The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Hambo]

Just a few points of clarification:

Over on ARSSE they have a thread on how to implement 20% personnel cuts. As cut's are a-coming I was wondering if there could be a way for the Royal Navy to implement them without losing - much - operational capability.

SA:Yes I got my numbers wrong. Reducing to 3 T22BIII and 12 T23 should be ok if we used an OPV/Light-frigate for constabulary work (eighteen vessels over seventeen). If the Brunei vessels are overkill why use a T22 instead? As the T22 have C&C I'd like to keep them for flotilla leadership and the like. If the Nakhoda Ragam are still available then we should see medium/long-term savings in personnel and costs.

Swerve: I always thought the NRs had helicopter-support. Therefore they are similar solution to HMS Clyde. Would having a RFA nearby be a problem (as I assume one is usually about for disaster-relief ops)?
The BAMs are nice, but they are not a turn-key solution yet. We would also have to ensure we have the correct type available as not all appear to have a hanger.

We know that it will be hard for the Coalition to maintain current expenditure (let alone fill in the missing billions on procurement). I was just proposing one possible manipulation of the budget to eek out a little more. [We could always gift a T22 to Pakistan and transfer the replacement cost from the Overseas Aid funds.]

Werent the Nakhoda Ragams purchsed by Algeria?

In any case google said they cost 600m for three, can support but not hangar a helo, and still require a crew of 80. When built I thought the headroom was designed for shorter crew members with no heating system?
I would have thought that with a decent production run, and with some common sense in design for export potential, then a T26 could mirror the T23 in ships becoming cheaper towards the end of the run.
I would favour scrapping the overseas aid budget competely, gifting £800m to india whilst they build carriers an develop a space programme seems lunacy. As for constabulary work , particularly drug interdiction, this should be an area where resources are pooled, certainly across the EU, where I wouldnt mind chipping in to a cheap and cheerful patrol vesse wth a flight deck, some RIBS and a couple of heavy machine guns, l with a multinational crew, the leave the RN to concentrate on other tasks.

 

[swerve]

.... If the Brunei vessels are overkill why use a T22 instead?

Because we already have them, & they're paid for.

Buying smaller vessels with smaller crews & other lower costs could save money in the long run, but not immediately - and we have an immediate financial crisis. If we want to achieve long-term savings by reducing our front-line fleet & acquiring a number of smaller, cheaper ships for low-intensity taskings, I would argue that the Nakhoda Ragam class is a poor choice. They're local war fighting vessels, with what one would expect on such a ship. They're heavily armed for their size, with crews to suit, limited range & endurance, & as already said, no hangar. Helicopter support facilities are limited, I believe, & not just by the lack of a hangar.

If we're going to go down that route, we should do it properly, & buy a purpose-built ship, which would probably be as cheap to buy as a Nakhoda Ragam even at a discounted second hand price, much cheaper to operate (half the crew, etc), & much better suited to the role. We could buy as many as needed, not being constrained by the existence of only three NRs, & use the same basic design in a variety of roles in the future, as existing types come up for replacement. Hey! C3!

There are several suitable ships. I cited the BAM (& the four OPVH now building do have hangars: it's optional for other as yet unbuilt variants, such as survey) only as an example.

The only way I can see this making any kind of sense is if the RN found a customer for a couple of frigates which paid enough to fund a lease of the NRs, at a rate which saved money both immediately, & over the length of the lease. That way, we'd get the immediate saving, without paying more long-term. For Brunei, it would get someone else to pay for the maintenance costs & depreciation of the ships for a few years, which is better than nothing. Dunno what they'd envisage doing with them at the end of the lease, though.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

...We could buy as many as needed, not being constrained by the existence of only three NRs, & use the same basic design in a variety of roles in the future, as existing types come up for replacement. Hey! C3!

And we are back to a rational conversation about C3/FSC from many months ago*. Given an ideal world a light-frigate for the Carrib. and IO areas would make economical sense. Unfortunately - yourself being the major commentator - C3 is kicked-off into the 2030s. This does not address the forth-coming efficiency savings that George (not 'GideO' **) Osborne will have to enforce.

Without a turn-key solution for low-intensity work I fear that HM Navy will be cut (despite Dr Fox's best efforts) by a number of escort-vessels. Shy of employing Churchill's Admiralty statement***(no link) - "The Treasury said two, the Admiralty said four: we settled on eight" - I can't see how costs can be lowered whilst we restructure our economy.

Any ideas how we can maintain a credible navy without massive [and needed] expansions in funding will be helpful. Many thanks. :daz

* The three-K tonne vessels that have a telescopic hanger. BVT vessel was it?
** Sad people - such as wage-slave find it funny. I doubt that those people are bright-enough to out-shine a blow-fly.
** Three QE-class for £6+billion - including a dedicated LPH - as opposed to the extended procurement of QE & PoW over the same time-span for £5+ billion,

 

[Troothsayer]

Any ideas how we can maintain a credible navy without massive [and needed] expansions in funding will be helpful. Many thanks. :daz

It won't happen unless the SDSR recommends that UK armed forces are reconfigured so that the job of UK global power projection is primarily in the hands of the Royal Navy at the expense of the RAF & Army.

Else, with rumours both carriers are probably safe anyway due to the majority of money already spent on them we're going to emerge with a very top heavy navy.

 

[kev 99]

** Three QE-class for £6+billion - including a dedicated LPH - as opposed to the extended procurement of QE & PoW over the same time-span for £5+ billion,

There are a great deal of things that the RN needs needs more than an extra CVF, it would be pretty unlikely that you'd get an extra one for that amount of money anyway, more than likely Portsmouth won't have the infrastructure to cope with three anyway.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

There are a great deal of things that the RN needs needs more than an extra CVF, it would be pretty unlikely that you'd get an extra one for that amount of money anyway, more than likely Portsmouth won't have the infrastructure to cope with three anyway.

It would be interesting to find out. Building two vessels over an extra two-years: how much of that extra £1billion+ is down to employing the same number of people to do the same work but over a longer period? I would not put it past the last government spending our taxes just to please their electorate. [But that is a discussion for another place.]

As for a third of the class, if Ocean is expected to be decommissioned 2020, would a HMS Duke of York - to be delivered 2018/9 - not be a suitable option as a Carrier/LPH? As these vessels are built for long-term deployment - and refits will be undertaken at Rosyth - why would Portsmouth struggle accommodating them? I can't see two QEs being tied-up too often in Portsmouth Sound.

 

[Grim901]

It would be a sight and a half though. I remember sailing out of Portsmouth on the Cross channel ferries as a kid and seeing Invincible and her sisters tied up once or twice, would be even more impressive with 2 CVFs.

And if a third was to be built i'd seriously hope that they'd birth it in Plymouth instead. Thats where Ocean and the LPDs are based anyway. The base has more than enough room, especially with the escort wind down there.

 

[kev 99]

It would be interesting to find out. Building two vessels over an extra two-years: how much of that extra £1billion+ is down to employing the same number of people to do the same work but over a longer period? I would not put it past the last government spending our taxes just to please their electorate. [But that is a discussion for another place.]

As for a third of the class, if Ocean is expected to be decommissioned 2020, would a HMS Duke of York - to be delivered 2018/9 - not be a suitable option as a Carrier/LPH? As these vessels are built for long-term deployment - and refits will be undertaken at Rosyth - why would Portsmouth struggle accommodating them? I can't see two QEs being tied-up too often in Portsmouth Sound.

Well we already know that the decision to lengthen construction time has added £1b to the final bill already, BVT have already released this little tidbit of information to the press.

If you want an LPH to replace Ocean you could almost certainly do it for a great deal less than the £1b that you are proposing, remember Ocean is a cheap ship costing somewhere in the region of £250m, albeit a few years ago now.

As I understand it all of the required shore-side infrastructure is being bought in twos, would the actually being enough birthing space for three? Remember Portsmouth Sound is going to require substantial dredging to increase the depth of the channel so that they can get into and out of the base in the first place.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Well we already know that the decision to lengthen construction time has added £1b to the final bill already, BVT have already released this little tidbit of information to the press.

If you want an LPH to replace Ocean you could almost certainly do it for a great deal less than the £1b that you are proposing, remember Ocean is a cheap ship costing somewhere in the region of £250m, albeit a few years ago now.

As I understand it all of the required shore-side infrastructure is being bought in twos, would the actually being enough birthing space for three? Remember Portsmouth Sound is going to require substantial dredging to increase the depth of the channel so that they can get into and out of the base in the first place.

Of course we could get a cheaper LPH but, as it is, one of the two QEs will be rouled as an LPH when both vessels are available. Had the last government kept to the original timetable it could have also purchased a dedicated LPH at - comparatively - no extra cost (assuming the annual budgets could have coped). So we have wasted [sic] a billion to stretch-out production for no extra capability. Sheer madness.

Of course I'd rather increase [shorten] the drumbeat for Astute and buy a few more Darings. Sadly we are going to be extending existing time-frames, reducing capability and further weakening our industrial-sector. The economics of defence-spending defy rationality. :rel

 

[1805]

What has become very apparent since the Election is the long term nature of the deficit. I think the RN has to look at radical solutions and work with the Coalition at ways of reducing expenditure, whilst maintain numbers/capability. Merely burying our heads in the sand and hoping it will go away is not going to help.

I was talking to Penny Mordaunt the new MP for Portsmouth North and she does have an excellent grasp of the issues and is very supportive of the Navy in particular (how many MP are RN Reservists!). But at the same time recognises the magnitude of the deficit issue and the need for the UK to address this.

Sadly ill thought out procurement will potentially leave us with a very unbalanced fleet. I think we have got to consider things like: halting the Type 26 before too much is spent, or cutting to say 4-6; making up number with 8-12 F2000 based designs with a similar fit to the KD Lekiu (maybe longer range & CAMM not Sea Wolf), maybe 3 SSBN or far fewer missiles. If we can only afford 6 SSN’s is it worth looking at SSKs? Maybe more Harriers or heavy rebuilds of them? And please please please order and commit to reasonable timeframes, so we are not rebuilding what seems like the whole RN in 8-10 years, so we end up delaying and just wasting billions!

 

[kev 99]

Had the last government kept to the original timetable it could have also purchased a dedicated LPH at - comparatively - no extra cost (assuming the annual budgets could have coped). So we have wasted [sic] a billion to stretch-out production for no extra capability. Sheer madness.

Yes it's pretty dumb but then the public expenditure policy of the last Government has been pretty much an exercise in burying one's head in the sand while throwing money around.

 

[Moonstone]

Of course we could get a cheaper LPH but, as it is, one of the two QEs will be rouled as an LPH when both vessels are available. Had the last government kept to the original timetable it could have also purchased a dedicated LPH at - comparatively - no extra cost (assuming the annual budgets could have coped). So we have wasted [sic] a billion to stretch-out production for no extra capability. Sheer madness.

It seems to me that as we are only likely to be able to afford one CV air group in the foreseeable future that HMS Prince of Wales should be completed , 'mothballed' and then placed into long term reserve until Queen Elizabeth enters her first major refit . Those with an interest in the RN's history will understand that this was common practice with newly constructed warships as recently as the late 1940's . Not an ideal situation by any means but 'needs must' as they say .

Using a QE as a LPH makes no real sense to me , they'd be too expensive to run and not particularly efficient in this specialist role anyway unless there were heavily modified . Better I'd have thought to 'SLEP' HMS Ocean if possible (only commissioned 12 years ago) and give her a extra 10-15 years of active service . While the Ocean is in refit we'll just have to accept the 'capability gap' and hope we get away with it again - I seem to remember our forces retaking the Falklands without the benefit of any proper LPH at their disposal .

In the longer term both strike carriers will probably end up employing air groups comprised of F35's , Merlin's and some future Naval UCAV design - the planning for which should start ASAP I would suggest .

 

[Hambo]

It seems to me that as we are only likely to be able to afford one CV air group in the foreseeable future that HMS Prince of Wales should be completed , 'mothballed' and then placed into long term reserve until Queen Elizabeth enters her first major refit . Those with an interest in the RN's history will understand that this was common practice with newly constructed warships as recently as the late 1940's . Not an ideal situation by any means but 'needs must' as they say .

Using a QE as a LPH makes no real sense to me , they'd be too expensive to run and not particularly efficient in this specialist role anyway unless there were heavily modified . Better I'd have thought to 'SLEP' HMS Ocean if possible (only commissioned 12 years ago) and give her a extra 10-15 years of active service . While the Ocean is in refit we'll just have to accept the 'capability gap' and hope we get away with it again - I seem to remember our forces retaking the Falklands without the benefit of any proper LPH at their disposal .

In the longer term both strike carriers will probably end up employing air groups comprised of F35's , Merlin's and some future Naval UCAV design - the planning for which should start ASAP I would suggest .

Couldnt the life of Ark Royal be stretched out after POW enters service? Maybe stripped down sensor wise and flag capabilities removed, as an austere LPH, which might reduce the manpower level to an acceptable number, even if she was then stuck in reserve for a decade as a "you never know" option, far better than flogging he cheap or scrapping her. You would think enough spares could be scrounged from her sister ships. Dependent on cost it could delay the need for a replacement long enough to keep the accountants happy, float he out when Ocean needs a refit.
If you think back to the Falklands, had not HMS Bulwark deteriorated to such a level , she would have been invaluable. If it had been possible to reactivate in time,and find crew, the war may have been shorter with less casualties. She could have carried the helo lift instead of it travelling on the Atlantic Conveyor perhaps? Or at least allowed the rapid insertion of troops in numbers.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Let me see if I understand the last few comments:

We purchase two carriers at £2billion-a-piece, then our government decides to stretch the procurement at an extra £1billion, and now it is suggested that we store the second one for a rainy-day? £5billion for one active carrier; supplemented by an ancient HMS Ark Royal? :dodgy

 

[kev 99]

It seems to me that as we are only likely to be able to afford one CV air group in the foreseeable future that HMS Prince of Wales should be completed , 'mothballed' and then placed into long term reserve until Queen Elizabeth enters her first major refit . Those with an interest in the RN's history will understand that this was common practice with newly constructed warships as recently as the late 1940's . Not an ideal situation by any means but 'needs must' as they say .

Using a QE as a LPH makes no real sense to me , they'd be too expensive to run and not particularly efficient in this specialist role anyway unless there were heavily modified . Better I'd have thought to 'SLEP' HMS Ocean if possible (only commissioned 12 years ago) and give her a extra 10-15 years of active service . While the Ocean is in refit we'll just have to accept the 'capability gap' and hope we get away with it again - I seem to remember our forces retaking the Falklands without the benefit of any proper LPH at their disposal .

In the longer term both strike carriers will probably end up employing air groups comprised of F35's , Merlin's and some future Naval UCAV design - the planning for which should start ASAP I would suggest .

Why would CVF require modification to act as an LPH when the requirement for it to be able to fulfil this role has always been in the specification?

 

[Grim901]

At this point i'd actually be okay with giving the Ocean replacement contract to a foreign yard (their are a couple of decent designs floating about) if it meant it was cheap, it may not benefit British industry but then they're already booked up until T26 is finished thanks to the closure of so many yards, and we'd be more likely to get a replacement if it was cheaper.

We could always try and get some offsets out of France/Italy/Spain or whoever else ends up building it by getting them to buy something from our industry.

 

[t68]

Looks as though we're getting some positive movement regards EMALS:

Defense Technology International | Jun-10 | Express 3 | Zinio Digital Magazines

Wouldn't it be nice if the good Dr Fox appeared and said ''right guys, we're going to fit EMALS on the QE's and get some proper carrier aircraft to boot'' [/DREAM]

Don’t you think F35B is a proper aircraft from fly off a flat top, when you add the cost of EMALS and recovery gear for the proper aircraft and it came down to cost i would choose to fly more F35B than less F35C for roughly the same money ill choose more F35b please. But if you are saying two full decks of 40 combat aircraft with a mix of F35C and Super Hornets plus AWACs, COD and recovery helos i understand where you are coming from.

 

[Moonstone]

Why would CVF require modification to act as an LPH when the requirement for it to be able to fulfil this role has always been in the specification?

You could use a 65,000 tonne 'Queen Elizabeth' class carrier with its complement of 600 as some sort of vastly expensive and not very efficient LPH but the real question is why would you want to ? All experience with the 'Invincible' class shows us that this theoretical capability is rarely (if ever) employed in practice .

Most satisfactory LPH designs (such as HMS Ocean) are equipped to launch simultaneous air and seaborne assaults and as such come with the heavy davits required to operate a LCVP squadron and the ramps/cranes needed to facilitate the efficient combat loading/unloading of stores and vehicles - to add even some of this kit to a 'Queen' would obviously require some substantial modification .

In some future emergency it may well be that any and all available 'Queens' will be required in their primary role as a strike carrier anyway , rendering the whole LPH question moot . If we really must have a LPH capability then extending the life of HMS Ocean seems to me to be the better option until a proper replacement could be funded in the 2020's .

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see both strike carriers in commission and the MOD ordering the 70 or so F35's that they would require , those predicting this happy state of affairs occurring anytime soon may well need to obtain a more secure grip on the fundamentals of the UK's current (dire) financial situation .

All just my opinion of course .

 

[kev 99]

You could use a 65,000 tonne 'Queen Elizabeth' class carrier with its complement of 600 as some sort of vastly expensive and not very efficient LPH but the real question is why would you want to ? All experience with the 'Invincible' class shows us that this theoretical capability is rarely (if ever) employed in practice .

Most satisfactory LPH designs (such as HMS Ocean) are equipped to launch simultaneous air and seaborne assaults and as such come with the heavy davits required to operate a LCVP squadron and the ramps/cranes needed to facilitate the efficient combat loading/unloading of stores and vehicles - to add even some of this kit to a 'Queen' would obviously require some substantial modification .

In some future emergency it may well be that any and all available 'Queens' will be required in their primary role as a strike carrier anyway , rendering the whole LPH question moot . If we really must have a LPH capability then extending the life of HMS Ocean seems to me to be the better option until a proper replacement could be funded in the 2020's .

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see both strike carriers in commission and the MOD ordering the 70 or so F35's that they would require , those predicting this happy state of affairs occurring anytime soon may well need to obtain a more secure grip on the fundamentals of the UK's current (dire) financial situation .

All just my opinion of course .

As far as I'm aware the Mk 5B LCVP as carried by Ocean are not able to land vehicles because they are too small, additionally around half of their length is under cover which would make it impossible anyway, also there certainly does not appear to be any way of manoeuvring vehicles onto them anyway as they are suspended on davits.

CVF may not have the davits required for launching Mk 5bs but remember we're not talking about it being optimised for the assault role but able to act in this role, it's not quite the same thing.

As for an Invincible being operated in this role Ark royal did it during the Invasion of Iraq, that is the only time one of them has been required to undertake the role in a real operation.

 

[1805]

Would it not be better to soldier on with HMS Ocean or live without LPH capability for some time (the CVF will have losts of space) and then build the capability into the Albion/Bulwark replacements like the Mistral's. A pure LPH looks dated compared to JC 1/Camberra's/Mistrals, we will not get exports if we build old concepts.

Also should we not be trying to sell the best condition Invincible Class now, is there a market?

The more I think about it building more Harriers is not as silly as it sounds. I wonder how much it would cost per unit if we built 100-150, I am sure there would also be export potential.