The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Super Nimrod

New Member
Quote from MOD Spokesperson via an unrelated Naval disciplinary article on the BBC

"The extent of damage from the grounding is still being investigated and it would be wrong to speculate at this stage about what will happen to the submarine once she is back in the UK."
 

Truculent

New Member
I didn't have the answer.There is always an element of chance in this electronic world.San francisco had her prang in the Pacific yet photos emerged of her entering Guam.Super-B has to negotiate some of the busiest waters in the world on her way home and could be photographed.
The publicity that appeared in the Sun today will not have helped but a new dome and sonar may be feasible as a short term measure.Money will have to be spent to make her able to take up a berth somewhere in retirement without sinking.Why not spend it and get some use out of her.It appears that Astute is going to be late and she could fill a gap unless she was a total constructive loss after the collision.
 
Prop0osed ships by the labour,s strategic defence review and the reality

there were the projects of the labour government and the rality,YES the amphibious capability have been improved and 2 real carriers will be built but the rest is not very good.





Welcome to Navy Matters

The focus of this site is on the future of the Royal Navy and in particular its equipment projects. Please note that all opinions expressed and speculations made are entirely my own, they are in no way supported by the Royal Navy. Nor does this unofficial site have any connection with, or endorsement by, the Royal Navy.

I welcome any contributions - articles, photo's, news, corrections or other feedback.




Grey Elephants?
23 May 2008

I have been following the progress of the Future Aircraft Carrier project (CVF) this and my previous websites ever since the much lauded Strategic Defence Review stated way back in July 1998:

"... we plan to replace our three small carriers with two larger carriers from around 2012. Work will now begin to refine our requirement but present thinking suggests that these might be of the order of 30,000-40,000 tonnes and capable of deploying up to 50 aircraft, including helicopters".

Overall it has proved to be a pretty depressing task - and frustratingly drawnnnnn out. Rumours of cancellation have constantly haunted the project. With affordability a key issue, huge efforts have been made since 2003 to to reduce costs, realistically this has resulted in just preventing any further cost growth rather than any cost reduction - although this is actually a significant achievement when compared to other major defence projects. The CVF manufacture phase is now expected to cost about £4.1 billion, this excludes the £600 million spent during the the previous Assessment and Demonstration Phases - in real terms the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers will cost double the "about £2 billion" being suggested in 1998 when the mantra was "steel is cheap and air is free".

The difficulty in getting hard news has often been teeth-grinding to say the least. At first the competing BAE Systems and Thales PR teams were fairly co-operative, but they shut up shop in January 2003 when the Thales/BMT design concept was selected for further development. Since then all questions have been referred to the MOD - who's vow of silence would honour a monastery. In recent years French sources such as the website Mer et Marine have often been better informed about the status of CVF than any UK based journalist or defence analyst.

On 20 May 2008 the Ministry of Defence fed us the latest occasional drip of CVF news:

"The Ministry of Defence today gave industry the green light that it was ready to go-ahead with contract signature for the two new super aircraft carriers. ...we are moving closer [emphasis added] to signing the contracts for the manufacture of the carriers."

There seems to be good grounds for believing that the main contracts for the manufacture of the now 65,000 tonnes carriers - to be called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - will finally be signed soon, perhaps as early as 18 June - by which date the time elapsed since SDR will be almost exactly that required for the defeat of Germany in two World Wars.

The actual contract signature will be justification for a "splice the main brace" spirit in RN establishments, but the celebration should be muted for the services senior officers. There is little doubt that over the last few years the consensus opinion within the MOD's portals has become negative towards CVF, with a belief that the money could be better spent elsewhere - although the Army and RAF have rather differing views on exactly where! The survival of the CVF project in recent years has not been due not to the fervent arguments of four successive First Sea Lords since 1998 - and their enforced offering of sacrifices elsewhere - but rather due to the intervention of the Prime Minister Gordon Brown whose constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath neighbours the Rosyth dockyard where the carriers will be completed, thus maintaining some 2000 jobs for five years.

As I've pointed out many times in the recent past, the construction of the CVF's without adequate provision for their air group's is a rather ludicrous situation - building aircraft carriers without embarked aircraft is rather like building hospitals with no doctors.



A picture of the 27,000 tonnes HMS Hermes in the late 1960's



A graphic of the 65,000 tonnes HMS Queen Elizabeth set some time after 2017. At the moment it seems that her flight deck will rarely be so crowded

Originally CVF, Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) and Future Organic Airborne Early Warning Aircraft (FOAEW) were lock-stepped towards a simultaneous 2012 in service date - but that sensible approach has been long been dropped. Old hands watching the current ITV2 series Warship featuring HMS Illustrious will have struggled to reconcile the frequent references to her "strike carrier" role with a flight deck and hanger empty of all but a few Merlin helicopters. She does actually briefly embark four Harrier GR.7's of the Naval Strike Wing, but that's hardly a daunting force to most possible enemies of the UK. When HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service in 2014 (or more realistically 2015 or 2016), it can only be hoped that the similar number and type of aircraft likely to be initially dispersed over her vastly larger bulk doesn't quickly result in many 'white elephant' (grey elephant?) media stories, particularly when compared to her ambitious mission statements such as to be "a coercive presence that can promote conflict prevention through deterrence".

Maybe the RAF (including the Naval Strike Wing) will indeed eventually own enough operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to fill a CVF to its capacity (36 JSF's plus 4 helicopters), but if that actually happens only once every ten years the bean counters will have an obvious target when more economies are being demanded now. If and when the two new carriers are completed - will they have then served their political purpose and be candidates for early retirement, like so many other Royal Navy warships in recent decades?

The emphasis on the new aircraft carriers has also led to a worrying neglect by the Royal Navy - at least in public - of its need for other capabilities. In recent years independent groups (e.g. the UK National Defence Association) and union led efforts (e.g. Keep Our Future Afloat Campaign - KOFAC) seem to have been more vocal and possibly more successful than the Royal Navy in justifying why the UK has to retain strong and broadly based maritime military capabilities.

Depressingly the combination of urgent operational demands in Afghanistan and Iraq, a hopelessly inadequate defence budget and the preservation of CVF seems to have made the Royal Navy proportionally the biggest loser in Planning Round 08. The latest equipment cuts include one Astute-class nuclear attack submarine and two Type 45 destroyers. To anyone used to the much larger Royal Navy of yore that doesn't sound too bad - but the axed Astute represents a 14% cut in the non-deterrent submarine force and the Type 45's a 25% reduction in the destroyer force. The dropped Astute also means a binning of the promise made in the 2006 Defence Industrial Strategy to maintain a 22-month 'drum beat' of submarine construction.

It's perhaps worth comparing the new fleet being promised to the Royal Navy by the Labour government in 1998/9 with the actual current situation:

Project Situation 1999 Situation 2008
Num. planned In service date Num. planned In service date
Ships
CVF 2 2012-2014 2 2014-2016
CNGF / Type 45 12 2007-2015 6 2010-2014
FE / FSC 20 2012-? ? 2019-?
Astute / FASM 10 2005-? 6 2009-?
PCRS / JCTS 2 2005 0 N/A
Aircraft / helicopters
FCBA / JCA 60 (RN owned) 2012 ? (RAF owned) 2017
FOAEW / MASC 12 (for planning) 2012 ? 2022
FASH / FRC (lift) 70 2010 ? ?

The Royal Navy had 35 escorts in service (aka commissioned frigates and destroyers) in 1998 and SDR promised a long term strength of 32. The Royal Navy currently has an actual strength of 24 and by 2018 it will have at best 19 escorts in service - 6 new Type 45 destroyers and 13 aging Type 23 frigates. By comparison, the RN averaged nearly 70 destroyers and frigates in service during the 1970's - many of these were smaller than their modern counterparts, but three small ships can be in two more places than one large ship.

A sheer lack of numbers now cripples the Royal Navy's. Four years ago (with 31 escorts left) the Royal Navy still made a valiant effort to patrol the worlds oceans with destroyers and frigates assigned to seven geographically widely dispersed "directed tasks". Those days have now gone. Indeed, in recent months it has become clear that Royal Navy is no longer able or even expected (that would justify the RN asking for additional funding) to perform once fundamental activities such as the protection of UK flagged merchant ships from piracy. In the future the top priority when allocating very scare operational escorts will inevitably be escorting the ready carrier and the amphibious task group, other deployments will have to be rationed to requirements deemed in extremis worthy of a short term surge effort.
 

davros

New Member
I think there is some good things going on the new carriers being the main thing but I 100% agree with the artice when it says that they will be white elephants without any aircraft the navy really does need its own order of F-35, also the amphibious force is not in as good a postion as often made out the ark will be retired in the near future with no replacment and ocean is said to be in poor condition. If we had the numbers of ships that were originaly planned for the navy would be in a very good postion sadly this is not the case.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Whether the air force or the navy flies the fighter aircraft is becoming moot in this world of joint forces. Naval air and air force tactics are becoming similar in this age of long range missiles and high level precision bombing. There aren't any differences with transport helicopters either. As long as the naval air maintains its distinct ASW and vertical replenishment capabilities I am happy.

I don't see the need to maintain this duplication any longer.
 

davros

New Member
i agree partly the only problem is that the RAF and RN don't get on well together so there will always be friction between the services and about deployments, any way if they are all going to use the same aircraft why not give the RN a dedicate order. Currently the RN finds it very difficult to deploy aircraft to the small CVS this problem will be much worse on the CVF.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
If the air force won't provide the necessary naval air arm, move those elements to the navy. As I recall government bureaucrats measure their power by how large their part is......learned that from Yes, Prime Minister tv series. Where is Arnold when you need him?
 
Concerning to the Richard Beedall article i agree with him, if they only built 6 type 45,s and by now there are any plans to replace the type 22.s in 2020 the R.N. escort number will go down to only 19 escorts being optimistic a very reduced number and not enoungh to pàtrol the seas and the theory that a type 45 is a most powerful ship that those wich it replaced ok but 1 ship can be only in 1 place at the same time, a navy with only 19 escorts is not enough at all to protect british interests in the world, this is my opinion.
 

davros

New Member
I have read on several websites that the navy will find it difficult to get the 18 years of service out of her and that she already has the feel of an old ship, basically it was built on the cheap.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Someone commented that Ocean is in a poor way. I thought she is currently having a large refit ??
yep in Dry Dock it was posted on this site an thread it will have various improvements including a possible increase in engine power to take it over 22kn
 

davros

New Member
that’s good the top speed of ocean is way to low imo. Ocean is due to be replaced in 2018 not sure if funding will be available to develop any replacement 10 years doesn’t seem to be that long these days to developed a new ship. I wouldn’t be surprised if no replacement is built and one of the CVF is permanently used as a LPH although I think im just being a bit negative.
 
that’s good the top speed of ocean is way to low imo. Ocean is due to be replaced in 2018 not sure if funding will be available to develop any replacement 10 years doesn’t seem to be that long these days to developed a new ship. I wouldn’t be surprised if no replacement is built and one of the CVF is permanently used as a LPH although I think im just being a bit negative.
to use 1 of the new cvf,s as a LPH would be totally ridiculous to spend so much money only to leave as a landing ship for this the best would be to build only 1 cvf and 2 big lph similar in size to the wasp american class, at least 30000 tons and able to transport 1500 marines but with the stupid politicians i expect everything even that they sell one of the cvf, s only afet 10 years of service or less.
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
If the British do build two CVFs, and sell one fifteen or twenty years later, its possible the French may still be in the piture, along with Brazil and India. Somehow though, I do not think the Bristish will sell one of their two CVFs.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
According to the UK Telegraph the French Government is about to release a white paper that discloses their military is in a terrible state of repair. if the comments are true they will need to either shrink their forces, close bases and divert cash to improve equipment or spend much more money. If the rumours prove correct I can't see them spending money on a second carrier.

The story has just broken in the French media.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
According to the UK Telegraph the French Government is about to release a white paper that discloses their military is in a terrible state of repair. if the comments are true they will need to either shrink their forces, close bases and divert cash to improve equipment or spend much more money. If the rumours prove correct I can't see them spending money on a second carrier.

The story has just broken in the French media.
this paper's been awaited in Marine National thread especially in regards to the navy and the possible cuts makes the RN look alot better
 

divedeep

New Member
there were the projects of the labour government and the rality,YES the amphibious capability have been improved and 2 real carriers will be built but the rest is not very good.





Welcome to Navy Matters

The focus of this site is on the future of the Royal Navy and in particular its equipment projects. Please note that all opinions expressed and speculations made are entirely my own, they are in no way supported by the Royal Navy. Nor does this unofficial site have any connection with, or endorsement by, the Royal Navy.

I welcome any contributions - articles, photo's, news, corrections or other feedback.




Grey Elephants?
23 May 2008

I have been following the progress of the Future Aircraft Carrier project (CVF) this and my previous websites ever since the much lauded Strategic Defence Review stated way back in July 1998:

"... we plan to replace our three small carriers with two larger carriers from around 2012. Work will now begin to refine our requirement but present thinking suggests that these might be of the order of 30,000-40,000 tonnes and capable of deploying up to 50 aircraft, including helicopters".

Overall it has proved to be a pretty depressing task - and frustratingly drawnnnnn out. Rumours of cancellation have constantly haunted the project. With affordability a key issue, huge efforts have been made since 2003 to to reduce costs, realistically this has resulted in just preventing any further cost growth rather than any cost reduction - although this is actually a significant achievement when compared to other major defence projects. The CVF manufacture phase is now expected to cost about £4.1 billion, this excludes the £600 million spent during the the previous Assessment and Demonstration Phases - in real terms the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers will cost double the "about £2 billion" being suggested in 1998 when the mantra was "steel is cheap and air is free".

The difficulty in getting hard news has often been teeth-grinding to say the least. At first the competing BAE Systems and Thales PR teams were fairly co-operative, but they shut up shop in January 2003 when the Thales/BMT design concept was selected for further development. Since then all questions have been referred to the MOD - who's vow of silence would honour a monastery. In recent years French sources such as the website Mer et Marine have often been better informed about the status of CVF than any UK based journalist or defence analyst.

On 20 May 2008 the Ministry of Defence fed us the latest occasional drip of CVF news:

"The Ministry of Defence today gave industry the green light that it was ready to go-ahead with contract signature for the two new super aircraft carriers. ...we are moving closer [emphasis added] to signing the contracts for the manufacture of the carriers."

There seems to be good grounds for believing that the main contracts for the manufacture of the now 65,000 tonnes carriers - to be called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - will finally be signed soon, perhaps as early as 18 June - by which date the time elapsed since SDR will be almost exactly that required for the defeat of Germany in two World Wars.

The actual contract signature will be justification for a "splice the main brace" spirit in RN establishments, but the celebration should be muted for the services senior officers. There is little doubt that over the last few years the consensus opinion within the MOD's portals has become negative towards CVF, with a belief that the money could be better spent elsewhere - although the Army and RAF have rather differing views on exactly where! The survival of the CVF project in recent years has not been due not to the fervent arguments of four successive First Sea Lords since 1998 - and their enforced offering of sacrifices elsewhere - but rather due to the intervention of the Prime Minister Gordon Brown whose constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath neighbours the Rosyth dockyard where the carriers will be completed, thus maintaining some 2000 jobs for five years.

As I've pointed out many times in the recent past, the construction of the CVF's without adequate provision for their air group's is a rather ludicrous situation - building aircraft carriers without embarked aircraft is rather like building hospitals with no doctors.



A picture of the 27,000 tonnes HMS Hermes in the late 1960's



A graphic of the 65,000 tonnes HMS Queen Elizabeth set some time after 2017. At the moment it seems that her flight deck will rarely be so crowded

Originally CVF, Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) and Future Organic Airborne Early Warning Aircraft (FOAEW) were lock-stepped towards a simultaneous 2012 in service date - but that sensible approach has been long been dropped. Old hands watching the current ITV2 series Warship featuring HMS Illustrious will have struggled to reconcile the frequent references to her "strike carrier" role with a flight deck and hanger empty of all but a few Merlin helicopters. She does actually briefly embark four Harrier GR.7's of the Naval Strike Wing, but that's hardly a daunting force to most possible enemies of the UK. When HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service in 2014 (or more realistically 2015 or 2016), it can only be hoped that the similar number and type of aircraft likely to be initially dispersed over her vastly larger bulk doesn't quickly result in many 'white elephant' (grey elephant?) media stories, particularly when compared to her ambitious mission statements such as to be "a coercive presence that can promote conflict prevention through deterrence".

Maybe the RAF (including the Naval Strike Wing) will indeed eventually own enough operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to fill a CVF to its capacity (36 JSF's plus 4 helicopters), but if that actually happens only once every ten years the bean counters will have an obvious target when more economies are being demanded now. If and when the two new carriers are completed - will they have then served their political purpose and be candidates for early retirement, like so many other Royal Navy warships in recent decades?

The emphasis on the new aircraft carriers has also led to a worrying neglect by the Royal Navy - at least in public - of its need for other capabilities. In recent years independent groups (e.g. the UK National Defence Association) and union led efforts (e.g. Keep Our Future Afloat Campaign - KOFAC) seem to have been more vocal and possibly more successful than the Royal Navy in justifying why the UK has to retain strong and broadly based maritime military capabilities.

Depressingly the combination of urgent operational demands in Afghanistan and Iraq, a hopelessly inadequate defence budget and the preservation of CVF seems to have made the Royal Navy proportionally the biggest loser in Planning Round 08. The latest equipment cuts include one Astute-class nuclear attack submarine and two Type 45 destroyers. To anyone used to the much larger Royal Navy of yore that doesn't sound too bad - but the axed Astute represents a 14% cut in the non-deterrent submarine force and the Type 45's a 25% reduction in the destroyer force. The dropped Astute also means a binning of the promise made in the 2006 Defence Industrial Strategy to maintain a 22-month 'drum beat' of submarine construction.

It's perhaps worth comparing the new fleet being promised to the Royal Navy by the Labour government in 1998/9 with the actual current situation:

Project Situation 1999 Situation 2008
Num. planned In service date Num. planned In service date
Ships
CVF 2 2012-2014 2 2014-2016
CNGF / Type 45 12 2007-2015 6 2010-2014
FE / FSC 20 2012-? ? 2019-?
Astute / FASM 10 2005-? 6 2009-?
PCRS / JCTS 2 2005 0 N/A
Aircraft / helicopters
FCBA / JCA 60 (RN owned) 2012 ? (RAF owned) 2017
FOAEW / MASC 12 (for planning) 2012 ? 2022
FASH / FRC (lift) 70 2010 ? ?

The Royal Navy had 35 escorts in service (aka commissioned frigates and destroyers) in 1998 and SDR promised a long term strength of 32. The Royal Navy currently has an actual strength of 24 and by 2018 it will have at best 19 escorts in service - 6 new Type 45 destroyers and 13 aging Type 23 frigates. By comparison, the RN averaged nearly 70 destroyers and frigates in service during the 1970's - many of these were smaller than their modern counterparts, but three small ships can be in two more places than one large ship.

A sheer lack of numbers now cripples the Royal Navy's. Four years ago (with 31 escorts left) the Royal Navy still made a valiant effort to patrol the worlds oceans with destroyers and frigates assigned to seven geographically widely dispersed "directed tasks". Those days have now gone. Indeed, in recent months it has become clear that Royal Navy is no longer able or even expected (that would justify the RN asking for additional funding) to perform once fundamental activities such as the protection of UK flagged merchant ships from piracy. In the future the top priority when allocating very scare operational escorts will inevitably be escorting the ready carrier and the amphibious task group, other deployments will have to be rationed to requirements deemed in extremis worthy of a short term surge effort.
Hopefully the Tory opposition when in power will allocate the necessary funds to rebuild the RN escort fleet-although more than 20 FFGs sounds like a wishful dream compared to the RN in the days of the Empire.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hopefully the Tory opposition when in power will allocate the necessary funds to rebuild the RN escort fleet-although more than 20 FFGs sounds like a wishful dream compared to the RN in the days of the Empire.
Tory Opposition ?? Allocating Funds ??

Have you been eating magic mushrooms again ? :confused:

The RN IS in the state it is BECAUSE the TORIES slaughtered the defence budgets through the 1980's & 1990's.

Do you seriously think they're gonna quadruple the GDP %-age of defence spending, year on year for 5 years IF they get into power ?

The Tories haven't exactly been vocal at all about Defence spending, because they're aware that the Labour Govt has had to run with the cards they were dealt by them.


Without mass National Pride in our Armed forces (Ignoring the fact that they're fighting x2 very unpopular conflicts), they're budgets are gonna get shafted !


Systems Adict :nutkick
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Hopefully the Tory opposition when in power will allocate the necessary funds to rebuild the RN escort fleet-although more than 20 FFGs sounds like a wishful dream compared to the RN in the days of the Empire.
In regards to the aritical there is some some discrepancies the JCA is an RN project and is overall RN control [thats why an Admraile was STOVL role out in the USA] and many programs are in progress and are dependent on what happens in the next 5-10 years just reamber how there was going to be a fleet of 4 T22 after 1981 but proved so useful they bought 3 batches.

all depends on the need

also Beedells site is useful but is a glass half empty type and views are worse than the most negative views

the future for the RN is brighter than its been for a long time
 

Sea Toby

New Member
While I would rather have 12 destroyers, the 6 new Type 45s that have already been ordered have similar overall area defence capabilities, from 22 SeaDart missiles to 48 Aster 15 and/or Aster 30 missiles. Since there have been a few problems with the Sampson system, I wouldn't order the last two destroyers until these problems were solved. Maybe in a few years the last two will be ordered. I have not heard the last two have been cancelled yet.

If there are going to be cuts, I would rather cut the mine sweepers and mine hunting force in half. While I understand there is a mine threat, does the UK need so many small ships in this century in a pacified Europe?

And as far as an ASW escort role of the North Atlantic, smaller ASW corvettes or OPVs could be built for ocean escorting. Destroyers and frigates in my opinion should be used as escorts for carriers and troop ships. Smaller ASW corvettes or OPVs can patrol against pirates.
 
Top