kev 99
Member
Have to post this picture, its probably my favourite of a T45 yet as it shows how massive they are, curtesy of the Scum:
Giant warship dwarfs town | The Sun |News
Giant warship dwarfs town | The Sun |News
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Yestrerdays statement
Does anyone have any idea which Minehunter/sweeper is getting canned and is it Roebuck or Endurance which is to go?
Looking at airframe numbers from yesterdays statement, the CHF seaking are being pulled early and are not being replaced. Merlin is progressing to Mk2 and I think 8 Mk 1 are to be retired as they are not being upgraded. Also looks like the Lynx Mk 3 is on its way out as most Mk8 are being ugraded to saturn standard.
Be intresting to see which Gr7/9 Sqns get it?
Does anyone have any idea which Minehunter/sweeper is getting canned and is it Roebuck or Endurance which is to go?
Looking at airframe numbers from yesterdays statement, the CHF seaking are being pulled early and are not being replaced. Merlin is progressing to Mk2 and I think 8 Mk 1 are to be retired as they are not being upgraded. Also looks like the Lynx Mk 3 is on its way out as most Mk8 are being ugraded to saturn standard.
Be intresting to see which Gr7/9 Sqns get it?
Just had some of the above answered, The Walney and the Roebuck, so for now Endurance is safe!, The info came from Defence Management journals news site via the MOD
As time is ticking by and nothing fatal has happened to the carriers the more I start to believe we will at last witness the greatest rebuilding out the RN capability for 65 years. I can see issues with getting any aircraft on them but if the GR7/9 gradually get withdraw I just can;t see how we will not end up with some F35. I heard somewhere the F35c was $10m cheaper each than the F35b. I think it would be difficult to get out of the F35b because of Roll Royce involvement, but it would prevent the RAF taking them off for long period?
I agree. Enough of the F-35Bs will be bought to equip both aircraft carriers, at the very least. Rolls Royce is involved, and despite the Obama administration's rejection of the second jet engine, the Congress this year approved the second main engine in cahoots with GE. Rolls Royce may not be a large American manufacturer, but GE is tops....
While the F-35B may be more expensive than a Typhoon, by the time the Typhoon is navalizied the price will most likely be similar. I don't see the British buying French Rafales at any price....
I wouldn't take the initial Obama stance as fixed. Ashton Carter has made it very clear that they intend to open the competition in the market - when they looked at the data they found that where competition existed it drove down the absolute support costs and through life costs.
He is visiting aust next month to look at some of our project modeling principles on competition. I understand that he's also intending to do a similar with the UK.
Sole source contracts are very very much out of favour universally as a number of countries believe that they have not had value for govt and that they have been selectively raped by the vendors.
I think you'll be in for a surprise on the 2nd choice engines for JSF issue
trouble is,it should have been done in the first place but it would no doubt be a lash up if they did it now(unfortunately,as i would have preferred it to the f35 and we could have used up all of our allocation too)
perhaps we should offer to buy rafales in return for them purchasing a couple of squadrons of tiffies for their air defence needs!
seriously though,i would ditch the stvol f35 version and incorporate a form of catapult onto the new carriers instead.......an easy way to save dosh and ensure compatibility wity our allies:wave
kev 99
Member
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, last I saw the C variant was the same price as the B. People like Lewis Page have been saying the C variant is cheaper for ages, even he's dropped it in his latest attack on the MOD plans though, he's just stating reduced life cycle costs now.
If they were the same price I have a mixed view on the purchase. I do like the idea of other aircraft being able to use the carriers, I know it is not as simple as putting hooks on but a light attack aircraft like a BAE Hawk would be useful. However if we go for the F35b there would be options with operating of much smaller ships. Still as the Albion/Bulwark don't have through decks that option has been closed down anyway. I look at the Albion/Bulwark, Bays and Ocean and in many ways they are such an improvement over the previous capability, but in others they are nothing special. I think that is my biggest issue with current UK defence procurement; it;'s some of the most expensive kit about and yet it doesn;t stand out a outstanding which is reflected in the lack of foreign export orders.
Guys,
I'm sorry I've been following this thread for the last 3 years, since it was initiated & you are basically chewing over stuff that's been discussed to death in this & other areas within this site.
Let's clear up some facts...
BAE Hawk & Eurofighter CAN both be NAVALISED.
The COSTS associated with retro-fitting this equipment for this ability has been costed up & presented to both UK Govt & MoD.
To do so, it WOULD BE CHEAPER to build the aircraft from scratch (hence the idea of doing it to the Typhoon's that haven't been built in Tranche 3!!)
While, it may appear COST EFFECTIVE to buy airframes of another type, from allies (e.g. France), IT IS POINTLESS !, as we are trying to maintain a standardised fleet of airframes, rather than buy more that we've never had before & don't have the equipment / facilities to support.
While Albion / Bulwark have 'Aviation Facilities', these are to support helicopters (Incl. the V-22 Osprey) & at a stretch a Harrier, they were not designed for ANYTHING else.
To accept a VSTOL F-35, they will have to be modified.
Ocean would appear to be a GOOD PLATFORM, but she is tired & due for replacement. Best option would be to replace her with SOMETHING NEW (that we don't have the money for !)
...& to continue discussing the 'MERITS' of buying foreign Naval vessels, at the expense of the UK Industry, is as foolish as jumping of a bridge, without a Bungee rope attached !
Getting any of this ??
OUR Industry & National Fleet is at it's lowest state since Trafalgar, over 200 years ago.
We are here because of the 'GOOD IDEAS CLUB'.
Politicians & people who have no idea what they're talking about, getting heard & believed as being Subject matter experts, when they've never set foot in a shipyard in their puff !
That's why we had a Defense review that basically turned our shipyards into a 'Single source supplier'. That's why BAE are ruling the roost, because the GOVT WANTED IT THAT WAY !!
Don't be sad about that, because they are ACTUALLY saving the Industry, & not MILKING the coffers dry, as some would lead you to believe.
It is about time the the 'naysayers', with the "let's sell our assets & Military secrets off to the Highest bidder" attitude shut up !
WE, the British Public, are the people who SHOULD BE paying for this, by increasing Taxes by 1 penny in the pound, so that ALL our armed forces can have the equipment they need, built HERE in the UK, NO MATTER THE COST !
Discussing the abilities / capabilities of equipment that we are currently operating in our Naval fleet & then doing DIRECT Comparisons to systems such as AEGIS, are pointless.
While it does the similar job to Sampson / PAAMS, it's not the same, it's like comparing a Ferrari Enzo to a Lada. They are both cars, have 4 wheels & an engine, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
AEGIS might well have fired 3000 missiles & be on board 100 ships (with at least 87 of them owned & operated by the US Navy), but to buy that system, would tie us to the US system, for EVERYTHING !
Costs estimates for spares could treble overnight, & we would just have to swallow & say 'Thank you ! May I have another' & accept it.
Now, let's get back to discussing things HERE, in the REAL world & NOT cloud CUCKOO-LAND, where steel is cheap & air is free....
Rant Over...
SA :nutkick
Hey, don't get over excited most of us are on your side and agree with you. I agree we should build in the UK even if it cost more for employment and strategic reasons, unless it does not meet both those requirements. However, I am not completely onboard with BAE is our saviour, it has virtues but I know ex RR & Plessey people who would also argue UK Gov has created a monster which it now wingers about.
I do feel we should, focus on what we can be best in class or at least equal to the rest. With all other equipment we should either buy cheapest or counter trade. Like the deal Germany/Italy has done over the U212a.
However it would be nice to spend more on defence, the existing budget is not insignificant and the current economic mess, I would say your suggestions are cloud cuckoo land, yes we will get more than 1p on income tax but more likely a defence cut aswell.
My point about the Albion/Bulwark/Bays is they are not very flexible, why don't they permanently have helicopter facitlitiies, then we would not need a replacement for Ocean and they would be more able to operate independently.
The UK just seems to make all the wrong calls, we do JVs on the wrong projects, build and buy at the wrong time the wrong product. Someone in the chain said we don't have a strategy and for me this is key France seems to do this better, yes they accept 2nd best sometimes but they seem to make the decision up front, look the A69 (i know years ago but..) whereas we do it when something has gone wrong.
I was trying to think of areas we dominate in and it is hard. One of the few is RR, and we should premote the areas we do. If we import we should insist on counter trade in these key areas. As our Naval expenture is bigger than most other European countries we should be in a good position but we are not. On the BAE point I think even they have given up on the UK and now want to focus on US business (I bet the next CEO will be an American)
I do feel we should, focus on what we can be best in class or at least equal to the rest. With all other equipment we should either buy cheapest or counter trade. Like the deal Germany/Italy has done over the U212a.
However it would be nice to spend more on defence, the existing budget is not insignificant and the current economic mess, I would say your suggestions are cloud cuckoo land, yes we will get more than 1p on income tax but more likely a defence cut aswell.
My point about the Albion/Bulwark/Bays is they are not very flexible, why don't they permanently have helicopter facitlitiies, then we would not need a replacement for Ocean and they would be more able to operate independently.
The UK just seems to make all the wrong calls, we do JVs on the wrong projects, build and buy at the wrong time the wrong product. Someone in the chain said we don't have a strategy and for me this is key France seems to do this better, yes they accept 2nd best sometimes but they seem to make the decision up front, look the A69 (i know years ago but..) whereas we do it when something has gone wrong.
I was trying to think of areas we dominate in and it is hard. One of the few is RR, and we should premote the areas we do. If we import we should insist on counter trade in these key areas. As our Naval expenture is bigger than most other European countries we should be in a good position but we are not. On the BAE point I think even they have given up on the UK and now want to focus on US business (I bet the next CEO will be an American)
One other point you say "politicians & people" but the balance must be defence chiefs. Politicians (I hate to defend them) are largely not responsible for specification ,the military are and they need to take finances into consideration. The military get themselves into a funding mess and the politicians come in with little knowledge of industry or defence, hack about making a complete mess.
Look at Afghanistan what a equipment mess we are in, the AFV are all wrong so we end up being ripped off buying 4x4 armoured lorries from the US at 5 times what they should cost. I saw a General say we had replace nearly all frontline equipment....why was it so inflexible in the first place. Every one has moved to 8x8 APC and we may yet be the last in the field and we are just buying an export, when we were in a JV.
France procurement is driven by industrial imperitives not defence. You say buy UK regardless of the cost, they buy French regardless of the quality, and generally they are right. The Typhoon is no F22, but the Rafale is no Typhoon, but it is French! Politicians are not good at hard decisions, if the Navy say they need a JSF and the ACA a they just agree as they believe the budget. 30 years on it looks ridiculous, yes no one was brave enough to cancel during the 30 years.
Look at Afghanistan what a equipment mess we are in, the AFV are all wrong so we end up being ripped off buying 4x4 armoured lorries from the US at 5 times what they should cost. I saw a General say we had replace nearly all frontline equipment....why was it so inflexible in the first place. Every one has moved to 8x8 APC and we may yet be the last in the field and we are just buying an export, when we were in a JV.
France procurement is driven by industrial imperitives not defence. You say buy UK regardless of the cost, they buy French regardless of the quality, and generally they are right. The Typhoon is no F22, but the Rafale is no Typhoon, but it is French! Politicians are not good at hard decisions, if the Navy say they need a JSF and the ACA a they just agree as they believe the budget. 30 years on it looks ridiculous, yes no one was brave enough to cancel during the 30 years.
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
I was thinking this a couple of days ago, it does create problems though as its probably difficult to quantify, you could say adjust for corporation tax that BAe makes and/or add in the income tax of employees, but then you've got to accurately log what components are being made where. You could then argue that all the net earnings of UK BAe employees should be factored in since this money stays in the country and will almost certainly be spent here too; this money is therefore also subject to taxation as well. Where do you stop?
But it is a valid argument and one that morons like Lewis Page refuse to consider.
It does have one noticeable problem though; if the MOD is continually buying British made equipment which costs more than OTS then its effectively giving money back to the treasury and losing out as a result.
Last edited:
Agreed employment issues should be factored into budgets, it can be cheaper to build abroad but the construction cost is not the most expensive and this does create employment. The RN also needs to make a greater effort to support exports, this is not just protecting jobs it is important if they want a defence industry longer term. I would pay Captains prize money as a sales commission on any ship thye secure an export of. They really need to get behind industry and work together. The more more you build the cheaper the unit cost, all RN ships would be for sale (on the basis that if it's sold new construction is order!) Every ship should be designed with export in mind. This is a crisis not a minor issue.
kev 99
Member
Well I'm all for it, I don't think you'd manage to swing it past the treasury though.
The UK ship building problems were identified by the USN some 6 years ago when they were first called in to assist with problems with the Astutes. It was such an obvious problem that US Dept of Commerce did a classified report which was then delivered to US State and US DoD as a "lessons learnt" for US policy makers. An approp classified release of that document was then provided to Canada and Aust. (for similar "lessons learnt" advice)
I did have a copy of the report some years back but no longer have it. It was IIRC some 200 x A4 pages in content. (and no pictures - it was all "business")