The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

Some of this is long-term spending, so not relevant to the current financial crisis. e.g. F-35B - we won't be buying 80+ until well into the 2020s, so cutting the requirement to 80 won't affect the budget for over a decade.

There's no immediate requirement for more than the ten or so Reapers we'll soon have. There is, however, a requirement for bigger MALE UAVs to enter service in about 5 years, for which Mantis, & maybe Talarion, are candidates.

I don't understand this obsession with cancelling the A400M & buying more C-17s & C-130Js. We're making a substantial proportion of the A400M here, & the C-17 & C-130J are entirely imported, which is a significant factor when unemployment is high, the economy faltering, & state finances stretched. Spending in the UK is partly returned through taxes, & laid-off workers would be a burden on the state. Factor in that exchange rate changes have made the A400M a lot cheaper relative to the US types than it was a few years ago, & I see no financial justification.

I agree that some of our heavy armour & artillery are currently surplus, & should be preserved & stored. We may not need it now, but we may in the future. Cutting both F-35B & Typhoon I think would be a mistake, for the same reason. We mustn't equip ourselves only for fighting the type of war we currently have in Afghanistan. That's standard mistake no.1, the one everyone is always warned not to make.

Why retire Bays? They're busy. And cheap. They'll have loads of life left when QE & PoW are up & running, & are very cheap to run. If we're going to be specialising in strategic raiding, they're exactly what we'll need.

 

[1805]

Some of this is long-term spending, so not relevant to the current financial crisis. e.g. F-35B - we won't be buying 80+ until well into the 2020s, so cutting the requirement to 80 won't affect the budget for over a decade.

There's no immediate requirement for more than the ten or so Reapers we'll soon have. There is, however, a requirement for bigger MALE UAVs to enter service in about 5 years, for which Mantis, & maybe Talarion, are candidates.

I don't understand this obsession with cancelling the A400M & buying more C-17s & C-130Js. We're making a substantial proportion of the A400M here, & the C-17 & C-130J are entirely imported, which is a significant factor when unemployment is high, the economy faltering, & state finances stretched. Spending in the UK is partly returned through taxes, & laid-off workers would be a burden on the state. Factor in that exchange rate changes have made the A400M a lot cheaper relative to the US types than it was a few years ago, & I see no financial justification.

I agree that some of our heavy armour & artillery are currently surplus, & should be preserved & stored. We may not need it now, but we may in the future. Cutting both F-35B & Typhoon I think would be a mistake, for the same reason. We mustn't equip ourselves only for fighting the type of war we currently have in Afghanistan. That's standard mistake no.1, the one everyone is always warned not to make.

Why retire Bays? They're busy. And cheap. They'll have loads of life left when QE & PoW are up & running, & are very cheap to run. If we're going to be specialising in strategic raiding, they're exactly what we'll need.

I think we will end up with more cuts than mothballing a few Challengers. Quite a few more Tornados than planned, no more than the 160 Typhoon commited, the 4 T22 and maybe even 2-3 T23. Probably lucky to get 80 F35, but more dangerously pushed back as far as they can. T26/RFAs all delayed reduced in numbers. But I agree there is likely to be increases in SF & UAVs as they are the fashion. Actually heavy armour is probably more important than UAVs but is not as trendy (and creates more UK employment....well if we can keep in the game).

I think you miss the point about Public finances, this will be a 10+ year slog. Even when corporates return to healthy profits funding is going to be tight as there is £900bn to finance which will still be growing for at least 2-3 years.

 

[Grim901]

I think we will end up with more cuts than mothballing a few Challengers. Quite a few more Tornados than planned, no more than the 160 Typhoon commited, the 4 T22 and maybe even 2-3 T23. Probably lucky to get 80 F35, but more dangerously pushed back as far as they can. T26/RFAs all delayed reduced in numbers. But I agree there is likely to be increases in SF & UAVs as they are the fashion. Actually heavy armour is probably more important than UAVs but is not as trendy (and creates more UK employment....well if we can keep in the game).

I think you miss the point about Public finances, this will be a 10+ year slog. Even when corporates return to healthy profits funding is going to be tight as there is £900bn to finance which will still be growing for at least 2-3 years.

These cuts are intended to relieve the SHORT TERM budget crises. And also keep in mind a massive amount of the savings is going to be coming from culling civilian staff and selling land.

Most F35's (around half of those planned) arent even scheduled to be built until post 2022! That's 12 years away. And the govt. isn't looking to eliminate the deficit entirely. If it took 12 years to recover from one bust in the cycle there'd be no chance for a boom before the next cycle began. Look at history.

Oh and please look at the ship numbers you've just suggested cutting, you've just suggested that we're immediately going to drop to 15-16 escorts and maybe a couple of RFAs, then another drop in frigates later as T26 is "delayed and scaled back." There is pessimism then there is blind stupidity, no party is that stupid and the funding situation isn't THAT bad.

 

[1805]

These cuts are intended to relieve the SHORT TERM budget crises. And also keep in mind a massive amount of the savings is going to be coming from culling civilian staff and selling land.

Most F35's (around half of those planned) arent even scheduled to be built until post 2022! That's 12 years away. And the govt. isn't looking to eliminate the deficit entirely. If it took 12 years to recover from one bust in the cycle there'd be no chance for a boom before the next cycle began. Look at history.

Oh and please look at the ship numbers you've just suggested cutting, you've just suggested that we're immediately going to drop to 15-16 escorts and maybe a couple of RFAs, then another drop in frigates later as T26 is "delayed and scaled back." There is pessimism then there is blind stupidity, no party is that stupid and the funding situation isn't THAT bad.

The issue with the deficit is not short term, I think you have to separate what they have been prepared to tell the public and the actual facts. But if you look at the numbers it will take significant cuts and increased taxation just to stop its growth.

I throught we had 13 T23, 4 T22, 5 T42 (ecluding T45) 22 in total, if we lose the T22 brings use to 18 which will probably be the size of the future escort force. Until the RN realises these numbers could fall lower and starts to consider sensible ships not 6-7,000t escorts.

I think your right about the lack of boom, thats broadly what happened to Japan in the last downturn.

 

[Grim901]

The issue with the deficit is not short term, I think you have to separate what they have been prepared to tell the public and the actual facts. But if you look at the numbers it will take significant cuts and increased taxation just to stop its growth.

I throught we had 13 T23, 4 T22, 5 T42 (ecluding T45) 22 in total, if we lose the T22 brings use to 18 which will probably be the size of the future escort force. Until the RN realises these numbers could fall lower and starts to consider sensible ships not 6-7,000t escorts.

I think your right about the lack of boom, thats broadly what happened to Japan in the last downturn.

I know the deficit issue isn't short term, but it isn't the end of civilization as we know it. We've recovered and grown every other time it has happened, we'll do so again.

My comment on the escort force was more aimed at your suggestion that they might also cut a couple of T23's, which is just stupidity. And your last comment about "... starts to consider sensible ships not 6-7,000t escorts." is silly. Have you looked at the designs that most navies are looking at for their future escorts and what we have to fit to them. We can't and shouldn't try and go back to a time when our escorts were 2000t. And the tonnage isn't exactly important, room to grow saves money long term and steel is cheap. The majority of the price comes from the weapons and electronics fits etc.

 

[Hambo]

I know the deficit issue isn't short term, but it isn't the end of civilization as we know it. We've recovered and grown every other time it has happened, we'll do so again.

My comment on the escort force was more aimed at your suggestion that they might also cut a couple of T23's, which is just stupidity. And your last comment about "... starts to consider sensible ships not 6-7,000t escorts." is silly. Have you looked at the designs that most navies are looking at for their future escorts and what we have to fit to them. We can't and shouldn't try and go back to a time when our escorts were 2000t. And the tonnage isn't exactly important, room to grow saves money long term and steel is cheap. The majority of the price comes from the weapons and electronics fits etc.

Oh no Grim, what have you done??
You have just given 1805 an invitation to rehash his old posts about 2000-2500 tonne ships, something like a "insert google search choice", but with TAS, helos, 30,000mile range, 57mm, Kashtans and somekind of mortar.
Ugh.

 

[1805]

I know the deficit issue isn't short term, but it isn't the end of civilization as we know it. We've recovered and grown every other time it has happened, we'll do so again.

My comment on the escort force was more aimed at your suggestion that they might also cut a couple of T23's, which is just stupidity. And your last comment about "... starts to consider sensible ships not 6-7,000t escorts." is silly. Have you looked at the designs that most navies are looking at for their future escorts and what we have to fit to them. We can't and shouldn't try and go back to a time when our escorts were 2000t. And the tonnage isn't exactly important, room to grow saves money long term and steel is cheap. The majority of the price comes from the weapons and electronics fits etc.

Agreed It's not the end of the world and I don't think we are going the way of Greece, because the Government at last is going to take some action. But the scale of the problem is huge, a debt of c900bn is bad enough, but the fact we have added c170bn last year alone is a nightmare. There is also the destabilising danger of a potential breakup of the Euro etc.

When we have the Budget we will see higher taxes on the: rich, middle class and poor. Then all squeamishness about cuts will disappear (apart from Hambro who is up to pay any amount to finance defence.....in fact I am up for him paying any amount to!).

So it’s time the RN started to take a more responsible approach to its spending proportional to the real threats we face.

 

[bonehead]

responsible spending could come at the expence of the f35 and opt for the new 5th gen version of rafale for the carriers, ok so no hoover option but at least you get a proven plane and carrier ready and far cheaper then the f35 both in unit cost and operational costs. and the fleet wont have to wait 2 to 5 years for its airwing

 

[Bonza]

responsible spending could come at the expence of the f35 and opt for the new 5th gen version of rafale for the carriers, ok so no hoover option but at least you get a proven plane and carrier ready and far cheaper then the f35 both in unit cost and operational costs. and the fleet wont have to wait 2 to 5 years for its airwing

I don't think you'd really get a "proven plane" by opting for an aircraft that doesn't exist. Any variant of the Rafale will either lack certain capabilities (no LO built into airframe, no DAS etc) of the F-35, or it will have to undergo such heavy modification that it would not resemble a Rafale in the slightest and thus would not be proven.

 

[StevoJH]

responsible spending could come at the expence of the f35 and opt for the new 5th gen version of rafale for the carriers, ok so no hoover option but at least you get a proven plane and carrier ready and far cheaper then the f35 both in unit cost and operational costs. and the fleet wont have to wait 2 to 5 years for its airwing

Actually,

Rafale was more expensive then F-35 last time I checked. There was no 5th Generation version of the orphen platform called the Rafale last time I checked, and CATOBAR is much more expensive in manpower, equipment and training then STOVL.

 

[1805]

There are things they could do if they went for cats. They could develop a Hawk 200/Goshawk light attack aircraft to support a reduced number of F35b or cs.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

There are things they could do if they went for cats. They could develop a Hawk 200/Goshawk light attack aircraft to support a reduced number of F35b or cs.

Or you could buy BII Rhino's off the shelf. Plug in and play 4.5th gen capability.

 

[MrQuintus]

Or you could restart harrier production and save a lot of headaches with a High/low F35b/Harrier GR9 (enhanced) split.

 

[Bonza]

Or you could restart harrier production and save a lot of headaches with a High/low F35b/Harrier GR9 (enhanced) split.

Would it really be saving on headaches to restart a production line though? I don't know what the state of the Harrier line is like but I've rarely heard good things about restarting production lines for something as complicated as a fighter aircraft (I don't know enough about it myself to say though). Or were you referring to headaches in terms of other alternatives requiring catapults?

Producing an advanced Hawk variant seems to be a lot of trouble to go to for a limited capability... if they go for cats and the Lightning is on the nose for some reason it seems like the Super Hornet would be the best option, as Ozzy said. I'm not advocating the type for its own sake, but the production line is open, the platform is capable, and the user base is large. I don't really know enough about the RN so pardon me if I'm missing certain issues, just seems a practical solution if (and I realise it's an IF) the cats are installed and the F-35 doesn't get up in the numbers necessary/at all.

 

[Hambo]

Would it really be saving on headaches to restart a production line though? I don't know what the state of the Harrier line is like but I've rarely heard good things about restarting production lines for something as complicated as a fighter aircraft (I don't know enough about it myself to say though). Or were you referring to headaches in terms of other alternatives requiring catapults?

Producing an advanced Hawk variant seems to be a lot of trouble to go to for a limited capability... if they go for cats and the Lightning is on the nose for some reason it seems like the Super Hornet would be the best option, as Ozzy said. I'm not advocating the type for its own sake, but the production line is open, the platform is capable, and the user base is large. I don't really know enough about the RN so pardon me if I'm missing certain issues, just seems a practical solution if (and I realise it's an IF) the cats are installed and the F-35 doesn't get up in the numbers necessary/at all.

I would also go with the Super Hornet on a small number. I cant see what a Hawk etc would offer other than a great deal of cost for limited range and ability. If you are going to the expense of Cats whats the point of having a dog of an aircraft.

Budgets are tight. For me the key is to get out of Afghanistan and quickly. As to a 20 year plan I wouldnt mind seeing a capability on the lines of the USMC, a small potent force able to do one mission well.

Its not going to happen but...
RAF gets just enough Typhoon for airdefence of UK and a 48 aircraft group, with tankers, AEW, UCAVS that can be deployed to a conflct zone where land bases are there. Call it the RAF rapid reaction group. That would allow us to size up nicely against medium sized threats and punch heavily in a coalition.

The RN gets a third carrier built, only two airgroups but it means we could alsways count on two. Cat and Trap fitted if the steam issues can be overcome. Initially the RN gets two 12-18 aircraft squadrons of SHornet, one from each deck, plus helos. A small capability but one that gets us back into the premier league and comparible with 1970s airgroup.Obviously Sea Kind ASAC carries on until something better can be afforded. If over the next 2 or 3 decades we really need a stealthy strike capability then buy enough F35's to add a squadron per carrier.

The RN has the 6 Type 45s , upgrade 12 T23's and then replace with the T26. If we have to reduce escorts for the high end then so be it for a re shaped fleet. 8 SSN as a miminum.

The Royal Marines and Airborne brigade remains the core but the army is re organised, the bulk of the heavy kit gets mothballed, but here is the expensive part, the Army has to be able deploy a mechanised regiment alongside the Royal Marines with limited numbers of heavy armour and artillery, How? well in as many cheap transports as we can manage, Bays and/or alternatives. That would require more investment over a long period.

So where would that leave the UK Defence force in 2025?

Well if HMG sticks their noses in to someone elses business, the UK deploys a forward airwing of Typhoon , UCAVS, Tankers and AEW.

The RN arrives with a task force of 2 CV, at least 36 top class aircraft giving airdefence and strike, a commando brigade and a mechanised brigade in the amphib group, 4 Type 45 providing high end air defence, 6-8 T23/T26 providing high end ASW and 4 Astutes.

That would be about all we could do, a small but potent warfighting capability. Cheap and cheerfull patrol boats for the rest and plenty of ligtly equipped infantry battallions.

To me global raiding only works if you can pack a heavy punch, so that means just enough air assets, just enough naval strike and just enough boots on the ground. It would cost but it doesnt need to be done tommorow, build a combined UK expeditionary force.

Perhaps start by cutting the overseas aid budget? The 800m we have pleged to India over the next few years?

It wont happen, but a country our sized should be able to fight a small/meduim sized conflict on our own.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

As a - former - F35C fanboy I would refrain for any major changes to the JSF programme. A VSTOL solution makes more sense! :rosie

Assuming that the Royal Navy can only float one carrier (plus Amphibs) on a mission, it makes sense that we have platforms that can recover our key assets - the pilots - should our primary vessel be sunk. Using Bays and Albions as secondary platforms saves lives (even if we lose a few Lightning IIs body-frames over-the-side).

Ideally we would have three QEIIs but the money has been spent. Better to use our LHD/LPD/LSD platform-assets as secondary lily-ponds. Buying a few more Astutes (earlier, but for the same price) and cut-down Type-45s (assuming we can build them in time) would make more sense then the C-Dave and 'cats-n-traps'....:smokie

 

[Hambo]

As a - former - F35C fanboy I would refrain for any major changes to the JSF programme. A VSTOL solution makes more sense! :rosie

Assuming that the Royal Navy can only float one carrier (plus Amphibs) on a mission, it makes sense that we have platforms that can recover our key assets - the pilots - should our primary vessel be sunk. Using Bays and Albions as secondary platforms saves lives (even if we lose a few Lightning IIs body-frames over-the-side).

Ideally we would have three QEIIs but the money has been spent. Better to use our LHD/LPD/LSD platform-assets as secondary lily-ponds. Buying a few more Astutes (earlier, but for the same price) and cut-down Type-45s (assuming we can build them in time) would make more sense then the C-Dave and 'cats-n-traps'....:smokie

It would come down tothe cost per unit of F35B, the problem is no one seems to know, if its way over £100m each not inclusing weapon integration etc etc it becomes ripe for a cut. Liam Fox hinted the aircraft mix of CV may be looked at.

The Australians paid a fee for I believe 24 Super Hornets plus support. Say catapults cost £500m per ship. Potentially you could ask the USN for a price to train FAA/RAF pilots in the SH lock stock, so no need for a UK based OCR, just send the pilots and engineers to the US.. Just buy/lease SH for a nominal airgroup of 24 SH on one CV, whilst the other acts as a helo carrier, or a dozen on each. We improve vastly on what we have now, probably at lower cost than the F35 whatever that is.
SH should be able to cope with any threat in the next 20 years, then if need be buy later block F35's. SH can carry plenty of ordnance and is a good all rounder.

For AEW you could share with the french. Would the USN lease a couple of Hawkeyes to the UK to add to the french stock?

The Tories have suggested greater cooperation with the French so catapult equipped ships would make sense. Whilst I would take Rafale, SH at least gives you an option of F35 later as it will have a long production run in massive numbers, wheres the Rafale wont.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

It would come down tothe cost per unit of F35B, the problem is no one seems to know, if its way over £100m each not inclusing weapon integration etc etc it becomes ripe for a cut. Liam Fox hinted the aircraft mix of CV may be looked at.

The Australians paid a fee for I believe 24 Super Hornets plus support. Say catapults cost £500m per ship. Potentially you could ask the USN for a price to train FAA/RAF pilots in the SH lock stock, so no need for a UK based OCR, just send the pilots and engineers to the US.. Just buy/lease SH for a nominal airgroup of 24 SH on one CV, whilst the other acts as a helo carrier, or a dozen on each. We improve vastly on what we have now, probably at lower cost than the F35 whatever that is.
SH should be able to cope with any threat in the next 20 years, then if need be buy later block F35's. SH can carry plenty of ordnance and is a good all rounder.

For AEW you could share with the french. Would the USN lease a couple of Hawkeyes to the UK to add to the french stock?

The Tories have suggested greater cooperation with the French so catapult equipped ships would make sense. Whilst I would take Rafale, SH at least gives you an option of F35 later as it will have a long production run in massive numbers, wheres the Rafale wont.

See bold: How do you land a number of F-18Ks if your cat-n-trap system has been sunk? At least with the F35B you have a chance of recovering your pilots without expending 'copter hours finding them. [Instead your Merlins should be hunting the beast that got through the escort cordon!]

 

[Hambo]

See bold: How do you land a number of F-18Ks if your cat-n-trap system has been sunk? At least with the F35B you have a chance of recovering your pilots without expending 'copter hours finding them. [Instead your Merlins should be hunting the beast that got through the escort cordon!]

The French and US seem to assume they can protect a carrier? We assumed we could before the budget cuts of the 60's. If you are defeatist enough from the offing to assume your capital ship is toast, there isnt much point in playing navies.

F35B is fine if you can afford them, thats the crux. If they come in well over 100m a pop then the program may be cancelled.

 

[harryriedl]

The French and US seem to assume they can protect a carrier? We assumed we could before the budget cuts of the 60's. If you are defeatist enough from the offing to assume your capital ship is toast, there isnt much point in playing navies.

F35B is fine if you can afford them, thats the crux. If they come in well over 100m a pop then the program may be cancelled.

The curious thing is the French have much less escorts for the CBG 2 Horizions which don't have the same AAW compared with the T-45. Also a only FREMMS available if the Horizons are busy