The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

I do take your point.
Being serious.
How seriously did you take the cost of conversion of the carriers a few years back? I read, what I take to be informed comment, suggesting the cost was massively inflated because Big and Expensive would actually lose out on the deal and therefore bumped up the price.

It wouldn't surprise me; the cost was much higher than anyone was expecting it to be, but since I'm not an engineer/ship architect and I'm not part of the programme I don't know how much work was actually involved. I do think that whoever decided on the switch hadn't factored in additional non-equipment based costs, such as constant deck qualifications of pilots and need for aerial refueling pods etc.

 

[StobieWan]

I do take your point.
Being serious.
How seriously did you take the cost of conversion of the carriers a few years back? I read, what I take to be informed comment, suggesting the cost was massively inflated because Big and Expensive would actually lose out on the deal and therefore bumped up the price.

How were BAE going to lose out?

 

[swerve]

Indeed. More work = more money for BAE.

 

[StobieWan]

Exactly - guys, get more angle grinders, we're bending way more metal than before!

Kerching!

Doesn't make much sense as a conspiracy theory.

 

[Volkodav]

Exactly - guys, get more angle grinders, we're bending way more metal than before!

Kerching!

Doesn't make much sense as a conspiracy theory.

interesting point, actually on the Australian AWD project when BAE stuffed up the keel blocks they wanted to scrap them and make new ones from scratch, i.e. more money for them and less pressure on delivery date than the required rework. It is rumoured that the subsequent stuff ups on the rework were actually deliberate sabotage, rather than incompetence, to try an force ASC to write off the original blocks as pilot builds and order new ones. BAE seem to love generating extra work at any opportunity.

 

[RobWilliams]

I do take your point.
Being serious.
How seriously did you take the cost of conversion of the carriers a few years back? I read, what I take to be informed comment, suggesting the cost was massively inflated because Big and Expensive would actually lose out on the deal and therefore bumped up the price.

As has said before, BAE would actually have generated more work for themselves if the Govt decided to modify the carriers to accept EMALS and AAG rather than continuing as is.

X band is also the the band of choice for horizon search as seen with SPQ9B on upgraded Ticonderogas, the RANs AWDs and a number of large amphibs while the DDG-1000s are using it for volume search as well.

The DDG-1000's actually use the S-band for their VSR, they've got SPY-3 in the X-band for targetting.

 

[Moebius]

Back in 2010 the Pentagon removed the SPY-4 S-Band VSR portion of the DDG-1000's Dual Band Radar as a cost saving measure. The SPY-3 X-Band MFR is getting software modifications to enable it to be either in volume search or horizon search mode. While in either VSR or HSR mode, the other relevant mode's capabilities will be limited.

I don't have the citation on hand but the wiki entry should have links to it.

 

[spsun100001]

How were BAE going to lose out?

Although it sounds unlikely to me the conspiracy theory advocated is that if we had converted to CTOL then we might have started to seriously consider alternatives to the F35 such as Rafale or the F18 which are much cheaper. As BAE are part of the F35 programme the conspiracy theory is that they inflated the conversion cost so that they could kill of any chance of not needing to order the F35.

 

[John Fedup]

Although it sounds unlikely to me the conspiracy theory advocated is that if we had converted to CTOL then we might have started to seriously consider alternatives to the F35 such as Rafale or the F18 which are much cheaper. As BAE are part of the F35 programme the conspiracy theory is that they inflated the conversion cost so that they could kill of any chance of not needing to order the F35.

Trying to resolve the relative costs of the CTOL/EMALS versus the STOVL for the QE carriers was clearly a circle jerk of frustration when the decision was made to stick with STOVL. How much pressure was coming from the Italian navy and the USMC to stick with STOVL? I think it is fair to say the USN's enthusiasm for the F-35C is somewhat of a concern for LM. The counter to this is the progress of the EMALS, not sure what to believe with regard to its status. I tend to think the F-35B may offer a better capability overall for the RN, Italian navy, USMC, other allies and ultimately the USN as it may make it easier for them walk away from the F-35C and go with advanced SHs and UCLAVs. If EMALS was a proven system when the QE STOVL/CTOL debate was on going then the aircraft options would be expanded and if not good for LM, it might have been good for the RN. Perhaps the F-35C would look more attractive to the USN if the RN opted for 50 of them? At this point, I think the F-35B may prove to be more successful than the "C" version.

 

[t68]

Trying to resolve the relative costs of the CTOL/EMALS versus the STOVL for the QE carriers was clearly a circle jerk of frustration when the decision was made to stick with STOVL. How much pressure was coming from the Italian navy and the USMC to stick with STOVL? I think it is fair to say the USN's enthusiasm for the F-35C is somewhat of a concern for LM. The counter to this is the progress of the EMALS, not sure what to believe with regard to its status. I tend to think the F-35B may offer a better capability overall for the RN, Italian navy, USMC, other allies and ultimately the USN as it may make it easier for them walk away from the F-35C and go with advanced SHs and UCLAVs. If EMALS was a proven system when the QE STOVL/CTOL debate was on going then the aircraft options would be expanded and if not good for LM, it might have been good for the RN. Perhaps the F-35C would look more attractive to the USN if the RN opted for 50 of them? At this point, I think the F-35B may prove to be more successful than the "C" version.

I think you will find that the praises for the F35B will be that as a package of ships and aircraft it is more sellable to their respective nations, where as the USN look to the support aircraft and their capabilty

If the choice was between a F35C plus E2D Hawkeye and MV-22 for AAR versus F35B and a helicopter based AWACS plus MB-22 and you could afford it I think it's a no brainer to go CATOBAR

I have also allways wonders why their was no replacement for the S2 Tracker did not use the E2 airframe as from memory the Tracker and the Tracer used the same airframe

 

[StobieWan]

Although it sounds unlikely to me the conspiracy theory advocated is that if we had converted to CTOL then we might have started to seriously consider alternatives to the F35 such as Rafale or the F18 which are much cheaper. As BAE are part of the F35 programme the conspiracy theory is that they inflated the conversion cost so that they could kill of any chance of not needing to order the F35.

Well, Rafale is more expensive than F35 so we can rule that one out.

I don't see it - the entire drive was to switch from B to C at a time when B was in trouble and C + EMALS seemed sensible. Then EMALS turned out to be an FMS sale with VAT added or some similar issue, plus various other charges in there. Add to which the suggestion that during the build process, various parts of the carrier that should have been reserved for CATOBAR conversion had been given up plus what seems to have been a miscalculation in terms of what was needed to be ordered for EMALS/AARG (turned out to be 2/3 of the cost of a Ford fitout, not half.) and you're into some scary costs before you cut metal on the carrier.

Dropping F35x means losing 10-14% workshare on 2300 jets - do you seriously think HMG govt would go for that?

 

[Volkodav]

Back in 2010 the Pentagon removed the SPY-4 S-Band VSR portion of the DDG-1000's Dual Band Radar as a cost saving measure. The SPY-3 X-Band MFR is getting software modifications to enable it to be either in volume search or horizon search mode. While in either VSR or HSR mode, the other relevant mode's capabilities will be limited.

I don't have the citation on hand but the wiki entry should have links to it.

Spot on, while the Ford class carriers will still get dual band radar SPY-4 has been deleted from the Zummwalts, for cost reasons, with their SPY-3 receiving software modifications to cover the VSR requirement. Apart from issues of functionality being degraded in which ever mode is not selected there is also a concern over X bands performance in heavy rain etc.

I am not sure whether in deleting SPY-4 space and weight was left to fit it in a subsequent upgrade or not.

 

[t68]

I think it's a case of if 2x CVA got of the ground would you have replaced the Phantoms and Buccaneers with F/A18A or funded a home grown solution this in turn most likly lead into the CATOBAR CVF and would the RAN/RCN followed suit

 

[harryriedl]

I think you will find that the praises for the F35B will be that as a package of ships and aircraft it is more sellable to their respective nations, where as the USN look to the support aircraft and their capabilty

If the choice was between a F35C plus E2D Hawkeye and MV-22 for AAR versus F35B and a helicopter based AWACS plus MB-22 and you could afford it I think it's a no brainer to go CATOBAR

I have also allways wonders why their was no replacement for the S2 Tracker did not use the E2 airframe as from memory the Tracker and the Tracer used the same airframe

Although that not strictly true these days as the USN has just bought V22 for COD and might possibly completely replace C2
Distributing Lethality via V-22
"Secretary Ray Mabus has now all but confirmed that the US Navy will buy 12 HV-22 Ospreys from 2018 through 2020 to replace some of its aging C-2 " This certianly changes some aspects of the respective adavantages disadvantages vis vis STOVL CATOBAR as the USN is moving away from a dedicated COD design you still don't have the benfits of E2 though with STOVL but if CBG is going V22 COD based they have the same limitations as STOVL carriers.

 

[spsun100001]

Well, Rafale is more expensive than F35 so we can rule that one out.

I don't see it - the entire drive was to switch from B to C at a time when B was in trouble and C + EMALS seemed sensible. Then EMALS turned out to be an FMS sale with VAT added or some similar issue, plus various other charges in there. Add to which the suggestion that during the build process, various parts of the carrier that should have been reserved for CATOBAR conversion had been given up plus what seems to have been a miscalculation in terms of what was needed to be ordered for EMALS/AARG (turned out to be 2/3 of the cost of a Ford fitout, not half.) and you're into some scary costs before you cut metal on the carrier.

Dropping F35x means losing 10-14% workshare on 2300 jets - do you seriously think HMG govt would go for that?

I didn't say I did. My post made clear I didn't think the conspiracy theory had much credibility. I was merely providing it in response to the poster who asked what it was based on.

 

[RobWilliams]

Deck crews are training at Culdrose in preparation for carrier flight deck ops using 14 downrated Sea Harriers as the aircraft and the current CVS mock deck as the marshalling area.


https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/12495
The article describes the differences between CVS/CVF and SHAR/F-35 but the point of this is to get crews used to moving aircraft around, the activity & noise etc.

The mock deck will be modified for the QEC but no mention of dates.

Interesting news but not entirely unexpected. I knew about RN sailors marshalling aircraft on USN CVNs/amphibs but it's good to see something happening here and the SHAR get a workout.

Makes you wonder, if a national emergency dictated, how practical getting a 6 strong flight on the QEC. I have no idea, but interesting thought-candy IMO.

In other news, now the RN is looking for a new AShM to replace Harpoon in 2018+ and LRASM seems the ideal replacement, there are rumours that Lockheed Martin is developing a sub-launched variant.

How important this is to the RN in times of decreased funding is up for debate but - IMO - there are other funding priorities. If you want AShM capability get it on the Type 26/F-35 first.

 

[Riga]

Deck crews are training at Culdrose in preparation for carrier flight deck ops using 14 downrated Sea Harriers as the aircraft and the current CVS mock deck as the marshalling area.


https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/12495
The article describes the differences between CVS/CVF and SHAR/F-35 but the point of this is to get crews used to moving aircraft around, the activity & noise etc.

The mock deck will be modified for the QEC but no mention of dates.

Interesting news but not entirely unexpected. I knew about RN sailors marshalling aircraft on USN CVNs/amphibs but it's good to see something happening here and the SHAR get a workout.

Makes you wonder, if a national emergency dictated, how practical getting a 6 strong flight on the QEC. I have no idea, but interesting thought-candy IMO.

In other news, now the RN is looking for a new AShM to replace Harpoon in 2018+ and LRASM seems the ideal replacement, there are rumours that Lockheed Martin is developing a sub-launched variant.

How important this is to the RN in times of decreased funding is up for debate but - IMO - there are other funding priorities. If you want AShM capability get it on the Type 26/F-35 first.

There is an Obit in the Telegraph (I've hit my viewing limit) but it describes how the bloke took O boats into the Baltic for several weeks in the late 70s to spy on the Russians.

The increased tension in the Baltics and Ukraine might actually help to protect some Defence spending. Certainly Fallon is shouting out to anyone that can listen.

As to the AShM capability, is there not a Norwegian version in the market now? Can be air or sea launched IIRC and surely converted for submarine use as well.

All 13 T26 really do need to be funded and fitted for as much kit as possible in these uncertain times, things are only going to get worse.

 

[kev 99]

There is an Obit in the Telegraph (I've hit my viewing limit) but it describes how the bloke took O boats into the Baltic for several weeks in the late 70s to spy on the Russians.

The increased tension in the Baltics and Ukraine might actually help to protect some Defence spending. Certainly Fallon is shouting out to anyone that can listen.

As to the AShM capability, is there not a Norwegian version in the market now? Can be air or sea launched IIRC and surely converted for submarine use as well.

All 13 T26 really do need to be funded and fitted for as much kit as possible in these uncertain times, things are only going to get worse.

The JSM version is going to being integrated for MK41 VLS as well, I'm pretty sure the same report mentioned something about Sub launch as well but may be wrong.

 

[John Fedup]

Well, Rafale is more expensive than F35 so we can rule that one out.

I don't see it - the entire drive was to switch from B to C at a time when B was in trouble and C + EMALS seemed sensible. Then EMALS turned out to be an FMS sale with VAT added or some similar issue, plus various other charges in there. Add to which the suggestion that during the build process, various parts of the carrier that should have been reserved for CATOBAR conversion had been given up plus what seems to have been a miscalculation in terms of what was needed to be ordered for EMALS/AARG (turned out to be 2/3 of the cost of a Ford fitout, not half.) and you're into some scary costs before you cut metal on the carrier.

Dropping F35x means losing 10-14% workshare on 2300 jets - do you seriously think HMG govt would go for that?

Based on the recent Egyptian order for 5.9 billion and assuming the missiles and FREMM frigate represent about 2 billion of the 5.9 billion, this makes the Rafale much more expensive than the Rafale (161m each) if my math is correct. Likely the Rafale M is even more. Are you predicting only 2300 F-35s? I thought the US was 2300 and export about 500 more.

 

[RobWilliams]

Everyone loves a bit of fantasy fleet, a former Treasury and DfiD official wrote a paper saying what we could buy instead of "Trident renewal" - itself a false name as Trident itself is good for 2030+

CentreForum.org - Retiring Trident

Author of UKAFC did an analysis of it which I think is pretty good.

UK Armed Forces Commentary

Here's the FF bit, here's what they said we *should* buy instead of successor submarines

• 100 B61-12 free fall nuke bombs
• Convert both QEC to CATOBAR
• Buy F-35C instead
• Convert F-35C to be nuclear-capable
• Buy Astute 8 - 12
• Buy Type 26 14 - 17
• Buy 6 x E-2D
• Buy 4 x C-2A (and convert them to be tanker capable too)
• Buy 8 MPA
• Convert Voyager to be able to do boom refuelling
• Upgrade nuclear infrastructure at RAF Marham

There's a financial cost attached to those which I haven't replicated, but that looks pretty neat. But there are significant questions which it raises which makes it impractical.

Firstly, there are no guarantees that if we didn't build SSBNs that they'd go into funding additional conventional forces.

Secondly the nature of a nuclear force on a carrier is less survivable (both ships and aircraft), less effective (response time, CBG range/F-35C range/B61 range, easier to intercept) and just a lesser deterrent than a SSBN lurking in the depths with 12 Trident SLBMs ready to launch whenever and without any sort of warning.

In a tense situation, the deployment of a UK CBG with nuclear weapons aboard would represent a serious escalation, an escalation a CASD posture does not create.

Thirdly their costing, is it accurate? No it isn't. I wonder what sort of considerations they've made WRT manpower to man these ships, subs and aircraft and support them.

Fourthly, I wonder how hard it would be to push for nuclear weapons storage at Marham? How long would it take and how much would it cost to get the approval put through?

Recommend reading the analysis, it covers the points better than I do. Generally, it looks really cool to be told you could have that versus 4 SSBNs, but does it provide the role of a credible nuclear deterrent as well for a better price? I doubt it.