The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

... But to go from 75 Harriers to 138 F35bs is a huge jump in capability. ...

Except that we've gone from a much larger fleet of Harriers, plus Jaguars, & a lot more IDS Tornadoes than we now have, down to 75 Harriers, which doesn't leave us enough to fill our pocket carriers, an OCU, have some in overhaul & have any spare to deploy on land . . . . is that what you think we should aim for with F-35B?

It isn't an increase, it's (at best!) an arrest in the decrease. If we replace Harriers one for one with F-35B, before long we won't even have enough deployable ones to fill a single CVF. That would be Very Silly Indeed.

 

[1805]

Except that we've gone from a much larger fleet of Harriers, plus Jaguars, & a lot more IDS Tornadoes than we now have, down to 75 Harriers, which doesn't leave us enough to fill our pocket carriers, an OCU, have some in overhaul & have any spare to deploy on land . . . . is that what you think we should aim for with F-35B?

It isn't an increase, it's (at best!) an arrest in the decrease. If we replace Harriers one for one with F-35B, before long we won't even have enough deployable ones to fill a single CVF. That would be Very Silly Indeed.

I not sure I fully understand you on these point. I mentioned the 75 Harriers as there doesn't appear to be any fixed ownership between RAF/RN. But on the size of the CVF air group and therefore their size I would have based it on a) what we had c38 FA2s and b) The largest actual deployment of UK strike aircraft in modern times (say post empire). I don't know the later but I would guess GW1 36-48 Tornado/Jaguars/Buccaneers). Either way it doesn't come out to 2 65,000t ships even allowing for one in refit.

 

[Hambo]

I not sure I fully understand you on these point. I mentioned the 75 Harriers as there doesn't appear to be any fixed ownership between RAF/RN. But on the size of the CVF air group and therefore their size I would have based it on a) what we had c38 FA2s and b) The largest actual deployment of UK strike aircraft in modern times (say post empire). I don't know the later but I would guess GW1 36-48 Tornado/Jaguars/Buccaneers). Either way it doesn't come out to 2 65,000t ships even allowing for one in refit.

I think GW1 saw something like three 15 aircraft squadrons of Tornado GR1, just before the action 6 GR1A's arrived, then a couple of hastily modified TIALD equipped aircraft, so 50plus GR1/1A.Tornado

Then add 18 F3 Tornado, 12 jaguars and 12 Buccs, so GW1 was actually close to 100 strike aircraft.

Add dozens of Tankers, Nimrod, Hercs and Helicopters.

Kosovo saw 20 Tornado GR1 ad 16 Harrier, a nice sized 36 fleet of fast jets (CV sized), plus the sea Harriers on Invincible.

Gulf War 2 saw 5 squadrons of GR4 , 3 squadrons of GR7 and 1 squadron of Jaguar.

So I assume our MOD planners have come to the conclusion that all the major conflicts we have done in the last 30 years could have been done with 2 CV's, so in that sense 2 65,000 ships with 36-48 aircraft on surge , with low crewings makes perfect sense, especially as the whole selling point is that we will no longer be tied to friendly air bases.

 

[1805]

I think GW1 saw something like three 15 aircraft squadrons of Tornado GR1, just before the action 6 GR1A's arrived, then a couple of hastily modified TIALD equipped aircraft, so 50plus GR1/1A.Tornado

Then add 18 F3 Tornado, 12 jaguars and 12 Buccs, so GW1 was actually close to 100 strike aircraft.

Add dozens of Tankers, Nimrod, Hercs and Helicopters.

Kosovo saw 20 Tornado GR1 ad 16 Harrier, a nice sized 36 fleet of fast jets (CV sized), plus the sea Harriers on Invincible.

Gulf War 2 saw 5 squadrons of GR4 , 3 squadrons of GR7 and 1 squadron of Jaguar.

So I assume our MOD planners have come to the conclusion that all the major conflicts we have done in the last 30 years could have been done with 2 CV's, so in that sense 2 65,000 ships with 36-48 aircraft on surge , with low crewings makes perfect sense, especially as the whole selling point is that we will no longer be tied to friendly air bases.

As I said I can't confirm your numbers but I do agree with your conclusion: CVs with c50 aircaft each which I would have thought could have been accomplised in a 50,000t ship. My other point was why order both together, why not do as the USN, to keep the capability going order one after the other. In the long run less budgetary pressure. Prehaps a little more expensive, although any savings would have been more than wiped out but the recent delays.

The above senario would also be achieved without any stike support from the RAF. I don't want to come across as the cost cutter, but the RN has taken a hell of a game by going for such big ships, particularly when there is history of cancellation with the CVA01.

 

[AndrewMI]

As I said I can't confirm your numbers but I do agree with your conclusion: CVs with c50 aircaft each which I would have thought could have been accomplised in a 50,000t ship. My other point was why order both together, why not do as the USN, to keep the capability going order one after the other. In the long run less budgetary pressure. Prehaps a little more expensive, although any savings would have been more than wiped out but the recent delays.

The above senario would also be achieved without any stike support from the RAF. I don't want to come across as the cost cutter, but the RN has taken a hell of a game by going for such big ships, particularly when there is history of cancellation with the CVA01.

Would not work like that here.

In the USA they have a "target" of 10 aircraft carriers i think. They have a 50 year life and take 5 years to build. You do the maths. As soon as they finish one they move straight onto the next.

[NB - it may not be 10 carriers, it might be 12 taking something like 4.5 years to build - the principle remains the same]

 

[1805]

Would not work like that here.

In the USA they have a "target" of 10 aircraft carriers i think. They have a 50 year life and take 5 years to build. You do the maths. As soon as they finish one they move straight onto the next.

[NB - it may not be 10 carriers, it might be 12 taking something like 4.5 years to build - the principle remains the same]

I agree you would not keep UK yard busy with just two carriers over a 50 year life cycle, but even more reason not to build them virtually together. But it probably is the case with the SSN/SSBN.

 

[StingrayOZ]

You guys were pretty close with the fleet carriers. Australia has two and canada has one. India also took one on. Brazil, Argentina are also looking, for any sort of value in that market.

Theres four additional carriers (WWII surplus). Ideally you guys should have keep selling onto these markets. If you build LHD's off simular hulls you could proberly have keep a production of 10 ships on a cycle going.

F35B is way better than a Harrier. Pretty much nobody is going for 1 for 1 replacements of F-35 verse previous types.

 

[AndrewMI]

Thoughts on the whole "Gold Plating" debate.

Clearly there were problems with Astute and T-45. I believe at the start we wanted 10 Astute and 12 T-45. That is a huge number.

The USA I think are only building 30 Virginia class SSN.

We can all agree that 8 T-45 and 8 Astute is about right. We will likely end up with 6 T-45 and 7 Astute - which will be delivered late and over budget. However, what they will be are arguably the best warships of their type in the world.

Astute - very hard to compare SSN's.

T-45 - very strong AAW kit, can easily add Harpoon, TLAM could be integrated if it is integrated on T-26 and their are provisions for extra VLS cells. Post their first re-fit they could emerge as a vastly more powerful ship. The big problem is numbers, and it seems this is the price we have had to pay for this. With slightly more control over budget we would have 8. I think lessons have been learned from this and will be incorporated into the T-26.

The biggest problem seems to be gaps in production. Before T-45 we have not produced a surface combat ship for the best part of a decade, and the same gap applies between HMS Vengeance and HMS Astute. This is the key issue to be addressed, and I think is being learned.

For FSC - the plan is to start producing these ships immediately following HMS Prince of Wales. For SSBN (R) they will start being produced straight after the final Astute boat. If they are not ready to do this following boat 7, it would make sense to construct a boat 8 of Astute (provided the long lead items have been/can be ordered or procured).

The production gap is not just a loss of skills/expertise/industrial capacity. It is this, when placed alongside a backdrop of the need to make the new ship/boat better than the last - which is an inevitable sign of progress. This is what leads to the "gold plating" problems. If the designs of ships/weapons/sensors are allowed and get the funding to grow steadily, then the engineers will not be "swimming against the current of progress" in need to catch up to produce a world class ship. This will make it more likely that ships can be build on time, to budget and in the correct numbers.

T-26 (and if C2 is called it - T-27) will be a big test of this.

 

[riksavage]

Personally I would like to see a split order in the current econonic climate. Build the QE and buy 60 F35B, sell PW to India or Brazil, start on the T26 programme and then commence a third QE Class for the RN. Order a tranche 2 batch of 60 F35B to coincide with the delayed PW. This would spread the pain allowing for Astute number 7 and possible funding for a stretched Astute SSBN replacement.

India's decision to go for the Russian 2nd hand option has been a disaster, by taking the PW they will end up with a more efficient and capable hull with a 50 year life span requiring a smaller crew, thus reducing operating costs.

Also of interest, it turns out (French Naval source) that the current problem with the T45 PAAMS is related to a batch of faulty missiles, and not anything to do with the ships system.

 

[AndrewMI]

I agree you would not keep UK yard busy with just two carriers over a 50 year life cycle, but even more reason not to build them virtually together. But it probably is the case with the SSN/SSBN.

I disagree.

If for example, they were built over a 10 year period, and the average "life expectancy" of a warship if 35 years (ish) - that leaves the UK ship building industry 25 years to build around:

6-10 "T-46"
18-14 "T26/27"
1/2 "LHD"
4 "Bay(R)"

plus a mirriad of other vessels. That is, i do not thing do able, when you considering that building carriers over 10 years would be a "go-slow" strategy and would lead to a decline in resources.



Agree something like that can and should be done with the subs. Say you have a 40 year cycle (or whatever the life expectancy of a sub is) you must target the construction of 4xSSBN and 8 x SSN - or around one new sub every 3.25 years on average. Of course, the tempo of construction will change - the first and second of class will always take longer to produce.

But this type of system must be agreed ad policy and stuck to in order to make it work. If the strategy means we can be efficient and fit an extra boat or two in, and there is a use for it, then great.

(no doubt a pro such as SA will come up with a flaw in this plan - it seems too simple to be practical!)

 

[AndrewMI]

Personally I would like to see a split order in the current econonic climate. Build the QE and buy 60 F35B, sell PW to India or Brazil, start on the T26 programme and then commence a third QE Class for the RN. Order a tranche 2 batch of 60 F35B to coincide with the delayed PW. This would spread the pain allowing for Astute number 7 and possible funding for a stretched Astute SSBN replacement.

India's decision to go for the Russian 2nd hand option has been a disaster, by taking the PW they will end up with a more efficient and capable hull with a 50 year life span requiring a smaller crew, thus reducing operating costs.

Also of interest, it turns out (French Naval source) that the current problem with the T45 PAAMS is related to a batch of faulty missiles, and not anything to do with the ships system.

I don't think the Aastute boat 7 will be affected by the current crisis. They will not start ordering items for another 3/4 years. The same applies for the F-35 B - if it is ever ordered!!

I dont think we should be selling things like carriers to India. The only states i am happy for us to develop/sell trade tech between would be the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium - essentially western european nations and Australia and USA.

 

[swerve]

I agree you would not keep UK yard busy with just two carriers over a 50 year life cycle, but even more reason not to build them virtually together.

We don't have, & we're not going to have, a dedicated carrier yard. We need to consider overall warship building capacity & throughput, not carriers in isolation. The system now adopted, with blocks being built around the country & assembled in a single large dock, takes that into account.
Other large vessels (e.g. replacements for Ocean & the LPDs) can be assembled in that dock, & the carriers & the other large vessels can be refitted in it. It can get enough use without needing a continuous throughput of carriers. The yards now building carrier blocks will build smaller warships, e.g. destroyers, between building blocks of large ships.

Believe it or not, we now (at last!) have a rational plan for warship construction in this country, to provide a pretty regular stream of work & avoid great bumps in funding. We haven't had one for a long time, so this is a bit of a shock - but a nice shock.

 

[1805]

I don't think the Aastute boat 7 will be affected by the current crisis. They will not start ordering items for another 3/4 years. The same applies for the F-35 B - if it is ever ordered!!

I dont think we should be selling things like carriers to India. The only states i am happy for us to develop/sell trade tech between would be the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium - essentially western european nations and Australia and USA.

Thats a very restictive list, no Saudi, Japan, Singapore, Israel, Brazil...Canada? You just can't take that approach nowadays. The cost of developing systems is so great you have to try and spread it over as many units as possible or accept that you will be out of the game within a generation. Look at the Challenger II no exports=no future (sorry not a naval example) whereas Leopard 2 everone is buying it. Look at the Russians since the end of the cold war their defence contractors have learned a very hard lession, no more nice big state job, so they have gone on the export drive big time. Israel is another one pushing exports to secure and develop their industrial capability.

 

[1805]

I disagree.

If for example, they were built over a 10 year period, and the average "life expectancy" of a warship if 35 years (ish) - that leaves the UK ship building industry 25 years to build around:

6-10 "T-46"
18-14 "T26/27"
1/2 "LHD"
4 "Bay(R)"

plus a mirriad of other vessels. That is, i do not thing do able, when you considering that building carriers over 10 years would be a "go-slow" strategy and would lead to a decline in resources.



Agree something like that can and should be done with the subs. Say you have a 40 year cycle (or whatever the life expectancy of a sub is) you must target the construction of 4xSSBN and 8 x SSN - or around one new sub every 3.25 years on average. Of course, the tempo of construction will change - the first and second of class will always take longer to produce.

But this type of system must be agreed ad policy and stuck to in order to make it work. If the strategy means we can be efficient and fit an extra boat or two in, and there is a use for it, then great.

(no doubt a pro such as SA will come up with a flaw in this plan - it seems too simple to be practical!)

I was using the CVs as an example that we should stagger orders, I completely agree with your post and Swerve's points about filling up the gaps with other orders and modular construction.

 

[AndrewMI]

Thats a very restictive list, no Saudi, Japan, Singapore, Israel, Brazil...Canada? You just can't take that approach nowadays. The cost of developing systems is so great you have to try and spread it over as many units as possible or accept that you will be out of the game within a generation. Look at the Challenger II no exports=no future (sorry not a naval example) whereas Leopard 2 everone is buying it. Look at the Russians since the end of the cold war their defence contractors have learned a very hard lession, no more nice big state job, so they have gone on the export drive big time. Israel is another one pushing exports to secure and develop their industrial capability.

I can see your rationale, but i do not thin it works with the UK.

Challenger II did have an export version to Oman. But i understand the main benefit of such a tank it the armour that is classified and therefore non-exportable.

The Russians are non too impressed with the Chinese who use their technology without always paying the appropriate price....



To expand on my point, you would have levels of trading partner. Nations such as the USA you would be happy to deal with at the top end of technology in return for the support they give/sell. Others, such as the ones i named, we are unlikely to ever fall out with, so you would be happy to sell high level technology to them for the right price.

Others, such as the ones you mentioned, you would be less happy to sell high level tech to, but would happily sell things like OPV's.



Anyway... back to T26....

 

[1805]

I can see your rationale, but i do not thin it works with the UK.

Challenger II did have an export version to Oman. But i understand the main benefit of such a tank it the armour that is classified and therefore non-exportable.

The Russians are non too impressed with the Chinese who use their technology without always paying the appropriate price....



To expand on my point, you would have levels of trading partner. Nations such as the USA you would be happy to deal with at the top end of technology in return for the support they give/sell. Others, such as the ones i named, we are unlikely to ever fall out with, so you would be happy to sell high level technology to them for the right price.

Others, such as the ones you mentioned, you would be less happy to sell high level tech to, but would happily sell things like OPV's.



Anyway... back to T26....

I don't think the CVF would be at the particularly hi tech end of the scale the Typhoon probably more so. China don't seem to understand the concept of IP and copies everything so I think you have to be very cautious of such countries. But India would be an excellent place to try and sell a carrier to we did supply the last two.

 

[AndrewMI]

I don't think the CVF would be at the particularly hi tech end of the scale the Typhoon probably more so. China don't seem to understand the concept of IP and copies everything so I think you have to be very cautious of such countries. But India would be an excellent place to try and sell a carrier to we did supply the last two.

the only carriers we should sell to India are HMS Ark Royal, Invincible and Illustrious in about 5 years time.

The problem is, if we sell to a place like India, with Tech Transfer, India could sell the tech on (even if a restiction is in place) or it could get stolen from them by someone like China who love a bit of computer hacking...

 

[swerve]

What technology are you worried about India copying from CVF? The hull design? India can get that elsewhere, easily enough. The Finnish diesel engines? The gas turbines, based on the Trent engine, currently powering hundreds of Boeing 777s, A340s, etc. around the world, & on sale to anyone who wants a Boeing 787?

 

[AndrewMI]

What technology are you worried about India copying from CVF? The hull design? India can get that elsewhere, easily enough. The Finnish diesel engines? The gas turbines, based on the Trent engine, currently powering hundreds of Boeing 777s, A340s, etc. around the world, & on sale to anyone who wants a Boeing 787?

Not these things....

The sensors, electronics etc. would be the primary concern. As would hull charachteristics.

China are doing their upmost to develop an aircraft carrier. These designs are obviously not that easy to get hold of.

Nevertheless i am sure you get the point as to who we should be looking to deal with in military trading.

 

[kev 99]

What technology are you worried about India copying from CVF? The hull design? India can get that elsewhere, easily enough. The Finnish diesel engines? The gas turbines, based on the Trent engine, currently powering hundreds of Boeing 777s, A340s, etc. around the world, & on sale to anyone who wants a Boeing 787?

Electronics, and possibly the automated weapon handling system would be more worrying, although in theory the weapon handling system could be ripped out and replaced with a more normal warehouse style magazine.

After all we all we don't want potential enemies to have the awesome power of the Heathrow terminal 5 luggage handling software available to them