Type 45 destroyer

[kev 99]

The cuts to the T45 numbers happened before any were built and amongst a widespread downscale of the UK's serious warfighting capability, the army and RAF suffered serious cuts as well, the Government decided that we weren't going to get into a serious war any time soon despite invading another country shortly afterwards and committing to a large scale counter insurgency operation at the same time. To be honest I have little faith that the RN would of ever got the 12 that made up the original requirement, after identifying the RN only needed a revised figure of 8 they played the ace up their sleeve and only ordered 6, only to then pull the political fudge line of stating that they're were so much more capable than the T42 we only needed 6. The Government doesn't to fund decent armed forces for the UK.

If the MOD had of ordered Aegis ships it might of got them cheaper but it didn't, I'm not convinced that a continued development of the Sea Dart would. The original Sea Dart was roughly comparable to the US Tarter system (or so a bloke that works in Naval missile systems tells me), its likely the latest incarnation is more comparable to the Standard 1 or early blocks of the standard 2, there's only so much work you can do to update the engines and seeker before you've completely rebuilt the guts of the missile, what happens if you find the airframe can't handle it? Pretty soon you've got a completely new missile, what's the point of that the French already were already working on the Aster 15 and had it in service in 2001.

I wouldn't have a problem with a flex deck style garage arrangement for the C2, it's much more suitable to their global general purpose mission but I don't see the need to be able to carry a small number of MBT's, if we're going into a situation where tanks are necessary then likely 2 wouldn't be enough and if that's the case we may as well use a proper amphib.

Selling ships maybe a subsidy to the shipyards but it amounts to real cuts if they are not replaced which is what has happened.

The FSC programme has a stated objective of developing designs with export in mind as well as producing ships replacements for the T22s and 23s.

I would agree that for the type of conflicts the UK will be involved in in the future a strong Royal Navy probably represents better value for money than the RAF.

 

[1805]

As you can imagine I don't like the whole FSC progamme which is going to lead us into a small sub classes (almost taking back to pre Leander days and the Type 41/61 concept). My idea would be 2 classes of ships base on 3 principles:
- the more you make (including exports) the cheaper
- Big ships are easier to operate helicopters from and two helicopters are more practical/cheaper to operate than two single ships with helicopters so 2 should be the standard unit on all helicopter capabile ships
- Ships work better in small squadrons, 1 crusier, 2 light frigates and 1 RFA (a big Rover 15,000t) ie 4 Merlins for 4 ships (2 on the cruiser 2 on the RFA)

- build 15-18 (5-6/decade managable) T45/crusiers 8000t, 1 x 155mm gun (Nato standard) a PAAMS/Aegis, 2 Merlin (up to 500 crew, 200 Sailors 300 marines) and 600t vehicles (I agree not MBT but 8x8 APC, Trucks etc)
- 30-36 - 1,500-2,000 frigates 2 x 57mm cannon 1 or 2 x8 cell VLS for ESSM/Harpoon a helipad maybe able to refuel a Merlin
- A RFA of 15,000 (30% bigger than a Rover) with 2 Merlin.

I think at 15,000 and two heavy helicopters the RFA would have good export potential, the 1500/2000 we already build something similar. I would then have an assault force of 3-4 heavy 25000t with through decks to act as assault ships, small carriers, helicopter carriers and even tenders fro FAC/CB90 type boats. These big landing ships would be used for the few times we have major operations on unprepared beaches but how often does this happen

 

[matthew22081991]

You clearly don't have a clue about what AEGIS can or cannot do. And trust me, there are few things that the system cannot do.

On the other hand, AEGIS has 3000 plus missile firings. Long way to go for any other system to get close to this

AEGIS is owned by rather a lot of countries. Britain would be very foolish to join the club and become a member of something that is simply American export imperialism, rather than nurturing something that would provide Britons with work. Factors other than military come into this as well...

Now look at how tied in Britain is to America. To be quite frank, it's killing the British economy. Diversification is where the future is. Also, look at the F-35; Tony Blair had to fight tooth and nail to keep the US out of British command structures when getting involved with that, and countries with US destroyers have generally become tied in with the US over their defence. Britain, whilst maintaining her wonderful alliance with the US, should not go the way of Japan, Australia or Taiwan and lose the ability for an independent defence. Before anyone says Japan can mount an independent defence, I advise you see how much political wrangling the Japanese have had to make in order to keep a US aircraft carrier there.

The need for '3000 plus missile firings' is not there. When is it ever going to conceivably be there?

Keep the T45, keep independent defence, and keep what is quite frankly the best destroyer on the planet.

And one failed test is not doom and gloom, ladies and gents.

 

[stoker]

Keep the T45, keep independent defence, and keep what is quite frankly the best destroyer on the planet.

Yes, the T45 Daring class destroyer is/will definitely. be one of the best AAW destroyers on this planet.
Modern electronic weapons systems are very expensive, and all of them through out the world take years to properly mature.
PAAMS will get there and will be among the best money can buy.
Another 6 - 12 T45's would be very nice and are definitely warranted, but your miserable bloody Government won't put the money up to bring the RN up to the capability it NEEDS to properly defend British interests, at home and abroad. They are clones of Neville Chamberlain, and one thing you will notice about all the 'Nevilles' they are never in the front line when the shooting starts. LOL.
Instead of the C1/C2 imbroglio, seeing as steel is cheap and air is free, why doesn't Britian standardize on the superb and very cost effecrive T45 hull and WR21 (IFEP) drive?
If the T45 hull is acoustically suitable for ASW work, it would make a superb big ocean going, long ranged, blue water ASW ship.
You could have:-
Dual hangar/VLS system ( 2x Merlins and 1 x 64 cell Mk 41) with the identical layout to that on the aft section on a DDG51.
No expensive PAAMS, something similar to the CEFAR (Australian) concept,
Just ESSM, VL Harpoon, and TacTom.
You could have 1x155mm main gun ( A ) or 2x 5"/4.5" (A & B) up front..

Build at least 6 and the pair them up, each with a D45, a superb pigeon pair.

 

[1805]

If national defence industry is the driver then buying French would be the last thing I would do, they are great at getting other people to pay for there development costs (Concord/Airbus, Arianne/M51. When you by national sometimes you have to accept second best, to stay in the game, as building from sratch is so expensive. If for example we chose to buy Leopard instead of Challengers which may one day happen, you can't come back in 20 years and build a MBT infastructure. When we brought the F4 probably the best aircraft of its type at the time (even the USAF had to use them!!) we should then not have tried to build from scratch a fighter capability (Eurofighter the maths didn't add up even if ther Cold war continued). So Sea Dart would probably have be satisfactory and could have been put on more hull.....I would have put on all Frigates/Destroyers.

We keep ducking the question do you want a few gold plated or a lot of silver. When the RN was confronted with this in the 60s they opted for the later an excellent move ie 4 x Type 82 or 14 Type 42. just winging on about politicans not giving enough money is like a spoilt child

 

[Pedro C]

You got it wrong, mate

AEGIS is owned by rather a lot of countries. Britain would be very foolish to join the club and become a member of something that is simply American export imperialism, rather than nurturing something that would provide Britons with work. Factors other than military come into this as well...

Now look at how tied in Britain is to America. To be quite frank, it's killing the British economy. Diversification is where the future is. Also, look at the F-35; Tony Blair had to fight tooth and nail to keep the US out of British command structures when getting involved with that, and countries with US destroyers have generally become tied in with the US over their defence. Britain, whilst maintaining her wonderful alliance with the US, should not go the way of Japan, Australia or Taiwan and lose the ability for an independent defence. Before anyone says Japan can mount an independent defence, I advise you see how much political wrangling the Japanese have had to make in order to keep a US aircraft carrier there.

The need for '3000 plus missile firings' is not there. When is it ever going to conceivably be there?

Keep the T45, keep independent defence, and keep what is quite frankly the best destroyer on the planet.

And one failed test is not doom and gloom, ladies and gents.

Foolish, you say? You just need to look at the figures, my friend. If you really want to provide Britons with work, go the AEGIS path. Fourteen!!! ships are going out from Navantia's shipyard at Ferrol. Up to now. Versus... 6.... if you are lucky at the Clyde. No,mate, you should have chosen other rationale. AEGIS has been a huge financial success for Navantia.

The need for more than 3000 missile tests IS there. The more you test it the more reliable your system becomes. AEGIS is reliable. How about T45?? When is it going to be somehow close to that?? Not in decades. In the meantime, will keep exporting F100

ah! By the way. If you really think that T45 is the best destroyer in the planet... you are really naive. Maybe one day, but definitely, not now.

 

[1805]

I couldn't agree more. The UK Goverment funds a signifcant navy, which should enable the UK to be the dominate ship builder and exporter. There was a UK option in the 80/90s (Sea Dart) this has passed so we should have gone Aegis, we could have aforded 12 (Spain has 6) . Spain was the first European navy to deploy Aegis (second only to Japan) in 2003 maybe nearly 10 years before we have an effective alternative.

 

[Palnatoke]

While I totally agree that the Type45 is much too expensive compared to cababilities, PAAMS is certainly not to blame.PAAMS and it's ASTER missiles is a more advanced system that aegis, and it was not *that* costly.
The costly budge of the type 45 is in my oppinion better found in
A) Far too much superfluious "innovations" and cutting edge tech: you know: " Why invent something new when you have a practical solution?"
B) Bad shipbuilding and handling of industrial processes.


Kev 99

Commercial standards isn't the only reason why Absalons were built cheap; large sections of their hull were built in cheap Eastern European shipyards, if you want to maintain a ship building infrastructure then clearly this is unacceptable and the UK shipbuilding infrastructure has been running on minimum capacity for a long time, the last time they had a decent sized order was with the Type 23s and as a result they came in pretty cheap.

First of all, the absalons easely meet all relevant and non-obscure requirements for being a warship in the role they are designed for.
Secondly, you make it sound like a bad thing to save costs, I don't understand that - Do you think it's funny to pay tax, or do you thing that it's an advantage to have less equipment in a battle?
I find this interesting: ", if you want to maintain a ship building infrastructure then clearly this is unacceptable" in the view, that Denmark, through Odense Stålskibsværft/Lindø (Which builded the Abs and is building the derived class of AAW frigates), is one of the last European yards that competes (though it is dying, now - the danish states refuses to give subsidies, unlike Lindø's competitors who build ships sold at less than the raw price of the steel) with the Asians in building very large commercial ships, maybe that's exactly how you maintain a ship building infrastructure?

 

[1805]

I do agree on the shipbuilding management issues. There have been problems before the Bays had huge cost overruns and I think the MOD considered walking away at one point? This is only going to get worst with the MOD forcing VT into BAE's arms. I heard a very poor taste joke about BAE. (Whats the difference between BAE and a rapist.....at least the rapist finishes the job!!)

 

[Palnatoke]

1805

It's impossible to maintain an efficient shipbuilding industry by defense spendings alone. This is due to A) The volumne of the defense market is far less than that of the commercial market. This means that the yards confined to defense (because they can't compete on the cmercial market) are so to speak "playing in the minor leaque" missing out on the large money (which f.ex. is used to pay for innovation).
B) In all countries except the US, the navy defense market is so small that it can only sustain a few yards, which means that you loose competion effects.

 

[1805]

I agree, you are not going to prop up a full commerical shipbuilding industry with just Naval construction, and to a certain extent the debate is over with the UK civil industry some time ago. But I am now concerned that mismanagement by the RN, suppliers and Government (not just the Government who get all the flak) we are now ordering sub critical volumes to even keep a viable military building capability this is not just about jobs, this is about our ability to defend ourselves in a full scales operation (however distant/unlikely, but then we maintain SSBNs for an even less likely event).

But I look back at the Oberon's we exported 14 to 5 countries? where have these order gone....low cost producers no German. If we didn't build SSNs we could operate a force of 20 SSK (Germany only operates 6-8?) and have change over for some Destroyers. 20 is such a large internal market and with no US competition we could dominate. The sad truth i don't really know why people are not buying RN designs any more but for some time: they cost more, they are not flexible, they are not very innovative, they are later than over Navies. They only exports that have been achieved have been non RN designs and it is very hard to sell a concept when it is not built and your own navy don't buy it.

T22 (only the French were slower getting there 2 hel frigate out when they were the fashion
T45 20 years after the Burke's evern the French have theirs out

And now they talk of building MAARS in Korea!!! why don't we just buy the whole lot from China!

 

[StevoJH]

I do agree on the shipbuilding management issues. There have been problems before the Bays had huge cost overruns and I think the MOD considered walking away at one point? This is only going to get worst with the MOD forcing VT into BAE's arms. I heard a very poor taste joke about BAE. (Whats the difference between BAE and a rapist.....at least the rapist finishes the job!!)

Swan Hunter had cost overruns on the Bay's, not BAe. MoD took a half finished Bay from Swan Hunter and moved it to BAe to be finished due to the overruns at Swan Hunter.

 

[stuuu28]

BAe Shipbuilding

As said Before the Issue with the Bays was down to Swan Hunter, BAe Govan if taken individually managed to bring the bays in at roughly what they said it would.

And before that was there not issues with Albion and Bulwark during build at Barrrow.

Looking at past projects i would have concerns about the CVF being built at Rosyth. There was an option considered before to assemble the CVF's at Inchgreen Dry dock down the clyde from BAe yards. Surely this would have been better,meaning you could still have used the same work force that has been building Navy Surface ships continually for past 100 years or so.

 

[1805]

my mistake, I remember the issue and put 2 + 2 together and made 5. BAE innocent for a change

 

[kev 99]

First of all, the absalons easely meet all relevant and non-obscure requirements for being a warship in the role they are designed for.

I never said they didn't.

Secondly, you make it sound like a bad thing to save costs, I don't understand that - Do you think it's funny to pay tax, or do you thing that it's an advantage to have less equipment in a battle?
I find this interesting: ", if you want to maintain a ship building infrastructure then clearly this is unacceptable" in the view, that Denmark, through Odense Stålskibsværft/Lindø (Which builded the Abs and is building the derived class of AAW frigates), is one of the last European yards that competes (though it is dying, now - the danish states refuses to give subsidies, unlike Lindø's competitors who build ships sold at less than the raw price of the steel) with the Asians in building very large commercial ships, maybe that's exactly how you maintain a ship building infrastructure?

I'm not saying anything of the sort, I wasn't even venturing an opinion: The British Government is trying to maintain a military ship building industry based on the minimum orders that it can, whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant I am merely stating facts.

 

[Palnatoke]

I never said they didn't.



The fact is that the British Government is trying to maintain a military ship building industry based on the minimum orders that it can, whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant I am merely stating facts.

You wrote "if you want to maintain a ship building infrastructure then clearly this (out sourcing parts of construction to low cost countries, my insert) is unacceptable "

That's not a fact, it is wrong.

The errors both from goverment as well as industry in salvaging a healthy british shipbuilding industry is at the very heart of the problems of the RN. Britain would be well served if it acknowledged the simple fact, that other, close allies, are better at building the damn ships and ordered ships from there - the other way, leads only to ships being builded in asia or not builded at all, or builded at a price by which it would have been better not to build them at all.

Let me give you a current real world example of how to act as a state:
As mentioned Odense Stålskibsværft/Lindø, in the face of stiff and most likely unfair competion from the east are scheduled to close in few years. Now given the cost structure of the danish socity and the wage demands of danish workers it is likely that Denmark is not a good place to build ships in.

The closure is a fact, since the danish state has plainly refused to subsidies the yard. That goverment choise, which I agree in, is on the rationale that it's always a bad idea to throw good money at a bad buisness. Those money would f.ex. be better spend making sure that the yard workers can find occupation in other, healthy, industries. .

Now together with the yard, there is an entire sub-contracting industry, much of this industry is healthy. With Lindø dieing, it would be a shame to loose the healthy sub-contracting industry, so the goverment, instead of throwing money at the yard, give "export subsidies" in the shape of state guranteed loans (which is lawfull) to a shipper buying new ships in asia, with a buy back clause that a certain amount of the new ships should be surplied by danish firms - thus ading the (healthy) sub-contracting industry.

An example, well known to people interested in engines, is MAN B&W. MAN is a german company who bought the engine-shop from the ruins of the B&W yard of Copenhagen, This engine shop was a world leader in large diesel engines and MAN had expertize and money to continually evolve this tech advantage.
To this day, 1/4 of the world's large two stroke engines are (primarely) designed in copenhagen by MAN B&W, eventhough the original B&W yard is long gone.
Had the danish state gone the other way, trying to keep B&W afloat it would have spend a lot of money and the end result would have been that niether ships nor engines where made/designed in Copenhagen.

So, cut the dead wood to keep the fresh.

 

[kev 99]

You wrote "if you want to maintain a ship building infrastructure then clearly this (out sourcing parts of construction to low cost countries, my insert) is unacceptable "

That's not a fact, it is wrong.

No it's absolutely correct, the British Government want this capability, they want to be able to build warships from start to finish and they are using minimum orders to achieve this, they want this strategic capability and they are willing to pay for it, although only the bare minimum to retain it. These are the facts, if you choose to ignore them that's fine, but these are the facts.

By the way the next generation of the RFA Ships will almost certainly be manufactured abroad, probably with systems integration done in the UK, the Government view is that while auxiliaries are certainly "warlike" they are not warships and therefore assembly abroad is acceptable.

Let me give you a current real world example of how to act as a state:
As mentioned Odense Stålskibsværft/Lindø, in the face of stiff and most likely unfair competion from the east are scheduled to close in few years. Now given the cost structure of the danish socity and the wage demands of danish workers it is likely that Denmark is not a good place to build ships in.

May work fine for Denmark but it would be considered politically unacceptable for the UK for all sorts of reasons, not least of which the media in the country would utterly crucify whatever politician ordered it.

 

[1805]

I do feel we need to keep a warship building capability in the Uk and this must be possible with the number of ships we build in the UK. This is currently a very bad time, poor planning with three of the most expensive classes being built at the same time (Astute, T45 and CVs), combined with economic slump and a nightmare war. But this is something not quite right about UK defence procurement across all the services. We do seem to be punching well below our weight. Yes we have big commitments and programmes, but £38bn is one of the biggest budgets world. PAAMS looks like a bad call to me (late/expensive/limited export potential). I am sure it will work and be very good and maybe for a few years be better than Aegis, but it's development will be underfunded, we all know that and it's no good going into denial about this we can see this now??

I look at programmes like Merlin, it's had problems and we backed the wrong horse, it's to big to be attractive to many exports, but to small to take on a Chinnok roles so yesterday MOD buys 22 more Chinnoks. Maybe there will be no more than 150 Merlins built? I was staggered to see the success of the horse we didn't back NH90 everyone and the dog has brought them. Prehaps the greatest Euro project nearly 700 orders and we would love to buy them but will end up with the Future Lynx (I have no issue with it as a helicopter but it is not as good). We can't totally blame politicans and civil servants, defence chiefs have to take some responsibility for: value for money, bang for buck and a substainable defence industry/export

 

[Palnatoke]

KEV

Plz entertain the following possibility:

Maybe the economical demise of the DDR (former east germany) was rooted not in lazy germans, but in the possibiity that you can't run an industry from a desk in a goverment office. That you can't have an healthy industry that every year is asked to produce N left shoes, K right shoes divided into J shoe sizes - Production numbers carefully estimated by the office of statistics.

The point is that, if you do like the DDR you are going to end up with neither the bad nor the good; you are going to end up with nothing.

You need to adapt, always maximizing your efforts in areas in which you have comparative advantages. If britain aren't good at building hulls (that's fair to assume, glancing over the order book of british yards) maybe brits should leave that to others and instead concentrate your efforts in areas were you are at your best.

To build "a hull" of a type 45 is not rocket sience (though, to build a hull cheaply might be), but to build a system like PAAMS etc. is rocket science. So maintaining the cabability to design and construct the difficult stuff, is enough. EVERYBODY can build the hulls (though not everybody can build them cheaply). So keep the engine manufactors, the arms manufactors. the radar guys, the pump maker, the safty equipment manufactor etc. and leave to troublesome work of flicking the iron together to people that are good at that.

Which, btw, also ramms a thick stick through the "We need to be able to build or own warships" since much of the RN weaponry is foreign devised, designed and sometimes also foreign produced. Aster comes to mind, which is a french/Itallien designed missile. Harpoon is another example.

 

[1805]

I think we do need to keep the capability to build the hulls but you have a point about a sort of command economy. I do think we need to thing strategically and focus on the areas that ahve ALL three of the following:
Truely strategic
We have the capability or can develop the capability to build as good as the rest (not necessarily best in class)
We have an internal demand or export demand that is substainable across the economic cycle.

I would really value everyones open minded view of this as if you apply all three of these you come to some interesting answers try it MBT, SSBN

MBT we only need 250? how long do they last? we have limited current export success answer buy in?
SSBN, we can only operate 4, no export potential, is it really strategic we build them, if there was a global conflict we wouldn't build more...answer why don't we get the French to build for us as they have same problem?

But one thing we must do is what the German/Italians agreed with the U212a an exacting counter trade deal, ie the French buy equivalent in our core areas, not a JV where they alwasy shaft us?