The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

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.

To what end? As a consolation prize? If we're only going to act as part of a coalition in future then why build a Navy that has the same capabilities as those around us? Apart from France, Italy and Spain the rest of Europe's navies are full of Frigates. Then of course we'd be essentially rebuilding the navy that John Knott tried to build but without the threat that it faced, no Red Banner sub fleet means no real need for lots of Frigates. It would be just a case of spending money for the sake of the wounded navies pride, but what they would be left with wouldn't be particularly useful in any real world sense.

If we give up expeditionary capability then the only thing the Navy needs to do is provide ships for chasing pirates around the horn of Africa, drug runners around the Caribbean and of course protecting our own waters, which the SSNs can do.

 

[Troothsayer]

That only applies if we have an EU wide navy which is responsible for EU defence in an EU nation. That doesn't exist at the moment, and none of us know what kind of partnership and alliance with the French is even being put forward.

I'm not against more co-operation with the French either, both countries just need to suck up a bit of pride.

Starting with the UK. Cat enable the carriers, buy a reasonable amount of rafale say enough for an airwing of 12, and scrap the initial purchase of F35B getting the 'C' version after 2025.

Then maybe the UK could build PA2 and the French could fit it out with their systems.

 

[kev 99]

That only applies if we have an EU wide navy which is responsible for EU defence in an EU nation. That doesn't exist at the moment, and none of us know what kind of partnership and alliance with the French is even being put forward.

Okay so we don't act as a EU coalition, say we act as part of a US coalition do you think the USN needs additional Frigates? And if we don't act as a coalition we increase the frigate force for what reason? What can they actually do except protect the UK coastline from submarines and chase druggies and pirates around, what use would they really be in an actual military sense? We would be left with the cold war navy without the cold war.

 

[Hambo]

[



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.[/QUOTE]

That seems typical of the way we do things in the UK, penny pinching , however as a ten year plan Im sure it would be feasible, Fox seemed to say the same in November in an interview

British troops 'could withdraw from Germany' under Tories - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Your point was made by a squaddy about the lack of room in bases in England but surely there is scope for a gradual drawdown, a bit political but we can seem to support 250,000 extra immigrants a year within the framework of existing services, and if Airbases are being closed there must be scope for some new army barracks. There must be duplication in role and function such as admin, massive transport costs etc in Germany equalling waste.

Also could some of those troops be re-roled? eg attach some to the Royal Marines, more infantry, SF support, just a thought, Im no expert. If the head of the army is proposing that future war will be similar to Afghanistan then perhaps its time we mothballed a few more regiments of C2? How many MLRS or heavy artillery will be fired in the next war? There could be reductions in numbers there equalling more infantry boots on the ground.

If the Tories go along the global raiding route then perhaps more amphibs would be a possibilty, and if we bunk up with the french then maybe a common pool of those Mistrals for a combined additional UK/French amphibious command. Again just a thought. Stretched Bays with a helicopter hanger in exchange for one or two future escort numbers?

 

[ASFC]

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.

...snipped...

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.

Thanks Swerve, plus you seemed to cover what I missed i.e the modern amphibs reduced manning.

I don't think we should scrap the Carriers. Who else in Europe is going to build two such ships outside us and the French*? The rest of Europe however would do very well at providing Escorts...if we went down that road after the new SDR.

(No disrespect intended to Italy and Spain, but i'm talking big carriers, not CVLs....)

 

[1805]

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.

Yes if you add in Ocean at 20,000 tons and although I agree the Points are just for logistics, in fairness much of the role of the LSLs was to support the BOAR. And the Bays are quite a stretch in both role and size from the old LSL with their docks

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.

I know it must seem that way but in reality I do think we should build and grow capability but it was a huge increase in capability when some of the replenishment ships were looking very old. Would a more balanced approach not have been 3 Albions (maybe even a bit bigger c 25,000t) with a simple flight deck level hanger for 2-4 Merlins have done the job as we, and been more flexible ie the Ocean can only be in one place at once. Leaving money for 4 x 16,000t Rover/Fort I replacements. BTW why did they get ride of one of the LSL when is was new built replacement for the Falklands loss?

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.

I do like the Points and the ability to rent out model, would be nice if they were RFA but this might prevent civil use? A great capacity 120,000 of very fast logistics

 

[1805]

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.

LPH is a dated concept even when Ocean was built the USN no longer uses and everyone else is moving to dock and helicopter ships such as Mistral. There is the argument that Ocean was built to provide helicopters for Alibions/Bays but makes no sense as it was built first. More sense to build hangers on them, I understand a full length hanger was vetoed as to expensive, but something smaller could have been managed. Fearless/Intepid where both over 30 years old at the time and obviously due for replacement, a Mistral type ship then would have made more sense and maybe have acheived the export success the French/Spanish are now enjoying

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.



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.

This agrument is alsways put forward. But the budget difficulties we face are also long term and a gradual withdrawal makes sense at some point and will eventually pay off

 

[1805]

That only applies if we have an EU wide navy which is responsible for EU defence in an EU nation. That doesn't exist at the moment, and none of us know what kind of partnership and alliance with the French is even being put forward.

I'm not against more co-operation with the French either, both countries just need to suck up a bit of pride.

Starting with the UK. Cat enable the carriers, buy a reasonable amount of rafale say enough for an airwing of 12, and scrap the initial purchase of F35B getting the 'C' version after 2025.

Then maybe the UK could build PA2 and the French could fit it out with their systems.

This is quite a radical idea but is the sort of thing we should consider. The french are desparate to export the Rafale, and a third carrier would create a lot of jobs in the UK.....who knows could lead to an Indian order. Lets stop doing joint ventures and focus on counter trade deals. I could see a lot of value in buying M51s they would be very keen to trade. Also if we have to drop to 6 SSBN surely 4-6 U212a would be very useful in shallower waters, what would the Germans be prepared to buy in exhange

 

[swerve]

LPH is a dated concept even when Ocean was built the USN no longer uses and everyone else is moving to dock and helicopter ships such as Mistral. ...
...
Yes if you add in Ocean at 20,000 tons and although I agree the Points are just for logistics, in fairness much of the role of the LSLs was to support the BOAR. And the Bays are quite a stretch in both role and size from the old LSL with their docks
...
I know it must seem that way but in reality I do think we should build and grow capability but it was a huge increase in capability when some of the replenishment ships were looking very old. Would a more balanced approach not have been 3 Albions (maybe even a bit bigger c 25,000t) with a simple flight deck level hanger for 2-4 Merlins have done the job as we, and been more flexible ie the Ocean can only be in one place at once. Leaving money for 4 x 16,000t Rover/Fort I replacements. BTW why did they get ride of one of the LSL when is was new built replacement for the Falklands loss?

The USN is now building a new LPH-style assault carrier, with no dock. Outdated concept?

The Bays are a stretch because the last time we did a serious amphibious assault, we discovered the drawbacks of the old LSLs, & the cost of having to take them in to shore. It was realised that the only sensible way to run a landing on a hostile shore was helicopters for infantry & docks & landing craft for heavy stuff. Buying 4 bigger ships was more efficient than replacing the LSLs one for one. Probably cost no more than 6 smaller ships, & is cheaper to run 4 that size than 6 smaller ones.

Yes, Ocean can only be in once place at once, but how many places do we need her or Illustrious/Ark Royal to be in at once? She can work in a rota with them, as another Albion can't. And she cost half as much as Albion, & has half the crew. I dread to think what your stretched LPDs would have cost to build & man.

Fewer, more fuel-efficient ships in the navy = fewer replenishment ships needed. While I deplore the shrinking of the navy, I don't see the sense in building replenishment ships which wouldn't have anything to replenish, because it had been dropped in favour of those replenishment ships.

The 'new' LSL was 20 years old when sold.

 

[kev 99]

LPH is a dated concept even when Ocean was built the USN no longer uses and everyone else is moving to dock and helicopter ships such as Mistral. There is the argument that Ocean was built to provide helicopters for Alibions/Bays but makes no sense as it was built first. More sense to build hangers on them, I understand a full length hanger was vetoed as to expensive, but something smaller could have been managed. Fearless/Intepid where both over 30 years old at the time and obviously due for replacement, a Mistral type ship then would have made more sense and maybe have acheived the export success the French/Spanish are now enjoying

The Albions were supposed to have a hanger deck, it was cut to save money and allegedly most of the savings were lost due to the costs of redesign, blame bean counters for that one. Ocean was built cheap because she was only ever going to built on the cheap, don't build her cheap and she never gets built at all, it's that simple.

The RN obviously don't agree with you about the LPH concept being dated, although there are plans to consolidate all the future Amphibious forces around a pair of large LPDs in the future, whether it comes to anything is anyone's idea.

The USN are going to be building Amphibs without docks again, or at least one in the LHA-6 (America) class.

 

[1805]

The Albions were supposed to have a hanger deck, it was cut to save money and allegedly most of the savings were lost due to the costs of redesign, blame bean counters for that one. Ocean was built cheap because she was only ever going to built on the cheap, don't build her cheap and she never gets built at all, it's that simple.

The RN obviously don't agree with you about the LPH concept being dated, although there are plans to consolidate all the future Amphibious forces around a pair of large LPDs in the future, whether it comes to anything is anyone's idea.

The USN are going to be building Amphibs without docks again, or at least one in the LHA-6 (America) class.

Yes in fairness those are more like small carriers not really LPH in the sense we are talking about....well as 45,000t maybe not evern small!! I still think combining the helicopter carriering capability in the ships that need them is the best way. I would rather all ships of a reasonable size carried or were fitted for 2 big helicopters rather than fit them to all small ships, ie RFA, Logistics etc.

Bays maybe cheap but can't see how putting a hanger on them would make them much more expensive certainly less than building Ocean, and I was only suggesting selling 2.

However my original point is I do like the assault well more the logistic capability, as the likelihood of landing on an opposed beach is very remote. But I would sacrific nearly everything for the carriers for without them you can't do anything truly independently

 

[kev 99]

Yes in fairness those are more like small carriers not really LPH in the sense we are talking about....well as 45,000t maybe not evern small!! I still think combining the helicopter carriering capability in the ships that need them is the best way. I would rather all ships of a reasonable size carried or were fitted for 2 big helicopters rather than fit them to all small ships, ie RFA, Logistics etc.

Bays maybe cheap but can't see how putting a hanger on them would make them much more expensive certainly less than building Ocean, and I was only suggesting selling 2.

However my original point is I do like the assault well more the logistic capability, as the likelihood of landing on an opposed beach is very remote. But I would sacrific nearly everything for the carriers for without them you can't do anything truly independently

All USN LPD/LHA are effectively small carriers, because they can afford to include this capability but they are still primarily amphibious assault ships, just take a look at the available graphics for an LHA-6; most of the aircraft on that deck are helicopters and MV-22s.

Bays should of had a hanger for a one or possibly two helicopters, certainly nothing more its not in their job description to haul around large numbers of helos for a vertical assault they were bought for lugging the heavy stuff around, but they didn't get a hanger and its pointless to keep moaning about it.

The idea of splitting Ocean's capability of up to 18 helicopters between them doesn't seem to make much sense, you'd need to add in an extra deck or build a massive hanger complex; this would almost certainly reduce the cargo carrying capability which was what they were built for in the first place. If a big hanger complex were to be included in any of the RN's amphibious fleet then it should of been the Albions, it didn't happen though and continually revisiting the past to have a moan decisions is pointless.

Then of course if you split the helicopter carrying capability of ocean between other ships then you also lose the capability to carry 800 Royal Marines, unless you want to find space for them on your other ships as well, then we're talking about building altogether very different and much more expensive ships, and the treasury would tell you to get stuffed.

As for your idea of selling 2 Bays, that is daft, they are some of the most useful and cheap to run ships in the Navy inventory and the RN love them, if you offered them the chance of more they would almost certainly bite your hand off.

 

[1805]

All USN LPD/LHA are effectively small carriers, because they can afford to include this capability but they are still primarily amphibious assault ships, just take a look at the available graphics for an LHA-6; most of the aircraft on that deck are helicopters and MV-22s.

I disagree there the concept behind these ships is fundimentailly a different concept to what the RN had in mind with HMS Ocean

Bays should of had a hanger for a one or possibly two helicopters, certainly nothing more its not in their job description to haul around large numbers of helos for a vertical assault they were bought for lugging the heavy stuff around, but they didn't get a hanger and its pointless to keep moaning about it.

Well if you read my posts that was all I was suggesting, "a flight deck level hanger for 2-4 heavy helicopters

The idea of splitting Ocean's capability of up to 18 helicopters between them doesn't seem to make much sense, you'd need to add in an extra deck or build a massive hanger complex; this would almost certainly reduce the cargo carrying capability which was what they were built for in the first place. If a big hanger complex were to be included in any of the RN's amphibious fleet then it should of been the Albions, it didn't happen though and continually revisiting the past to have a moan decisions is pointless. By understand the failures or lost opportunities of the past we can hope not to repeat. This was a key element of 19th Century Prussian Army Millitary system, I think Japanese manufacturing called it "Quality Circles" but I can live with you calling it pointless moaning!

Again what I was suggesting, your the one moaning. My issues is with a poor design concept, instead of Ocean we should have built the replacement form Fearless/Intepid ie Albion, ie 10 years earlier.

Then of course if you split the helicopter carrying capability of ocean between other ships then you also lose the capability to carry 800 Royal Marines,

Please don't comeback in defence of Ocean further, I understand you argument but like the rest of the European Navies and the RAN we don't agree. Yes the RN can make it work, but it cost us any export potential in the LPD market. and created a capability gap between the old LPD retiring and the Albion/Bays

unless you want to find space for them on your other ships as well, then we're talking about building altogether very different and much more expensive ships, and the treasury would tell you to get stuffed.

Are blame the politcans again!! I tell people to come with solutions not problems. If the RN provided sensible solutions they would not face Politicans making bad calls. If we had not built Ocean it would have been logical to put the Helicopters on the Alblions (built in 1995 not 10 years later)

As for your idea of selling 2 Bays, that is daft, they are some of the most useful and cheap to run ships in the Navy inventory and the RN love them, if you offered them the chance of more they would almost certainly bite your hand off.

The Bays may not be the best things to volunteer up as savings but you haven't suggested an alternative, it is easy to be be critical of Politicians but unless you offer alternatives. We are all good at having a pop at the other services so i tried to resist this in my post (and we had just had a long descussion on the RAF)

 

[ASFC]

The Bays may not be the best things to volunteer up as savings but you haven't suggested an alternative, it is easy to be be critical of Politicians but unless you offer alternatives. We are all good at having a pop at the other services so i tried to resist this in my post (and we had just had a long descussion on the RAF)

Yes it is easy, but then it is a two way street-it takes the politicans to offer a big enough budget in the first place to get ships with better capabilites. Remember it was bean counters that cut the Hanger facilities from the Albions not the RN. Similarly it was the Govt of the day that dictated the budget for Ocean, not the RN.

And my first saving would be to make the MoD more efficent, improve the procurement process, and buy equipment that has value for money-for example the proposed purchase of 3 River Joint Aircraft instead p***ing more money into the blackhole that is the Nimrod project.

 

[1805]

Yes it is easy, but then it is a two way street-it takes the politicans to offer a big enough budget in the first place to get ships with better capabilites. Remember it was bean counters that cut the Hanger facilities from the Albions not the RN. Similarly it was the Govt of the day that dictated the budget for Ocean, not the RN.

And my first saving would be to make the MoD more efficent, improve the procurement process, and buy equipment that has value for money-for example the proposed purchase of 3 River Joint Aircraft instead p***ing more money into the blackhole that is the Nimrod project.

I think we have the 3rd or 4th largest defence budget in the world? The fact we get poor value for money is largely down to defence chiefs trying it on and getting stopped/delayed to late. The politicans did not dictate the design of the Ocean. I don't know about the politicans taking out the hanger on the Albions, it does sound a bit strange....it must have been suggested to them by someone and then they might just have said well you have Ocean why do you need hangers?

Procurement is an issue but its the Military who decide on the original specifications...heavily gold plated.

Like the Bays/Albions/Point a massive increase over the previous adequate force. Look at the orginal concept behind MARS £2.5bn?.these people are mad! Tankers and yet more logistics ships to support a brigade....what are the Albion/Bays/Points for? No wonder it got canned. And as for C1, 2 & 3. All these studies cost a fortune and deliver nothing. How much has been spent on FSC already and no ships (well MV Triton!) or firm design.

I don't want to pay a penny in tax more if it is going to be wasted. Lets get ride of a few of these Admirals to "encourage the others" I think pride has made us all sea blind to accepting of poor or just average performance.

This is not some 3rd rate power, the RN is in the top tier and should be at the cutting edge in at least some fields

 

[AegisFC]

Yes in fairness those are more like small carriers not really LPH in the sense we are talking about....well as 45,000t maybe not evern small!! I still think combining the helicopter carriering capability in the ships that need them is the best way. I would rather all ships of a reasonable size carried or were fitted for 2 big helicopters rather than fit them to all small ships, ie RFA, Logistics etc.

No they are not. The hullform is still that of a traditional Amphib not a carrier. They are also not optimized for fixed wing flight ops (no ski jump since that would take away a helicopter spot, and just a few F-35's will be carried on most deployments).

 

[ASFC]

I think we have the 3rd or 4th largest defence budget in the world? The fact we get poor value for money is largely down to defence chiefs trying it on and getting stopped/delayed to late. The politicans did not dictate the design of the Ocean.

No, politicans dictate the budget, its part if having civilian control of the military. How big your budget is dictates in many respects varying parameters on the design of a ship. You talk about value for money or 'bang for your buck', but then ridicule a service for designing something that stays within the budget it is given-make up your mind!

Ocean isn't a bad ship, and has been very useful, but the fact that it was built on the cheap shows in its design life, with 2022 as its supposed Out of Service Date?!

 

[kev 99]

I disagree there the concept behind these ships is fundimentailly a different concept to what the RN had in mind with HMS Ocean

Disagree all you like, you are wrong; they are amphibious assault ships, built to carry lots of marines for vertical assault, having the capability to carry F35bs doesn't change that.

Well if you read my posts that was all I was suggesting, "a flight deck level hanger for 2-4 heavy helicopters

Build a big hanger space and you lose the ability to carry lots of heavy cargo, all you would be doing was reducing the very capability they built for.

By understand the failures or lost opportunities of the past we can hope not to repeat. This was a key element of 19th Century Prussian Army Millitary system, I think Japanese manufacturing called it "Quality Circles" but I can live with you calling it pointless moaning!

It becomes pointless moaning when you continuously emphasis the same points over and over again even when others have pointed out the holes in them.

Please don't comeback in defence of Ocean further, I understand you argument but like the rest of the European Navies and the RAN we don't agree. Yes the RN can make it work, but it cost us any export potential in the LPD market. and created a capability gap between the old LPD retiring and the Albion/Bays

It did not cost us anything in export potential, the RN were offered the chance to get a cheap platform for the job, there was no chance of them getting anything better because there was no budget for it, so they took what was offered. The Cold war was not long over, the MOD budget was in stagnation after a long period of cuts, the RN got what it could get in difficult times, they took the right decision.

Are blame the politcans again!! I tell people to come with solutions not problems. If the RN provided sensible solutions they would not face Politicans making bad calls. If we had not built Ocean it would have been logical to put the Helicopters on the Alblions (built in 1995 not 10 years later)

Yes I blame the politicians, the Major Government was too quick to make savings on the Peace Dividend and lots of procurement screw ups resulted. The present Government has made increases in defence spending that are below the rate of inflation while inflation in defence equipment runs at double the rate, service personnel have also received salary increases at higher than the rate of inflation and all while we were involved in two wars. That is utterly idiotic and its fairly obvious that the MOD equipment budget was going to go down the toilet. Then of course, there is the strategic defence review, very well received by the military until it became apparent that the Government failed to provide the funding for it. The MOD aren't blameless but to say they are totally at fault for the current mess they are in is short sighted in the extreme.

The Bays may not be the best things to volunteer up as savings but you haven't suggested an alternative, it is easy to be be critical of Politicians but unless you offer alternatives. We are all good at having a pop at the other services so i tried to resist this in my post (and we had just had a long descussion on the RAF)

There are other places Government should make savings before looking at the MOD budget, there are billions in savings that can be made in other Government departments that won't have a great deal of effect on frontline services. But of course the MOD will have to suffer like every other department because the politicians in this country are idiots.

 

[1805]

No they are not. The hullform is still that of a traditional Amphib not a carrier. They are also not optimized for fixed wing flight ops (no ski jump since that would take away a helicopter spot, and just a few F-35's will be carried on most deployments).

Agreed I didn't say they are carriers but their role is different from a lot of what was envisaged for Ocean. As per this quote from Global Security site:

The LHA replacement modifies the LHD design to maximize support for the V-22, the CH-53, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with adequate service margins for growth. The biggest change brought about in the Global War on Terror is LHA(R). The aviation specific variant of the LHA(R) has no well deck, a monumental decision that denotes a cultural change. The Marines were seen as bringing the ACE (Aviation Coordination Element) increasingly back to sea.

Also the USMC/USN enjoys funding that no other Navy could match allowing for more specialist ships

 

[1805]

No, politicans dictate the budget, its part if having civilian control of the military. How big your budget is dictates in many respects varying parameters on the design of a ship. You talk about value for money or 'bang for your buck', but then ridicule a service for designing something that stays within the budget it is given-make up your mind!

Ocean isn't a bad ship, and has been very useful, but the fact that it was built on the cheap shows in its design life, with 2022 as its supposed Out of Service Date?!

I wasn't saying Ocean was a bad ship or poor value of money in isolation. I was actually trying to stimulate a debate on where money could be saved (reluctabtly) to reduce any risk to the new CVs which should be a priority.

As we will hopefull soon have massive aircraft carrying capability with the CVs (again probably over sized) its one area we could reduce capacity in, I'm sure she would attract interest if put up for sale. There would be little point in building a replacement. Also had we built a ship like the Mistral or Spanish BPE in the mid 90s we would have been well placed to pitch for the Camberra class.

The budget issue is a red herring the RN must have said it wanted a LPH not a replacement for a LPD ie a replacement for Fearless/Intepid (with helicopters)