The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASFC]

Also has anyone seen anything on RFA? Since they seem to have abandoned MARS as a joint programme and moved to working separate projects I have not seen anything.

Nope, neither have I.

I could see a few of the RFAs not being replaced 1:1. Other areas they could consider saving money would be selling: Ocean, couple of Bays, one Invincible, 2-3 of the last T23 and as have been mentioned cut the F35s to 50-60 with all going to the RN.

Ocean...doubt it-if the Carriers don't get built they will probably hold on to it.
Bays...nope. This Defence Green paper suggests they want more strategic lift (Support Ships Like Bays, Hercs etc) not less. Why would they then sell them?

T23..not sure

F-35 up in the air as usual. I notice Bob Ainsworth wouldn't be drawn on them.

And here is the Defence Green Paper for those of you who are interested: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/790C77EC-550B-4AE8-B227-14DA412FC9BA/0/defence_green_paper_cm7794.pdf

 

[matthew22081991]

Nope, neither have I.



Ocean...doubt it-if the Carriers don't get built they will probably hold on to it.
Bays...nope. This Defence Green paper suggests they want more strategic lift (Support Ships Like Bays, Hercs etc) not less. Why would they then sell them?

T23..not sure

F-35 up in the air as usual. I notice Bob Ainsworth wouldn't be drawn on them.

And here is the Defence Green Paper for those of you who are interested: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/790C77EC-550B-4AE8-B227-14DA412FC9BA/0/defence_green_paper_cm7794.pdf

Yes I saw that Green Paper and Bob Ainsworth who I have normally respected for being honest (too honest for the rest of his party's liking, remember his comments on election date! HA!) and for genuinly being worried about the military, seems to be be quiet about F35s. And with all this stuff going on with the project in the US the F35 is looking far more threatened (the US, of course, will actually stand up to the companies that build their equipment, unlike HM Government which just gives in to the slightest pressure then wonders why they are out of money).

Also thought this might be of interest: BBC News - UK armed forces 'need coalitions' for future conflicts

Merging the RAF came up no sooner than had we talked about it here, which I find mildy amusing (we're being watched!!!).

To be honest, the RAF merger won't happen, it's political suicide.

Still, I think the carriers are safe, the air arm worries me. People ask my dad all the time (he works for Serco so is involved a tiny bit in building them, and is ex-RN) and he thinks they will just because work has already started. I can't see the Tories annoying the Scots by cancelling them, either.

Ahh well, off topic, but it's the whole coalitions thing that worries me, a country that (thinks) it can rely on allies will let them do the expensive stuff... Like carriers.

So I think it is the FAA that should be worried right about now.

 

[Troothsayer]

Liam Fox in the green paper debate today said

'We must also remember we are a maritime nation dependent on sea lanes for 92% of our trade. A time when the threat of disruption is increasing is no time for Britain to become seablind'

Also, general agreement on all sides that defence must not begin on the goal line.

I think the carriers are safe with all parties, things are looking bleak for the RAF however

 

[matthew22081991]

Liam Fox in the green paper debate today said

'We must also remember we are a maritime nation dependent on sea lanes for 92% of our trade. A time when the threat of disruption is increasing is no time for Britain to become seablind'

Also, general agreement on all sides that defence must not begin on the goal line.

I think the carriers are safe with all parties, things are looking bleak for the RAF however

Well I think that is the lesser of all evils. The Royal Navy, we need. The Army, we need. The RAF, we could actually survive without. It would be better to have an RAF, but we could survive without one. Once again I believe we will still have an RAF this time next year, but it's size had better be more suited to it's role, and it had better reajust to supporting the other two services instead of having all these Eurofighters. More C130s and Chinooks, less Eurofighters.

That way it's hopefully all rosy for the carriers.

 

[Troothsayer]

So I think it is the FAA that should be worried right about now.

It was never intended to have 2 carriers roaming the seas with 36 F35 on each. We are only expected to get 38 F35 by 2018 with the majority not procured until after 2025 anyway.

A dozen F35 in an airwing flying off 1 carrier is still a light years leap in comparison with the current hotch potch of a situation.

I'm sure the RN top brass just want the carriers afloat - far easier to buy planes in the future than plan & build a carrier.

 

[Hambo]

It seems to me that it has reached a point when our Poliicians are saying that whilst we stay committed in Afghanistan we cant afford all three services and will be forced to cut overall capability to pay for that conflict.

Im sorry to say but I think that is a price too high. In one sense too many servicemen have paid the ultimate price to walk away but if we go on losing 2 brave souls a week then how long can it go on? I dont think you can ever win there and I also think it does nothing to prevent attacks in the UK. We have porous borders and a hamstrung legal system that allows terrorist sympathisers to live in the UK, Al Quaeda doesnt need Afghanistan any more, it has other haunts

If the current idea of paying the Taleban doesnt work then we should walk away. Whats better, ten more years in Afghanistan but no carriers or aircraft to fly off them, a reduced RAF and a purely insurgent based military?

Pull out of Afghanistan and spend the next decade rebuilding the military, or adapt a type of no fly zone for Afghanistan and use airpower if there are any signs of training camps or Al Queda safe havens.

Onto the current Green paper, I think the Typhoon is a flexible and current platform that will serve the UK well with scope for cutting edge developments in radar, missiles and engines, its good for UK PLC.

The F35 will be an awesome platform, but if you are looking at savings , is a £100m stealth aircraft overkill when Typhoon can deal with most current and short term future threats. If we need naval airpower, which we do, and the "cooperation" with France is a serious proposal then would the Rafael be such a bad idea for the RN. Have we got the source code to F35? Is the change of project leader going to increase the cost?

If we accept that the QE and POW may only see one 12-15 jet squadron of F35 for much of its service, would we get a step up from the harrier, and a viable FAA if we loaned/ leased./purchased a small buy from the french and operated a joint force of Rafael. Buy 15, lease 15, crossdeck with the french and joint exercises? Would adding cats and wires cost the earth? would it allow joint AEW assets, a leased E2 and Sea King combo?

If we have to think the unthinkable and make tough choices, should we perhaps swallow our pride and deal with the french no matter how alien it seems.

I think its too late to walk away from F35B but the Defence Secretary didnt seem to overly commit to it, maybe its just cost bargaining with Lockheed Martin,who knows.

 

[1805]

Nope, neither have I.



Ocean...doubt it-if the Carriers don't get built they will probably hold on to it.
Bays...nope. This Defence Green paper suggests they want more strategic lift (Support Ships Like Bays, Hercs etc) not less. Why would they then sell them?

T23..not sure

F-35 up in the air as usual. I notice Bob Ainsworth wouldn't be drawn on them.

And here is the Defence Green Paper for those of you who are interested: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/790C77EC-550B-4AE8-B227-14DA412FC9BA/0/defence_green_paper_cm7794.pdf

Thanks for including this link. I actually think they will have to buy some F35s and the minimum for the first batch can't be less than c24? so I think this is positive news. Also I think the BBC articale talking of a 10-15% cut in real terms over 5-6 years is actually not as bad as it could be, if off course this is the case.

After all the current order for F35 is 138? so there is a good possibility of getting far more than 24 with more later after 2025.

 

[1805]

Liam Fox in the green paper debate today said

'We must also remember we are a maritime nation dependent on sea lanes for 92% of our trade. A time when the threat of disruption is increasing is no time for Britain to become seablind'

Also, general agreement on all sides that defence must not begin on the goal line.

I think the carriers are safe with all parties, things are looking bleak for the RAF however

It is very good news as they are likely to be in power. I must say the high labour content in the carriers and the fact they are largely being built in Scotland do make it difficult to be cancelled. Aslo those picture posted a few weeks would indicate by May/June quite a bit will have been completed. An incoming Government will have other priorities, new finance bill etc, will then have to produce a white paper, every month count!

 

[1805]

It seems to me that it has reached a point when our Poliicians are saying that whilst we stay committed in Afghanistan we cant afford all three services and will be forced to cut overall capability to pay for that conflict.

Im sorry to say but I think that is a price too high. In one sense too many servicemen have paid the ultimate price to walk away but if we go on losing 2 brave souls a week then how long can it go on? I dont think you can ever win there and I also think it does nothing to prevent attacks in the UK. We have porous borders and a hamstrung legal system that allows terrorist sympathisers to live in the UK, Al Quaeda doesnt need Afghanistan any more, it has other haunts

If the current idea of paying the Taleban doesnt work then we should walk away. Whats better, ten more years in Afghanistan but no carriers or aircraft to fly off them, a reduced RAF and a purely insurgent based military?

Pull out of Afghanistan and spend the next decade rebuilding the military, or adapt a type of no fly zone for Afghanistan and use airpower if there are any signs of training camps or Al Queda safe havens.

Onto the current Green paper, I think the Typhoon is a flexible and current platform that will serve the UK well with scope for cutting edge developments in radar, missiles and engines, its good for UK PLC.

The F35 will be an awesome platform, but if you are looking at savings , is a £100m stealth aircraft overkill when Typhoon can deal with most current and short term future threats. If we need naval airpower, which we do, and the "cooperation" with France is a serious proposal then would the Rafael be such a bad idea for the RN. Have we got the source code to F35? Is the change of project leader going to increase the cost?

If we accept that the QE and POW may only see one 12-15 jet squadron of F35 for much of its service, would we get a step up from the harrier, and a viable FAA if we loaned/ leased./purchased a small buy from the french and operated a joint force of Rafael. Buy 15, lease 15, crossdeck with the french and joint exercises? Would adding cats and wires cost the earth? would it allow joint AEW assets, a leased E2 and Sea King combo?

If we have to think the unthinkable and make tough choices, should we perhaps swallow our pride and deal with the french no matter how alien it seems.

I think its too late to walk away from F35B but the Defence Secretary didnt seem to overly commit to it, maybe its just cost bargaining with Lockheed Martin,who knows.

I think there are enough savings to be had (some painful) over the next 10 years to ensure we get both carriers with a reasonable number of aircraft eventually.

1, We could reduce to 6 SSN (maybe increase back up to 8 after the SSBN replacements in late 2020s) many try selling 2 Ts to Indian/Brazil/Australia part of a big effort to court indian defence spending, I am sure we could build them a carrier cheaper than that old Russian thing they are refitting at huge expense.

2, Bit far off but will have to start SSBN relacement in late teens? Lets consider jointly building and designing with India or just selling them the design, maybe build the first one for them in UK. Lets get Astute out there as soon as in commission on a sales trip. Also why not just have 8 Missiles in each boat say 4 warheads each 128 in 4 boats we only have 160 warhead the other 32 could be airlaunched missiles/free fall bombs from Tornados...see the RAF could have a use!

3, Sell newest 3 T23 (part of a package witha Bay??) what we are short of is partol ships, speed up cheap C3 not C1/C2, but give is some teeth.

4 RFA, the Leafs, Fort Is and Rovers are all getting very old but do we need 10 support ships (2 are only dry stores so lack flexibility). Build 2 16000t updated Rovers (40% increase over Rovers) as general fuel/dry/armament ships with 2 helicopters now in UK yards (vital for UK jobs and RN image as creating value) and 2 more when we have completes the current building programme c 2020. Delete Argus now training can be done on other RFAs or an Invincible?

5, Sell 2 Bays maybe refit with a permanent hanger as part of the sale? (Canada and South America?) we don't need such a huge expansion of beach landing capability, we very rarely act where there is not a friendly harbour and if we do Albion/Bulwark and 2 Bays must be able to cope. we also have access to 6 excellent Point Class for general rapid transport.

6, Sell Ocean as long as we get both Carriers.

 

[Troothsayer]

No point having Carriers if you randomly sell off the escorts. Similarly, getting rid of Ocean makes no sense since we are committed to 1 strike carrier/1 helo carrier at all times.

 

[1805]

No point having Carriers if you randomly sell off the escorts. Similarly, getting rid of Ocean makes no sense since we are committed to 1 strike carrier/1 helo carrier at all times.

I don't think there are many of the items on that list I would comfortably take, but as someone else put it without the carriers we have a coastal defence force.....so we must take all masure to ensure we never have to go without again. I would take all the measure to ensure we have the carriers if necessary. We do need to build some RFAs, as some idiot wasted a great deal of money on a massive increase in assault capability and forgot to build any support ships when there was headroom in budgets.

Ocean has some vaule sell it now, the Invincibles are doing the job anyway as we have no Harriers and she often only has a handful of helicopters which could be provided by a Waves/Fort IIs. Not idea but not ideal that the Bays/Albions don't have their own helicopters.

 

[Hambo]

I don't think there are many of the items on that list I would comfortably take, but as someone else put it without the carriers we have a coastal defence force.....so we must take all masure to ensure we never have to go without again. I would take all the measure to ensure we have the carriers if necessary. We do need to build some RFAs, as some idiot wasted a great deal of money on a massive increase in assault capability and forgot to build any support ships when there was headroom in budgets.

Ocean has some vaule sell it now, the Invincibles are doing the job anyway as we have no Harriers and she often only has a handful of helicopters which could be provided by a Waves/Fort IIs. Not idea but not ideal that the Bays/Albions don't have their own helicopters.

I cant agree there 1805, selling off the Amphibs wouldnt raise much, they are a valuable assets and very media friendly with use for disaster relief. The savings would be minimal.

As I see it, the RN just needs a bit of smoke and mirrors to the overall cost of the CV airgroup, maybe accept a compromise or greatly reduced airgroup in the short term, defer the costs of the main bulk buy until later, the production line of the F35 will be long. I still think an alternative needs investigating, Rafael as I have mooted or F18, farm out FAA training as part of a small buy/lease package, get us back in the carrier game and hope for an economic upturn. its the uncertainty with F35, it certainly wont cost 40m each as in the original idea, it could be anything from 80-110m each, thats a major hurdle to jump with the scrutiny of civil servants, small minded politicians and joe public, "compromise" with something else just to get the carriers.

The Trident issue is a dificulty, we need a deterrent, but I would also like to see a feasibility study with the french, perhaps cost the M51 missile against the Trident E6, would a "european" solution stop the view that our deterrent is never independent of the USA? Could we design a common missile compartment, could a nuclear warhead on SCALP/STORM SHADOW provide an addition to a cut down SSBN fleet so we could reduce the ships or warhead numbers? Add the future ABM developments of Aster/saampt , could this be a useful HI-LOW mix deterrent?

The other cost saving in the longterm is bringing home 25,000 army personnel from Germany, the money pumped into the German economy must be massive, Germany doesnt pull its weight so bring them home, it must be cheaper and would be domestically popular for UK job creation in the communities that would house them.

We just need to get through the next five years keeping as many escorts and RFA's in the fleet, the RN has already traded ships for the promise of future capability, that has been a risky strategy, the carriers and current numebrs need to be maintained.

 

[1805]

I cant agree there 1805, selling off the Amphibs wouldnt raise much, they are a valuable assets and very media friendly with use for disaster relief. The savings would be minimal.

As I see it, the RN just needs a bit of smoke and mirrors to the overall cost of the CV airgroup, maybe accept a compromise or greatly reduced airgroup in the short term, defer the costs of the main bulk buy until later, the production line of the F35 will be long. I still think an alternative needs investigating, Rafael as I have mooted or F18, farm out FAA training as part of a small buy/lease package, get us back in the carrier game and hope for an economic upturn. its the uncertainty with F35, it certainly wont cost 40m each as in the original idea, it could be anything from 80-110m each, thats a major hurdle to jump with the scrutiny of civil servants, small minded politicians and joe public, "compromise" with something else just to get the carriers.

The Trident issue is a dificulty, we need a deterrent, but I would also like to see a feasibility study with the french, perhaps cost the M51 missile against the Trident E6, would a "european" solution stop the view that our deterrent is never independent of the USA? Could we design a common missile compartment, could a nuclear warhead on SCALP/STORM SHADOW provide an addition to a cut down SSBN fleet so we could reduce the ships or warhead numbers? Add the future ABM developments of Aster/saampt , could this be a useful HI-LOW mix deterrent?

The other cost saving in the longterm is bringing home 25,000 army personnel from Germany, the money pumped into the German economy must be massive, Germany doesnt pull its weight so bring them home, it must be cheaper and would be domestically popular for UK job creation in the communities that would house them.

We just need to get through the next five years keeping as many escorts and RFA's in the fleet, the RN has already traded ships for the promise of future capability, that has been a risky strategy, the carriers and current numebrs need to be maintained.

Agree to an extent, but why did they build effectively 3 times the capability we retook the Falklands with (4 bays 2 Albions vs 2 Fearless/Interpid), and its a case of piorities, it's not just the income from a sale its the reduction of crew/support/maintanence cost. as for Ocean....god knows why they built this ship, it is the only ship of its type in service in any navy. We should have built a replacement of Fearless at that time and followed with 1-2 more in late 90s and left it at that. The Point effectively replaced the Knights and are themselves a huge leap forward. It is this small waste which adds up.

 

[Troothsayer]

Any savings the RN make will be weighed up against loss of capability. What the treasury will need is short term savings.

Bringing 25k soldiers back from Germany will cost more in the short term as we currently have nowhere to put them in the UK.

Similarly, CVF will save so little against a large capability loss it just wont be worth killing it. The only savings to be made from the RN (which cannot suffer further major ship losses without cutting capability) is a large reduction in the carrier air wing and possibly a couple of astutes. The latter causes problems because of the drumbeat needed in Barrow.

 

[ASFC]

Agree to an extent, but why did they build effectively 3 times the capability we retook the Falklands with (4 bays 2 Albions vs 2 Fearless/Interpid), and its a case of piorities, it's not just the income from a sale its the reduction of crew/support/maintanence cost. as for Ocean....god knows why they built this ship, it is the only ship of its type in service in any navy. We should have built a replacement of Fearless at that time and followed with 1-2 more in late 90s and left it at that. The Point effectively replaced the Knights and are themselves a huge leap forward. It is this small waste which adds up.

I think we are missing a point here. In one of the papers today (iirc the Telegraph) it was noted that of the current £35 billion defence budget, roughly 20 is spent buying new equipment, the other 15 on actually running the Armed Forces (not including the Afghan War budget, which comes out of the Treasuries contingency fund).

In other words, we can afford to operate the forces and equipment we have right now, the funding shortfall exists because we can't afford to replace what we have, and the Govt needs to save money across the board, so there is no chance of that shortfall being made up.

So there is no point, in my mind, labelling equipment we already have for arbitary cuts when we own and can afford to operate. We should only cut it if we decide we no longer need that capability-for whatever reason-hence the term 'strategic' defence review and not 'Treasury firesale to the highest bidder we think we will get'.

So to use your example 1805, cutting the amphibious forces would be a mistake. We own them, and we have the manpower to operate them, and we bought enough of them to fit into our own doctrine (to put one Amphib task group to sea, see Toothsayers post). It is something that we can and do contribute to our allies in NATO (the Point class being an example of ships we share/lease out) and if this 'working more with our allies' thing is being pushed, then its something we know we can offer them that we already do and do well, for whatever we might want in return. Plus if for whatever reason the Carriers stall after the election, they are the Navys back up for that left-of field event, say perhaps Argentina rattling the Falklands again (I know its unlikely right now but I can't predict the future, and I don't think anybody reasonably can). I haven't even got on to how flexible these ships are-for example the Bay class do various none amphibious functions in support of Britain and its aims and interests overseas, like logistics for Dependancies in the South Atlantic, or the Largs Bay impending deployment to Haiti.

Finally, the Falklands Task Force included:

2 Fearless Class LPDs
6 Round Table Class LSL
plus Hermes with its amphibous role
plus other 'Ships taken up from Trade'. So Ocean, the Albions and the bay class represent a one ship reduction in actual Amphib numbers since the Falklands, plus we retired a large Carrier with Amphib capabilites. But we bought (or is it leased-anyone know?) some Ro-Ro capability in the Points. I included this just for completeness, if nothing else.

 

[kev 99]

Agree to an extent, but why did they build effectively 3 times the capability we retook the Falklands with (4 bays 2 Albions vs 2 Fearless/Interpid), and its a case of piorities, it's not just the income from a sale its the reduction of crew/support/maintanence cost. as for Ocean....god knows why they built this ship, it is the only ship of its type in service in any navy. We should have built a replacement of Fearless at that time and followed with 1-2 more in late 90s and left it at that. The Point effectively replaced the Knights and are themselves a huge leap forward. It is this small waste which adds up.

What on earth are you talking about? Replaced 3 times the capability of the Falklands? 4 Bays and 2 Ablions replaced 2 Fearless class and 6 Round table class. Ocean was a replacement for the Commando carriers that were retired without replacement by John Nott. Fearless was lead ship of her class, same as Intrepid and a 1960s design, we certainly should not have bought one instead of Ocean.

The points are ro-ro ferrys, they certainly are not replacements for a class of assault ship, they were bought for providing additional sea lift capability over and above the actual amphibious ships when required, and when not required to be out in the commercial world paying for themselves.

Selling off the Bays is an awful idea, the RN love them and all the other navies around the world buying similar designs do too, in peace time they are one of the most useful ships the MOD possess.

The other cost saving in the longterm is bringing home 25,000 army personnel from Germany, the money pumped into the German economy must be massive, Germany doesnt pull its weight so bring them home, it must be cheaper and would be domestically popular for UK job creation in the communities that would house them.

Bringing the German based personnel home would require massive investment in bases and infrastructure, we sold off everything that wasn't needed after the reduction in the armed forces at the end of the cold war so now we don't have the required basing for them.

 

[windscorpion]

So lets think the unthinkable in these difficult times.

Merger of Armed Forces 'should be debated' - Telegraph

Merging all 3 services into 1, what do you think about that then?

 

[Troothsayer]

Ask the canadians just how succesful that idea was.

 

[swerve]

Agree to an extent, but why did they build effectively 3 times the capability we retook the Falklands with (4 bays 2 Albions vs 2 Fearless/Interpid), and its a case of piorities, it's not just the income from a sale its the reduction of crew/support/maintanence cost. as for Ocean....god knows why they built this ship, it is the only ship of its type in service in any navy. We should have built a replacement of Fearless at that time and followed with 1-2 more in late 90s and left it at that. The Point effectively replaced the Knights and are themselves a huge leap forward. It is this small waste which adds up.

1) Two LPDs (12000 tons each) & six LSLs (5 @ 6000 tons, 1 @ 9000) replaced by two LPDs (18500 tons each) & 4 LSDs (16000 tons each). Total tonnage from 63000 to 101000. A significant increase, but not a tripling.

2) Fearless & Intrepid were late 1950s designs, very manpower & maintenance intensive. Their combined crews were more than those of Albion, Bulwark & Ocean combined, for less than half the tonnage.

3) The Bays have about the same crew as the Sirs - i.e. an overall reduction in manpower. They're cheap to run. As well as doing their main role, they've relieved pressure on other, more expensive to run, classes. The navy likes them - a lot. Damned useful.

4) Ocean was very cheap to build, & is cheap to run. If we didn't have her, we'd either be running on Invincible at higher cost (over twice the crew, thirstier & higher-maintenance engines, etc.), or not doing things. Highly valued by the navy, & regarded as one of its best buys. Excellent value for money.

5) The Points don't replace the Sirs, they replace charters & leases of commercial ships, e.g. RFA Sea Crusader & RFA Sea Centurion. The RN is using its full allocation, & the spare capacity is being pretty well used by other government agencies & commercial charters, some of them from foreign armed forces - e.g. France has rented at least one. Two (Longstone & Beachy Head) are currently operating for Finnlines.

You seem to have an idea that the RN should never have moved on from the 1960s & early 1970s, except by upgrading what we had in service back then.

ASFC - the Points are owned & run by a shipping firm set up for the purpose, Foreland Shipping, a consortium of private firms. The purchase was underwritten by the MoD, & Foreland has a contract which guarantees it a certain level of use, in exchange for providing a guaranteed capacity to the MoD, & all the ships on fairly short notice. I don't like the financing & ownership arrangements, but AFAIK having them managed by Foreland is working pretty well. I'd be happy if they were RFA-owned & managed commercially, perhaps by one of the firms involved in Foreland, such as Andrew Weir Shipping.

 

[Troothsayer]

I'd actually like to have a debate about the RN after the SDR in the early part of the next government and what will happen should the new carriers be cancelled (I don't believe they will be btw)

If that decision is made, what would be the point in using Ark Royal & Illustrious as aircraft carriers since the decision would have been taken to get out of the carrier game. Obviously the RN would cease to be a blue water navy (that's probably debateable whether we are at the moment) how would people like to see the fleet for home defence restructured?

I guess the first thing to do would be fully kit out the T45's to their maximum capability and then increase the size of the frigate fleet.