The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Padfoot]

If, as the Telegraph story suggests, the the RN is going to become a mere coast guard, it won't be in any need of nuke hunter killers, ballistic missile boats, numerous amphibious ships, 65,000 ton carriers. Hell, even the type 45s are useless in a coastguard role. What to do with all those lovely new vessels that the RN has built in the last decade or so? We may as well disband the Royal Marines while we're at it.

 

[harryriedl]

You don't need a membership to USNI to read the online content of proceedings, you simply have to sign up. That story is in their free content section. I think once you get exposed to the free stuff though, you'll find the subscription is worth the money.

As far as the pricing and JSF information. I am quoting Richard Beedall on his October 1 entry. He swings by and comments on my blog every now and then. He also seems to have good information and has honored my requests for more information in the past, so I consider him a credible source without asking lately.

Did you read the details of the Telegraph story? It didn't name which 5 warships, but it appears they are talking about the four Type 22s and one Type 23 (HMS Argyll).



What are you talking about? Check your facts sir. Here is the list of frigates and destroyers per year received by the Royal Navy:

1998=0
1999=0
2000=1
2001=1
2002=1
2003=0
2004=0
2005=0
2006=0
2007=0
2008=0

The Royal Navy will receive 6 Type 45s by 2014. That is 9 total frigates and destroyers from 1998-2014, a 17 year period. That is an average rate of 1 frigate or destroyer every 2 years (+1) for ships with a 25 year life. That means 25/2 +1, or a Navy of 13 frigates and destroyers and I am assuming the +1!! From 2015-2025 you have to build an average of 1 frigate or destroyer every year for 11 straight years just to retain an average of 20 frigates and destroyers until 2025. The last time the Royal Navy built a frigate oir destroyer for 11 straight years was from 1987 - 1997.

DO THE MATH. This isn't rocket science, and btw, this assumes every Type 23 serves its full service life and is replaced on a 1-1 basis.

The two warships currently in discussion is the Future Surface Combatant and the UXV Combatant. Both will be expensive, and there is little chance that either will be built until after the Type 45s and CVFs. In 2015 the Royal Navy will have built 11 ships in the 17 years between 1998 - 2015, and 2 of those will be carriers. They are replacing 8 Type 42s, 3 Invincible class carriers, and 3 frigates. In other words, you would have built 11 ships to replace 14 by 2015, the year the first Type 22s retire (meaning the number will be higher than 14).

Now what if the Telegraph article is hinting the Type 22s are going away (+1 Type 23). In 2015 the Royal Navy will have 2 CVFs, 6 Type 45s, and 12 Type 23s, with the Type 23s starting to retire in 2019. That means the Future Surface Combatant replaces the Type 23s on a 1-1 basis, which isn't the current replacement model, just for the Royal Navy to retain 18 surface ships.

In other words, you have to hope the Type 22s make it until retirement in 2015, 2017, 2017, and 2018, plus hope the MoD builds 8 Type 45s, plus hope the MoD doesn't retire the HMS Argyll due for retirement in 2019, AND hope for a 1-1 replacement program of Future Surface Combatants just for the Royal Navy to retain 25 frigates and destroyers.

The odds of any of that happening is 50/50 at this point, the odds of all of it happening? Ya, no evidence at all.

At this point, I look at 20 as the high number for frigates and destroyers in the future Royal Navy, and 12 appears to be the low.

come on lets be realistic now lets compare with the other Euro and USA nations they have had similar procurements lets remember that the burk is an 80s design and the last is being built in 2015 and have been delivered one a year [roughly] the telegraph is the most Torie paper so their is strong possablities of bias true its got one or two stories correct because it has these stories printed with incredible frequency's

instead of escorts its been the its been LVT which has been built

beedles has a slight negative bias

and you are making assumptions with the cost of the JSF who's price will not be known till after LRP and by pulling a number out the air at random at the numbers of aircrafts bought seems to be a fairly useless exercise.

we just need to rember the naysayer who said that the CVF would be canceled and the mil has become a more important issue these days and the forces aren't above politics [sea lord on today program]

 

[Galrahn]

and you are making assumptions with the cost of the JSF who's price will not be known till after LRP and by pulling a number out the air at random at the numbers of aircrafts bought seems to be a fairly useless exercise.

Did I quote a JSF cost figure? I don't think so, but since you are asking...

If Beedall isn't credible enough, how credible is Steve Kosiak? In the US, he is considered one of the top guys in estimating defense costs for aircraft, if not THE top guy.

His price estimate for the F-35B is $97 million US, and he isn't including the 10% cost growth estimate expectations the CBO is! How many will the RAF buy at $97 million per US?

 

[swerve]

If Beedall isn't credible enough, how credible is Steve Kosiak? In the US, he is considered one of the top guys in estimating defense costs for aircraft, if not THE top guy.

His price estimate for the F-35B is $97 million US, and he isn't including the 10% cost growth estimate expectations the CBO is! How many will the RAF buy at $97 million per US?

If the total procurement price is $97 mn each, the RAF will probably be quite happy. Current planning assumes it'll cost us more than that to put them into service. If the flyaway cost of each aircraft, in 2002 $ (the basis JSF prices are usually quoted on) is $97 mn, the RAF will be frantically hunting for ways to save money.

Ah. got through. It was timing out for a while. I see that figure is total procurement price, in 2008 $. That's in line with our budget assumptions, I believe.

 

[Super Nimrod]

The exchange rate is working massively in the JSF's favour at the moment in terms of quoted prices once converted to GBP.

 

[TimmyC]

The exchange rate is working massively in the JSF's favour at the moment in terms of quoted prices once converted to GBP.

Excellent point. True to say also any British or European procurements of US related equipment is achieving a good bang-to-buck ratio. Likewise reverse trade must be feeling the pinch, such as ongoing support services or being awarded new contracts. Plus not to forget all those myriad of smaller countries out there whose currency is pegged to the USD. New contracts being awarded must surely be influenced by among others, global currency markets.

 

[Systems Adict]

Gents,

I've just read thru from post 1057 to 1065. I have to say that while there are some valid discussion points, I feel that you are, to some extents, perpetuating the fecal matter that the UK press are churning out, to help further political discussions, biased to whichever party said papers are supporting.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of the press, however I prefer truth, not spin !

In the replies quoted there is reference to the number of surface combatants "delivered" to the RN. I feel that it's a bit unfair to state the figures in the way it has been presented, after all, unlike many other Navies around the globe, the UK utilises the RFA (a civilian organisation), to operate its tankers & logistics vessels, rather than having them operated by a full naval crew.
In the figures there is no record of the 2 Wave class Oilers, the 2 Albion Class LPD's & the 4 Bay class LSD(A)'s. which were all delivered between 2002 & 2007

Although operated by the RFA (in the case of the Bay's & Oilers), they are funded from the same govt & suppoerted by the RN when required.

Additionally, HMS Kent, Portland & St. Albans, the last 3 Type 23's, weren't handed over to the RN (by the manufacturing yard) until 1999, 2000 & 2001(respectively, if my memory serves me correctly), implying that there may be a small flaw in the figures quoted !.

All this aside, having read some of Galharn's coments on his blog, WRT a direct comparrison between Nelson's Navy, the turn of the 19th/20th century RN & the current RN, I'd have to say that I agree 110% with his idealologies, however I feel that concerns about the size of the RN, while appearing to be scaremongering, will only require drastic action, IF, the current "rumours" are not dealt with directly.

After all, it is the case that the govt is still waiting on some things happening from the review of the UK shipbuilding industry ??

I appreciate that while this is happening, the world turns, wars happen, things change, budgets get squeezed, redirected, currency fluctuates & technology jumps forward.

All in all, I see that the UK is well placed in the global picture of the madness that is life. We've adjusted our fleet ( a bit lean, but still operable), are preparing for an expansion & looking to finance it & build it at a steady state ( drum beat, not boom & bust).

If we were to draw a direct comparrison between merchant fleets & naval fleets, I feel we'd see that the merchant fleet is where we should have concerns, with between 70 to 80% of ships afloat needing replacing in the next 20 years !! This need should be a greater concern as demand for the transport of goods & the economies which they help to fund, continues to grow.


Your thoughts...


Systems Adict

 

[spsun100001]

Sure the Torygraph has a political bias. However, I pointed out in my previous post about half a dozen stories reported in the press that all came true. Far more of these stories have turned out to have a basis in fact than to be scare stories IMHO.

Sorry, the government has form and this story is all to believable.

Steve

 

[TimmyC]

Ever Dog Has Its Day

I believe the RN is currently the second largest navy in the world if you go by total tonnage/displacement of all ships.
That won't be the case forever- Biblical King who tried to hold back the oceans tide- help, whats his name?
Anyway, point is I'm talking about China and India. The RN may hope to maintain technical superiority but in due course individual European countries will have to swallow their pride and accept an EU navy or face facts that on current predictions we will in time be out of the innings when it comes to purchasing power. Although I'm certainly not brave enough to stamp a date on it, leave that one for future generations.
The future fleet composition will be what it will be, if that's a couple of CVF's, amphibious group, T45's, FSC, SSN's, SSBN's then so be it.
I'm sure I've gained at least one new grey hair just writing this post. End of.

 

[Galrahn]

In the figures there is no record of the 2 Wave class Oilers, the 2 Albion Class LPD's & the 4 Bay class LSD(A)'s. which were all delivered between 2002 & 2007

I am not counting submarines either, which carry a much larger price tag than logistics and amphibious ships.

Additionally, HMS Kent, Portland & St. Albans, the last 3 Type 23's, weren't handed over to the RN (by the manufacturing yard) until 1999, 2000 & 2001(respectively, if my memory serves me correctly), implying that there may be a small flaw in the figures quoted !

The Proceedings authors said 2000, 2001, and 2002. I'm not sure how either your numbers or theirs would adjust the numbers I have presented though, because you would still be talking about 3 Type 23s and 6 Type 45s between 1998 - 2014, or 9 destroyers and frigates over a 17 year period.

Is anyone saying that the numbers of destroyers and frigates don't matter most to the capability of a Navy, or do we need to have that discussion?

As an American I barely have interest in the politics of the US, and barely understand the politics of the UK, so I do not have a political interest in this discussion. I think I missed how much politics apparently plays into this though, because many believe political party alone can fix the problem.

Show me a coherent maritime strategy, and I'll show you a document that transcends politics. Where is that strategy for the Royal Navy? Its absence is obvious.

I have mostly avoided the Telegraph article because I'm not a believer in the content. The attachment which comes from the story appears to put the cap at 50 ships and 17 destroyers and frigates.

The Telegraph story, for example, would reduce the Royal Navy MIW fleet to 0. Uhm, no way, that alone should discredit the story, because I have a hard time believing an island nation would remove it's mine defense from it's fleet. (picture attached)

I'm sticking to the metric of build rates, because it is what is. The Royal Navy is on pace to build 18 destroyers and frigates every 34 years as of today dating back to 1998 and as far forward as 2014, regardless of everything else. I might be mistaken, but I believe the service lives of these ships are 25 years, not 35 years. That means the Navy better be talking about building a bunch of destroyers and frigates starting in 2015, or the rumors and hearsay can be wrong all day and still be right.

 

[Systems Adict]

The Proceedings authors said 2000, 2001, and 2002. I'm not sure how either your numbers or theirs would adjust the numbers I have presented though, because you would still be talking about 3 Type 23s and 6 Type 45s between 1998 - 2014, or 9 destroyers and frigates over a 17 year period.

Thanks for the inputs thus far...

King Canute !!!

Anyways.....

I can understand the discrepancy between the dates, as it's the difference between when they were handed over & when the RN officially declared them fit for service.

As for your figures, based on your comments/the facts, it would appear to be the case. :cry

Not a nice thought, but I'm erring on the positive (& possibly "pie in the sky") hope that between the industry, the Navy & the govt, that they'll get there acts together & figure out what they want, when they want/need it & how on earth they're gonna fund it !!

I'm hoping for the "lottery win", as it's always a lottery trying to fund shipbuilding projects, a bit like life !

Joking aside, If it DOES happen, I'm a made man, as I'll be able to retire from the business.... In 30 years time, having worked in it for over 40 years !!

Systems Adict

 

[overlander]

after the good news of the approval of the cvf.s it seems that again labour will cut the number of escorts, i was thinking that 25 was the minimal number to maintain a credible deterrent but it,s clear that the limit for politicians never arrive, the reality is that when labour entered in office there were 35 escorts and now only 25, plus the withdrawal of 1 carrier, plus the withdrawal of sea harriers, it,s true that they have improved the amphibious fleet but if they sell some landing ship the improvement has lasted short time, ok, the cvf will be bult but if they cut again the number of escorts these superships will be the flagships of a very reduced fleet, unfortunately always the rumours of cuts in the navy soon or later were true so i worry very much that again the number of escorts will be cutted , if they follow with the cuts in 20 years what will be the total number of escorts maybe 10 ?? richard beedall sometimes seems to be pessimistic but when he writes that the r.n. if things follow this way will be a coastal force i don,t know what to think and remember that the new cvf can be mothballed if they decide some day to scrap the navy, we will see but i am pessimistic about the future knowing the little interest of british politicians in defence matters.

 

[Tasman]

Exploiting the porential of the CVF's

Whether the cuts to the size of the RN's escort force turn out to be as drastic as some of us are currently predicting (and I hope that they won't) it seems to me that every effort should be made to ensure that the CVF's are operated to their maximum potential. In Galrahn's Blog he comments that:

The CVF cost is climbing while the carrier itself continues to sit on the design pages. All indications are pointing to only 80 F-35Bs being purchased by the MoD, all RAF. The RAF has already begun discussions that envision eight 9 plane squadrons, but in reality should the RAF use the F-35Bs in the same manner they use the GR.7/9s, one has to question if a CVF will ever actually embark more than one or two squadrons on a deployment. Without the F-35B, also suffering from cost overruns, the CVF is nothing more than a 65,000 tonnes £1.9 billion LPH, nearly £1.6 billion more expensive than the French Mistral class which would be able to perform that role.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/10/royal-navy-faces-irrelevance.html

It appals me to think that the lessons of the 1920's and 30's, when the RN relied on the RAF for its aircraft, seem to have been forgotten. The result of that arrangement was that the FAA went into WW2 with aircraft that were too few in number and too low in performance. In addition the strategy for operating the carrier force was based on the premise that carrier aircraft could not compete in combat with land based aircraft. For that reason, the new carriers of the Illustrious class were given strong armour and a powerful AA battery at the expense of aircraft accommodation (they could carry less than half the complement of the American carriers being built at the same time) with the plan that if they were attacked from the air, their aircraft would be struck down in the hangar and they would fight off the attack with gunfire! That tactic didn't last long but the failure to develop a decent fighter was not overcome until American aircraft finally flowed to the FAA in sufficient numbers.

At a minimum I believe that the FAA should operate four F-35B squadrons of 12 aircraft apiece. IMO, RAF squadrons should only be relied on to expand the air group for surge operations. The thought that a 65,000 ton carrier could find itself in combat with perhaps one 9 plane RAF F-35B squadron beggars belief. It would be the equivalent of a USN Nimitz class being deployed with 15-18 USMC F-35Bs as its only combat aircraft. A CVF only having this many fighters, or even two squadrons with 18 aircraft, would be hard pressed to defend itself if it confronted an enemy with a reasonable air combat force. It would certainly struggle to contribute to offensive operations.

If the RN is reduced to a small number of ships it is essential, IMO, that each is the best of its type possible and all, especially the CVF's, are exploited to the full potential of their combat capability.

Tas

 

[overlander]

Whether the cuts to the size of the RN's escort force turn out to be as drastic as some of us are currently predicting (and I hope that they won't) it seems to me that every effort should be made to ensure that the CVF's are operated to their maximum potential. In Galrahn's Blog he comments that:



http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/10/royal-navy-faces-irrelevance.html

It appals me to think that the lessons of the 1920's and 30's, when the RN relied on the RAF for its aircraft, seem to have been forgotten. The result of that arrangement was that the FAA went into WW2 with aircraft that were too few in number and too low in performance. In addition the strategy for operating the carrier force was based on the premise that carrier aircraft could not compete in combat with land based aircraft. For that reason, the new carriers of the Illustrious class were given strong armour and a powerful AA battery at the expense of aircraft accommodation (they could carry less than half the complement of the American carriers being built at the same time) with the plan that if they were attacked from the air, their aircraft would be struck down in the hangar and they would fight off the attack with gunfire! That tactic didn't last long but the failure to develop a decent fighter was not overcome until American aircraft finally flowed to the FAA in sufficient numbers.

At a minimum I believe that the FAA should operate four F-35B squadrons of 12 aircraft apiece. IMO, RAF squadrons should only be relied on to expand the air group for surge operations. The thought that a 65,000 ton carrier could find itself in combat with perhaps one 9 plane RAF F-35B squadron beggars belief. It would be the equivalent of a USN Nimitz class being deployed with 15-18 USMC F-35Bs as its only combat aircraft. A CVF only having this many fighters, or even two squadrons with 18 aircraft, would be hard pressed to defend itself if it confronted an enemy with a reasonable air combat force. It would certainly struggle to contribute to offensive operations.

If the RN is reduced to a small number of ships it is essential, IMO, that each is the best of its type possible and all, especially the CVF's, are exploited to the full potential of their combat capability.

Tas

the problem is for that politicians the only worry is to save money and they have no idea about military matters, still se will see so big and powerful ships as cvf, one mothballed or in reserve and only 1 operational.

 

[overlander]

they are spending so much money in afghanistan and iraq, better to withdrawal from these long time deployments than make more cuts in equipment, they want to be a global power without equipment with so many cuts,

 

[overlander]

they are spending so much money in afghanistan and iraq, better to withdrawal from these long time deployments than make more cuts in equipment, they want to be a global power without equipment with so many cuts,

 

[overlander]

these are the sad statistics aprox of royal navy decline from the sixties, of course you can argue that present ships are more capable than old ones but this is the reality.
in 1960 the r.n. had 5 attack carriers and 2 lph together with around 120 escorts.
in 1970 only 2 carriers survived eagle and ark royal, (hermes and bulwark were acting as lph) and around 90 escorts
in 1980 all attack carriers were withdrawn, only bulwark survived as antisubmarine carrier, hermes in the lph role and the first invincible was completed (much less capable than previous attack carriers) and in the main role of asw carrier, the navy had that time around 70 escorts.
in 1990 even before the soviet union collapsed the r.n. suffered heavy cuts reducing the numbers to around 48 escorts.
in 2000 again the r.n. suffered heavy cuts reducing the number of escorts to 32.
in 2004 again the r.n. suffered heavy cuts, reducing the escort number to 25, the f.a.a lost the sea harriers in 2006, leaving the navy with only the raf harriers and for the first time the c.in c. fleet recognized that they will be unable to mount an operation similar to the falklands because the lack of air defence fighters after sea harriers withdrawal.
in 2007 the navy get the good news of the cvf.s approval but again rumours of further heavy cuts that could reduce the number of escorts to only 19 and that the navy will have only operational in 2015-20 2 squadrons of f 35 (totallly ridiculous for such a big ships)
with this we can see that the decline of the r.n. never stops and even more important that there is not a clear naval policy and a commitment to build a balanced force, so when the cuts will finish?? when the navy be a coastal force ?? only the time will say it, a sad history for once the most powerful and strong navy in the world.

 

[Dave H]

Overlander....still constant pessimism


1982, Falklands, Hermes and Invincible, 25 Sea Harriers. Yes the Sea harriers have gone but in the timescale of 2020, 2 carriers with even by the worst estimates, able, in a conflict operating 25 F35B's +each. The RN is still taking an unbelievable step forward..stealthy advanced aircraft and future UCAV's.

The UK has committed to maintaining a constant, if slow build of ships, Type 45, Astute, Trident replacement etc etc. Where is this coastal force rubbish??? Are idiot journalists , fed by idiot junior politicians perhaps confusing littoral with coastal, by that I mean wrongly believing that a navy tasked with littoral duties across the globe is the same as defending the Isle of Wight??

You constantly harped on about the carriers not being built, they will be.

 

[Dave H]

Overlander, Further to the above, if you look at the Falklands era navy, many of the ships that fought were lacking as seen by the panic that exocet caused and by the amount of ships that were damaged. Brave crews fought in ships that struggled to fend off aircraft using simple technology and dumb bombs. The RN in 1982 was considered and was proved to be a powerful force but the stats showed that it was vulnerable. 10 ships damaged, Coventry,Ardent and Antelope sunk by being swamped by attacking aircraft,Sheffield by being unlucky in the face of Exocet and perhaps indivividual errors. Glamorgan badly damaged as it strayed into exocet range but lacking any effective modern armament.

Figures of escorts from that era dont necessarily tell the story, in the face of a more advanced enemy than the argentinians, eg the Russians, the RN would have suffered huge losses. 15 well equipped escorts might be better and more survivable than 30 older and less well equipped escorts.

The RN and RAF might cut the F35 but because projects such as Taranis may provide a viable supplement because CVF will carry UCAV'S as well as F35'S.

 

[riksavage]

It’s not all doom and gloom.

With the arrival of the first T45’s to Navy in 2009 combined with the new amphibious lift capability (Bay’s Albion’s Ocean etc.) and introduction of the Astutes we are in better shape today than we were in 82. Back then the RN was configured to fight ASW warfare against the Soviets in the North Sea / Atlantic. Today we can lift and support the whole of 3-Commando Brigade (42, 45, 40, 29 etc.) plus supporting arms (Challenger, AS90, Starstreak etc.) in dedicated ships. We may have a smaller Navy, but pound for pound it is far better equipped and capable for a broader range of missions.

Whether we like it or not Britain will have at least a divisional strength of ground troops committed to campaigns over the next 5 years. The current draw-down in Iraq will be immediately offset by increases in Afghanistan. This coming March will see the entire Parachute Regiment deployed (1,2,3 & elements of 4), plus a battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. This has to be paid for, equipped and maintained. We all bemoan the shrinking of the RN, however the current threat is asymmetrical warfare fought on the plains of Afghanistan, and it is that that needs to be faced down and won.

Buying loads of shiny new boats is not going to defeat an enemy hidden in Sangin.