This is more or less the actual (& long-standing) plan, in which at any one time one carrier will be operational as a carrier, with less than a full air wing, & the second carrier either in reserve, refit, or training, or in service as an LPH. It's how the two current CVS work, in a cycle with Ocean.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Yes but that's the point, to maintain 1 carrier and 1 LPH using only the CVFs they'd need 3, which is why there is still a standing naval requirement for 2 LPHs in the 2025 timescale
With finances in such a grim state and a live war in Afghanistan, with the taking Army heavy causalites. I think the Navy is in a very vunerable position., particularly as there is this sea blindness in the UK at present (which the RN has to turn around).
I think if we get 80 F35s ie a direct replacement for the current Harrier force , we will have got off lightly. I agree about the short term finance issue but, the Navy has to anticipate issue in the future, some of the current problems could have been predicted. F35 & Typhoon! FSC is looking that way either keep building T45 with ASuW capability at a rate of 4-6/decade and build something really small 1500t as a patrol class which can also act as an outer screen or just re order T23s and dump the Sea Wolf & 4.5" install 1 x 57/76mm gun and 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for ESSM buy off the shelf.
MUFC is another one are we going to build another Upholder class, something the Navy doesn't really want and will just dump as soon as the next cuts come? We haven't built a conventional boat in almost 20 years it will be a learning experience and expensive, if we are going to have SSK just buy off the shelf U212a's or whatever development is in production when we need. $250m each the product of continuous development over the last 35 years. There is so little in the public domain on subs but I wonder is these are actually better than Astutes, and certianly not 6 times better!
If we have to replace the SSBN why not just have 8 missiles (we only have 160 warhead say 4/missile and the rest as a few free fall bombs/stand off missiles or just have 128 warheads) and why not develop the boat jointly with the Indian or sell the design...this would make us very popular and this is one of the biggest export markets.....actually on that note couldn't we sell them the CV design and the Astute design
I think if we get 80 F35s ie a direct replacement for the current Harrier force , we will have got off lightly. I agree about the short term finance issue but, the Navy has to anticipate issue in the future, some of the current problems could have been predicted. F35 & Typhoon! FSC is looking that way either keep building T45 with ASuW capability at a rate of 4-6/decade and build something really small 1500t as a patrol class which can also act as an outer screen or just re order T23s and dump the Sea Wolf & 4.5" install 1 x 57/76mm gun and 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for ESSM buy off the shelf.
MUFC is another one are we going to build another Upholder class, something the Navy doesn't really want and will just dump as soon as the next cuts come? We haven't built a conventional boat in almost 20 years it will be a learning experience and expensive, if we are going to have SSK just buy off the shelf U212a's or whatever development is in production when we need. $250m each the product of continuous development over the last 35 years. There is so little in the public domain on subs but I wonder is these are actually better than Astutes, and certianly not 6 times better!
If we have to replace the SSBN why not just have 8 missiles (we only have 160 warhead say 4/missile and the rest as a few free fall bombs/stand off missiles or just have 128 warheads) and why not develop the boat jointly with the Indian or sell the design...this would make us very popular and this is one of the biggest export markets.....actually on that note couldn't we sell them the CV design and the Astute design
But here again if the Albion/Bulwark has been built to a flexible design and carried there own Helicopters there would be no need for LPH. They may then have attracted export interest as the Spain/French are now achieving. This is where the RN needs to get smart stop ordering things that get cancelled and build longer production runs. We operates effectively 2 class T42/T23 (ok we also have T22 but they offer little over T23s). Now we could end up with small batches of 6-8 of T45, C1, C2 & C3
What?
ALBION class originally had hangar facilities, the design had a whole deck level removed to save cash (minesterial decision not navy). The class were affected by protracted build process and problems from lack of skilled workers at Barrow whilst running Albion and Astute builds aswell as the contract having crap decisions made by abbeywood at the time. I spent many a day pissed off standing by her and even more frustrated by the kit fitted to her, but she is a good platform and good for the RN, Im happy to defend this i know what her capabilities are and if no one buys her design so!
spanish Galcia is a good design via holland and JC1 is good for them, does that mean we should have waited to buy them when Fearless was pulled early after her fire in the gulf and was knackered ? NO
As for 23 they are good platforms,cost spread over 16 built,so costs came down, they are economical to run and have good weapons capability and are being upgraded and also have very low sound radiation for ASW ops, but t22 is a cracking platform which the four left have EW capabilities which other units dont have. Having been at sea in not so benign electromagnetic enviroments they are battle winners from the information they hoover up, this alone has to be thought about.
Not having a go, happy to help with any info you require.
No its good feedback, I was actually thinking of the Spanish exports to Australia (isn't Canada in the market aswell), I wasn't suggesting we should have waited or brought a Spansih design more if the LPD has been designed with a helicopter deck they would have been in the running for the Australian orders. OK Politicans cut out the hanger deck but they probably wouldn't have been able to if the RN had not ordered the Ocean.
But my real point is we need to make production runs longer then the unit price will reduce this can be greatly assisted by exports. The T22 are fine ships, but they didn't meet the requirement they were to expensive and where never going to replace the Leanders in any numbers. The T23 are excellent seaboats I can't see the point in FSC, if we are going to go for a conventional single hull then lets just update the T23 and run off another 18-20 with update modular armament where appropriate. I liken the T22 to the Blake Swan Sloops great ships but far to expensive and the Rivers and Loch could be knocked out in months.
My issue is we seem to be punching significantly below our weight
T45 is an expensive ship, & changing that would turn it into something different. T23 is a good platform & was cheap to build, but no longer has any export prospects as a new ship, or growth potential, & by incorporating lessons learned from T45 & other technological developments, we could build something better, which might sell abroad, & which would be cheaper to run. Something smaller than T45 but with the same fuel efficiency & manning levels in relation to size would be easier to find crews for & cheaper to run than a T23.
C1 & C2 won't be penny packet ships: if I understand it right, the plan is to build one platform, & for C1 & C2 to be distinguished chiefly by equipment fit. By incorporating a degree of modularity in the design, it can be made more attractive for export customers. The single platform gives it a production run equivalent to T23, & any exports should further reduce costs.
C3 is a separate category. It shouldn't be lumped in with the frigates & destroyers. It's to replace the survey ships, OPVs, & MCMVs.
Add up the number of classes being replaced, & the number being introduced (effectively 3 or 3.5, as C1 & C2 are variants of one class) & you realise that it's a great reduction in the number of classes.
FluffyThoughts
Member
Sorry, but why are the Type 45 an expensive choice for C1 & C2. Strip-out the development costs and PAAMS and you should have an ASW/AsuW platform for about £500 million-a-pop surely?
Buying C3s early could release the C2s early. Why use expensive ships to perform constabulary jobs in the Carribean..?
As for the Bristish Army (Germany) can't we find MoD land to house them. I hear that Cottesmore and Kinloss are to become available soon.
Buying C3s early could release the C2s early. Why use expensive ships to perform constabulary jobs in the Carribean..?
As for the Bristish Army (Germany) can't we find MoD land to house them. I hear that Cottesmore and Kinloss are to become available soon.
Spot of good news, more orders confirmed for QE Class equipment. Quote as follows:
"This news should reassure those who doubt this government's commitment to the programme," said Quentin Davies, the UK defence equipment minister.
BBC News - Aircraft carrier contracts named
We are getting to the stage where cancelling both would be too expensive. Worst case scenario post election the new Government tries to flog one off, however I doubt it though, the UK doesn't want to end up like the French and only have a carrier strike platform available for half the year (unless they do a deal and flip-flop a joint carrier strike platform).
Also read the RAF are about to or have already signed the contract for three Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint Intelligence gathering aircraft, immediately available from US stocks. They will be upgraded with UK systems by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems. One assumes they will be getting 3 of the 2005 upgraded versions, which (according to wiki) received significant airframe, navigational and power-plant upgrades which included re-engining from the Pratt & Whitney TF-33 to the CFM International CFM-56 (F-108) engines and upgraded flight deck instrumentation and navigational systems including a digital "glass cockpit" configuration.
"This news should reassure those who doubt this government's commitment to the programme," said Quentin Davies, the UK defence equipment minister.
BBC News - Aircraft carrier contracts named
We are getting to the stage where cancelling both would be too expensive. Worst case scenario post election the new Government tries to flog one off, however I doubt it though, the UK doesn't want to end up like the French and only have a carrier strike platform available for half the year (unless they do a deal and flip-flop a joint carrier strike platform).
Also read the RAF are about to or have already signed the contract for three Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint Intelligence gathering aircraft, immediately available from US stocks. They will be upgraded with UK systems by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems. One assumes they will be getting 3 of the 2005 upgraded versions, which (according to wiki) received significant airframe, navigational and power-plant upgrades which included re-engining from the Pratt & Whitney TF-33 to the CFM International CFM-56 (F-108) engines and upgraded flight deck instrumentation and navigational systems including a digital "glass cockpit" configuration.
Last edited:
windscorpion
New Member
Are they to be available immediately? I thought they were stored KC-135Rs that needed to be fitted out as Rivet Joints. Might have just been a bad source though.
According to the MOD the majority of equipment for the CVF is now ordered.
According to the MOD the majority of equipment for the CVF is now ordered.
1) That's what every account I have read says.
2) £1.5 billion of contracts signed so far. £300 million this week.
According to reports the only upgrades required will relate to coms fit undertaken by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems. So based on that snippet of info they must be buying upgraded 2005 versions. No other contractor was mentioned in the report. I have lost the source though and will have to dig around.
Then again knowing the MOD, they will probably end up buying empty shells and expect the crews to use the MK1 eyeball, ear trumpet, and note pad to report any intelligence back to GCHQ or Northwood
What reports are these?
Official US statement about KC-135R -
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/UK_08-89.pdf
There is part of me which thinks something is going to go wrong; economic crisis, election or RAF attack. However we seem to be so far advance with them or at least by an election in June, and unlike many defence projects the cost/employment argument is much more balanced, that I am begining to think it would be just suck madness to cancel them now that no one is going to do it.
I can live with one being used as a helicopter carrier as it will be available in a crisis and refits. I would rather have had 3 x 50,000t but they look great ships......I will be so happy/relieved when they are both launched. Surely these must be the greatest increase in British Naval power since WW2?
Mind I had forgotten the threat of sale, let hope not
Last edited:
I agree, some hard negotiation with the suppliers and a serious look at what we can do to take out unnecessary cost in the production process (stop shipping section around the coast and build in one yard etc) I think the cost could come down further. Rather than trying to build all in one run and having a long expensive drought when capability is lost , we should just focus on a planned number over a 30 year lifecycle, ie 6 a decade, this is sustainable. With each class of 6 being modified versions of what went before.Sorry, but why are the Type 45 an expensive choice for C1 & C2. Strip-out the development costs and PAAMS and you should have an ASW/AsuW platform for about £500 million-a-pop surely?
Buying C3s early could release the C2s early. Why use expensive ships to perform constabulary jobs in the Carribean..?
As for the Bristish Army (Germany) can't we find MoD land to house them. I hear that Cottesmore and Kinloss are to become available soon.
Then for numbers just buy and off the shelf version of the VT OPV built for Oman, this would be much cheaper and be a powerful sales tool for the design.
It's an expensive choice because they're expensive ships to build, even without PAAMS.
The big development cost on Type 45 was PAAMS & its integration with the ship, not the hull & propulsion. C1 & C2 would require modification of a T45 hull, & integrating different systems. That means development cost. The development cost of doing that with a Type 45 hull might be less than designing new, but the difference is unlikely to be anywhere enough to make up for the higher cost of building T45s, rather than smaller & cheaper C1/C2s.
IIRC the plan is for C1 & C2 to be less than £500 million, especially C2. They'll be getting a lot of the same kit as the upgraded T23s, & stuff will be recycled from T22s & T23s (after refurbishment, no doubt) as they retire.
What do you mean, release the C2s?
I agree that some smaller, cheaper ships could do constabulary roles & spare the frigates, but most of the tasks envisaged for C3 are already being done by smaller, cheaper ships than frigates, & it now seems it's preferred to run them on. Building enough C3 to cover the West Indies station, then stopping for a decade or however long until more are needed for the other tasks, might not save anything.
I guess, unless the C1 is significantly cheaper than £500m/T45 run on production cost it is a consideration to just develop the T45. BTW I have just read something saying Saudi Arabia might order 2 T45 has anyone else seen anthing one this?
Re the C3 I think there is a traditionally different RN view to OPV/Patrol vessels that there should be very lightly armed, wereas other Navies have given them some more powerful weapons, whether these are actually anymore use is questional. (compare the A69 v the old Island class), I broadly agree with the RN view, I would go with a Khareef Class with just a single 76/57mm gun and Helicopter maybe space for but not fitted with a sonar? I don't see the value in the C2 this could be done by the Khareef type?
I have thought for some time there is scope for a small (but hi tech) fleet picket/outter screening ship. The principle role would be the destruction of SSM and their platforms. Something like a 1500/1800t ship 32kt+ 2 x 57/76mm guns 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for ESSM and RAM (& harpoon if in coastal waters), a helicopter deck but no hanger. A secondary role such a ship could mix it with FAC in narrow waters like the Gulf and of course help out in patrol work. It would really be like a massive CIWS (well out screen one) which if hit would be smaller loss than a major unit (the RN actually deployed the T22 like this with the carriers in the Falklands). The problem with the T42 was they were far to expensive to be screening escorts risking getting sunk, but not powerful enough to be complex area defence fleet escorts.
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
It's a very old rumour, nothing came of it and I very much doubt if the Saudis are looking to buy now.
Cheers it did seem to good to be true!