The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Troothsayer

New Member
Depends. If the other partners also don't want T3B, then we're off the hook.

T3B won't start being delivered until 2016 or so, so there's time for public finances to improve. Fingers crossed.
It was widely reported in March that the cost of cancelling T3B was going to be around £2bn.

Quentin Davies was pretty adamant at the time though that the UK was under no commitment to buy further jets after purchase of T3A.

So, either Eurofighter or the UK MoD have got it wrong. I'm probably not alone in assuming which one to put our money on!
 

1805

New Member
If we cancel the Tranche 3B Typhoon order then we will have to make some pretty expensive penalty payments to the Eurofighter partners in compensation - at least that's what Eurofigther claim . I would have thought It would be better to buy the planned total in full and then sell any surplus Typhoons abroad .

With the benefit of hindsight around 250 Typhoons would have been just about the right number for the RAF & FAA combined had the latter batches been built as the proposed 'Sea Typhoon' variant . While the Sea Typhoon would not offer 'UK PLC' the potential long term industrial benefits having a slice of the enormous F35 programme will give us I'm quite confident the aircraft itself (suitably modified) would be perfectly adequate for the FAA's needs .

Another example of the lack of long term planning within the MOD ?
Maybe this was not so with hindsight as it was almost the same debate as over the F4 v P1154 in the 60s.

Completely agree on the Sea Typhoon, if iit had been done from the start. Hopefully this will be the last time the RAF & RN diverge on aircraft selection. I wonder if the FAA requirement had been included at the begining if the French would have stayed in, surely this would have been best for all concerned.

Could we try and sell our allocation, as we did with Saudi Arabia. Did Japan express an interest, if the US refused to sell F22?
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Could we try and sell our allocation, as we did with Saudi Arabia. Did Japan express an interest, if the US refused to sell F22?
Yes - if we get a new buyer, we can probably shift some of our older planes and have them upgraded or re-allocate our own 3Bs. With so many of our European partners taking a hit from the recession they might want a deal to reduce the overall purchase of planes.

Yes - we don't know what Japan will buy as they've delayed the purchase.
 

1805

New Member
It was widely reported in March that the cost of cancelling T3B was going to be around £2bn.

Quentin Davies was pretty adamant at the time though that the UK was under no commitment to buy further jets after purchase of T3A.

So, either Eurofighter or the UK MoD have got it wrong. I'm probably not alone in assuming which one to put our money on!
It worries me when you hear of huge cancellation clauses and if true you have to wonder what the MOD is doing. Equitable termination clauses should only cover losses from cost that have been committed by a supplier and have to be recovered, not “lost profit” on additional sales. Also its time the MOD under promised and over delivered to its suppliers, by making more realistic forecasts.
 
Last edited:

kev 99

Member
FRES has been a money sink for years, without producing any hardware. We need to overhaul the procurement process. It gobbles up vast amounts of money, & far too often (as with FRES) all the money is spent on the process, & none on the equipment. We could have bought a few hundred Boxer, for example, for the money we've spent not buying them.
I read some report last year that stated we'd spent around £1b on FRES, for a project that is still a long way off producing a single unit that is utterly diabolical.
 

MrQuintus

New Member
I don't know why you all think T3B is a for sure cut, we haven't even started paying for T3A yet, and we're burning through airframe hours on our T1s at a serious rate of speed. The last of the F3s will be going soon and unless we make good our complete Eurofighter procurement we're just going to push a capability gap a decade down the line as we won't have enough airframes to spread operational hours over.
 

1805

New Member
I don't know why you all think T3B is a for sure cut, we haven't even started paying for T3A yet, and we're burning through airframe hours on our T1s at a serious rate of speed. The last of the F3s will be going soon and unless we make good our complete Eurofighter procurement we're just going to push a capability gap a decade down the line as we won't have enough airframes to spread operational hours over.
As the Typhoon is expensive to buy and build we should consider confining its activities to air defence and airshows. We could then buy (or even develop) something cheaper and better suited for the ground attack role. Something akin to the subsonic very unstealthy but purpose built for the job A10?

While we are on the subject of cuts we could sell off some of those grace & favour homes the top brass have access to.

I have worked for a number of big organisations which have tried to cut costs. The only real way to make significant savings, without compromising the operation; is to convince the senior leadership team and equally importantly the 4-5 layers beneath (mind turkeys don't often vote for Christmas) that there is a problem, and if its not sorted it will destroy the business. It is equally important to give them the tools to do something about it.

Only then will they stop defending their corners and start to look with an open mind at where there are opportunities. Tescos had a saying: Better, Faster, Cheaper.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
I read some report last year that stated we'd spent around £1b on FRES, for a project that is still a long way off producing a single unit that is utterly diabolical.
Indeed. The money has been spent on pay for those engaged in the procurement process, & on prototyping by potential suppliers.

We could have bought Boxer & paid for a Warrior rebuild - but instead, we have nothing.
 
Indeed. The money has been spent on pay for those engaged in the procurement process, & on prototyping by potential suppliers.

We could have bought Boxer & paid for a Warrior rebuild - but instead, we have nothing.
Although this is off-thread (and should be part of the locked British Army thread - :hint: ) from memory the reason we did not go with Boxer was because GKN looked like winning the contract, so the Germans changed the spec. Whether a six-wheeled box would have been better then the eight-wheeled evolution I cannot comment; once again politics undermines so-called European co-operation. :coffee
 
Last edited:

AndrewMI

New Member
It is hugely disappointing the amount of money that has been "wasted" on defence procurement. I put wasted in commas because in goverment spending, technically nothing is wasted as it will all come back to you in the end - subject to the velocity of the country's cash flow.

The Labout governments' defence procurement has been a series of what ifs. The only thing that has survived more or less intact is CVF (we think/hope) all other cutting edge projects have been scaled back (e.g. Astute from 12 to 10 and now to we think 7 and T45 - cutting capability and numbers from 12 to 8 to 6).

Had these things been managed properly the RN would be in a position of supreme strength. As it happens we need to deal with a hugely uncertain world with 6 modern ships, and who knows how many second rate T22/23's designed for a limited Cold War role. The only saving grace at the moment is the SSN fleet, which means we remain one of the most powerful navies on earth.

On the flip side, the ConDems seem to favour a strong navy and i think in the long term we could in fact see the 1998 SDR recomendations for the Navy upheld. There will be short term issues to resolve but undoubtedly the Navy seems to be emerging as the "winner" according to reports. With any luck in 10 years we will have a true blue water navy to be proud of. With even more luck they won't be used in a major conflict.

I wonder if Richard Beedall will resurface after the SDR.... his opinions are missed.
 

kev 99

Member
I wonder if Richard Beedall will resurface after the SDR.... his opinions are missed.
His chapter in the Seaforth Naval Review shows that he's still taking a keen interest, who knows maybe someday NavyMatters will see some updates, then again he could be saving it all for something he's going to get paid for, I certainly wouldn't blame him.
 

Troothsayer

New Member
There will be short term issues to resolve but undoubtedly the Navy seems to be emerging as the "winner" according to reports.
Isn't this just based on the odd quote from Liam Fox and little snippets in the press here and there? In truth we really know nothing about which direction the government will go.

The only factual thing we know is that the new governments foreign policy is not to retreat from the world and that although economics must be taken into account the SDR will be foreign policy led.

We're yet to see the full propaganda pitch by each service chief that will no doubt make its way into the press via their friends in the media who each have their own agenda.
 

1805

New Member
Isn't this just based on the odd quote from Liam Fox and little snippets in the press here and there? In truth we really know nothing about which direction the government will go.

The only factual thing we know is that the new governments foreign policy is not to retreat from the world and that although economics must be taken into account the SDR will be foreign policy led.

We're yet to see the full propaganda pitch by each service chief that will no doubt make its way into the press via their friends in the media who each have their own agenda.
Completely agree I don't see much reassurance in any statements made. We face very tough challenges and the immediate need for cuts and the fact there appears to be little planning/creativity coming out of the MOD does not bode well.

I do think the RN does have recognition in the Government, but I can't see this will help much, the war (doesn't seem to be referred to as a conflict anymore) in Afghanistan limits options. I can see the RN having the Astutes capped at 6, T22 going early. I can see F35s cut but as has been pointed out here before, this will not help until much later.

There has to be a serious review of the T26, if they continue they have to spread out the construction over a longer period, from the start (mind how much has been spent on FSC already does it rival FRES?). A learning from the T45, they could have been spread out over 18-20 years not the 10 currently. The same is true of the Astutes and of course the CVFs which have been by default and at a wasteful cost. This would have help with budgets and maybe resulted in greater numbers.

The T45 seem to be averaging 34 months from steel being cut to launch, 8-9 ships laid down one after the other would have taken 24-27 years, covering the full life/industrial cycle. All we have achieved by this haste, is the UK ship building industry rushing to it's own funeral. Of course 3 exports to Australia would have been great, lets hope the T26 if built, is really designed to appeal to the export market.
 
Last edited:

AndrewMI

New Member
I do see reassurance. The suggestion is that, whilst the UK is all but safe from an invasion (I.e. Trident) there is recognition that events many thousands of miles away from home can affect the security and economic wellbeing of the country. Particularly political instability in states we can all name, and competition for energy resources that increasingly are in offshore locations. That can only lead to one conclusion.

I hope Astute is not cut to 6. SSN's are the modern day battleships and, like the T45 one will often be attached to a carrier battle group and an amphip group, but of course their real value is disappearing for 90 days on their own and doing their own thing.

T22 would not be a massive loss in the long term. I agree in principle with Fox' thoughts on reducing cost not programmnes.

Key to this is the T26. It will represent a huge capability jump from the T22/23 provided it is kitted out "with and not for" and it needs to be available in sufficient numbers to be able to make a difference both within a task group and on its own.
 

Troothsayer

New Member
I agree, the little quotes by Fox have been encouraging but we have nothing firm yet and I'm always wary of the politicking that goes on. He was very coy on the subject of CVF in opposition and whilst he seems pro-navy, this could just mean extra surface fleet for piracy patrol etc.
 

Moonstone

New Member
One of the 'racing certainties' to emerge from the forthcoming SDR is that the MOD's vast army of civil servants is due for a pretty severe cutback . Now this is widely seen as inevitable and long overdue you could well say but many of these people (contrary to popular opinion) are actually playing some kind of valuable role in our national defence .

In the future in may become much harder than it already is to conceptualize , design and manufacture the increasingly complex weapon systems needed for tomorrows navy . Private industry can (and must increasing do more) to fill the gap but if you lose 50 research scientist posts for instance the immediate effects might not be very noticeable , but in the longer term there will be a price to pay - there always is .

Much of the UK's post WWII military/industrial effort can be seen as a continuous struggle between the competing desires to maintain an adequate defence , provide the services with modern British made equipment , and the ever present requirement to live within our means .

This SDR may mark a decisive turn in this struggle when it becomes perfectly obvious to all that no longer can the MOD/RN afford (or even maintain the capacity to design) the bespoke destroyer , frigate and submarine types specifically made for its needs alone with very little view to their commercial exportability . Initiating major UK only equipment programmes such as the horrendously expensive Spearfish torpedo or Nimrod MRA 4 aircraft will become consigned to history .

The record shows that 14 Type 42's were replaced by 6 Type 45's , at this rate the 'Darings' will one day be superseded by two or three mega expensive ships at best - ships so few in number and costly that they could hardly be put 'in harms way' where a real warship needs to be in wartime .Looking at the 7000 tonne Type 26 design I have to ask myself is this ship an escort or will it need escorting ? We just can't afford to carry on like this .

The RN is at best a medium sized navy now - it's about time it started to act like one .
 

Troothsayer

New Member
Has anyone else noticed this at the bottom of an MoD article about the Auriga Deployment
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Training and Adventure | In Pictures: Royal Navy's Amphibious Task Group heads for USA

the Royal Navy will be sending twelve fixed wing pilots to the United States to be trained to fly the USN F-18 jets in preparation for the Joint Strike Fighter F35Bs, which will be embarked in the UK's new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.
How is training in CATOBAR aircraft preparation for STOVL equipped CVF?
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro

riksavage

Banned Member
Oh supersonic fighting would come to mind, focus on increasing sortie rate and and working on a vastly larger hull would make cross training desirable
The UK/US are increasing joint carrier activity, the current deployment will see both USMC and UK Harrier assets working together. With a quantum leap in size and capacity the QE's will offer an increased tempo of operations never witnessed before in UK maritime aviation, subsequently the UK needs to go through a steep learning curve. Also as yet it is not 100% confirmed that the F35B's will be purchased, sending fixed wing pilots to fly Hornets could be part of a RN default back-up plan, should cost blowouts make the F35B purchase simply unattainable, then let's go for CATOBAR Hornet and get our pilots training on cat and traps??
 
Last edited:
Top