The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

While that is a valid point, the chances of ANY of this happening are nothing but a pipe dream.

My understanding of the reality is thus...

ALL equipment & major parts for T-45 were all purchased 'early doors'. To continue production would require a complete renegotiation with suppliers (some of whom have went bust & some of whom have been merged / sold on & subsumed into larger companies).

This act alone would be time consuming & EXPENSIVE. There would actually have to be a physical break before ships 7+ could be produced (after all ship 6 is on the stocks, due to be launched in November).

It would be likely that it would take 3-4 years before (minimum) before another hull could be produced, due to the current workload within the UK shipbuilding industry. After all BAE is currently...

#1. Finishing off x4 Type 45, & supporting x2 in-service
#2. Constructing x3 vessels for Trinidad & Tobago
#3. Constructing x3 vessels for Oman
#4. Constructing sections of QEC

This all points to a period in time where the Industry is at it's busiest for the last 15 years.

Additionally, within the RN now effectively focusing on Type-26 (which, dependant on whom you listen to, will be based on the T-45 hull form), it all points to a 'done-deal'. NO MORE TYPE 45 !

While that seems like a deathknell, it's not. After all looking at something like the car industry, a manufacturer only builds a particular model of car for a certain period, then moves onto a newer / more improved version of the model, possibly renaming it. This would appear to be the case with T45 leading to T26 ??


But that's just my tuppence worth....


... or does our 'Procurement Expert' 1805 want to argue / counter that ??


SA

I never question someones right to post a comment or for that matter feel anyone should defer to someone just because of their background/seniority. Peoples arguments should stand up to challenge on their own. After all you don't know me from Adam and I could well have spent many years at a senior level in procurement and supply chain management roles across the private and public sector (which I have).

However I do agree that UK yards are fairly busy at present, but I doubt the defence industry would not happily find room to run off another two Type 45 if asked. It will not happen because of capability issues as you suggest, but because we have no money for the current projects, let alone more.

 

[PeterCrisp]

What are we building for Trinidad? The country only has just over a million people so I'm fairly sure it's not going to be a massive ship.

 

[Hambo]

SA, the key difference being that T45 and T26 will be geared towards two different things with design differences to boot, so you couldn't simply decide to have a T26 in the AAW role because it wont have the approriate equipment and structure.

If they were using an unmodified (or with all the features of the AAW but improved like your car analogy) T45 hull just with a different radar and weapons set then it would be possible to go back and produce more T45's. Unfortunately it's more like a car company going from building a 4x4 to a sports car than simply updating the 4x4.

I would have thought it would be quite easy to produce an version of the Type 26 with enhanced AAW capabilities IF you wanted. Possibly not for the RN but certainly for export if a customer asked with many features common to the RN T45 systems.

In the time scale that they get built there may be several potential buyers. The R Beedall site mentions that the makers of SAMPSON argue that it doesnt actually need a separate volume search radar, it was probabaly a RN requirement that it had the S1850 was fitted to the T45, so I assume you could take the T26, add a mast for SAMPSON instead of Artisan (maybe a shorter one) and fit VLS for SAMs rather than Land attack missiles.

If SAMPSON was too expensive there was talk of a cheaper version, wasnt it called SPECTRE?

A VLS space big enough to take Tomahawk should be able to take an alternative sized unit. It seems that the sotfware and combat systems on RN vessels are and will be based on common technology, so as long as there is space for the consoles and computers, the Type 26 hull could provide decent AAW capabilites if not near the level of a T45?

The RN probably wouldnt need a T26 in that fit but I cant see why it couldnt be done to complement AAW numbers in future with CEC linked across the fleet. It could be a good export earner for a fuure HM Govt.

Anyway , just because the T45 will be a dead production line, it doenst rule out more AAW vessels based on the T26 hull IMO, but I would be interested in what the experts say, and also considering that the final design hasnt yet been finalised we dont know how adaptable the design will be.

 

[Systems Adict]

What are we building for Trinidad? The country only has just over a million people so I'm fairly sure it's not going to be a massive ship.

Here's a pic I found on google.

[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pennycook/4344218000/"]CG50 Port of Spain on Flickr - Photo Sharing!@@AMEPARAM@@http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2721/4344218000_d56e605307_m.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@4344218000@@AMEPARAM@@d56e605307[/ame]

...& here's the blurb from BAE...

Trinidad And Tobago Ships Sail Ahead - BAE Systems


They are loosely based on these....

River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) - Naval Technology

The important thing to remember is that it is work like this that's keeping our nations shipbuilding Industry going.

SA

 

[1805]

Here's a pic I found on google.

CG50 Port of Spain on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

...& here's the blurb from BAE...

Trinidad And Tobago Ships Sail Ahead - BAE Systems


They are loosely based on these....

River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) - Naval Technology

The important thing to remember is that it is work like this that's keeping our nations shipbuilding Industry going.

SA

They do look substantial warships, I can see how these three and the Khareef class would completely fill Britain's naval shipbuilding capacity. Its just aswell we don't have any money to order anymore T45s.

 

[citizen578]

Liam Fox just confirmed as Defence Secretary.

Good news for the RN.

 

[Troothsayer]

Liam Fox just confirmed as Defence Secretary.

Good news for the RN.

But not necessarily CVF.

 

[Grim901]

But not necessarily CVF.

He's been more positive on it than Osborne at least.

EDIT: Trident has also just been confirmed, along with a commitment to scrutinise the project for value for money (this should really happen with every project though shouldn't it?)

 

[harryriedl]

He's been more positive on it than Osborne at least.

EDIT: Trident has also just been confirmed, along with a commitment to scrutinise the project for value for money (this should really happen with every project though shouldn't it?)

Yeah should be closer to the US system with far more frequent reviews and an equivalent to the process which happens with US procurement where they all have to justify and explain the increase in expense.
CVF's should be safe considering how far they have progressed

 

[kev 99]

But not necessarily CVF.

Liam Fox has been broadly supportive of CVF for quite some time now, he's said some very strong words in support of the Navy as well.

Obviously Osbourne is the one to look out for.

 

[Troothsayer]

Liam Fox has been broadly supportive of CVF for quite some time now, he's said some very strong words in support of the Navy as well.

Obviously Osbourne is the one to look out for.

I guess the test is how much of a pre-election Tory SDR will be diluted by LibDem thinking. William Hague seems quite chipper this morning and again repeated a foreign policy led SDR will take place.

Fox is pretty pro-Navy and makes the right noises, and the Libs have been for the carriers in the past. I don't think anyone should be blind that defence could take a big hit in the next 3 year spending round and probably quite rightly - the defecit is of great national importance. We should just keep fingers crossed that cuts are well thought through and take more than just the initial savings into account.

 

[Troothsayer]

I think this is the clearest statement we have from the Portsmouth News that both carriers will get the go ahead
HMS Sultan and QE carriers 'safe with the coalition' - Portsmouth Today

Mr Hancock (Portsmouth South Lib Dem MP) also had good news for Portsmouth, after informing The News he'd spoken to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg about the future of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.

In the week before the election, Mr Clegg exclusively promised The News' readers he would safeguard the carriers.

A day later, David Cameron and Dr Liam Fox, who was yesterday given the role of defence secretary in the coalition government, stopped short of a definite pledge.

But Mr Hancock said: 'I spoke to Nick about this on Tuesday night and he assured me the carriers are safe.

'They will be built. It's a done deal. They're safe as far as we're concerned.'

Portsmouth North's new Conservative MP Penny Mordaunt, in training as a navy reservist, said: 'There has to be a defence review, but people from all parties support the carriers.

'It's good we and the Liberal Democrats are working together, and I think even if we hadn't had the coalition I would have worked hard with Mike Hancock to get them built for Portsmouth.

'We are united in our support for them and we'll make sure they are built.'

 

[davros]

I have been fairly well involved in this years election as far as attending meetings and talking to candidates in the Portsmouth area, HMS Queen Elizabeth is 100% safe there is nothing they can do to cancel it as to much of it has already been built, and although there are a few rumours of the 2nd unit being cancelled its not very likely. Now after talking to the new Tory MP for Portsmouth north who is a naval reserve it was rather worrying to hear that they are considering not purchasing JSF for use on the CVF according to her they were looking at extending the life of the Sea Harrier, bit worrying that a naval reserve doesn’t even know there are no Sea Harriers left.

 

[kev 99]

That is quite a poor show.

 

[Troothsayer]

it was rather worrying to hear that they are considering not purchasing JSF for use on the CVF according to her they were looking at extending the life of the Sea Harrier

She probably meant Harrier, but the mind said Sea Harrier - i've done that before. Unless she really did mean Sea Harrier and we're getting them out of storage!! I presume with refurb some are still airworthy?

To be honest the plane that flies off them isn't that important right now, it's getting them built. F35 will still be on the production line in a decades time when hopefully the countries finances will be better.

 

[harryriedl]

She probably meant Harrier, but the mind said Sea Harrier - i've done that before. Unless she really did mean Sea Harrier and we're getting them out of storage!! I presume with refurb some are still airworthy?

To be honest the plane that flies off them isn't that important right now, it's getting them built. F35 will still be on the production line in a decades time when hopefully the countries finances will be better.

Yep as other have mention this method is the complete opposite of the method of procuring the CVA-01 which had the phantoms in service before the carrier were procured. In this way it means that the carriers will be in service before the F35. In both cases the previous class could operated the air-wing marginally (Ark and Eagle could take phantoms with mods and their are reports that the Invincible class to take F35). Im surprised not to have heard any more news

 

[1805]

I have been fairly well involved in this years election as far as attending meetings and talking to candidates in the Portsmouth area, HMS Queen Elizabeth is 100% safe there is nothing they can do to cancel it as to much of it has already been built, and although there are a few rumours of the 2nd unit being cancelled its not very likely. Now after talking to the new Tory MP for Portsmouth north who is a naval reserve it was rather worrying to hear that they are considering not purchasing JSF for use on the CVF according to her they were looking at extending the life of the Sea Harrier, bit worrying that a naval reserve doesn’t even know there are no Sea Harriers left.

I know Penny and she does know the Sea Harriers were retired. She is very positive about the RN.

In fairness I think all three parties are supportive of the CVFs; if anything does happen to one of them, it would only be the crippling cost of the deficit not a fundamental principled decision, not that this would be much comfort.

 

[AndrewMI]

With the SDR coming up before the end of the year, I think in the long run the RN will come out in a very strong position.

I doubt there is much that can be done to trim the defence budget much - aside from wastage - such things as cancelling Eurofighter/CVF etc are highly unlikely in practice. There will be some short term pain - I imagine some projects will be pushed back a little to save some cash over the next 2-3 years - but I can see the navy perhaps coming out of the SDR with (on paper) a large programme of future construction. Of course this did occur in 1998 with little outcome.

The ability to park an aircraft carrier (or even a TacTom or future cruise missile) armed vessel off a potentially hostile shoreline - backed up by special forces - is a huge deterrent. Of course we can do this with SSN's - but when you don;t know where they are the "impact" is very different. They are the modern day battleship and should be treated as such. More than 7 Astute required...

 

[1805]

With the SDR coming up before the end of the year, I think in the long run the RN will come out in a very strong position.

I doubt there is much that can be done to trim the defence budget much - aside from wastage - such things as cancelling Eurofighter/CVF etc are highly unlikely in practice. There will be some short term pain - I imagine some projects will be pushed back a little to save some cash over the next 2-3 years - but I can see the navy perhaps coming out of the SDR with (on paper) a large programme of future construction. Of course this did occur in 1998 with little outcome.

The ability to park an aircraft carrier (or even a TacTom or future cruise missile) armed vessel off a potentially hostile shoreline - backed up by special forces - is a huge deterrent. Of course we can do this with SSN's - but when you don;t know where they are the "impact" is very different. They are the modern day battleship and should be treated as such. More than 7 Astute required...

I am not sure I share your rosie view of the SDR. I find this link RUSI - The Strategic Defence Review: After Helmand interesting for a number of reasons: no mention of the RAF, it points to a positive option as a sort of USMC, but concludes they will duck entrenched vested interests and avoid any radical change ending up with piecemeal cuts.

If the past is anything to go by I would agree; looks like we will see more old equipment retired early and new orders delayed/reduced in numbers.

Maybe we have to go down a level and even fail before serious reform can come. Is it possible for the UK military establishment to reform itself and we seem to lack a strong political "Cardwell or Haldane" with the knowledge to provide effective challenge/leadership?

 

[riksavage]

I am not sure I share your rosie view of the SDR. I find this link RUSI - The Strategic Defence Review: After Helmand interesting for a number of reasons: no mention of the RAF, it points to a positive option as a sort of USMC, but concludes they will duck entrenched vested interests and avoid any radical change ending up with piecemeal cuts.

If the past is anything to go by I would agree; looks like we will see more old equipment retired early and new orders delayed/reduced in numbers.

Maybe we have to go down a level and even fail before serious reform can come. Is it possible for the UK military establishment to reform itself and we seem to lack a strong political "Cardwell or Haldane" with the knowledge to provide effective challenge/leadership?

We can expect to see Peter robbing Paul, not all negative:

SF will see their budget increased, and I suspect one of the Commando's will be upgraded to a second SFSG. The 1 Para based SFSG will specialise in land operations in support of 22, the Maritime SFSG will specialise in supporting the SBS. Army will lose battalions of heavy armour and artillery. Active heavy armour and self-propelled artillery cut right back (spare units gladwrapped and placed in storage), surviving armoured regiments re-rolled to provide permanent brigade recon assets working independently in the LRPG. roll.'

Reduced F35B purchase (80 max), cheap counter-insurgency platform purchased (manned prop or UCAV)

More ISTAR UCAV - additional Reapers purchased adding to the 10 on order/purchased.

Focus placed on strategic raiding and asymmetrical warfare, so carriers retained at the expense of B3 Typhoon. I suspect the air-refueling programme will be ditched for a cheaper alternative. I'm not convinced A400 will survive, more C17's and C130J's instead. Once QE and PW are up and running, two Bays will go and I suspect Ocean may never be replaced. The QE's will end up as hybrid strike/UCAV/Commando assets supported by two Albion's and two Bays and multi-function RFA's (fuel, ammo and stores). The RN has always adapted under fiscal pressure, through the deck cruisers required a rewriting of maritime doctrine, the need for the QE's to become true tri-service units supporting Army, Navy and RAF assets will require further adaptation. The UK will need to cut red-tape thus save money unify commands and become more and more like the USMC.