The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[A4kscooter]

We always need additional ships, transport aircraft and helicopters and the military are the most capable resource we have when dealing with natural disasters and providing humanitarian aid.
The carriers without the ability to operate landing craft etc lack the necessary capabilites to be a credible replacement for Bulwark and Albion when dealing with disasters such the recent hurricane in the Caribbean.
Rather than our foreign aid been donated to countries with nuclear weapons and armed forces considerably larger than the UK military etc we need to use the money where it will benefit the UK more and we still provide quality and substantial assistance when it's needed.

 

[Seaforth]

We always need additional ships, transport aircraft and helicopters and the military are the most capable resource we have when dealing with natural disasters and providing humanitarian aid.
The carriers without the ability to operate landing craft etc lack the necessary capabilites to be a credible replacement for Bulwark and Albion when dealing with disasters such the recent hurricane in the Caribbean.
Rather than our foreign aid been donated to countries with nuclear weapons and armed forces considerably larger than the UK military etc we need to use the money where it will benefit the UK more and we still provide quality and substantial assistance when it's needed.

And there's the point... Albion and Bulwark have conducted a lot of humanitarian operations that the 3 x Bays could equally well manage.

The Royal Navy is facing a pivot, from a beach assault focus (largely used for humanitarian purposes in practice) to an air power projection focus with the new carriers.

Nothing wrong with making brave unpopular decisions as conditions and strategy change.

 

[swerve]

Even without beach assaults, it's a damn good idea to be able to land heavy equipment without needing a functioning port. Yes, the Bays can do that - but we now have three, & a few years ago we thought we needed four and Albion & Bulwark. Disposing of the Albions is a >50% reduction in our amphibious landing capacity (other than what can be put in a helicopter) in this decade. It'd leave us with less than France or (once they get their new ships) Italy. We'll be roughly on a par, in this area, with Spain. Or Australia.

How is it that an island nation with 65 million people needs no more than a continental country (you can walk into it from France: I've done so) of 45 million?

 

[swerve]

For all those who promote a fixed wing carrier for the RAN this is what results. There is a fixed funding pie, ....

Nope. The funding pie is not & never has been fixed. If it hadn't changed since the decision to buy the carriers was made, we'd easily be able to afford them.

There's also the little matter of the efficiency of spending. From published sources, one can easily identify about £10 billion thrown away on procurement in the last 20 years, on things we never ended up getting, on changes to how we bought what we are getting, etc., spread across all three services. And that's just a few big items where procurement was mishandled, or politicians deliberately increased long-term costs to be able to show a short-term 'saving'.

 

[John Fedup]

The UK government (s) are not alone in pissing away money on horid procurement performance. Canada’s record of delayed and cancelled programs is a sorry saga.

Cyclone helicopters
FWSAR aircraft
On going JSS project
CCV program
Fighter replacement nfloorl:
CSC program, slightly delayed but expect another total cluster

 

[ASSAIL]

Nope. The funding pie is not & never has been fixed. If it hadn't changed since the decision to buy the carriers was made, we'd easily be able to afford them.

There's also the little matter of the efficiency of spending. From published sources, one can easily identify about £10 billion thrown away on procurement in the last 20 years, on things we never ended up getting, on changes to how we bought what we are getting, etc., spread across all three services. And that's just a few big items where procurement was mishandled, or politicians deliberately increased long-term costs to be able to show a short-term 'saving'.

By fixed I was referring to 2% GDP. I also thought there had been some creative changes to the accounting procedures such as moving the nuclear deterrent from a stand alone whole of govt item into the Defence arena thereby reducing the conventional forces budget even further.

 

[swerve]

Yes - the budget's been cut both openly & by stealth. That's exactly what I meant by it not being fixed.

2% is not fixed. There's a very vague undertaking to keep it around there, but it's been below - & a few years ago it was above.

 

[Seaforth]

Even without beach assaults, it's a damn good idea to be able to land heavy equipment without needing a functioning port. Yes, the Bays can do that - but we now have three, & a few years ago we thought we needed four and Albion & Bulwark. Disposing of the Albions is a >50% reduction in our amphibious landing capacity (other than what can be put in a helicopter) in this decade. It'd leave us with less than France or (once they get their new ships) Italy. We'll be roughly on a par, in this area, with Spain. Or Australia.

How is it that an island nation with 65 million people needs no more than a continental country (you can walk into it from France: I've done so) of 45 million?

In the 80s and 90s there was only Intrepid and Fearless - just 2 LPD units. And no large carriers either.

My point is that requirements change over time.

During the naughties, Tony Blair's strategy involved more boots on the ground.

Therefore the need for Albion/Bulwark backed by the 4 Bays backed by the Points.

That has been "discredited" for right or wrong.

Today there is much less political appetite for boots on the ground.

Therefore less need for amphibious vessels.

At the same time more need for stronger air power projection as a substitute for boots on the ground (for right or for wrong that's a fact).

You need to see the bigger picture...

 

[Seaforth]

In the 80s and 90s there was only Intrepid and Fearless - just 2 LPD units. And no large carriers either.

My point is that requirements change over time.

During the naughties, Tony Blair's strategy involved more boots on the ground.

Therefore the need for Albion/Bulwark backed by the 4 Bays backed by the Points.

That has been "discredited" for right or wrong.

Today there is much less political appetite for boots on the ground.

Therefore less need for amphibious vessels.

At the same time more need for stronger air power projection as a substitute for boots on the ground (for right or for wrong that's a fact).

You need to see the bigger picture...

Don't compare to other countries, it's not relevant.

UK mainland coastline is 17.8k km whereas Australian mainland coastline is 35.9k km. Does that mean RN beach assault requirements is half the RAN equivalent? No.

Is the RN planning on assaulting a U.K. beach? I doubt it. So which beach?

 

[t68]

there might be some truth to the rumour of cutting the LPD's

Senior Royal Navy Officer Reportedly Resigns Over Plan To Axe Amphibious Assault Ships

 

[taskforce88]

The carriers themselves are not causing the financial woes for the RN (although they are causing some manning issues). However the main problem has nothing to do with the carriers, whose acquisition dates back to SDR98

The financial problems within the RN are because renewal of the nuclear deterrent has fallen on the core defence budget, when before it was separate.

 

[swerve]

In the 80s and 90s there was only Intrepid and Fearless - just 2 LPD units. And no large carriers either....

During the naughties, Tony Blair's strategy involved more boots on the ground.

Therefore the need for Albion/Bulwark backed by the 4 Bays backed by the Points....

Two LPDs, plus six LSLs (the Round Tables) & three small carriers.Ocean was ordered in 1993, when Tony Blair wasn't even leader of the opposition, Albion & Bulwark in 1996, by the Tories, & Bay class planning (to replace the LSLs) began before he was elected.

Only the Point class began with a Labour initiative under Blair, to replace chartered ships.

We've already cut two Points, one Bay, & are replacing three small carriers & an LPH with two big carriers, which can only be in either one (probably most of the time) or two places at a time. And now it's being proposed that we should go from ten ships (at least: what about Argus?) to five.

It's not just about boots on the ground. How are we going to manage air power projection when much of the time we'll have exactly one ship to do it, while simultaneously doing functions currently handled by multiple ships? How many jobs, in how many places, can one ship do?

It's not just a question of changing requirements. It's incoherent requirements.

 

[t68]

Two LPDs, plus six LSLs (the Round Tables) & three small carriers.Ocean was ordered in 1993, when Tony Blair wasn't even leader of the opposition, Albion & Bulwark in 1996, by the Tories, & Bay class planning (to replace the LSLs) began before he was elected.

Only the Point class began with a Labour initiative under Blair, to replace chartered ships.

We've already cut two Points, one Bay, & are replacing three small carriers & an LPH with two big carriers, which can only be in either one (probably most of the time) or two places at a time. And now it's being proposed that we should go from ten ships (at least: what about Argus?) to five.

It's not just about boots on the ground. How are we going to manage air power projection when much of the time we'll have exactly one ship to do it, while simultaneously doing functions currently handled by multiple ships? How many jobs, in how many places, can one ship do?

It's not just a question of changing requirements. It's incoherent requirements.

Wheres the like button again?

 

[Blackshoe]

We always need additional ships, transport aircraft and helicopters and the military are the most capable resource we have when dealing with natural disasters and providing humanitarian aid.
The carriers without the ability to operate landing craft etc lack the necessary capabilites to be a credible replacement for Bulwark and Albion when dealing with disasters such the recent hurricane in the Caribbean.
Rather than our foreign aid been donated to countries with nuclear weapons and armed forces considerably larger than the UK military etc we need to use the money where it will benefit the UK more and we still provide quality and substantial assistance when it's needed.

As an aside: this leads to one of the big problems with how Western nations love to flog HADR as a core capability/requirement for assets, namely that while HADR is a mission that provides a lot of good press and gets mostly lefty pollies onboard as something they can support the military for, it's not a vital enough mission to warrant funding in and of itself, and it has very questionable strategic value from a utilitarian standpoint.

Now, it has excellent value from a moral standpoint, and it's the right thing to do-but IMHO moral arguments don't pay the bills in legislatures, unless there's a lot of voters attached to it.. And HADR doesn't do that.

When we try and justify equipment and platforms based off what we can do for HADR, we end up selling things on a pitch that people nod along to and like on Facebook/Retweet...but not actually pay for.

Caveating this is only my view from across the pond.

 

[oldsig127]

As an aside: this leads to one of the big problems with how Western nations love to flog HADR as a core capability/requirement for assets, namely that while HADR is a mission that provides a lot of good press and gets mostly lefty pollies onboard as something they can support the military for, it's not a vital enough mission to warrant funding in and of itself, and it has very questionable strategic value from a utilitarian standpoint.

Now, it has excellent value from a moral standpoint, and it's the right thing to do-but IMHO moral arguments don't pay the bills in legislatures, unless there's a lot of voters attached to it.. And HADR doesn't do that.

When we try and justify equipment and platforms based off what we can do for HADR, we end up selling things on a pitch that people nod along to and like on Facebook/Retweet...but not actually pay for.

Caveating this is only my view from across the pond.

Dropping in my view from across the globe. With China busy offering all sorts of financial and other aid to our Pacific island neighbours, Australia has moral, military, political and diplomatic reasons to be well equipped for, and willing to provide HADR at the drop of a hat. Maybe the imperative is stronger, but the island nations are usually not *rich* and are subject to the full range of natural disasters - cyclone/tsunami/volcanic/earthquake/rising sea levels - which might make them amenable to yet another runway on a reef.

Not directly relevant, but moral reasons are very far from the only justification to be well equipped for HADR

oldsig

 

[Systems Adict]

In other news, HMS MEDWAY was officially named today....

New warship is named during navy ceremony - The News

 

[t68]

An interesting task for RN Southern Diving Unit 2

Tanker carrying 1000 tonnes of fuel lifts torpedo on anchor | Naval Today

 

[t68]

No reassurance in regards to Albion & Bulwark, not good.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/922459130312478722

 

[overlander]

It,s not possible for the R.N. to be a powerful blue water navy with the continuous lack of funding, it,s the never ending story. For what they build 2 big carriers if it,s not possible to pay and later maintain them.

 

[walter]

Brazil, Chile eye potential second-hand acquisitions from UK

Brazil, Chile eye potential second-hand acquisitions from UK | Jane's 360