The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Hambo]

All fine and well but it is not operational yet and missed its last test? BMD is currently being introduced into service with the Dutch/Spanish. Current UK Fleet defence is with 5 T42 and Harriers armed with Sidewinders, probably given advances in both attack/defence worst than during the Falklands?

1805, Im again unconvined by what you are on about this time.

At this present time does the RN need BMD? In the next ten years are there any likely threats from countries to either the UK or RN assets deployed overseas. Is there a current Ballistic missile that can be used against warships? Are you suggesting that we in the UK will be targetted by nuclear or chemical armed Ballistic missiles? If so would BMD on a handfull of RN vessels be more of a deterent than Trident?

I think you are falling into the trap of what is sexy for the USA is a must for us in the UK with our limited budget. If the RN are only getting 6 T45'S, how many less would they get if theT45 came with a BMD technology that is currently unnecessary, 5? 4? 2? Can so few vesels really provide effective BMD locally on Ops or for the UK? If not how many more ships would we need? and will the tooth fairy pay? I suppose we could have bought AEGIS and a copy of the Burke but I dont imagine we would get more than 6 and in ten years time we would be looking at the sexy US upgrades to Standard that we probably couldnt afford to buy. Added to that we would probably now lack a UK based radar industry and I wouldnt have a clue if advances in SAMSON will or has lead to pull through for radars in other projects that will be built here.

The USN has some 60 Burkes and 22 Ticos. We will have 6 T45, with probably 4 deployed in any UK Operation and one in refit, is the sole other really much use chugging about in the channel offering BMD to London? The same will be the case for the Spanish and Dutch, and they also lack their own nuclear deterrent. True some of our allies have impressive kit, but its not much use if those allies shy away from fighting.

If the UK decides in the next 20 years they need BMD then there is already a route to follow. The SAAMPT version of Aster is supposed to have BMD in the pipeline so a version of a missile we operate and a software upgrade to PAAMS may work...if we need it. At present we cant afford it.

Although you point out the poor state of RN air defence curently, then dont you concede that the T45 under construction now, and the various blocks of the QE being built across the UK wont just solve that ???? At present there isnt going to be a repeat of the Falklands, the islands are defended and the Argentines are in no condition militarily to intervene, the launch of QE and POW will put paid to their ambitions for decades.

The only war I can see on the horizon is as part of a coalition in Iran, and that would be sooner rather than later so would involve weapons systems in the current inventory, although I also think people power in Iran may also make intervention unecessary as the present bunch may get outed in a bloody mess.

 

[1805]

1805, Im again unconvined by what you are on about this time.

At this present time does the RN need BMD? In the next ten years are there any likely threats from countries to either the UK or RN assets deployed overseas. Is there a current Ballistic missile that can be used against warships? Are you suggesting that we in the UK will be targetted by nuclear or chemical armed Ballistic missiles? If so would BMD on a handfull of RN vessels be more of a deterent than Trident?

I think you are falling into the trap of what is sexy for the USA is a must for us in the UK with our limited budget. If the RN are only getting 6 T45'S, how many less would they get if theT45 came with a BMD technology that is currently unnecessary, 5? 4? 2? Can so few vesels really provide effective BMD locally on Ops or for the UK? If not how many more ships would we need? and will the tooth fairy pay? I suppose we could have bought AEGIS and a copy of the Burke but I dont imagine we would get more than 6 and in ten years time we would be looking at the sexy US upgrades to Standard that we probably couldnt afford to buy. Added to that we would probably now lack a UK based radar industry and I wouldnt have a clue if advances in SAMSON will or has lead to pull through for radars in other projects that will be built here.

The USN has some 60 Burkes and 22 Ticos. We will have 6 T45, with probably 4 deployed in any UK Operation and one in refit, is the sole other really much use chugging about in the channel offering BMD to London? The same will be the case for the Spanish and Dutch, and they also lack their own nuclear deterrent. True some of our allies have impressive kit, but its not much use if those allies shy away from fighting.

If the UK decides in the next 20 years they need BMD then there is already a route to follow. The SAAMPT version of Aster is supposed to have BMD in the pipeline so a version of a missile we operate and a software upgrade to PAAMS may work...if we need it. At present we cant afford it.

Although you point out the poor state of RN air defence curently, then dont you concede that the T45 under construction now, and the various blocks of the QE being built across the UK wont just solve that ???? At present there isnt going to be a repeat of the Falklands, the islands are defended and the Argentines are in no condition militarily to intervene, the launch of QE and POW will put paid to their ambitions for decades.

The only war I can see on the horizon is as part of a coalition in Iran, and that would be sooner rather than later so would involve weapons systems in the current inventory, although I also think people power in Iran may also make intervention unecessary as the present bunch may get outed in a bloody mess.

I think you have a point about wanting sexy capability because the USN has it and I agree that is the case with many things. But I think the rational behind BMD is more about theatre type missiles conventional armed, as in the Pariot v Scud in the Gulf War which I guess would be very relevant for Iran, but you could quite easily argue why is this our business to shoot them down and the USN will be there for that. I don't think the BMD capability the USN deploys is to protect their own warships (well maybe carriers?)

I think Samson could have been linked to Standard as the Dutch/Germans have done and I think the Danish plan to (their local developed radar). Good point about expensive US developments, but at least we can guarantee there will be developments, the French have tried area defence before and abandoned and turned to US systems, will France (with defence funding issues as great as ours) be able to invest in Aster 30 and keep it at a top performance over 35+ years with only a few customer, I would guess only c14 ships will be armed with Aster 30, although they will maximise with landbased system.

Yes the new CV (when they have F35s on them) & T45 will put right but I think it is unaccepable that there will be prehaps a 10 year window when we have to just cross our fingers. Agree a Falklands War (ie a crisis against a medium power on our own) is unlikely. But if I was a politican facing a massive deficit and need to raise taxes and cut services, I might be tempted to say well if you can cross your fingers for 10 years why can't you do it all the time? Not my view but not inconcievable? For me sea power is about all the time and you can't go for long periods without capability after all who would have predicted the Faklands War. Didn't we try a 10 year rule in the 1920s?

 

[kev 99]

I would guess only 14 ships will be armed with Aster 30

6 T45
4 horizon
6 Formidable class
2 French 'AAW' Fremm
? All the Italian Fremm (not sure of the figure and can't be bothered to look)
Possible Greek Fremm, not to sure of the status of this and with the economy going through the floor I suspect the order for 4(+2) will be canned.

 

[1805]

6 T45
4 horizon
6 Formidable class
2 French 'AAW' Fremm
? All the Italian Fremm (not sure of the figure and can't be bothered to look)
Possible Greek Fremm, not to sure of the status of this and with the economy going through the floor I suspect the order for 4(+2) will be canned.

Your quite right the FREMMs are carrying Aster 30, but I still feel the US will be able to fund the development of Standard more comprehensively than the French Aster 30.

 

[kev 99]

Yes you're quite right, a country with a $700 billion defence budget is more likely to be able to fund developments of its weapons, I think you're right we should buy everything from the US, to hell with MBDA its not as if its British or anything.

 

[1805]

Yes you're quite right, a country with a $700 billion defence budget is more likely to be able to fund developments of its weapons, I think you're right we should buy everything from the US, to hell with MBDA its not as if its British or anything.

No but in some cases it does make sense. I was talking to a friend about this and how we can be more efficient. My stab at this would be we should only commission and build weapons (i.e. UK MOD not private funded projects) when they meet all three of the following criteria:

1, Truly strategic that we keep the industrial capability to build (not that the system is strategic as such)

2, We have sufficient national volume or export potential to sustain construction and development over the full industrial cycle

3, obviously we have the capability or can realistically develop it to design and build (or maybe just design.

Everything else we should buy and where possible do counter trade deals to ensure were we are building we maximise production runs

I am not sure a naval area defence system falls into this for us if we are only going to deploy 6 ships.

 

[swerve]

6 T45
4 horizon
6 Formidable class
2 French 'AAW' Fremm
? All the Italian Fremm (not sure of the figure and can't be bothered to look)
Possible Greek Fremm, not to sure of the status of this and with the economy going through the floor I suspect the order for 4(+2) will be canned.

Plus any other Aster 30 armed ships which are sold in the next twenty years or so, to Brazil, Saudi Arabia, & anyone else who wants a non-Russian, non-American, area defence missile . . .

And there's a land-based version, with two customers so far (France & Italy) & being marketed to others.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think you have a point about wanting sexy capability because the USN has it and I agree that is the case with many things. [ /QUOTE]



You do realise that when any country buys from the USG its not just about buying a single capability against that need?

You do realise that the USG provides a single capability such as "x" but that the capability also comes with access and integration into a whole pile of other capabilities which are also critical to a a performance and overall force delivery need?

Its not "just a missile"

Its not woolworths where you buy bananas because you want a smoothie to make at home yourself. In a rough analogy, its because the USG will let us use their commercial blender, give us the recipes to make a better smoothie and will also work in the kitchen with us to make it better.

this is deliberately dumbed down for obvious reasons.

nations buy capability to fulfil a force requirement - not an export requirement

 

[1805]

I think you have a point about wanting sexy capability because the USN has it and I agree that is the case with many things. [ /QUOTE]



You do realise that when any country buys from the USG its not just about buying a single capability against that need?

You do realise that the USG provides a single capability such as "x" but that the capability also comes with access and integration into a whole pile of other capabilities which are also critical to a a performance and overall force delivery need?

Its not "just a missile"

Its not woolworths where you buy bananas because you want a smoothie to make at home yourself. In a rough analogy, its because the USG will let us use their commercial blender, give us the recipes to make a better smoothie and will also work in the kitchen with us to make it better.

this is deliberately dumbed down for obvious reasons.

nations buy capability to fulfil a force requirement - not an export requirement

I agree once we chose not to develop our own missile, I have always favoured us buying Standard and Aegis, I would have tried to match up with Samson as the Dutch did with their radar.

The US is the UKs key partner, a view I am sure Australia holds. Using your analogy they have been helping us in the kitchen for 60 years most recently with Astute. Whereas the French will generally only work to their own interest, which sometimes are aligned with ours.

The point about buying sexy US kit was more about the capability. Not whose we by but do we need at all. The particular example was BMD capability ie they need but does the UK, I actually think with a potential intervention in Iran it would probably be useful.

Regarding buying equipment for export, I was not suggesting the UK commission the deign/build just for export, but that should be a consideration when it does. This is becoming very relevant as UK orders alone often cannot sustain an industrial capability. I believe the approach I have suggested is not far off the French approach to defence procurement. For example they chose not to build their own AEW/catapults, as it made no sense, they simply brought US, but they did build Rafale.

 

[Systems Adict]

I was talking to a friend about this and how we can be more efficient. My stab at this would be we should only commission and build weapons (i.e. UK MOD not private funded projects) when they meet all three of the following criteria:

1, Truly strategic that we keep the industrial capability to build (not that the system is strategic as such)

2, We have sufficient national volume or export potential to sustain construction and development over the full industrial cycle

3, obviously we have the capability or can realistically develop it to design and build (or maybe just design).

Everything else we should buy and where possible do counter trade deals to ensure were we are building we maximise production runs

I am not sure a naval area defence system falls into this for us if we are only going to deploy 6 ships.

Poppy cock !

I'm sorry, it must be lonely up there on that idylic pedistal you're on, can you come down here & join the real world with the rest of us....:


Tying our nations procurement policy to a such a 'heavy load' wouldn't be the best thing for our manufacturing base, our design engineering facilities or the government coffers.

What you're actually suggesting may well work in the commercial procurement world, buying 1,000,000 units worth a penny & selling them for thrupence, but would put our nations future naval capabilities in a worse state than the Greek nation is financially at the moment.

By relying on our naval industries abilities to create designs, or to build for export only would be career suicide.

The UK may well have the 2nd or 3rd largest budget available to spend on defence procurement, but Europe can't / won't get together round a table & agree to have 1 nation designing & building for another in the region, while it's own military manufacturing capability is left to rot.

It is all well & good saying that by becoming more efficient we'd be able to afford more ships, but in the narrow & limited market that is Naval Shipbuilding, even if we became the most efficient & sucessfull nation at producing & selling ships, we would soon have no market to sell to...

SA

PS I'd started replying to this comment before gf0012-aust, but took nearly 2hrs to complete it (the joys of watching a movie while doing this), so apologies if it appears, in some respects, to 'duplicate' some aspects of his train of thought...

 

[1805]

Poppy cock !

I'm sorry, it must be lonely up there on that idylic pedistal you're on, can you come down here & join the real world with the rest of us....:


Tying our nations procurement policy to a such a 'heavy load' wouldn't be the best thing for our manufacturing base, our design engineering facilities or the government coffers.

What you're actually suggesting may well work in the commercial procurement world, buying 1,000,000 units worth a penny & selling them for thrupence, but would put our nations future naval capabilities in a worse state than the Greek nation is financially at the moment.

By relying on our naval industries abilities to create designs, or to build for export only would be career suicide.

The UK may well have the 2nd or 3rd largest budget available to spend on defence procurement, but Europe can't / won't get together round a table & agree to have 1 nation designing & building for another in the region, while it's own military manufacturing capability is left to rot.

It is all well & good saying that by becoming more efficient we'd be able to afford more ships, but in the narrow & limited market that is Naval Shipbuilding, even if we became the most efficient & sucessfull nation at producing & selling ships, we would soon have no market to sell to...

SA

PS I'd started replying to this comment before gf0012-aust, but took nearly 2hrs to complete it (the joys of watching a movie while doing this), so apologies if it appears, in some respects, to 'duplicate' some aspects of his train of thought...

I am not sure you have understood what I have said. I was saying we should only commission/build when it meets all three criteria, and when it does we should focus on that technology not jumping from one project to another half developing then running out of cash and moving on. The above would see use pulling out of some areas and just buying largely off the shelf. But trying to do counter trade deals for the areas we do focus on? Similar to the Italians buying U212a from Germany in exchange for the Germans buying their kit, rather than the expensive joint venture approach. I actually find very few bits of equipment that meet all 3 criteria, are you saying that we have loads that meet all 3 criteria?

Actually reading my original post again, it could be read that way, so sorry if that is what you are saying. I did mean that for a UK MOD to build it should have be able to meet ALL three criteria. If it didn't meet them then we should buy off the shelf if possible

 

[kev 99]

Plus any other Aster 30 armed ships which are sold in the next twenty years or so, to Brazil, Saudi Arabia, & anyone else who wants a non-Russian, non-American, area defence missile . . .

And there's a land-based version, with two customers so far (France & Italy) & being marketed to others.

Yes of course, I only stated the current planed for numbers to illustrate how wrong the original statement was, Astor has a very obvious appeal to any country with serious AAW aspirations for its navy that isn't tied to the US or Russia.

 

[1805]

Yes of course, I only stated the current planed for numbers to illustrate how wrong the original statement was, Astor has a very obvious appeal to any country with serious AAW aspirations for its navy that isn't tied to the US or Russia.

Look this is not about scoring point. You do this repeatly, jump on a side issue and keep going on about it while not advancing any comments on the main thrust of the posts. I wish you would keep to your previously stated policy.

 

[kev 99]

Look this is not about scoring point. You do this repeatly, jump on a side issue and keep going on about it while not advancing any comments on the main thrust of the posts. I wish you would keep to your previously stated policy.

My previously stated policy? Sorry I don't understand what you mean there.

As for jumping on side points, well if you use facts to illustrate your points that then turn out to be wrong, and in this case wrong by quite a margin, then you shouldn't get upset when people point this out.

 

[1805]

My previously stated policy? Sorry I don't understand what you mean there.

As for jumping on side points, well if you use facts to illustrate your points that then turn out to be wrong, and in this case wrong by quite a margin, then you shouldn't get upset when people point this out.

I am not worried by you or anyone else corrected me, I don't have to win points. But you then turn the whole debate into a discussion on the small issue.

Yes Aster 30 is used by more than the "probable c14 ships" I stated, but the issues being debated was wider than this; about what the RN should commission or buy off the shelf, its wasn't even that focused on Standard v Aster ( no need to have a discussion on this, I know you favour Aster and I favour Standard ). Didn't you have an personal rule not to debate with me...I remember you saying in one of your posts.

 

[kev 99]

I am not worried by you or anyone else corrected me, I don't have to win points. But you then turn the whole debate into a discussion on the small issue.

Yes Aster 30 is used by more than the "probable c14 ships" I stated, but the issues being debated was wider than this; about what the RN should commission or buy off the shelf, its wasn't even that focused on Standard v Aster ( no need to have a discussion on this, I know you favour Aster and I favour Standard ). Didn't you have an personal rule not to debate with me...I remember you saying in one of your posts.

I wasn't really debating as such, just pointing out a flaw in your argument.

It was you that bought up Standard v Aster, nobody else. If you don't want people to focus on it then don't bring it up.

BTW. I don't think I've actually stated an opinion on whether the RN should of bought Standard or Aster.

 

[1805]

I wasn't really debating as such, just pointing out a flaw in your argument.

It was you that bought up Standard v Aster, nobody else. If you don't want people to focus on it then don't bring it up.

BTW. I don't think I've actually stated an opinion on whether the RN should of bought Standard or Aster.

Thats the point it was a mistake in a small bit of background information, not a flaw in the argument. The US is more likely to fund the whole Standard/VLS package more effectively than the French will Aster/Sylver.

 

[kev 99]

Thats the point it was a mistake in a small bit of background information, not a flaw in the argument. The US is more likely to fund the whole Standard/VLS package more effectively than the French will Aster/Sylver.

You were using some figures to back up an argument that were undercooked by a minimum of 32% and probably closer to 50%, and you don't think this is a flaw?

The US defence spend is not far off that of the rest of the world combined together, the fact that they can fund almost everything better than any other country is fairly obvious, it's one of the arguments that people who advocate against British and European made equipment roll out at every opportunity.

 

[1805]

You were using some figures to back up an argument that were undercooked by a minimum of 32% and probably closer to 50%, and you don't think this is a flaw?

The US defence spend is not far off that of the rest of the world combined together, the fact that they can fund almost everything better than any other country is fairly obvious, it's one of the arguments that people who advocate against British and European made equipment roll out at every opportunity.

I accept that the US has massive spend, but in the particular case of Standard most other Navies that have gone with an area system have gone with the US system. Once we decided not to develop our own system, it was safer to go with Standard which would PROBABLY have been cheaper and in service earlier, and may have tipped the balance in favour of another 2 ships. You know I would have preferred to develop Sea Dart but I am also very aware the JMSDF had Aegis at sea 17 years ago.

I think RN adoption of Aster must have been critical for its success and I would have thought the RN will be one if not the largest user.

But there are areas where the US does not have a great interest or get it right, the U212a's are arguable the best conventional subs in the world and I wonder how they compare to an Astute in coastal waters. Brahmos also look very capable. CB90, Absalon, RR Gas Turbines are all innovation which I think shows the US doesn't have a monoply on innovation. I don't have a problem if in the interest of defencing national capability we buy a lesser (but acceptable) product. I would have brought Merlins over Chinnoks recently even though the Chinnok is more capable, but the Merlin would have done the job and protected capability.

 

[ASFC]

it was safer to go with Standard which would PROBABLY have been cheaper and in service earlier, and may have tipped the balance in favour of another 2 ships.

I think that the Chilcott inquiry has shown that the then Chancellor, now our glorious leader, always intended to cut the number of T45 to be built from 12 to 8 and then down to 6 (like every other military capability under the axe in 2004), regardless of how cheap they might have been built with an existing system like Standard.

I think RN adoption of Aster must have been critical for its success and I would have thought the RN will be one if not the largest user.

Only time will tell, however Aster was in service before the RN bought it.