so, but that is not acceptable.

Yes current funding is a mess and what has been done has been done, but the RN must learn from this and aspire to do better.

 

[kev 99]

I think you assume I am about cutting the RN. I would re focus some of the spend, but broadly think we should maintain a balanced fleet, able to support the army and provide a degree of power projection/ global presence.

The current level of funding is sufficient to do this if things are done in a more efficient way. Small example but how many recruitment offices (it’s 100s btw) does the MOD maintain...this should all be done online; do we want people who can’t complete an online application form handling complex systems? An adequate MRP could have been sourced for ¼ of the cost of MR4? Despite what people say about the NAO’s view the 2 carriers will cost more than£6.5bn. I think you have said before it will always be so, but that is not acceptable.

Yes current funding is a mess and what has been done has been done, but the RN must learn from this and aspire to do better.

Okay so you're solution to the MOD's funding crisis is do everything better and close a few recruitment offices, that might solve the MOD's current problems in about 20 years time, providing you're solutions all work. I strongly suspect that even if they did work it would only make the problem less bad as they wouldn't solve it outright.

I know you're not about cutting the RN everything you've ever written suggests that you want to expand it but you've never actually managed to adequately explain how.

You still haven't managed to provide an explanation for how you're getting an extra carrier (plus aircraft) and an LPD when the Government has decided we don't need it and has not provided funds to operate it.

Closing some installations like recruitment offices is one of the few things you've ever actually said that I can see sense in, but not all of them, I strongly suspect there are other sites that are pointless, I read something about an MOD library in Surrey once that hadn't seen a visitor in 3 years.

Never heard of the expression MRP before (Well not in this context), which one specifically where you thinking of instead of MRA4? The only options that I know of were second hand P3's which were worse than what we had already.

 

[StobieWan]

Okay so you're solution to the MOD's funding crisis is do everything better and close a few recruitment offices, that might solve the MOD's current problems in about 20 years time, providing you're solutions all work. I strongly suspect that even if they did work it would only make the problem less bad as they wouldn't solve it outright.

I know you're not about cutting the RN everything you've ever written suggests that you want to expand it but you've never actually managed to adequately explain how.

You still haven't managed to provide an explanation for how you're getting an extra carrier (plus aircraft) and an LPD when the Government has decided we don't need it and has not provided funds to operate it.

Closing some installations like recruitment offices is one of the few things you've ever actually said that I can see sense in, but not all of them, I strongly suspect there are other sites that are pointless, I read something about an MOD library in Surrey once that hadn't seen a visitor in 3 years.

Never heard of the expression MRP before (Well not in this context), which one specifically where you thinking of instead of MRA4? The only options that I know of were second hand P3's which were worse than what we had already.

Well, most RN recruiting establishments are shared with the RAF as far as I can recall- and they do a great job of discouraging total wastes of space. If you kill the recruiting offices then I suspect you'll see a ramp up in washouts on induction.

Ian

 

[1805]

Well, most RN recruiting establishments are shared with the RAF as far as I can recall- and they do a great job of discouraging total wastes of space. If you kill the recruiting offices then I suspect you'll see a ramp up in washouts on induction.

Ian

I only mentioned this in passing but you response shows how closed minded to any improvements, you are. There are c200 offices some still services branded some joint; if with staffing and support costs they cost 200k a each a spend of c£40m a year to run? So how many other businesses that run recruit offices? Also any idea how much it cost to TV advertise....anyone else doing it for recruitment??

Oddly with a war on and the current climate they have no problem hiring. But if you attract more candiates it cost more to process even the rejections....making it even more expensive.

They need to be lean and mean, set an example to the rest of Government and industry for all their processes.

 

[1805]

Okay so you're solution to the MOD's funding crisis is do everything better and close a few recruitment offices, that might solve the MOD's current problems in about 20 years time, providing you're solutions all work. I strongly suspect that even if they did work it would only make the problem less bad as they wouldn't solve it outright.

I know you're not about cutting the RN everything you've ever written suggests that you want to expand it but you've never actually managed to adequately explain how.

You still haven't managed to provide an explanation for how you're getting an extra carrier (plus aircraft) and an LPD when the Government has decided we don't need it and has not provided funds to operate it.

Closing some installations like recruitment offices is one of the few things you've ever actually said that I can see sense in, but not all of them, I strongly suspect there are other sites that are pointless, I read something about an MOD library in Surrey once that hadn't seen a visitor in 3 years.

Never heard of the expression MRP before (Well not in this context), which one specifically where you thinking of instead of MRA4? The only options that I know of were second hand P3's which were worse than what we had already.

I wasn't saying we should not have built a MPA, but just base it on a modern commerical airliner, either new or secondhand and focus on the electronics which we could have built some and or brought other items.

The 3 LPH would have replace Ocean/Albion/Bulwark, I would have kept some of Round Table ships and not built the Bays. I sure we would then have had a chance with the Camberra's.

But then I would never have developed Sea Wolf and just focused on developing Sea Dart. So with the T23 having Sea Dart (and Goalkeeper) we would not have brought any Harpoon (500k a round x how many?). With Sea Dart armed T23s, the T42 with their poor sea keeping and heavy crews could have gone 10 years ago? (a saving of 12 x 100 men x 10 years?).

The saving I would have spent increasing the Sea Harrier fleet to c60-80 (having the advantage that the joint unit would end up being RN controlled.

I might have installed a land based Sea Dart at Stanley and maybe suggested Sea Harriers took over responsibility on a part time basis.

 

[kev 99]

Oh yes that's right I was forgetting you're solution to solving a problem is to apply perfect hindsight and rewrite history until the problem goes away, wave the magic wand and the last 30 years goes up in smoke, no more problem.

What you're suggesting with the MPA is what the USN have done with the P-8, have a look at how much money is involved in that programme, it's quite far from being the cheap solution you think it is. There were only a handful of solutions on the table that the MRA4 contract was let and converting a commercial airliner wasn't even one of them.

 

[StobieWan]

Oh yes that's right I was forgetting you're solution to solving a problem is to apply perfect hindsight and rewrite history until the problem goes away, wave the magic wand and the last 30 years goes up in smoke, no more problem.

What you're suggesting with the MPA is what the USN have done with the P-8, have a look at how much money is involved in that programme, it's quite far from being the cheap solution you think it is. There were only a handful of solutions on the table that the MRA4 contract was let and converting a commercial airliner wasn't even one of them.

Basically with the MR4, BAE pretty much misled either the customer or themselves in terms of how much work was involved, and I understand that one of the senior technical people was given the shove for refusing to sign off on an estimate of works he felt was inaccurate in extremis.

MR4 could have been useful if it'd come out on time, back in early 200x but on the whole, it's been a sorry debacle that we need to learn from. I think the Indian buy of 8 or so brand new P8's came in at less than the cost of the MR4 program. I know the P8 wasn't an option at the time of the original contract being let for MR4, but it's instructive I think.

I don't know what the price includes, weather they're getting sensors and so forth tucked in there but individual aircraft are being touted at 220m USD.

The program critique is circulating in defence circles as a very good "how not to.." document, or so I recall Gf2000 on here reporting.

Effectively, if the actual state of the airframes had been reported accurately and the scale of the work correctly estimated, I think the MOD could have gone out and bought something else, either Atlantiques, one of the Embraer options or refurbed P3's for less money and then added UK content in terms of sensors and so forth.

Ian

 

[kev 99]

Basically with the MR4, BAE pretty much misled either the customer or themselves in terms of how much work was involved, and I understand that one of the senior technical people was given the shove for refusing to sign off on an estimate of works he felt was inaccurate in extremis.

MR4 could have been useful if it'd come out on time, back in early 200x but on the whole, it's been a sorry debacle that we need to learn from. I think the Indian buy of 8 or so brand new P8's came in at less than the cost of the MR4 program. I know the P8 wasn't an option at the time of the original contract being let for MR4, but it's instructive I think.

I don't know what the price includes, weather they're getting sensors and so forth tucked in there but individual aircraft are being touted at 220m USD.

The program critique is circulating in defence circles as a very good "how not to.." document, or so I recall Gf2000 on here reporting.

Effectively, if the actual state of the airframes had been reported accurately and the scale of the work correctly estimated, I think the MOD could have gone out and bought something else, either Atlantiques, one of the Embraer options or refurbed P3's for less money and then added UK content in terms of sensors and so forth.

Ian

Title tattle on the net suggests the BAE bloke in question was the cheif engineer, as for who was mislead, to be honest I think it's probably both the customer and themselves.

Quite apart from BAE's stuffing up of the project the whole idea seems to be daft from the start and another instance of the UK Government trying to save a few quid and get a world class capability at a bargain price, it's hardly a major surprise that it went so drastically wrong and the bargain cost turned into a money pit.

 

[riksavage]

Basically with the MR4, BAE pretty much misled either the customer or themselves in terms of how much work was involved, and I understand that one of the senior technical people was given the shove for refusing to sign off on an estimate of works he felt was inaccurate in extremis.

MR4 could have been useful if it'd come out on time, back in early 200x but on the whole, it's been a sorry debacle that we need to learn from. I think the Indian buy of 8 or so brand new P8's came in at less than the cost of the MR4 program. I know the P8 wasn't an option at the time of the original contract being let for MR4, but it's instructive I think.

I don't know what the price includes, weather they're getting sensors and so forth tucked in there but individual aircraft are being touted at 220m USD.

The program critique is circulating in defence circles as a very good "how not to.." document, or so I recall Gf2000 on here reporting.

Effectively, if the actual state of the airframes had been reported accurately and the scale of the work correctly estimated, I think the MOD could have gone out and bought something else, either Atlantiques, one of the Embraer options or refurbed P3's for less money and then added UK content in terms of sensors and so forth.

Ian

By the time the UK comes around to buying a new MPA I suspect they will opt for an unmanned airframe - reduced manpower, cheaper to run, longer endurance. Not as versatile as a manned platform, but adequate for the task considering the size of the UK coastline and lack of Russian subs on the horizon.

Of more importance to the UK right now for national security reasons is RivetJoint, the UK may have lost MR4, but they will acquire an asset with capabilities unheard of outside the US.

Post 2015 the UK will be out of Afghanistan with 12 x Reapers and 40+ Watchkeepers on the books. I'm sure they can be gainfully employed to monitor the area around the UK's SSN/SSBN base when a sub leaves and arrives from an operational tour. For any NATO taskings requiring MPA the UK will have to the rely on its European allies in part exchange for material gleaned through our RivetJoint assets under a pooling of assets/information agreement. NATO shares tankers and AWACS, why not MPA?

 

[kev 99]

For any NATO taskings requiring MPA the UK will have to the rely on its European allies in part exchange for material gleaned through our RivetJoint assets under a pooling of assets/information agreement. NATO shares tankers and AWACS, why not MPA?

Maybe so, but it doesn't stop it sounding like a bloody stupid idea for an island nation to rely on countries in mainland Europe for an MPA.

 

[1805]

Oh yes that's right I was forgetting you're solution to solving a problem is to apply perfect hindsight and rewrite history until the problem goes away, wave the magic wand and the last 30 years goes up in smoke, no more problem.

What you're suggesting with the MPA is what the USN have done with the P-8, have a look at how much money is involved in that programme, it's quite far from being the cheap solution you think it is. There were only a handful of solutions on the table that the MRA4 contract was let and converting a commercial airliner wasn't even one of them.

No it was an appalling error of judgement, at the time not with hindsight, the fact it happened after AEW Nimrod makes it even worst. The Nimrod was based on a commerical airliner just a very old one. Nearly all have been from that stable, all the logic was to use a current design as the US have. The content is another thing...which I don't see why it should not be constantly evolving.

There could have been a case for a refurbishment of the Nimrod but this was nearly a new aircraft.

Its like building MV Triton when the RN never had any intention of going with anything as bold...another £??m down the drain

 

[StobieWan]

By the time the UK comes around to buying a new MPA I suspect they will opt for an unmanned airframe - reduced manpower, cheaper to run, longer endurance. Not as versatile as a manned platform, but adequate for the task considering the size of the UK coastline and lack of Russian subs on the horizon.

Of more importance to the UK right now for national security reasons is RivetJoint, the UK may have lost MR4, but they will acquire an asset with capabilities unheard of outside the US.

Post 2015 the UK will be out of Afghanistan with 12 x Reapers and 40+ Watchkeepers on the books. I'm sure they can be gainfully employed to monitor the area around the UK's SSN/SSBN base when a sub leaves and arrives from an operational tour. For any NATO taskings requiring MPA the UK will have to the rely on its European allies in part exchange for material gleaned through our RivetJoint assets under a pooling of assets/information agreement. NATO shares tankers and AWACS, why not MPA?

Reaper and Watchkeeper can sweep the channel for Greenpeace but any Russian subs trying to get a signature on the SSBN's would need some sort of ASW capability. We may be able to ask the French nicely as they're just across the water and we've already agreed patrol boxes to avoid us bumping into one another for instance.

You hit the nail on the head with the suggestion we should be pooling assets for some things however. We can't reasonably pretend there's a European union, have common borders with no internal check points but assume external security from the air and sea is a local issue for each country.

Mainly MR4 stands as an example of money down the drain that could have been gainfully spent on something else (the money is equivalent to a nearly three Type 45's for instance)

Ian

 

[kev 99]

No it was an appalling error of judgement, at the time not with hindsight, the fact it happened after AEW Nimrod makes it even worst. The Nimrod was based on a commerical airliner just a very old one. Nearly all have been from that stable, all the logic was to use a current design as the US have. The content is another thing...which I don't see why it should not be constantly evolving.

There could have been a case for a refurbishment of the Nimrod but this was nearly a new aircraft.

Its like building MV Triton when the RN never had any intention of going with anything as bold...another £??m down the drain

I thought it was fairly obvious that I was talking about you're whole solution to the MOD's budget as being applied with perfect hindsight, because you're once again talking about changing decisions made 30 years ago.

MRA4 being refurbed aircraft was an exercise in idiocy right from the start.

 

[riksavage]

Reaper and Watchkeeper can sweep the channel for Greenpeace but any Russian subs trying to get a signature on the SSBN's would need some sort of ASW capability. We may be able to ask the French nicely as they're just across the water and we've already agreed patrol boxes to avoid us bumping into one another for instance.

You hit the nail on the head with the suggestion we should be pooling assets for some things however. We can't reasonably pretend there's a European union, have common borders with no internal check points but assume external security from the air and sea is a local issue for each country.

Mainly MR4 stands as an example of money down the drain that could have been gainfully spent on something else (the money is equivalent to a nearly three Type 45's for instance)

Ian

Ref the Triton programme, it didn't match up to expectations following exhaustive testing. The data was fed into the US littoral combat ship programme hence one of the reasons why they went for two different designs (single and tri-hulled vessels).

We all accept the MR4 programme was an absolute cluster, however the UK has to prioritse based on the current threat - they have spent an absolute fortune upgrading the nations ISTAR capabilities and that money has to come out of the same shrinking pot.

Nimrod once formed a crtical part of the UK's AsW strategy when the RN was almost entirely focused on anti-submarine warfare during the cold war (T23/22/Nimrod/Lynx/Invincible Class etc.). If the country continued with MR4 something else would have had to be sacrificed, the R1 replacement was considered a much more important priority, which has been confirmed by the recent Arab spring and ongoing operations over Afghanistan/Pakistan. Whether we like it or not the sub threat has diminished around the British Isles, the requirement to monitor electronic communications and eavesdropping of mobile phones / sat phones / HF radios has not.

The UK's SSBN's are escorted by an SSN, they will have to monitor the diminished Russian threat in the interim. My reference to using existing UAV 's was more to do with keeping an eye out for dodgy Russian trawlers/drug smugglers et al.

If the sub threat returns to cold war levels, then the UK will have no choice but to invest in a modern MPA fleet. Until that happens intelligence gathering assets focused on asymmetrical warfare will take priority.

 

[StobieWan]

Ref the Triton programme, it didn't match up to expectations following exhaustive testing. The data was fed into the US littoral combat ship programme hence one of the reasons why they went for two different designs (single and tri-hulled vessels).

We all accept the MR4 programme was an absolute cluster, however the UK has to prioritse based on the current threat - they have spent an absolute fortune upgrading the nations ISTAR capabilities and that money has to come out of the same shrinking pot.

Nimrod once formed a crtical part of the UK's AsW strategy when the RN was almost entirely focused on anti-submarine warfare during the cold war (T23/22/Nimrod/Lynx/Invincible Class etc.). If the country continued with MR4 something else would have had to be sacrificed, the R1 replacement was considered a much more important priority, which has been confirmed by the recent Arab spring and ongoing operations over Afghanistan/Pakistan. Whether we like it or not the sub threat has diminished around the British Isles, the requirement to monitor electronic communications and eavesdropping of mobile phones / sat phones / HF radios has not.

The UK's SSBN's are escorted by an SSN, they will have to monitor the diminished Russian threat in the interim. My reference to using existing UAV 's was more to do with keeping an eye out for dodgy Russian trawlers/drug smugglers et al.

If the sub threat returns to cold war levels, then the UK will have no choice but to invest in a modern MPA fleet. Until that happens intelligence gathering assets focused on asymmetrical warfare will take priority.

Makes sense to me - right now, we've dropped the ball on MPA, we need to pick it up when other capabilities can be worked up as you quite correctly point out.


I'd followed the Triton thing back when it was being touted and I got the impression that after the fanfare, the experience was a bit "meh" in terms of results but wondered what the actual outcome had been. I guess this is why you do tests however

Ian

 

[swerve]

I wasn't saying we should not have built a MPA, but just base it on a modern commerical airliner, either new or secondhand and focus on the electronics which we could have built some and or brought other items.

It's an appealing idea, but one should consider the circumstances in which MRA4 was approved.

1. There was no current foreign project we could buy into. The USN had just cancelled the P-7, which the RAF had been interested in.
2. The other options offered by manufacturers were based on P-3 (an even older airliner design, & one option was refurbed ex-USN airframes) & Atlantique, & had lower performance than the aircraft we wished to replace.
3. A new development undertaken without partners was seen as expensive & potentially risky. This applies to a modified current airliner, since the airframe & other modifications needed for fitting weapons bays, sensors, etc. would be significant.

Nimrod MRA4 was sold as a relatively low risk, low cost upgrade: a refurbishment of existing airframes which were already modified for the role. We now know (& have done for a long time) that this was a false view, & that BAe had grossly understated both cost & risk, sacking anyone who dissented, but that was not known at the time the decision was taken.

In hindsight, a modified A320 might have been a much better choice, having potential to bring other countries on board, civilian networks available to keep support costs down, & immensely greater export potential. But that's discounting what was going on at the time.

The appalling mismanagement of the project, which contributed to both the cost & delay, could also have occurred on any modified airliner. Think of BAe modifying A320s.

 

[Volkodav]

Title tattle on the net suggests the BAE bloke in question was the cheif engineer, as for who was mislead, to be honest I think it's probably both the customer and themselves.

Quite apart from BAE's stuffing up of the project the whole idea seems to be daft from the start and another instance of the UK Government trying to save a few quid and get a world class capability at a bargain price, it's hardly a major surprise that it went so drastically wrong and the bargain cost turned into a money pit.

Looking at a range of projects across three continents a common theme appears to be that projects get into trouble because BAE has over estimated their own capability and capacity, while under estimating the complexity and cost of what they are doing.

 

[kev 99]

Looking at a range of projects across three continents a common theme appears to be that projects get into trouble because BAE has over estimated their own capability and capacity, while under estimating the complexity and cost of what they are doing.

No arguments here.

 

[Volkodav]

No arguments here.

That not to say they don't have some brilliant people working for them just that the decission makers seem to be consistantly getting it wrong forcing the technical guys to leap through hoops.

 

[1805]

It's an appealing idea, but one should consider the circumstances in which MRA4 was approved.

1. There was no current foreign project we could buy into. The USN had just cancelled the P-7, which the RAF had been interested in.
2. The other options offered by manufacturers were based on P-3 (an even older airliner design, & one option was refurbed ex-USN airframes) & Atlantique, & had lower performance than the aircraft we wished to replace.
3. A new development undertaken without partners was seen as expensive & potentially risky. This applies to a modified current airliner, since the airframe & other modifications needed for fitting weapons bays, sensors, etc. would be significant.

Nimrod MRA4 was sold as a relatively low risk, low cost upgrade: a refurbishment of existing airframes which were already modified for the role. We now know (& have done for a long time) that this was a false view, & that BAe had grossly understated both cost & risk, sacking anyone who dissented, but that was not known at the time the decision was taken.

In hindsight, a modified A320 might have been a much better choice, having potential to bring other countries on board, civilian networks available to keep support costs down, & immensely greater export potential. But that's discounting what was going on at the time.

The appalling mismanagement of the project, which contributed to both the cost & delay, could also have occurred on any modified airliner. Think of BAe modifying A320s.

Putting a bomb bay, a few hard points and an inflight refuelling capability is not complex or high risk.....taking the wings off and designing new ones on an old design is!

The original plan was only for 21? So it was logical to go with a commerical design, in the late 80s the very safe option would have been the well established Boeing 737. But the A320 was around and starting to sell.

As BAE has such a seemingly unhealthy role in so many MOD disasters is there a reason why they would have steered the Government away from Airbus?

There is a very sad irony in your post, the Electra entered service in 1958 the DH Comet in 1952....the P3 was based on a younger...but less advance aircraft