The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[mark22w]

I would rather see cheaper ‘taxi’ vessels supported by cutting edge escorts (T45) rather than a broad range of average ships.

The lessons learnt building Ocean will not be lost on the two carriers. We are fortunate that BAE / VT have gained invaluable experience in recent years with Astute and T45, particularly in CAD design and construction methods. They are both riding the crest of a construction wave, which will only improve over time if Labour keeps its promises.

Agreed, and remembering that HMS Ocean was built for the price of a frigate to do just that 'taxi' service - delivery of a Commando 6 days from port, 30 days in theatre and 6 days back. Ideal for a NATO Norway excursion but quite different demands from that planned of the LSD's, with their superior command, endurance, and improved facilities. It is interesting to speculate if an Ocean replacement would be so austere; improving command, endurance and facilities all comes at a price of course..

I suggest the new carriers, like the LSD's will be naval spec through and through. A new LPH? I'd rather see an Ocean MkII, commercial plus perhaps...

 

[Izzy1]

If the numbers mentioned were for Saudi Arabia, the MoD would not have said their plans still required eight. That's an admission that the Royal Navy needs that many, which they would not have made if they knew it wouldn't get eight.

Saudi Arabia's destroyers would be in addition to what the Royal Navy gets in my view, especially as if they order 2 or 3 it will reduce production costs and thus enable more to be ordered.

The problem for BAE is timing, the Saudis would want them as soon as possible and we can't supply the RN and them within their time frame. Without another massive round of manufacturing investment (incresing unit price further) we just can't build them quick enough. Thus to keep our key defence customer happy, I would never rule out the MoD/FaCO/Treasury and BAE manipulating order schedules in the favour of export orders.

However, in my personal opinion we are third in a three-horse race here. The US and France in my opinion have key advantages in regards to a potential Saudi contract.

Still, from a RN cost-perspective, it's nice to dream!

 

[swerve]

Interesting statement, the first I've heard about it being a problem maintenance wise. I know Marines who have served on the vessel and they rave about the design, space and versatility.

Commerical standards should have nothing to do with it, most civi ships today sail with tiny crews relying on minimum maintenance whilst at sea.

Indeed. I found it rather puzzling that anyone would attribute maintenance problems on Ocean to the adoption of commercial standards & lean crewing. Excluding aircrew, she has over ten times the crew of a commercial freighter of the same size, & commercial vessels probably spend more of their lives at sea.

 

[Tasman]

Indeed. I found it rather puzzling that anyone would attribute maintenance problems on Ocean to the adoption of commercial standards & lean crewing. Excluding aircrew, she has over ten times the crew of a commercial freighter of the same size, & commercial vessels probably spend more of their lives at sea.

The comments in DefenseNews made about maintenance issues suggest that problems emerged partly because the navy took some time to get used to commercial systems. However, the lean manning does get a mention.

Still, Ocean’s combination of lean manning and less reliable systems taxes hardworking engineers, said Chief Petty Officer Steve Barr, who manages Illustrious’ fuel systems and has served aboard the ship several times since helping commission it in 1982.
Barr praised the carrier’s main engines, generators, gearboxes and subsystems.
“It was a good design that’s withstood the test of time,” Barr said. “On Ocean, the problem was always solved by going to the commercial market and things that were not known and well tested in the Navy.”
Ocean came with a low price tag but plenty of aftermarket expense, he said. “We got the platform we needed, but there wasn’t a real cost savings at the end. It’s coming out of a different purse and different year. so you are spreading the cost around, and the cost was ultimately the same but spread around in a different budget.”
Also, Ocean is a lean-manned ship, which worsens problems “when the machinery starts failing for whatever reason and they haven’t got the crew to actually keep on top of things,” Barr said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2925751&C=navwar

Overall the comments in the article indicate that the navy is very satisfied with Ocean.

BTW, congrats to you and Izzy on your elevation to the moderator ranks.

Cheers

 

[Super Nimrod]

The single most expensive cost over the life of any project is payroll. The navy will go for lean manning every single time if it could, even if it means a bit more in service maintenance. The differences in overall costs spread over a 25 year ship life are enormous.

Let me do the maths for you using one of my computer tools based on UK fully built up current tax ni and pensions etc. If you can remove 50 average ratings from a vessel like Ocean and lean man her, that will save in excess of $130m over the service life of the ship, which is real money. If you can remove 100 crew then that is half the purchase cost of the ship :unknown

For the CVF's where you are talking several hundred less crew through lean manning and a 50 year service life and you are could be talking $2-3 billion saved through lean manning, for each vessel.

 

[alexsa]

The comments in DefenseNews made about maintenance issues suggest that problems emerged partly because the navy took some time to get used to commercial systems. However, the lean manning does get a mention.

Cheers

Part of the issue could be mind set.

On a commercial vessel there are generally three to four officer engineers and a number of greasers. They all work and you would expect to see the C/E in the thick of it when a unit gets pulled. In fact it is common for some of the deck hands to get sent down to help out as well. The skills of enginners are honed by this hands on work and better crews are very adept at keeping dodgy machinery running.

On warships (from my experiance) most engineers are graduates who manage and the hands on skills and in depth understanding of systems rests with the senior sailors ..... those closest to retirement and more attractive to civilian employers. This worked with larger crews and manual systems but will not work with minimal manning on automated ships. Nor does it ensure the managers fully understand the requirements of the machinery they manage both on board the vesel on in 'policy' roles down the track.

In addition the Merchant Navy rely on automation and since the 1980's engine rooms have been generally unmanned (UMS) with monitoroing systems on the bridge and alarms in the Engineers cabin (depending whose duty night it is). Engineers day work only. The naval mind set appears to have a problem with this and tends toward physical presence in the space. This uses up resourses. As a demonstration I have heard a rumour that the UMS system on the HMAS Sirius has been deactivated and the E/R is manned. If true (still looking for confirmation) this is really completely unnecessary for a vessel that is fully automated and will commonly be the main body of any formation. it also palces an extra time burden on the crew that could be utilised for maintenace.

To demonstrate: Power management is supported by preferential trips in the case of a generators failure (in many systems the ME will go to auto slow down to reduce loads) and the stand by generator should flash up. Similarly with engine related issue auto slow down or shut down will occur to protect the engine but this is preceeded by alarms and the OOW can overide in urget situations (with the assoicated risk to the ME). Any watchkeeper will simply call the other enginners as the intial actions are taken by the system. The UMS system will do that in any case so why does he/she need to be there? In some cases it will turn to custard and the ship will black out.

 

[spsun100001]

Go easy on me, it's my first post....

...and I have taken the time to read all 55 pages and know that you guys know more than I know which is sad because I used to think I knew stuff! (I bet that's a record for use of the word 'know' in the first sentence of an opening post )

Anyway, pulling together a few issues and throwing in my thoughts!

I really hope that the additional money being put into defence (although modest) plus rumours of curtailment or cancellation of the last batch of Typhoons might free up some cash for RN procurement (yeah, vague hope I know but we have to cling to something!!)

If it does what would be your priorities?

I think mine would be:

CV's: Procure the E2 Hawkeye as the AEW platform. It is streets ahead of any helicopter based system and if I understand right the MV22 is unpressurised so any system engineered around that would also be an inferior platform. I believe that it has been demonstrated that the E2 can take off using a ski ramp so a conventional confirguration for the CV's would not necessarily be required.

Type 45's: I understand they are about £1billion each with about half that being weapons and sensors. Why not procure one additional Type 45 and fit Sampson/Aster to each of the two new CV's. That would give the RN nine AAW capable hulls for the price of eight.

Astutue: The former first Sea Lord said the minimum number of hulls required was eight and of course the SDR identified ten as our requirment. The first three seemed very expensive and the final cost of HMS Audacious doesn't seem to have been confirmed yet with only £200 million quoted for phase 1 of construction. Aiming for eight of these boats should be the very minimum and ten attack boats as stipulated in the SDR should be the (albiet optimistic) ideal.

Surface escorts: I agree that we should go for a high low mix and to that end I'd retire the four Type 22 batch 3 frigates. Although excellent all round ships they are expensive to run, crew and maintain.They would also free up enough Harpoon canisters for four to be fitted to each of the Type 45's going some way to remedying the ASuW gap in their capabilities.

I'd then look to built ten ocean going corvettes that while primarily for policing could supplement a task groups escort component in high end warfighting.

Just as the Type 45's are being fitted with the Mk8 guns from retiring Type 42's so could these vessels (using the balance of weapons from the Type 42's and the guns from the Type 22's). That gives a reasonable NGS, ASuW and AAw capability. Take the three Goalkeepers from Invincible (given she is in long term lay up) and the four from the retiring Type 22's and that's a Goalkeeper CIWS for each corvette. Add in a Lynx helicopter and small calibre guns and that should suffice.

Make sure displacement is sufficient for long range patrols, there is a medium capability sonar, a maximum speed of 25kts and room to bolt on SSM's and additional CIWS/PDMS systems in time of need.

The 7 Type 45's, 13 Type 23's and 10 corvettes would put us back to the 30 hulls recommended in the SDR.

Type 23: Fit SeaRam in place of the 30mm mounts (which could be moved down to deck level as they are on the Type 22) to maintain their capabilities given the proliferation of high performance SSM's and ASM's by a number of nations.

Then I guess priority would move on to whatever we're calling the FSC programme (I did see it in an earlier post but can't remember).

I'd ideally like to see all of them equipped with a medium calibre gun, an anti aircraft missile (ASTER 15, ESSM or equivalent), 8 SSM's and a Merlin. Some of them could be higher end capability vessels with a towed sonar and TLACM.

Just my opening ramblings!

Steve

 

[Tasman]

CV's: Procure the E2 Hawkeye as the AEW platform. It is streets ahead of and helicopter based system and if I understand right the MV22 is unpressurised so any system engineered around that would also be an inferior platform. I believe that it has been demonstrated that the E2 can take off using a ski ramp so a conventional confirguration for the CV's would not necessarily be required.

If the Hawkeye can operate from the CVFs in their planned configuration I agree that it would be streets ahead of any other available AEW platform. However, my understanding is that it cannot. Even if it is able to take off using the ski jump it would surely need arrester wires for landing.

You have certainly raised many interesting and sensible suggestions re future options for the RN.

Congratulations Steve on an excellent first post.

Cheers

 

[spsun100001]

If the Hawkeye can operate from the CVFs in their planned configuration I agree that it would be streets ahead of any other available AEW platform. However, my understanding is that it cannot. Even if it is able to take off using the ski jump it would surely need arrester wires for landing.

You have certainly raised many interesting and sensible suggestions re future options for the RN.

Congratulations Steve on an excellent first post.

Cheers

Thanks mate.

Agreed, E2 would need arrestor wires but if I understood earlier posts right the real cost of a CTOL configuration is in the catapults and therefore a ski-jump take off and catapult landing would be less expensive.

I also found the quote on the Richard Beedall site that confirmed Hawkeye can take off fro a ski jump.At the minute I'm not permitted to post links by the site rules but its on the MASC page at Beedall's site.

 

[Dave H]

Hello, good ideas if there is some money free, shame its so hard to find costings for various weapons on the net eg SeaRam.

Rather than spend £1 billion giving them SAMSON/ASTER I would personally spend the money making them bigger or fitting some armour, or giving them catapults or buying 20 extra F35's which would give far better long range airprotection. A Type 45 should be able to defend the carrier in any case.

It would be interesting to know what scope the Type 23 has for redesigning its VLS. You would only need to fit one 8 cell MK41 type and then quad pack ESSM, or two cells an add 8 Tomahawks, however would that unit fit? Could the Type 23 hull handle an ASTER/APAR type combo or would it be cheaper to build new. It also adds to supply problems if you have too many systems.

Cheers.

 

[Tasman]

Thanks mate.

Agreed, E2 would need arrestor wires but if I understood earlier posts right the real cost of a CTOL configuration is in the catapults and therefore a ski-jump take off and catapult landing would be less expensive.

I also found the quote on the Richard Beedall site that confirmed Hawkeye can take off fro a ski jump.At the minute I'm not permitted to post links by the site rules but its on the MASC page at Beedall's site.

I'll include the link for you:

Despite the DPA's clear interest in other options, it is believed that the Concept Phase studies showed that the capabilities of the Hawkeye 2000, and even more its successor the Advanced Hawkeye, compared very favourably with other options when dealing with projected post-2015 threats and requirements. There was a lobby within the MOD still advocating a small Hawkeye purchase as the best and lowest risk option for MASC, even with the extra costs that would be incurred fitting the carrier platform with the associated equipment for CTOL operations. Indeed STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) was suggested as compromise. The E-2C Hawkeye had demonstrated an ability to launch from a low incline ski-jump built ashore at NAS Patuxent River during the 1980s and it was thought that adding arrestor wires to the CVF design (i.e. changing it to a STOBAR configuration) might still allow its adoption for MASC given some modifications (e.g. strengthened nose wheel) - and the necessary finance. Also, a STOBAR carrier would have a lower cost than a full CTOL configuration while perhaps being able to operate both the F-35A and F-35C. If the F-35C was selected for the manned element of the RAF's Future Offensive Air System, then it would almost certainly be able to successfully operate from a STOBAR configured CVF. However the MOD showed no interest in the Hawkeye/STOBAR idea, perhaps sensibly as in 20004 and early 2005 Northrop Grumman did further research on a ski-jumping Hawkeye 2000 in the context of a proposal to the Indian Navy, and while insisting that this was perfectly feasible had to admit that the required changes for STOBAR operations would reduce the aircraft's capabilities somewhat compared to the standard model. The Indian Navy was decided that it was unconvinced about the concept, citing concerns such as the disastrous effect of a single engine failure during the full power take-off run.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

The comments indicate that, whilst feasible, the MOD showed no interest in the STOBAR configuration needed to operate the Hawkeye. It is also interesting to note the reaction of the Indian Navy towards the proposal that was put to them.

Cheers

 

[spsun100001]

Thanks Tasman, appreciate your including the link.

I take the point that the RN showed no interest (though I wonder if that was actually the MoD showing no intrest on the grounds of costs and 'not built here' issues).

The engine failure point is certainly an intresting one.

I just can't help thinking that a slow, altitude and space restricted heilcopter or unpressurised and therefore altitude restricted Osprey are poor substitutes for what is one of the most critical roles a carrier undertakes. If that means spending money reconfiguring the carrier (which it has been commented is possible through fitting a waist catapult whilst preserving the ski jump) I can't help thinking that would be the right thing to do.

I was also reading Beedalls site regarding the F35 and his comments on the likely weapon omissions give further cause for concern that we are blunting the capabilities of our carrier investment. No Harpoon, HARM/ALARM or Meteor significantly reduce the ability of the air group to dominate the air/sea battlespace around the carrier.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Having followed closely the CVF news and updates and confirmation it appears from Naval Technology.com that suggests and quote ..." The DPA has decided the carriers will be upgradeable to a Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) design, so the option will be available to operate conventional maritime aircraft"

This would suggest to me that the UK Government is still considering a CTOL option as part of a mix between STOVL operations and CTOL as part of its overall operations. This would make the E2 a plausible solution to CVF operations.

I did also note that in the Beedalls naval Matters that and quote ..." The Hawkeye option was formally ruled out for MASC in mid-2005, but is not completely out of mind due to developments and disputes in relation to the UK's expected purchase of the STOVL F-35B". This comment in many ways overules the previous statement that the RN had ruled out the possiblity of E2MASC due to difficulties in the CVFs overall furture design. So in my mind it would make sense to consider that the "deal" still hasnt been reached and that due to the evolution of the CVFs design having spread its design concept over several defence contrators the full concept of the CVF has yet to be told and implimented into its design.

Having had a closer look at the "current" design features in relation to the deck design it would suggest that due to the length and width features that the E2 D or similar could in fact be used along with arrester wires, despite the ski jump design at the front. However in saying this that due to the advancing technology in Survellience and Maritime warfare battle management that there will be some good choices to make for the RN by the time the CVFs are commissioned into service. This includes of course UAVs, The Osprey MASC, although rather big is a good option given its SRAP and FOAEW sequencing. Then there is the JUEP ISTAR technology, Merlin and NH90 options are there too. However in CVF operations there would need to be at least 3-4 AEWs as do the USN with the E2C, and the type requires sustained station ability at higher altitudes and therefore the CTOL makes this option far more realistic. Cheers.

 

[Markus40]

Further to my previous post an article on the 27 July 2007 stated : "CVF carriers will initially be equipped with the F-35B STOVL Lightning II, along with AEW aircraft and helicopters; but the ships will be upgradeable to handle conventional fixed-wing naval aircraft and/or unmanned UCAVs during their expected 40-50 year life span.


Cheers.

 

[Tasman]

I think Markus has summed up the situation pretty well.

I doubt the RN will make a decision about its next AEW platform until the F-35B decision is confirmed. If it is not and the navy switch to the CTOL configuration I think there is little doubt that the Hawkeye will become the front runner.

Cheers

 

[harryriedl]

Thanks Tasman, appreciate your including the link.

I take the point that the RN showed no interest (though I wonder if that was actually the MoD showing no intrest on the grounds of costs and 'not built here' issues).

The engine failure point is certainly an intresting one.

I just can't help thinking that a slow, altitude and space restricted heilcopter or unpressurised and therefore altitude restricted Osprey are poor substitutes for what is one of the most critical roles a carrier undertakes. If that means spending money reconfiguring the carrier (which it has been commented is possible through fitting a waist catapult whilst preserving the ski jump) I can't help thinking that would be the right thing to do.

I was also reading Beedalls site regarding the F35 and his comments on the likely weapon omissions give further cause for concern that we are blunting the capabilities of our carrier investment. No Harpoon, HARM/ALARM or Meteor significantly reduce the ability of the air group to dominate the air/sea battlespace around the carrier.

Cheers

meteor is being integrated and so is harpoon and meteor is integrated for the internal carriage in the F35 and HARM ALARM will be integrated later

 

[Pingu]

meteor is being integrated and so is harpoon and meteor is integrated for the internal carriage in the F35 and HARM ALARM will be integrated later

Where did you get this information from, may I ask? I heard that, originally, there were plans to do this but there has been no funding for the shrinking of the meteor (and I think it only needs slightly shrinking).

I've heard nothing about the ALARM but if you could give me some info on this, it'd be appreciated. I'm assuming the ALARM would have to be carried externally.

Are there serious attempts to integrate Harpoons to the F35? I imagine the US will integrate it, but does the UK have an air launched Harpoon in their inventory and if not, I wonder whether they will be willing to acquire the ability.

I wonder how much it will cost the UK to integrate new european weapons and how long it will take. Or does the cost of the F35 package cover some of the weapon integration costs.

I believe that the UK should acquire the Small Diameter Bomb for the F35 as I cannot imagine that the Paveway IV will fit in such a way to take full advantage of the F35s weapons bays, and also, the SDB looks as though it will provide some stand-off capabilty which will bridge the gap until Storm Shadow is integrated. Also the block 3 F35 package that the UK is getting will probably come straight of the shelf with a SDB capability requiring no extra time or money for integration.

Speaking of stand-off capability, I heard a long long time ago that there is a joint US/UK project to develop a cruise missile that can be fitted into the internal weapons bays of the F35 and F22. Does anyone know any details about this?

 

[swerve]

meteor is being integrated and so is harpoon and meteor is integrated for the internal carriage in the F35 and HARM ALARM will be integrated later

ALARM OSD is "early in the next decade". It won't be integrated with F-35. May not even be worth integrating it with Typhoon, since we'll still have plenty of Tornados to carry ALARM until it retires.

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm66/6697/6697.pdf - page 101

 

[swerve]

...Speaking of stand-off capability, I heard a long long time ago that there is a joint US/UK project to develop a cruise missile that can be fitted into the internal weapons bays of the F35 and F22. Does anyone know any details about this?

I know nothing of that, but the Norwegian NSM fits in the F-35 internal weapons bay & is being touted as the ideal anti-ship missile for it. It also has some land attack capabilities, & I think there may be plans to enhance them.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheed-kongsberg-partner-to-bring-nsm-to-jsf-03015/

 

[harryriedl]

Where did you get this information from, may I ask? I heard that, originally, there were plans to do this but there has been no funding for the shrinking of the meteor (and I think it only needs slightly shrinking).

I've heard nothing about the ALARM but if you could give me some info on this, it'd be appreciated. I'm assuming the ALARM would have to be carried externally.

Are there serious attempts to integrate Harpoons to the F35? I imagine the US will integrate it, but does the UK have an air launched Harpoon in their inventory and if not, I wonder whether they will be willing to acquire the ability.

I wonder how much it will cost the UK to integrate new european weapons and how long it will take. Or does the cost of the F35 package cover some of the weapon integration costs.

I believe that the UK should acquire the Small Diameter Bomb for the F35 as I cannot imagine that the Paveway IV will fit in such a way to take full advantage of the F35s weapons bays, and also, the SDB looks as though it will provide some stand-off capabilty which will bridge the gap until Storm Shadow is integrated. Also the block 3 F35 package that the UK is getting will probably come straight of the shelf with a SDB capability requiring no extra time or money for integration.

Speaking of stand-off capability, I heard a long long time ago that there is a joint US/UK project to develop a cruise missile that can be fitted into the internal weapons bays of the F35 and F22. Does anyone know any details about this?

this attachment is from the LM F35 site

is their any ALARM replacements in the pipeline