The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Grim901]

If they get anywhere near power there is something wrong with the average voter in the UK.

No it means that the major parties will have failed to adequately represent a large number of Britain's population and look after them. The White working class are often forgotten by our 3 major parties who like to focus on other groups. (none of which means I support the BNP.)

This discussion seems to be an appropriate time to show this:

 

[MrQuintus]

Not really. Three CVF instead of two, 4 SSBN, 12 Astute, Ark Royal & Illustrious run on as LPHs ('back-up' amphibs they say in the manifesto - meaning reserve?), two more LSDs, 30 destroyers & frigates (types not specified), 50 naval Merlin, & 25 EEZ patrol/MCM vessels. Oh, & some more JSF so that there are enough for three carriers plus some for the RAF.

Not enough to challenge the USN, but quite a fleet.

Much the same elsewhere. Army back up to 125000, with more Commonwealth recruitment. More helicopters.

Air force - 21 A330 tankers. Scrap the PFI. More C-17s before the line closes, for a total of 10. More helicopters.

Spending up to above 3% of GDP, to pay for this.

BNP policy is far less specific.

UKIP have only got it about half right, 3CVF instead of 2 would be great, but we need 3 LPH to replace Ark, lusty and eventually Ocean, 3 LSDs to replace albion and Bullwark (though not until the 2030s), 6 more Type 45s, 12 C1, 12 C2 for a total of 36 destroyers and 1st rate frigates, 12 astute, 4 SSBN, 18-24 C3, around a dozen dedicated MCM vessels, Tankers, 2-3 hospital ships, Archer class replacements, and a host of other kit.

Oh, and as for more JSF, we are currently set to buy 6 squadrons of 12 plus associated extras across the RAF and FAA, which is enough to put 36 on both in an emergency, so we'd only need another 3 squadrons (plus attrition and rotational reserve) to fill up the 3rd.

Oh, and with that little lot I think we could give the Atlantic half of the USN a run for it's money

 

[StevoJH]

UKIP have only got it about half right, 3CVF instead of 2 would be great, but we need 3 LPH to replace Ark, lusty and eventually Ocean, 3 LSDs to replace albion and Bullwark (though not until the 2030s), 6 more Type 45s, 12 C1, 12 C2 for a total of 36 destroyers and 1st rate frigates, 12 astute, 4 SSBN, 18-24 C3, around a dozen dedicated MCM vessels, Tankers, 2-3 hospital ships, Archer class replacements, and a host of other kit.

Oh, and as for more JSF, we are currently set to buy 6 squadrons of 12 plus associated extras across the RAF and FAA, which is enough to put 36 on both in an emergency, so we'd only need another 3 squadrons (plus attrition and rotational reserve) to fill up the 3rd.

Oh, and with that little lot I think we could give the Atlantic half of the USN a run for it's money

Small Steps...

Grim: Nice graphic......its possible to hate Jeremy Clarkson?.....And wouldn't it be more like "hate the EU" for UKIP?

 

[Grim901]

Small Steps...

Grim: Nice graphic......its possible to hate Jeremy Clarkson?.....And wouldn't it be more like "hate the EU" for UKIP?

Well I didn't make it . Otherwise i'd tweak it to make clear the the Lib Dems hate plenty of people, like the UK Armed Forces, and to show that the Greens are mental.

Perhaps it's time to go back to the thread topic eh?

 

[kev 99]

Small Steps...

Grim: Nice graphic......its possible to hate Jeremy Clarkson?.....And wouldn't it be more like "hate the EU" for UKIP?

Lots of people hate Jeremy Clarkson, personally I think he's a very entertaining buffoon that doesn't really take himself half as seriously as the people that hate him do.

 

[windscorpion]

StevoJH - their rise has been incredible. I saw a "party political broadcast" by them the other day. 5 years ogo that would never have happened... I only hope the mainstream parties take heed of why they have risen, as opposed to their half-cock methods of discrediting them (a la Newsnight fiasco).

Not really, i really seeing BNP PPBs on TV back in the early 90s or even earlier.

 

[AndrewMI]

Not really, i really seeing BNP PPBs on TV back in the early 90s or even earlier.

That is a little before my time i am happy to say! I certainly dont recall anything of the like 5 years ago? In difficult times people often vote in drastic ways.

Any news on the T-26? Confirmation of the weapon fit out etc? It looks a potent weapon.

I think an SDR will show the value of having a powerfull RN. For the next 5-10 years we must, and rightly so, focus on the immediate needs of the troops in Afghanistan. However, in the mid to long term we must be capable of projecting power to places like Iran, North Korea and have the powerful Carriers, and Escorts to do this.

The specs and fit-out of the ships we are looking at seems about right. We just need the numbers. 6 T45 is incredibly sortsighted, and (was it 12 T-26) T26 may be cut in numbers. that would be a disaster. 7 Astutes is one short of the minimum, and 10 is a preferred number. Very unlikely this will happen.

Lord knows where the budget cuts will strike.

 

[Grim901]

That is a little before my time i am happy to say! I certainly dont recall anything of the like 5 years ago? In difficult times people often vote in drastic ways.

Any news on the T-26? Confirmation of the weapon fit out etc? It looks a potent weapon.

I think an SDR will show the value of having a powerfull RN. For the next 5-10 years we must, and rightly so, focus on the immediate needs of the troops in Afghanistan. However, in the mid to long term we must be capable of projecting power to places like Iran, North Korea and have the powerful Carriers, and Escorts to do this.

The specs and fit-out of the ships we are looking at seems about right. We just need the numbers. 6 T45 is incredibly sortsighted, and (was it 12 T-26) T26 may be cut in numbers. that would be a disaster. 7 Astutes is one short of the minimum, and 10 is a preferred number. Very unlikely this will happen.

Lord knows where the budget cuts will strike.

I doubt we'll see much in the way of confirmations or new announcements until the election has passed, and after that any announcement we get straight away can only be bad news (silly short sighted cuts etc). It'll be a few months before things return to "normal" in the MOD and industry as they try and work out what the new govt. wants.

 

[Troothsayer]

Re, cuts

Aside from the obvious pitfall of Clyde workers having no jobs (duh!) - is there any reason that the work on CVF in a worst case scenario be stopped and what is built so far put into storage and delaying the whole thing for 4-5 years before starting it again in fiscally better times?

This obviously involves running on Ark Royal & Illustrious longer than planned and possibly cutting deployment time for them.

Or does it simply mean that no CVF on time = no clyde shipbuilding industry left?

Gloomy predictions in all the papers about the amount that needs to be cut and with some departments ringfenced Defence could take a big hit.

I suppose all this depends on which party is in power. A Lib/Lab coalitiion would probably mean the goahead since its actually there in black and white on the Labour manifesto. The Tories? They've been incredibly reticent to give the go ahead for CVF bar a few hints from Liam Fox which could be interpreted either way.

 

[Grim901]

Re, cuts

Aside from the obvious pitfall of Clyde workers having no jobs (duh!) - is there any reason that the work on CVF in a worst case scenario be stopped and what is built so far put into storage and delaying the whole thing for 4-5 years before starting it again in fiscally better times?

This obviously involves running on Ark Royal & Illustrious longer than planned and possibly cutting deployment time for them.

Or does it simply mean that no CVF on time = no clyde shipbuilding industry left?

Gloomy predictions in all the papers about the amount that needs to be cut and with some departments ringfenced Defence could take a big hit.

I suppose all this depends on which party is in power. A Lib/Lab coalitiion would probably mean the goahead since its actually there in black and white on the Labour manifesto. The Tories? They've been incredibly reticent to give the go ahead for CVF bar a few hints from Liam Fox which could be interpreted either way.

Actually if the Libs have any major say in the next government very little in defence is safe, it depends what has to be sacrificed when Labour really need a vote passed and what the Libs want gone. But I agree CVF is less likely to go with Labour in power.

And I cant see the Tories cutting it unless Osborne has his way.

 

[1805]

Actually if the Libs have any major say in the next government very little in defence is safe, it depends what has to be sacrificed when Labour really need a vote passed and what the Libs want gone. But I agree CVF is less likely to go with Labour in power.

And I cant see the Tories cutting it unless Osborne has his way.

I think it will be difficult to cut both CVF, a lot of commitments have already been made and they will create a lot of jobs in fairly depress areas. There is the danger of a sale but then you do need a buyer and India is probably already sorted, maybe Brazil?

Much more likely to delay new projects/cut old ships. I can't see a 7th SSN for the forseeable future. I can see T42s all going as soon as the 2 T45 as operationally (dangerously thin air defences; no fighters and only to AWD but who wants to be in Greece's position) also as said before the 4 T22 look very vunerable.

 

[Troothsayer]

The trouble with the cuts is that the government needs them in the next 4 years cycle, so cutting things like the F35 numbers just isn't going to help.

This is why it annoys me when I see Trident mentioned. I just don't see much in the navy than can now be cut without beginning to affect capability.

Actually if the Libs have any major say in the next government very little in defence is safe, it depends what has to be sacrificed when Labour really need a vote passed and what the Libs want gone.

Labour should still hold the vast majority of seats in that example. Clegg hasn't even made Trident a priority as to whether he joins a coalition, just the 4 main parts of their manifesto. I think Labour would hold sway particularly with it being on their patch.

Agree about the Libs on defence, order the white flags already! (Which is a shame because in general I'm in agreement with most of their policies)

 

[MrQuintus]

I think it will be difficult to cut both CVF, a lot of commitments have already been made and they will create a lot of jobs in fairly depress areas. There is the danger of a sale but then you do need a buyer and India is probably already sorted, maybe Brazil?

Much more likely to delay new projects/cut old ships. I can't see a 7th SSN for the forseeable future. I can see T42s all going as soon as the 2 T45 as operationally (dangerously thin air defences; no fighters and only to AWD but who wants to be in Greece's position) also as said before the 4 T22 look very vunerable.

To maintain the workers to build the SSBNs they'll need to be a 7th and probably 8th astute

 

[Troothsayer]

More clues from Liam Fox on the Tory defence position perhaps?
Conservatives eye big changes to armed forces | Reuters

"The first thing we have to decide is how we shape the armed forces for the threats of the future and not the legacies of the past. And so you would need to be asking whether we needed so many main battle tanks, whether we needed some of the heavy artillery, for example,"

How much would a 2nd hand Chally 2 fetch? And who would buy and would we sell?

Although defence spending cuts are widely expected, the Conservatives may spend more on ships, with Fox saying that their number, which include 25 principal surface combat ships, had been reduced to an unacceptable level.

"I think that most reasonable analysts would suggest that the number of ships in the surface fleet is too small now for the tasks that we require of the navy. We've got too few ships."

'Ships' doesn't necessarily mean CVF of course, but encouraging nonetheless. First signs of a shift to Strategic Raiding?

 

[LancasterBomber]

It appears now almost certain Britain is going to lose its AAA credit rating on the back of this election.

The Pound relative to the Aussie Dollar will likely further deteriorate. It is going to be a long decade or so to come in the UK. It's with genuine regret that I utter such words but the evidence is all to apparent.

Which gets me right back to kick starting a new/revised relationship between Britain and Australia (which I have raised in the past).

Australia is one of the most robust economies in the world. Its not without its fragilities and risks but it is undeniably powerful on the back of the rise of the middle class in China and India (its far more complex than this but this is tangential to my point).

Our purchasing power into the GB defence technology sector has shifted fundamentally now forever IMO.

Although the Astute platform is not an ideal fit in the Australian security context I genuinely believe it is in Australia's long term strategic interest to support, where appropriate to our needs, the GB defence industrial sector (particularly over the next decade).

I would like to see Australia:

a) Split our submarine FEG to a nuclear/conventional fleet
b) Acquire 3 Astute class including long term maintenance contracts
c) Continue to develop our own organic design for our new conventionals
d) Build a new sub fleet base (EAST and WEST)

But getting back on message I think there are synergies in terms of where both our countries are at right now. It makes economic and strategic sense for GB to leverage Astute to support other platforms. Australia is the only ally you can trust to open that platform entirely up too without grossly undermining your own national security. We have the cash and the need to continue our journey to a more mature sub fleet.

An erosion in the defence industrial capacity of GB indirectly undermines the national security of Australia.

Although a purchase of 3 astutes can in no way solve the sovereign debt issues in the UK it can play a role in keeping some intellectual capital in your industrial base 'tied over' until your Govt can enact an appropriate fiscal response (likely to take a decade or more). It also frees up some cash flow inside the defence budget in the shorter term.

The timelines appear to marry up in terms of where the Astute platform is at, where the production capacity is at, where Australia's Collins fleet is at and where our future (yet to be designed) conventionals are at.

Its not an 'ideal outcome' from an operational perspective for Australia in any way shape or form but in terms of the Alliance and the long term strategy good of both our countries I think we should at least conduct some serious due diligence on the transaction.

I think the initiative needs to come from your side of the pond though.

 

[t68]

It appears now almost certain Britain is going to lose its AAA credit rating on the back of this election.

The Pound relative to the Aussie Dollar will likely further deteriorate. It is going to be a long decade or so to come in the UK. It's with genuine regret that I utter such words but the evidence is all to apparent.

Which gets me right back to kick starting a new/revised relationship between Britain and Australia (which I have raised in the past).

Australia is one of the most robust economies in the world. Its not without its fragilities and risks but it is undeniably powerful on the back of the rise of the middle class in China and India (its far more complex than this but this is tangential to my point).

Our purchasing power into the GB defence technology sector has shifted fundamentally now forever IMO.

Although the Astute platform is not an ideal fit in the Australian security context I genuinely believe it is in Australia's long term strategic interest to support, where appropriate to our needs, the GB defence industrial sector (particularly over the next decade).

I would like to see Australia:

a) Split our submarine FEG to a nuclear/conventional fleet
b) Acquire 3 Astute class including long term maintenance contracts
c) Continue to develop our own organic design for our new conventionals
d) Build a new sub fleet base (EAST and WEST)

But getting back on message I think there are synergies in terms of where both our countries are at right now. It makes economic and strategic sense for GB to leverage Astute to support other platforms. Australia is the only ally you can trust to open that platform entirely up too without grossly undermining your own national security. We have the cash and the need to continue our journey to a more mature sub fleet.

An erosion in the defence industrial capacity of GB indirectly undermines the national security of Australia.

Although a purchase of 3 astutes can in no way solve the sovereign debt issues in the UK it can play a role in keeping some intellectual capital in your industrial base 'tied over' until your Govt can enact an appropriate fiscal response (likely to take a decade or more). It also frees up some cash flow inside the defence budget in the shorter term.

The timelines appear to marry up in terms of where the Astute platform is at, where the production capacity is at, where Australia's Collins fleet is at and where our future (yet to be designed) conventionals are at.

Its not an 'ideal outcome' from an operational perspective for Australia in any way shape or form but in terms of the Alliance and the long term strategy good of both our countries I think we should at least conduct some serious due diligence on the transaction.

I think the initiative needs to come from your side of the pond though.

It might be good in keeping the UK defence industry bubbling along, but if it does not marry up with Australia defence requirement i see no logical reason to acquire such, money in my opinion if this was case should be used on a RAN Collins class submarine to use as a hybrid sub to see if the future systems that are planned are any good in the real world (i.e. different power plant long term reliability).but it might come in handy with the new frigate to come on line i don’t know if timelines or type meet but synergies could be leveraged for it.

But the prospects of having two type fleet in RAN colours might be justifiable, four small littoral type subs for closer defence needs around Australia and near islands and larger blue water type Collins MKII for long range, personally i think a conventionally powered Virginia class submarine would be a better bet for Australia needs. It all ready cover most of the requirements for the RAN,

Payload: 40 weapons, special operations forces, unmanned undersea vehicles, Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), Armament: 12 VLS & four torpedo tubes, capable of launching Mark 48 torpedoes, Harpoon missiles, UGM-109 Tactical Tomahawks, and the new advanced mobile mine when it comes available.

 

[StevoJH]

Payload: 40 weapons, special operations forces, unmanned undersea vehicles, Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), Armament: 12 VLS & four torpedo tubes, capable of launching Mark 48 torpedoes, Harpoon missiles, UGM-109 Tactical Tomahawks, and the new advanced mobile mine when it comes available.

From memory Astute can do everything Virginia can except it does not have VLS

Same number of weapons. Just all Tube launched. This gives more scope for weapons flexibility. Virginia can *only* carrry Tomahawk in those VLS.
Astute has 6 Torpedo tubes, currently cleared for spearfish, which isnt an issue since the Mk.48's will run out of life at some point plus the tubes are 21" in both cases to Mk.48 could be cleared.
Both can fire torpedoes, tomahawk, harpoon and mines.

So both submarines are roughly comparable, in weapons at least, not sure about the electronic side.

 

[Twickiwi]

The Empire Strikes Back

International Joint development of ship classes hasn't been overly successful for the RN (CVF/PA2 and T45/Horizon), but that may change. It is interesting that the Admiralty and HM Government has entered discussions with navies with whom they may develop common naval programs to take advantage of economies of scale. Australia and New Zealand had been discussing a 6000+ t ANZAC class replacement and Australia's idea of a 2000+ t Offshore Combat Vessel that the British found knitted quite closely into their requirement description for C1/C2 and C3. I am waiting for media reports that the Canadian Single Class Surface Combatant is part of these discussions.

Of the 6000t/T26 C2 New Zealand would be good for 2 perhaps 3, Australia C1/C2 at least 8, Canada (who need to replace both destroyers and frigates) up to15 C1/C2 in a mix of armaments and capabilities. As far as the OCV is concerned, OZ 20, NZ at least 4 and up to 6. Canada requires Ice capable OPVs so is unlikely to be interested in C3.

If it goes ahead, lets be as neutral as possible in our assumptions and say that with a modularised design taking into account the variations in requirement and weapons load of the various navies there are the possibilities of adding an 10 extra C1, 15 extra C2 and 24 extra C3 to the British requirement. Australia will want to build most of the vessels herself, but that must be able to be arranged.

The benefit to the British Arms industry of having other navies with compatible vessels to whom you can hawk C&C, communications, radar and weapons to, who currently typically buy US systems by reflex is something else for HM Govt to consider.

The influence or soft power of naval systems integration and interoperability is not to be sniffed at. NZ, Australia and Canada combined give a population of 60 million or the UK over again. I hear that they are part of an association of nations called the Commonwealth who share a history in some now defunct empire.

 

[Troothsayer]

It appears now almost certain Britain is going to lose its AAA credit rating on the back of this election.

1. It is not even close to being 'certain' at all. And its AAA+ btw.

2. Britain is not going to be selling 3 Astute submarines to Australia or anyone.

 

[AndrewMI]

It appears now almost certain Britain is going to lose its AAA credit rating on the back of this election.

The Pound relative to the Aussie Dollar will likely further deteriorate. It is going to be a long decade or so to come in the UK. It's with genuine regret that I utter such words but the evidence is all to apparent.

Which gets me right back to kick starting a new/revised relationship between Britain and Australia (which I have raised in the past).

Australia is one of the most robust economies in the world. Its not without its fragilities and risks but it is undeniably powerful on the back of the rise of the middle class in China and India (its far more complex than this but this is tangential to my point).

Our purchasing power into the GB defence technology sector has shifted fundamentally now forever IMO.

Although the Astute platform is not an ideal fit in the Australian security context I genuinely believe it is in Australia's long term strategic interest to support, where appropriate to our needs, the GB defence industrial sector (particularly over the next decade).

I would like to see Australia:

a) Split our submarine FEG to a nuclear/conventional fleet
b) Acquire 3 Astute class including long term maintenance contracts
c) Continue to develop our own organic design for our new conventionals
d) Build a new sub fleet base (EAST and WEST)

But getting back on message I think there are synergies in terms of where both our countries are at right now. It makes economic and strategic sense for GB to leverage Astute to support other platforms. Australia is the only ally you can trust to open that platform entirely up too without grossly undermining your own national security. We have the cash and the need to continue our journey to a more mature sub fleet.

An erosion in the defence industrial capacity of GB indirectly undermines the national security of Australia.

Although a purchase of 3 astutes can in no way solve the sovereign debt issues in the UK it can play a role in keeping some intellectual capital in your industrial base 'tied over' until your Govt can enact an appropriate fiscal response (likely to take a decade or more). It also frees up some cash flow inside the defence budget in the shorter term.

The timelines appear to marry up in terms of where the Astute platform is at, where the production capacity is at, where Australia's Collins fleet is at and where our future (yet to be designed) conventionals are at.

Its not an 'ideal outcome' from an operational perspective for Australia in any way shape or form but in terms of the Alliance and the long term strategy good of both our countries I think we should at least conduct some serious due diligence on the transaction.

I think the initiative needs to come from your side of the pond though.

The UK is not certian to loose the AAA+ credit rating, although it is possible. It all depends what cuts are made post election and what money can be got out of the banks and when (in terms of both selling shares and getting them to lend on a reasonable basis).

I agree with the points you make. Australia's strategic location and the sheer volume of ocean makes it foolish not to have SSN's. The FSC co-operation is also desireable, although perhaps too late.

Australia's economy is sound due to the amount of resources it has. However, the population is relativly small (although growing) and will likely not have the buying power of the UK for some considerable time.