The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

The UK could save cost by building two 40,000 tonne LHP's based on the USMC Wasp class concept, but using a higher degree of automation to reduce manning. .

Not cheap to operate. The steam powerplant needs a lot more manpower, however much automation you introduce. Maintenance heavy, compared to IEP. High fuel consumption, too, a hull designed to maximise internal volume for vehicles & troops, etc. at the cost of low fixed-wing aviation capability in proportion to their size . . . and so on. For at least $2bn each ((latest Wasp price plus a bit for redesign, adding automation, etc), we'd get ships with a lot less than half the aviation capability.

 

[swerve]

Sorry, but weren't (should be aren't, but the pitch is now scuppered if the above postings are to be believed) BAe-Systems offering the Type-23 to Algeria? [Or is it Morocco?] If we can offer new-builds against FREMM, why can't HM-Navy not get a dozen more? :whip

There's a big difference between a couple of ships, paid for (including any costs for temporary expansion of shipyards) by the Algerians, perhaps possible to squeeze in before peak CVF work, perhaps involving fabrication of sections in foreign yards, & a dozen ships, coinciding with the peak CVF workload, with all costs borne by HM Treasury. The former is a relatively small thing, & any problems are the business of the shipbuilders & the Algerians. The latter is a matter for my taxes.

One of the few areas that defence procurement actually seems to have a half-decent industrial (or any!) industrial strategy, & consideration for long-term costs, is the RNs current shipbuilding programme.

 

[overlander]

Hopefully I think any future british government will maintain such important capability and power projection of carrier based fighters, maybe they decide to bulid a smaller design but I am sure the R.N. will follow its glorious tradition of the fleet air arm, most carrier innovations were a british invention anyway.

 

[Jon K]

Ares Homepage

“I have often said that the seaborne air power projection is important for expeditionary capability,” said Fox, “but we have also said that if we are going into a strategic defense review, we must maintain the discipline of considering everything properly in its time. We need to stick to that.”

Hopefully this means that despite possible governing party change the CV(F)'s will become CV(Failures). LabCons are committed to cutting down military budget and I honestly think there's no way for CV(F)'s to survive from that kind of joint attack.

 

[kev 99]

Hopefully they will become failures? You want them to get canned?

 

[deepsixteen]

Historically some of the worst decisions such as the one made by a previous political (same colour as the present one) administration in the 1970s to get rid of conventional carriers and the fixed wing AEW they had cost many lives (including some of my friends) in the Falklands War have been budget driven rather than requirement driven. But if we need to consider budget we should look at the conventional carrier option for CVF which would save ten to twenty million per aircraft and give an improved range and payload in a less risky aircraft not to mention increased interoperability with our allies and allow fixed wing AEW to return to the fleet.
Liam Fox did come across as reasonable on Sunday and I would hope that he will be able to take the long term view on defence and not get sucked in to a short term view based on the present counter insurgency and what appears to be a preponderence of army advisors.

 

[swerve]

... if we need to consider budget we should look at the conventional carrier option for CVF which would save ten to twenty million per aircraft ....not to mention increased interoperability ...

Not cheaper in purchase price. Current predicted prices for F-35B & C are about the same. Only F-35A is cheaper.

Nor would it necessarily allow more interoperability. STOVL can operate on Spanish & Italian carriers & USN LHDs/LHAs. Catapult-launched can operate on CdG & US carriers. About the same . . .

 

[Waylander]

Goodbye to the second carrier

So, the axe goes around once more...

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.

The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.

The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m.

Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018.

The decision to cut the number of JSF aircraft has been agreed by senior navy and air force commanders in discussions preparing for the strategic defence review.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late spring.

A senior Royal Navy officer said: “We always knew that the real cost of the carrier project is the JSF fleet to go on them. It would cost us at least £12 billion if we bought all the aircraft we originally asked for. We are waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable. More than half of the £5 billion contracts to build the two new carriers have been contracted, so it is too late to get out of building the ships. This way at least we are covered when Ocean goes out of service.”

Since both aircraft carriers will still be built, there are unlikely to be job losses at the Rosyth ship yards, close to Brown’s constituency. The JSF aircraft are being built in Fort Worth, Texas, with the involvement of BAE Systems.

The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead.

The Conservatives said any decision to axe a carrier would be “absolutely unacceptable” and typical of the government’s “chaotic, inconsistent and incompetent defence procurement policy”.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the move exposed the government’s claim that it wanted a completely independent strategic defence review. “The government is saying it is fully committed to the carriers while at the same time forcing them to be cut,” he said.

“It is confusing for the navy, it is confusing for industry and it is completely inconsistent with the whole concept of running an independent defence review.”

The Ministry of Defence said Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, remained 100% committed to the carriers but “financial circumstances mean some difficult decisions will have to be taken to prioritise our forces’ efforts in Afghanistan”.

The Royal Navy currently has three smaller 20,600-ton carriers: Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible. Illustrious is on a visit to Liverpool. Invincible has already been mothballed.

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle - Times Online

Looks like the British government finally faces the bitter truth that Britain can't afford to give the RN it's two carriers and to buy the full number of F-35s.
It is going to tbe interesting to see what layout they are going to choose for the second carrier hull and how many JSFs are really going to be bought.

BTW, I am truly shocked that I am the first to post this here.

 

[kev 99]

Layout for the Prince of Wales will be the same as Queen Elizabeth, the class was designed to have a secondary use as an LPH anyway, the only significant pieces of equipment that allow it to be used as a STOVL aircraft carrier are the ski-ramp [1], and the weapons handling system [2].

This is nothing more than a non-article, this article states that the UK will build its 2 aircraft carriers but will only purchase enough aircraft initially to equip one, many people have been speculating about this for a long time. With the planned joint force structure of 4 frontline squadrons and an OCU the chances of seeing both QE Class in operation with full airgroups was practically non existent anyway.

Worth pointing out at this point that the article comes from a News International paper who have thrown their lot in with the Conservatives and will use any stick to batter the current Government with.

1. Steel for both ships has been ordered.
2. Weapons handling systems for both ships has been ordered.

 

[Waylander]

I thought not all items are already ordered.
While reading this I thougth that they might very well save some stuff on the PoW making it at least less effective in the carrier role.

 

[kev 99]

I thought not all items are already ordered.
While reading this I thougth that they might very well save some stuff on the PoW making it at least less effective in the carrier role.

Most of the big stuff is, completing PoW to a modified design would most likely mean forking out on design costs which would probably eradicate any savings anyway.

What we could see is a reduction in purchases of maintenance facilities and equipment, but how much money would that actually save? Probably not much in the scheme of things.

I don't see anything new in this article other than an admission that we can't afford enough aircraft.

 

[Waylander]

Then maybe I misinterpreted the article.
Happens sometimes.

 

[overlander]

I hope at least the 2 carriers are built, wich after to read this article I don,t see it very clear, they can build the 2 carriers and maybe in 5 or 10 years the finantial situation in the M.O.D. will be better and they could buy further fighters for the carriers, to cancel 1 of the carriers would be another heavy cut for the navy and would confirm that if every 5-6 years the r.n. has to suffer a defence review maybe in 30 years like Richard Beedall said it would be a coastal force, the 2 carriers are needed, they are a good deterrent wich can save lifes, british politicians has to learn the lessons from the past in the falklands, that time if the R.N. counted with 2 big carriers there is no doubt that the argentines never would fight for the islands in 1982, please politicians think in the future not only in the present, the 2 carriers are vital for british and western defences together, i hope they think about this, if not it would be a big and irreversible cut to the british defence capability.

 

[kev 99]

Then maybe I misinterpreted the article.
Happens sometimes.

The article is deliberately misleading, the newspaper it was published in supports the opposition party.

 

[Jon K]

The article is deliberately misleading, the newspaper it was published in supports the opposition party.

But really, it seems that carriers will be a pipe dream. Now that's there's air groups for just one carrier the next step might be the sale of one of the carriers to India or Brazil. It's the CVA-01 story all over again...

 

[Troothsayer]

I hope at least the 2 carriers are built, wich after to read this article I don,t see it very clear, they can build the 2 carriers and maybe in 5 or 10 years the finantial situation in the M.O.D. will be better and they could buy further fighters for the carriers, to cancel 1 of the carriers would be another heavy cut for the navy and would confirm that if every 5-6 years the r.n. has to suffer a defence review maybe in 30 years like Richard Beedall said it would be a coastal force, the 2 carriers are needed, they are a good deterrent wich can save lifes, british politicians has to learn the lessons from the past in the falklands, that time if the R.N. counted with 2 big carriers there is no doubt that the argentines never would fight for the islands in 1982, please politicians think in the future not only in the present, the 2 carriers are vital for british and western defences together, i hope they think about this, if not it would be a big and irreversible cut to the british defence capability.

Have you even bothered to read the article properly? It's a non-story.

It says the 2 carriers WILL BE BUILT - British seapower will increase immeasureably over what it is now.

 

[murene]

We suppose that the election of the F-35 is decanted by the version B STOVL, but and if this version supports the problems of development and in the end the MoD is decided to buy 50 F-35C, then if that really it goes there is only one operative carrier (QE) and the PoW only would have helicopters.
If really the LPH Ocean goes it is to be replaced with the PoW, it is necessary a few sizeable internal modifications for
- to be able to transport and live during long passages to between 800-1000 Royal Marines
- to be able to throw and gather LCVPs
-to have two door with to ramp, (stern and side) for the acess of vehicles and material from the dock.
-a team of propulsion so powerful and expensive would not be necessary and it would be necessary to come only with 18-20 knots
Not only it is a question of changing simply fighter planes for helicopters

 

[Troothsayer]

But really, it seems that carriers will be a pipe dream. Now that's there's air groups for just one carrier the next step might be the sale of one of the carriers to India or Brazil. It's the CVA-01 story all over again...

I've seen your name on other forums, seems like you're a bit of a troll. Nothing in that article suggests anything like you've just said even if the article turns out to be 100% factual.

 

[Troothsayer]

We suppose that the election of the F-35 is decanted by the version B STOVL, but and if this version supports the problems of development and in the end the MoD is decided to buy 50 F-35C, then if that really it goes there is only one operative carrier (QE) and the PoW only would have helicopters.
If really the LPH Ocean goes it is to be replaced with the PoW, it is necessary a few considerable internal modifications for
- to be able to transport and live during long passages to between 800-1000 Royal Marines
- to be able to throw and gather LCVPs
-to have two door with to ramp, (stern and side) for the acess of vehicles and material from the dock.
-a team of propulsion so powerful and expensive would not be necessary and it would be necessary to come only with 18-20 knots
Not only it is a question of changing simply fighter planes for helicopters

*sigh* - current operational procedure demands 1 carrier and 1 LPH available at all times.

This is no different to now. When Ocean went for refit, I think it was Ark Royal that was used as an LPH.

When QE goes for refit, PoW will be the carrier under these plans - are people deliberately forgetting Albion or Bulwark?

Do people think it's impossible new amphibious shipping cannot be built in 15 years time?

 

[overlander]

But really, it seems that carriers will be a pipe dream. Now that's there's air groups for just one carrier the next step might be the sale of one of the carriers to India or Brazil. It's the CVA-01 story all over again...

Ok, these are very good news, at least the 2 carriers will be built and maybe in 10-15 years the 2nd carier could be refitted to the carrier stike role when finantial situation in the M.O.D. allows to it.