The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Riga]

Escorting the SSBNs can be changed out with either HM2 or an MPA when we get them.

Not having an AWD there? You mean having our Type 45's exercising at being an ATC and protecting a big deck US carrier (y'know, the jobs we bought them to do) isn't worthwhile? Yeah, it'd be much more worthwhile them not doing that . . .

The Type 45's get better training at doing their jobs training with US carriers and that won't change until 2020.

I'm not denying we have a lack of escorts, not at all, but the ME is an important area for our security as a nation.

However, we do not have an MMA? I take your point about training for future role; two points actually:
1. She can not be chasing pirates;
2. When the carrier does enter, scratch 1 from the 4 escorts that we have.

Except the carrier will need a 23 or 26 to protect her.

Glad we agree about the abysmal lack of escorts.

Riga

 

[RobWilliams]

However, we do not have an MMA?

2015 will put that to rest, at least, there are enough rumblings from Govt about it being a capability gap which needs to be filled and one would hope 2015 would outline an initial lease of P-8's from the US

I take your point about training for future role; two points actually:
1. She can not be chasing pirates;
2. When the carrier does enter, scratch 1 from the 4 escorts that we have.

Except the carrier will need a 23 or 26 to protect her.

IMO the bare minimum is a Type 26 and a Type 45 for surface escort.

Glad we agree about the abysmal lack of escorts.

Riga

You'll find no argument there. Trouble is with 'making do' on the escorts we have it gives the impression of all being well, when it isn't. We need something serious to happen before the penny drops.

I'd like an Astute 8 too.

 

[Anixtu]

Why do the Omani's operate BAE OPVs?

They don't.

If they did, it might be for EEZ patrol. The nearest UK waters to the Persian Gulf are around the Chagos Archipelago and are not worth a permanent OPV deployment.

Can we get with the programme? Having a major platform in theatre is going to become a nice to have.

Feel free to disagree, because I am not sure you need an AAD or FF in that area. Wave the flag, sure, but what more do you need?

I suggest you read the programme again. The FF/DD on Op Kipion is there to help protect the other Kipion assets. Op Kipion is a big deal.

There would be no point in providing an OPV to Kipion, there is no task for it to perform. Patrol tasks in the Gulf are best left to the coastal states, who have PLENTY of assets for the task. It would add nothing to defence diplomacy either (your "wave the flag"), replacing FF/DD with an OPV is a show of considerable weakness in a role where appearances matter more than substance. It's about waving willies, not just flags.

 

[Riga]

They don't.

If they did, it might be for EEZ patrol. The nearest UK waters to the Persian Gulf are around the Chagos Archipelago and are not worth a permanent OPV deployment.



I suggest you read the programme again. The FF/DD on Op Kipion is there to help protect the other Kipion assets. Op Kipion is a big deal.

There would be no point in providing an OPV to Kipion, there is no task for it to perform. Patrol tasks in the Gulf are best left to the coastal states, who have PLENTY of assets for the task. It would add nothing to defence diplomacy either (your "wave the flag"), replacing FF/DD with an OPV is a show of considerable weakness in a role where appearances matter more than substance. It's about waving willies, not just flags.

I confess I was wrong. OPVs were destined for those waters but went to Brazil instead.

However, the maths are still simple; should the Government purchase the lower end of the numbers, how would you allocate the possibly 4 available platforms given the need to protect the carriers? How long would Kipion become a long and enduring commitment?

 

[Anixtu]

I confess I was wrong. OPVs were destined for those waters but went to Brazil instead.

Still not correct. The OPVs that were sold to Brazil were ordered by Trinidad & Tobago. No Middle East connection.

However, the maths are still simple; should the Government purchase the lower end of the numbers, how would you allocate the possibly 4 available platforms given the need to protect the carriers? How long would Kipion become a long and enduring commitment?

That is a different question to the utility of an OPV on Op Kipion. We have at least seven non-FF/DD floating maritime assets (i.e. excluding shore based units and aircraft) currently tasked to Kipion. It is our biggest permanent deployment. If we have cut FF/DD to the point where we have none for Kipion, we might as well cut the rest of Kipion and abandon our permanent presence EoS.

 

[RobWilliams]

I wouldn't get hung up on the '4' number bud.

And before you do the whole 1:3 and 19/4 = 4.75 thing, that's dumbing down on a serious level.

You know how I know that's nonsense? Because since COUGAR has been running (2011), this year is the only year where there haven't been a pair of escorts as well as all of our other standing tasks. That adds up to more than 4.

Seriously. It's bullcrap. Like I said, Joint Warrior 14-1 saw 5 frigates deployed to the exercise including our standard deployment cycle (1 in the South Atlantic and 2 in the Gulf). Do those count as 'available'? Because if they're operational enough to deploy to an exercise then they're operational enough to be deployed if we needed them to be.

It rises and falls in tune with the fleet, don't take the number '4' as being set in stone.

Should point out that even in your own examples of the RN being underfunded that you lined up more tasks than those 4 ships would be capable of doing. 2 in Gulf, 1 APT(S), 1 ATP(N), 1 FRE. So another reason not to be hung up on the '4' number, because those are commitments we are doing already PLUS COUGAR.

 

[Volkodav]

1:3 only really applies to very high maintenance, limited number assets such as submarines where you can even find yourself with 1:4 when one is in deep maintenance for a year or more, one in a shorter maintenance availably, one in port and one deployed.

Modern surface ships actually tend to have much higher levels of availability, usually 2:5. That is for every two deployed you have two in port an one in an extended maintenance availability. Break that down for your 13 frigates and you get 5:5:3, 5deployed, 5 in port, 3 in refit / long maintenance. So you are really talking five frigates available all of the time with another five to surge extra hulls from as required and only the three hulls out of the water in maintenance being unavailable.

You can also trade service life for extra availability short term by deferring maintenance as the RAN did with their fat ships over an extended period. Not a good idea but it can be done, it just means you need to factor in early replacement of your ships due to shagged hulls and systems.

 

[StobieWan]

we realistically need another four surface combatants and perhaps 2 RFA with crews to get past the issues of turnover, retention etc. It's one thing to cover current taskings now, but I don't think this can carry on.

 

[Riga]

1:3 only really applies to very high maintenance, limited number assets such as submarines where you can even find yourself with 1:4 when one is in deep maintenance for a year or more, one in a shorter maintenance availably, one in port and one deployed.

Modern surface ships actually tend to have much higher levels of availability, usually 2:5. That is for every two deployed you have two in port an one in an extended maintenance availability. Break that down for your 13 frigates and you get 5:5:3, 5deployed, 5 in port, 3 in refit / long maintenance. So you are really talking five frigates available all of the time with another five to surge extra hulls from as required and only the three hulls out of the water in maintenance being unavailable.

You can also trade service life for extra availability short term by deferring maintenance as the RAN did with their fat ships over an extended period. Not a good idea but it can be done, it just means you need to factor in early replacement of your ships due to shagged hulls and systems.

Gentlemen. I understand there are some serious availability issues with one class of escort at the moment - most of them are tied up alongside with engine trouble of one kind or another.

Then there is a second fly in the ointment - manning and the RN heading for serious trouble. The next decade does not bode well unless the Government understand the role of the RN and fund both capital purchases and manning to match.

What disappointed me about the statement of UPTO 19 escorts was that we are talking about those additional hulls replacing vessels not in a year but in 10 years and this is serious short term thinking if we go for the mooted 8*T26 and not the 13 originally envisaged.

 

[KiwiRob]

They don't.

If they did, it might be for EEZ patrol. The nearest UK waters to the Persian Gulf are around the Chagos Archipelago and are not worth a permanent OPV deployment.

Isn't he referring to the Khareef class corvette's built by BAe?

 

[Riga]

Isn't he referring to the Khareef class corvette's built by BAe?

I was thinking of the three that were tied up in Barrow for a couple of years.

 

[Anixtu]

I was thinking of the three that were tied up in Barrow for a couple of years.

Nakhoda Ragam class corvettes, built for Brunei, sold to Indonesia. Nothing like a River class OPV in capabilities (though they may have been called OPVs).

 

[spsun100001]

New OPV's - no thanks

The consensus here seems to be that our new OPV's will be not much use for anything outside coastal waters and are likely to be replacements for the existing three ships. I understand that the cost is £348m of which £200m was sunk cost as we had to pay BAe systems this sum anyway to ensure shipbuilding continuity. The extra cost therefore is £138m.

Someone commented that they are better than nothing. I disagree. I understand that South Korea offered us a 5th Tide class for around £130m (I stand to be corrected).

I'd have far rather kept the three existing River's, paid BAe the £200m to retain their skills and bought an additional Tide. The Tide, as well as undertaking her primary role, could save us a frigate or destroyer on second line activities outside of home waters as she does carry a helicopter in a hangar.

If I'm wrong about the price we were quoted for an additional Tide then my point becomes moot. If I'm not I think it would have been much better value for money than three ships which fulfill a home waters role that is already covered and are next to useless for anything beyond that.

 

[harryriedl]

The consensus here seems to be that our new OPV's will be not much use for anything outside coastal waters and are likely to be replacements for the existing three ships. I understand that the cost is £348m of which £200m was sunk cost as we had to pay BAe systems this sum anyway to ensure shipbuilding continuity. The extra cost therefore is £138m.

Someone commented that they are better than nothing. I disagree. I understand that South Korea offered us a 5th Tide class for around £130m (I stand to be corrected).

I'd have far rather kept the three existing River's, paid BAe the £200m to retain their skills and bought an additional Tide. The Tide, as well as undertaking her primary role, could save us a frigate or destroyer on second line activities outside of home waters as she does carry a helicopter in a hangar.

If I'm wrong about the price we were quoted for an additional Tide then my point becomes moot. If I'm not I think it would have been much better value for money than three ships which fulfill a home waters role that is already covered and are next to useless for anything beyond that.

I disagree its a basic OPV which either offers superior usage compared with the existing Rivers which thought is not much is better than paying a ship yard to be idle. I would hope that we would be looking at 15 T26 hulls rather than 13.

200m for another Tide is in some ways not quite fair comparison as the cost of restarting production for the T26 could rapidly increase cost due to retraining and mistakes in building with a new staff, and three useful if fairly limited vessels for the cost of keeping the ship yard running makes sense when looking at how it will impact the T26.

 

[Volkodav]

Actually, not wanting to stir the pot but what if the Aegirs had been ordered from UK yards instead of South Korea? Block work could have gone to smaller yards to keep them busy too and although it would have cost more than building them OS would it have cost as much as building the tankers OS and OPVs the RN doesn't really need?

The government off shores work to save money then spends up big on make work projects to keep local yards busy because the new ships the RN needed are being built offshore

 

[swerve]

Well yes.

At the time the tankers were ordered, IIRC there wasn't scheduled to be such a gap before the T26 - but that's a government decision, to slow down work & push spending into the future. Like several other such decisions, it looks as if it's ended up costing more.

 

[Anixtu]

MARS should have been ordered early to mid-2000s when the capacity was genuinely available, rather than waiting for several yards to close and the remainder to be busy with CVF closely followed by T26. BAE didn't even bid to build MARS FT in UK, at a time when they are the only shipbuilder with active yards big enough. Serious industrial meddling, perhaps a new government owned yard, would be the only way to get them built in the UK.

 

[Systems Adict]

MARS should have been ordered early to mid-2000s when the capacity was genuinely available, rather than waiting for several yards to close and the remainder to be busy with CVF closely followed by T26. BAE didn't even bid to build MARS FT in UK, at a time when they are the only shipbuilder with active yards big enough. Serious industrial meddling, perhaps a new government owned yard, would be the only way to get them built in the UK.

Hmmm...


Political meddling rather than industrial is how I'd read the whole situation. As far back as 1999, the UK Govt was aware of what they thought they wanted & how they wanted it done. MARS, T45, T26, replacements for the amphib ships, A couple of oilers(x4 originally) & a replacement for some of the mine warfare vessels, by providing a multi role class to cover off around x3 different roles, oh yeah & x8 Astute submarines. A workload that would go from 2000, all the way to 2025 !

From 2000 when BAE was formed, it made it clear that it was willing to take on the job & be the UK supplier of choice. However, because of workload (part of the Conservative Govt / GEC orders prior to BAE), delays, cost over runs & numerous 'little issues' the govt saw fit to spread work out & around the UK, in detriment to the Scottish shipbuilders.

The upshot was that Scottish workers were laid off, while companies & yards South of Gretna Green made a ham-fisted job of meeting time scales & keeping to budgets. Often Scottish yards were there to pick up the pieces of the 'clusters' that were made (AO's, LPD, LSD(A) are a few examples), but RN 'management ' have had a bad taste in their mouths since then, only remembering the problems & not the fact that these ships are here now, are working, doing what they were asked to do & more !

But I'm getting bitter & twisted...

Following on successive govt's have extended programmes, delayed timetables & stretched things, costing time & money. Going by original timetables BAE couldn't have bid on the work, as they were 'at capacity'. So because of this they never entered the tender process (which can quite literally, take years to process & get to the point where an order is publicly announced.)

By that time BAE had did exactly what the UK Govt had asked & bent over backwards to meet what the govt wanted. Then there's process of the Govt wanting something, then changing their mind for something else & then changing it back to the original thing, costing the public coffers & muddying the reputation of the companies supplying parts & equipment.

That's why the ToBA with BAE was written, as BAE had explained to the Powers that be, the issues with 'boom n bust' shipbuilding, the costs to the public purse, as well the issues with loss of skills & capability. So UK Govt reviewed it, signed up to it & said they'd stick by it.

All the while still changing their minds, delaying decisions, holding back cash & spending it elsewhere.

So...

Do you blame the supplier, or the Govt, or the global economy?

I know where my money is, but I'd never get a bookmaker to take the bet !

SA

 

[StobieWan]

It's less of an unspeakable cock-up than Canada or Australia's ship building woes. Which is trying really hard to find a peanut in all that poo I suppose


A ten year unfunded commitment to a war in a land locked country probably didn't help with ship building priorities however.

 

[Volkodav]

It's less of an unspeakable cock-up than Canada or Australia's ship building woes. Which is trying really hard to find a peanut in all that poo I suppose


A ten year unfunded commitment to a war in a land locked country probably didn't help with ship building priorities however.

It almost seems to be a British Commonwealth disease of government micro management causing problems that result in reduced capability than planned (to save money), ending costing more than the originally planned numbers and schedule would have if it had been stuck with in the first place.