The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Agreed, but we are talking about coast bombardment in the Gulf. My point about Toulon is not a joke, once the RN was expelled, the city had to surrender, equally if the Iranians expell the Allied Navies from the Gulf we are dependent of a very brittal Saudi Araba (to me the Shah looked more stable) . Remember once the Vietnamization of Iraq is complete and the US finally leave, Iraq will likely become a client state of Iran or just collapse into civil war...maybe it already has.

I think you make two assumptions here that I don’t think are realistic:

a) That Iran will be able to deny use of the Persian Gulf to NATO forces

b) That once the US withdraws the majority of its combat forces out of Iraq that Baghdad will not lead a viable state & there will be a major level of Iranian control.

On the first issue I don’t see a realistic scenario where Iran does prevent NATO use of the Gulf, Toulon is in many ways a false analogy. Even if Iran has amassed enough AShM rounds nessisary to overwhelm a deployed task force it will have a hell of a time achieving the local mass necessary due to NATO air power. There is no doubt that Allied forces will have air superiority within 12 hours. After that point any attempt mass shore batteries of AShM's, as small as they are, will be savaged. The shore based AShM threat will be significantly reduced once Iranian ISTAR capabilities have been neutralised alone. This is one of Iran’s primary counters to any US strike so you can bet US planners have contingencies in place.

This is the critical difference with Toulon, vertical envelopment.

As for b) well I think we are a very long way from having an Iranian puppet government. First of all the Kurds and the Sunni's won’t stand for it and second of all neither will the Americans. Things are without doubt getting better in Iraq and although the Maliki government is hardly ideal we are miles away from full blown civil war or Iranian domination. US military backing will prevent any semi legitimate Iraqi state from falling under Tehran’s thumb. You have to remember the Iranians and Iraqis are historical enemies (as are Arabs and Persians).

I know this is a little bit OT but the fund bits always are!

 

[kev 99]

1805 - Reference Brahmos - the Israelis provided technical input in support of the Indian's.

Final details of future RN lift confirmed for the immediate future.

With the planned purchase of additional Chinooks the RN will become the sole operator of Merlin. RAF Merlin MK1's will be upgraded and transferred to support 3-Commando Brigade and form the basis for AsC on Carrier Strike (until funds become available for a replacement). All SeaKings retired by 2016. Upgraded Merlins to remain in service until 2030.

This should greatly simplify the RN's logistics tail (operating just Merlin and Wildcat) and bring much improved lift, endurance and hot and high abilities to the Commando Brigade. The rear ramp on Merlin has proved a real boon for operations in A-Stan reducing the time needed on FOB DZ's during the unloading of stores. With money being extremely tight this has to have been the only logical step forward. Merlin is the biggest airframe available in the rotary purple pool, which can still comfortably operate from all RN assets (Ocean, Frigates & Destroyers, Bays etc., etc.)

RAF will operate Chinook only (70 airframes in total), largest single operator outside the US

Army Air Corp - Wildcat and Apache

UK Military rotary lift reduced to four platforms:

Apache
Wildcat
Merlin, and
Chinook

Only problem with that is that the number of Merlins available to the RN in the commando roll with be less than the number of Sea Kings we have now, the number of Wildcats that have been ordered is less than half of the current Lynx fleet that it will replace.

:dunce

 

[1805]

Only problem with that is that the number of Merlins available to the RN in the commando roll with be less than the number of Sea Kings we have now, the number of Wildcats that have been ordered is less than half of the current Lynx fleet that it will replace.

:dunce

Do you have a feel for the likely RN helicopter fleet when the current orders/changes have been fulfilled?

 

[1805]

I think you make two assumptions here that I don’t think are realistic:

a) That Iran will be able to deny use of the Persian Gulf to NATO forces

b) That once the US withdraws the majority of its combat forces out of Iraq that Baghdad will not lead a viable state & there will be a major level of Iranian control.

On the first issue I don’t see a realistic scenario where Iran does prevent NATO use of the Gulf, Toulon is in many ways a false analogy. Even if Iran has amassed enough AShM rounds nessisary to overwhelm a deployed task force it will have a hell of a time achieving the local mass necessary due to NATO air power. There is no doubt that Allied forces will have air superiority within 12 hours. After that point any attempt mass shore batteries of AShM's, as small as they are, will be savaged. The shore based AShM threat will be significantly reduced once Iranian ISTAR capabilities have been neutralised alone. This is one of Iran’s primary counters to any US strike so you can bet US planners have contingencies in place.

This is the critical difference with Toulon, vertical envelopment.

As for b) well I think we are a very long way from having an Iranian puppet government. First of all the Kurds and the Sunni's won’t stand for it and second of all neither will the Americans. Things are without doubt getting better in Iraq and although the Maliki government is hardly ideal we are miles away from full blown civil war or Iranian domination. US military backing will prevent any semi legitimate Iraqi state from falling under Tehran’s thumb. You have to remember the Iranians and Iraqis are historical enemies (as are Arabs and Persians).

I know this is a little bit OT but the fund bits always are!

I don't think with the Iranian interest in: mines, missiles, small subs, coast island bases and its strong geograhical position it is so unlikely they could drive the Allied navies out. Even artillery would be effective in this very narrow channel. However I agree the Allies will fall back and then attemp to bomb them back to the dark ages, probably with a fair degree of success . However it will not be totally effective for a force prepared to fight, and there will then have to be a heavy land commitment. The trouble is the US only has so much credit with its Allies and good old George spent most of it. Two other points, in 1991 and even in Gaza the air suppression of missiles was surprisingly ineffective, and the IDF (which I have huge respect for) had a real problem in Lebanon.

The majority of the Allied Naval forces are blue water and designed for protection of fleet, despite all the Littoral talk, real coastal forces have largely be ignored.

As for Iraq, I think the Iranian's would be happy for instability a divided or long civil war would suit them down to the ground, nothing is guaranteed, but would you put money on Iraq lasting much longer than South Vietnam did one the US finally leaves?

I agree Arab/Iranians don't get on but they all hate Israel and most regard the US/West as on the side of Israel. Could Saudi Arabia last an attack on Iran, remember the issues holding the coalition together in 1991.

 

[swerve]

... Two other points, in 1991 and even in Gaza the air suppression of missiles was surprisingly ineffective, and the IDF (which I have huge respect for) had a real problem in Lebanon...

But that was suppression of ballistic missiles & unguided artillery rockets, firing at fixed points. Such weapons would be useless against shipping, unless it was close enough to shore to be located accurately. In the cases of Gaza & Lebanon, the Israelis were trying to suppress very large numbers of cheap, often one-shot, artillery rockets, firing almost randomly into Israel. This is not comparable with what the Iranians could or would do. If they were firing thousands of small artillery rockets into the sea, Allied navies would sit back & laugh. Let them waste their resources on harmless fireworks, if they want to.

Anti-ship missiles need targeting information. Unlike Iraqi ballistic missiles, they cannot be aimed at a fixed geographical location, secure in the knowledge that there's a city there. Unlike Tel Aviv, ships are mobile - & even if their locations are known, far too small for ballistic missiles without terminal homing to hit, except by chance.

Getting that targeting information needs sensors. Land-based radar (transmit & you reveal your presence: expect ARMs if you keep transmitting, & GPS-guided bombs on your location if you stop), or radars or shorter-range visual sensors on aircraft (very dangerous to fly anywhere near those ships) or boats (you've guessed it).

Anti-ship missiles are also relatively expensive: Iran will not have them in the huge numbers that their friends in South Lebanon had (much cheaper) artillery rockets. They also have guidance systems which can be defeated by soft-kill measures.

Iranian submarines would be a danger, but there aren't many of them, & they'd be up against the most capable ASW forces in the world.

Artillery is potentially threatening only over a very short stretch, around the narrowest part of the Strait of Hormuz. I imagine that Allied navies would quite like the Iranians to concentrate artillery there, as it would ease the task of finding & destroying that artillery.

I think one can safely assume that Abu Musa & the Tunbs would be cleared of Iranian troops at the start of any campaign.

Mines are probably the biggest threat to shipping, but I don't think that they could render the Gulf a no-go area, even if the Iranians were completely uninhibited in their use.

 

[1805]

But that was suppression of ballistic missiles & unguided artillery rockets, firing at fixed points. Such weapons would be useless against shipping, unless it was close enough to shore to be located accurately. In the cases of Gaza & Lebanon, the Israelis were trying to suppress very large numbers of cheap, often one-shot, artillery rockets, firing almost randomly into Israel. This is not comparable with what the Iranians could or would do. If they were firing thousands of small artillery rockets into the sea, Allied navies would sit back & laugh. Let them waste their resources on harmless fireworks, if they want to.

Artillery is potentially threatening only over a very short stretch, around the narrowest part of the Strait of Hormuz. I imagine that Allied navies would quite like the Iranians to concentrate artillery there, as it would ease the task of finding & destroying that artillery.

I think one can safely assume that Abu Musa & the Tunbs would be cleared of Iranian troops at the start of any campaign.

Mines are probably the biggest threat to shipping, but I don't think that they could render the Gulf a no-go area, even if the Iranians were completely uninhibited in their use.

I mentioned the 1991 & Gaza not because these particular weapons would be used by Iran but to evidence that it is not as easy as people make out to ensure all targets are destroyed. The danger is multiple attack from missiles/guns/torpedo with liberal use of mines at the same time. I agree the West should win as over time the Allies will reduce the Iranian capability to attack.

I have since read that Iran has recieved 29 TOR M-1 modern SAM batteries, however no site seems to be able to confirm or not if S300 systems have been exported to them

 

[MrQuintus]

Do you have a feel for the likely RN helicopter fleet when the current orders/changes have been fulfilled?

It all depends, from current government plans all we can say is that they'll have 72 Merlins and 28 Wildcats, but that still leaves 81 helicopters unreplaced (36 Lynx and 45 sea kings) which is one hell of a cutback, I'd expect to see the SAR PFI go after the next election and a big AW149 purchase and (hopefully) more Wildcats

 

[1805]

It all depends, from current government plans all we can say is that they'll have 72 Merlins and 28 Wildcats, but that still leaves 81 helicopters unreplaced (36 Lynx and 45 sea kings) which is one hell of a cutback, I'd expect to see the SAR PFI go after the next election and a big AW149 purchase and (hopefully) more Wildcats

Potential for there to be some reduction, not so good. Do you know if the RAF & RN SAR Sea Kings are included in the 45 quoted above?

 

[TimmyC]

Sea Viper Trials.

The following is an non-subscriber extract (first 192 of 869 words) from Janes Information Group.

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Royal Navy (RN) are examining the potential impact of two successive test failures of the Sea Viper air-defence system on the overall programme for the service's new Type 45 destroyers.

The MoD is working with prime contractor MBDA UK to review range and telemetry data after the latest failure to achieve an intercept.

The MoD told Jane's the two latest sets of Sea Viper test-firings "were not as successful as the earlier trials, although they have successfully provided vital system performance evidence". It added: "This has enabled Sea Viper qualification and ship trials to progress in accordance with the planned Type 45 programme... Analysis of the most recent [November 2009] test-firing, using range and telemetry data, is being progressed urgently. It is too early to assess the impact on the Type 45 programme."

Sea Viper qualification testing, performed from the UK's guided-weapon trials platform Longbow , has been under way at the Centre d'Essais de Lancement des Missiles (CELM) range in the south of France since early 2008. The UK had originally planned three live-firing events to validate system performance in the area, point-defence and local-area roles."

Hopefully just system teething problems although certainly a concern.
Anyone have any more information?

 

[1805]

The following is an non-subscriber extract (first 192 of 869 words) from Janes Information Group.

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Royal Navy (RN) are examining the potential impact of two successive test failures of the Sea Viper air-defence system on the overall programme for the service's new Type 45 destroyers.

The MoD is working with prime contractor MBDA UK to review range and telemetry data after the latest failure to achieve an intercept.

The MoD told Jane's the two latest sets of Sea Viper test-firings "were not as successful as the earlier trials, although they have successfully provided vital system performance evidence". It added: "This has enabled Sea Viper qualification and ship trials to progress in accordance with the planned Type 45 programme... Analysis of the most recent [November 2009] test-firing, using range and telemetry data, is being progressed urgently. It is too early to assess the impact on the Type 45 programme."

Sea Viper qualification testing, performed from the UK's guided-weapon trials platform Longbow , has been under way at the Centre d'Essais de Lancement des Missiles (CELM) range in the south of France since early 2008. The UK had originally planned three live-firing events to validate system performance in the area, point-defence and local-area roles."

Hopefully just system teething problems although certainly a concern.
Anyone have any more information?

I am sure these are just local difficulties that will be overcome. Does anyone have information on the target it missed ? It does make you wonder how long it will be before we get an effective replacement in reasonable numbers for the T42. What a disaster this project has been. Instead of just moving on to the next one, there needs to be a serious review of what could have been done better/differently over the last 25+ years, not to blame but to avoid doing again.

 

[davros]

Construction update of first CVF

The Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers took a significant step forward in October with the delivery of the first major piece of equipment to the BVT Surface Fleet shipyardin Govan. The first pair of Neptune stabilising fins designed and
manufactured by Rolls-Royce weigh 50 tonnes each and are 5.3 metres long. The stabilisers were taken by road from Dunfermline to Govan, where BVT will now
incorporate them into the hull section of the carrier currently under construction.
Aircraft Carrier Alliance programme director Geoff Searle said: “Delivery of the
stabilisers to Govan is a great achievement to add to the list of successes and milestones
already reached. “Across the country, British industry is showing its
commitment to this programme by working together to deliver these fantastic ships for the UK forces and I have no doubt that this will continue long into the
future.” Richard Dingley, Rolls-Royce director of programmes, Europe and international, added: “This delivery marks the first delivery of Rolls-Royce equipment and also the first part of the power and propulsion element. “We are extremely proud to be involved in the development of these vessels, working alongside our many partners in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance to supply mission-critical technology and systems.” The stabilising fins are retractable and can be deployed from their housing in the ship’s hull in 60 seconds to stabilise the vessel in rough seas. Once deployed, stabilisers pivot to counteract the roll of the sea to lift the vessel in a similar concept to that of an aircraft’s wing.
Stabilisers perform an essential role in steadying a ship during military operations.
Fins are deployed, retracted and pivoted using a computer controlled hydraulic system. The design incorporates features to minimise drag and noise levels. DE&S’ CHIEF of Materiel (Fleet) has been to Rosyth to check on progress of the first carrier Queen Elizabeth. Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews saw the building at the head of No 1 Dock
housing the shipbuild and the project controls teams before a tour of the
yard. “It was a great pleasure to see so much progress at Rosyth. The civil
engineering being undertaken to open the basin entrance is complex and very
substantial,” he said. “Walking into the syncro-lift and seeing a Sandown Class next
to a carrier sponson unit with little difference in size gave a real
impression of the scale of the project. “With so many of the UK shipyards
and our supply chain supporting this programme it is a national endeavour
and speaks of the new co-operative
approach to supporting the Royal Navy.”

 

[davros]

And this is from last year. I believe the bulbous bow is under construction the first sets of stabilizers are completed, some of the sponsons delivered and a rudder blade is complete. I don’t know why its still reported as "proposed carriers" they are already under construction.

The first shipment of component units for the new aircraft carrier has arrived in Rosyth today, marking the start of the first stages in the assembly process for the massive 65,000 tonne vessels, being undertaken by Babcock.

This first transportation, from Babcock’s site at Appledore, Devon, consists of 11 fabricated units and two flat pack units for the first of the two Queen Elizabeth (QE) class aircraft carriers’ sponson blocks. The units vary slightly in size, but each measures in the region of 10 metres long by 7.5 metres wide and 3 metres high, and weighs 20-36 tonnes. Each carrier will have 12 different sponsons which form part of the ship structure to provide a wider flight deck.

This is the first of some 20 shipments from Appledore to Rosyth for each of the two vessels, including two shipments for the LB01 sub blocks, 12 shipments for sponson units, and four shipments for centre block units. For the first carrier these shipments will take place at various intervals between August 2009 and January 2012.

Each of these shipments received will allow work to start on combining the 20-40 tonne individual units into 300 tonne blocks. Major outfit can then commence on electrical cabling and equipments, mechanical pipe systems and equipments, ventilation ducts and equipments, furniture, and propulsion, weapon or aviation systems. This will lead to completion of the approximately 1500 different compartments and numerous systems, prior to whole ship assembly in No.1 Dock at Rosyth.

Sean Donaldson, Babcock project director, comments: “The first transportation between the Babcock facilities in support of the QE class project marks a key milestone for the project. Many people have been involved both in preparing the ship components for transportation and the co-ordination of the logistics to ship the components. This joint working between Babcock/BVT and the MoD shipping experts has clearly demonstrated the benefits of the Alliance approach being adopted by the project.”

The assembly and integration stage will involve the use of heavy lifting, alignment and fabrication skills by Babcock. As block build progresses two 500 tonne transporters (delivered to Rosyth this month) and the Goliath crane (scheduled to arrive at Rosyth in August 2010) will all play a major part.

 

[eletheimel]

Here we go again. The Guardian's reporting that the F35 order'll be slashed and the second QE class'll be downgraded to an LPH or something:

Defence chiefs are preparing drastic cuts to the number of American stealth aircraft planned for the RAF and the Royal Navy's proposed new carriers, the Guardian has learned.

They will be among the first casualties, with existing squadrons of Harrier and Tornado jets, of a huge shift in military spending being considered by ministers, officials and military advisers.

As they head towards their biggest and most painful shakeup since the second world war, a consensus has emerged among the top brass that they can not afford the 140 American Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) they have been seeking.

MoD to slash jet fighter orders as it struggles to save aircraft programme | UK news | The Guardian

It's all based on briefings from 'senior military sources,' though, which I suppose keeps hope alive. Does anyone have any information on the contract cancellation penalties this will incur if it goes ahead? Or is it all just yet more hot air? While realising that we've been here before with regard to cancellation scares and having been a recepient of the scorn often poured upon those with doubts as to the project's security under any British government, I have to say that, given the current economic climate and the constant drip drip of naysaying and doubts reported in the MSM my brow is starting to furrow. And that can't be good.

Thankfully the members of this forum can put my mind at ease by caustically dismissing the Guardian's lefty nonsense!

 

[riksavage]

Here we go again. The Guardian's reporting that the F35 order'll be slashed and the second QE class'll be downgraded to an LPH or something:



MoD to slash jet fighter orders as it struggles to save aircraft programme | UK news | The Guardian

It's all based on briefings from 'senior military sources,' though, which I suppose keeps hope alive. Does anyone have any information on the contract cancellation penalties this will incur if it goes ahead? Or is it all just yet more hot air? While realising that we've been here before with regard to cancellation scares and having been a recepient of the scorn often poured upon those with doubts as to the project's security under any British government, I have to say that, given the current economic climate and the constant drip drip of naysaying and doubts reported in the MSM my brow is starting to furrow. And that can't be good.

Thankfully the members of this forum can put my mind at ease by caustically dismissing the Guardian's lefty nonsense!

Lets get real, you can't go through the worst financial disaster in the UK's history and not make cuts somewhere.

The UK ordered far too many Typhoons, adding an additional 140 increasingly expensive F35B's was an extremely optimistic option, even during the best of economic times. Cutting the order to 70 will still provide enough airframes to equip ONE operational carrier. It does not stop the UK buying more, if and when the current huge national debt is paid off.

I would be happy to see 24 F35B's aboard the single operational carrier during peace time to maintain skills amongst air and ground crews, surging to max load during a shooting war. The second carrier will always either be in refit, reserve or on a training cycle and could host a limited number of F35B's (say 12) and large numbers of rotary wing airframes in support of 3 Commando Brigade, similar to a USMC WASP class. This would still allow for a dedicated strike carrier.

One thing for sure the Army will be the winner in next defence review, RAF and Navy (other than rotary and strategic lift) will be the losers. Don't lets delude ourselves - tough times, tough decisions. The Conservatives will still continue the fight in A-Stan even after the Dutch and Canadians have left next year, this will remain a funding priority and with Yemen & Pakistan continuing to go 'tits-up' counter insurgency warfare is not going away anytime soon.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Lets get real, you can't go through the worst financial disaster in the UK's history and not make cuts somewhere.

The UK ordered far too many Typhoons, adding an additional 140 increasingly expensive F35B's was an extremely optimistic option, even during the best of economic times. Cutting the order to 70 will still provide enough airframes to equip ONE operational carrier. It does not stop the UK buying more, if and when the current huge national debt is paid off.

I would be happy to see 24 F35B's aboard the single operational carrier during peace time to maintain skills amongst air and ground crews, surging to max load during a shooting war. The second carrier will always either be in refit, reserve or on a training cycle and could host a limited number of F35B's (say 12) and large numbers of rotary wing airframes in support of 3 Commando Brigade, similar to a USMC WASP class. This would still allow for a dedicated strike carrier.

One thing for sure the Army will be the winner in next defence review, RAF and Navy (other than rotary and strategic lift) will be the losers. Don't lets delude ourselves - tough times, tough decisions. The Conservatives will still continue the fight in A-Stan even after the Dutch and Canadians have left next year, this will remain a funding priority and with Yemen & Pakistan continuing to go 'tits-up' counter insurgency warfare is not going away anytime soon.

Mostly agree,

The Economist has already pointed-out that the UK is facing a £36-billion short-fall in budgets over the next eight years. RUSI just seems to be adding a more formed expression to what this will mean, though it is a worse-case scenario.

How will effect defence? Let's take a guess:

• A-400M - dead. Similar purchase numbers of C-130Js but very few new C-17s.
• MRTT - renegotiated; possible merger with the USAF programme.
• Tyffie Tranche3B/Upgrades - much reduced. Five standing squadrons to be maintained. More focus on Taranis.
• F-35 - Royal Navy only prior to 2025 RAF induct.
• FRES - Replace Scimitar; upgrade Warriors and more Bulldogs for second-line.
• Astute - No. Eight to be SSBN/SSGN, with Seven's role to be decided before first metal is cut.
• Trident - See above: Astute with plug-ins, initially four-tubes for Trident, expanding to second-batch with eight/twelve tubes.
• MUFC - Scrapped; Improved Astute to follow on from Trident+
• Vision 2020 - Longer phase-in of Army/Naval helicopter replacements.

Cut too deep and BAe moves to America - with the loss of company-tax adding to the UK-deficit. Factor in the further decline in manufacturing and future export sales, any cut in defence is likely to have a multiplier-effect on the UK economy (especially regarding high-end research).

So some projects may be lost, but the economy still needs to support defence. Nothing to worry about. Well, atleast this side of an election...!

 

[riksavage]

Mostly agree,

The Economist has already pointed-out that the UK is facing a £36-billion short-fall in budgets over the next eight years. RUSI just seems to be adding a more formed expression to what this will mean, though it is a worse-case scenario.

How will effect defence? Let's take a guess:

• A-400M - dead. Similar purchase numbers of C-130Js but very few new C-17s.
• MRTT - renegotiated; possible merger with the USAF programme.
• Tyffie Tranche3B/Upgrades - much reduced. Five standing squadrons to be maintained. More focus on Taranis.
• F-35 - Royal Navy only prior to 2025 RAF induct.
• FRES - Replace Scimitar; upgrade Warriors and more Bulldogs for second-line.
• Astute - No. Eight to be SSBN/SSGN, with Seven's role to be decided before first metal is cut.
• Trident - See above: Astute with plug-ins, initially four-tubes for Trident, expanding to second-batch with eight/twelve tubes.
• MUFC - Scrapped; Improved Astute to follow on from Trident+
• Vision 2020 - Longer phase-in of Army/Naval helicopter replacements.

Cut too deep and BAe moves to America - with the loss of company-tax adding to the UK-deficit. Factor in the further decline in manufacturing and future export sales, any cut in defence is likely to have a multiplier-effect on the UK economy (especially regarding high-end research).

So some projects may be lost, but the economy still needs to support defence. Nothing to worry about. Well, atleast this side of an election...!

A400 looks like it will be dead in the water unless the European consortium agrees to paying more money. Somehow I reckon the RAF will not be too perturbed and hope for more C17/C130J's. The way the A400 is going unit costs will be on a par with the far more capable C17 soon. I would like to the UK end up with 12 C17's, newer C130J's and maybe a few Spartans for SF use.

Ref BAE, the next big contract will be FRES Recce + Warrior upgrades, the contract for both with either go to BAE or GD. By all accounts the BAE turret is better (bigger and easier to exit), however the GD ASCOD chassis offers an increased payload over the BAE candidate. Knowing how the MOD think they will go for GD ASCOD and then try and fit the BAE turret to appease both parties! Subsequently it will end up a total and utter cluster f*ck. BAE won't vanish from the UK because they are tied to 25 year plus support contracts, guaranteed cash-flow enabling then to continue apprentice / graduate programmes over the long term.

It looks like the forthcoming twin hull tanker fleet order with be awarded to a civilian contractor to build/operate, thus saving costs. Maesk is very interested, this will allow for a reduction in RFA numbers, leaving them to man the front-line Bays.

For expeditionary warfare, it's much more operationally efficient to equip and maintain a maritime capability than try and maintain an air-bridge. You need massive amounts of lift and CAP to keep the same amount of manpower deployed and resourced than what can be packed into an ARG, this is why I think amphib capabilities and strike will be kept, if reduced (one strike capable carrier equiped, one in reserve). Hence you will see the UK's parachute capability disappear before the commando's and supporting sea lift. You could in a worse case scenario lose para regiments, but still retain tier one SF (SAS & SBS) and tier two support (SFSG) as para-trained assets. At the end of the day when was the last time a military jumped in force operationally? The UK will devote more resources to SF at the expense of heavy forces, task force Black in Iraq and task force Crichton in Afghanistan have been very successful. I can see a second SFSG battalion being raised to ensure both SAS and SBS assets have adequate outer perimeter protection if deployed to two separate theatres simultaneously. Disband 2 & 3 Para and form a second tier two SFSG battalion.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Hat-tip to ARRSE:

RUSI Document

Yet again the UK journalist over-egg the report. I especially liked this comment:

It is noteworthy,
for example, that the second largest project in the latest National
Audit Office Major Projects Report is the £12 billion Future Strategic
Tanker Aircraft, the main purpose of which is to support extra-
European deployments. This contract includes industry-supplied
in-service support, and is therefore not directly comparable to
other large procurement projects, such as the £5 billion carrier
programme and the £18 billion Typhoon aircraft programme. But
it is still a remarkable cost for fourteen support aircraft.

MRTT is obviously a prime-candidate for dodo-extinction for Dr Fox.

Other savings the UK could make:

Seven-dwarves (E3-D) - buy five of whatever the US gets as replacements, and stick a pair of SAMPSONS in Yorkshire/Lancashire as make-weights*.
C2 - Type-45 hybrids with more focus on ASuW. Buy only twelve, and drop the dock-well requirement.
C1 - Type-45+. Reduce flight deck space to compensate for Towed-Array. FFBNW two Wildcats.
C3 - Build lots; replace constabulary/hydrographic/MCM/training vessels with single class.
RFA - Korean built, BAe equipped.
SkyNet - focus on UK-only requirements (and not sit one over NATO-sphere).
Bristish Forces in Germany - dead.
Future RAN submarine - consider joint-venture as partial MUFC replacement.

As for the Paras; it's SFSG by another name. 3-Para should retain jump-ability, but should work closely with 3 Cmdo on air-borne roles.

No doubt the next defence review will address these issues. Just my tuppence worth.

* Assumes Portsmouth fixed site remains.

 

[StevoJH]

MRTT is obviously a prime-candidate for dodo-extinction for Dr Fox.

Kill the the consortium and take the birds into RAF service.

Other savings the UK could make:

Seven-dwarves (E3-D) - buy five of whatever the US gets as replacements, and stick a pair of SAMPSONS in Yorkshire/Lancashire as make-weights*.

Purchase Wedgetail.

C2 - Type-45 hybrids with more focus on ASuW. Buy only twelve, and drop the dock-well requirement.
C1 - Type-45+. Reduce flight deck space to compensate for Towed-Array. FFBNW two Wildcats.

Merge them into a single class and build 18 of them.

C3 - Build lots; replace constabulary/hydrographic/MCM/training vessels with single class.

Two classes required, as some of the ships you list are almost brand new. Only the Hunt's need to be replaced at this stage.

RFA - Korean built, BAe equipped.

If UK capacity is available, build in the UK, additional cost is offset by additional tax revenue.

SkyNet - focus on UK-only requirements (and not sit one over NATO-sphere).

?

Bristish Forces in Germany - dead.

Return 1st Armoured to the UK and maintain it as the UK's sole heavy force. Break up 3 Mechanised Division and rerole its battalions as light or motorised infantry to give the British army a more expeditionary structure.

Future RAN submarine - consider joint-venture as partial MUFC replacement.

MUFC?

As for the Paras; it's SFSG by another name. 3-Para should retain jump-ability, but should work closely with 3 Cmdo on air-borne roles.

16th Air Assault Brigade.

* Assumes Portsmouth fixed site remains.

That installation is going aboard the last of the T45's from memory.

 

[swerve]

MRTT is obviously a prime-candidate for dodo-extinction for Dr Fox.

Other savings the UK could make:

Seven-dwarves (E3-D) - buy five of whatever the US gets as replacements, and stick a pair of SAMPSONS in Yorkshire/Lancashire as make-weights*.
C2 - Type-45 hybrids with more focus on ASuW. Buy only twelve, and drop the dock-well requirement.
C1 - Type-45+. Reduce flight deck space to compensate for Towed-Array. FFBNW two Wildcats.
C3 - Build lots; replace constabulary/hydrographic/MCM/training vessels with single class.
Bristish Forces in Germany - dead.

Kill the the consortium and take the birds into RAF service.

Purchase Wedgetail.

Merge them into a single class and build 18 of them.

Return 1st Armoured to the UK

Some comments -

MRTT cost is lifetime, not capital cost. While PFI is usually more expensive in the long term (& public spending is now suffering from past PFI deals), it saves money early in its lifetime. MRTT is early in its lifetime, & killing the consortium would cost more in the short term - and short-term is where the financing problem is.

There are no short-term savings to be made on E-3 except postponing upgrades or grounding part of the fleet. Replacing it with a new type would incur a large capital cost, & therefore a large short-term increase in spending.

Sampson does not have the range to be a land-based substitute: it's the shorter-range part of a two-tier shipboard radar combination.

The proposed C1/C2 are based on a smaller & cheaper (or designed to be) hull than Type 45, so using Type 45 as the basis would not save money. Development costs for the hull are not great enough to make up the difference in cost. 'Only 12' C2 is more than planned, so would not be a saving. C1 & C2 will not start entering service for another decade, so have very little effect on short-term spending.

Bringing the forces in Germany back would save money in the long term, but because the MoD has sold off land & bases in the UK as forces have been reduced, we don't have anywhere to withdraw them to. Building new accommodation for them, & moving them back, would incur a large short-term cost.

The current MCMV/OPV etc fleet is up & running, & not in urgent need of replacement. That's why C3 has been postponed: to save money. Building new C3s earlier than needed would cost money, not save it.

In general, your proposals would increase spending initially. Although some would save money eventually (& I agree that's a good idea), our current problem is getting through the next few years of paying back the vast debts incurred by Brown. We don't have the money to invest now for long-term savings. That'll have to wait a while, unfortunately.

 

[kev 99]

Find some stuff to flog, split the proceeds with the majority to paying off debts, small amount to MOD to shore up the budget.

I did read somewhere about a potential sale of one particular MOD owned asset (DAB frequencies?) in the pipeline, this was about six of months ago and all has gone quite since though.