The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

I don't know if anyone here read reported comments from defence secretary Fox on the forthcoming Defence Review last weekend? I read it in Peoples Daily based on an Interview given to the Guardian, neither if which I would assume to be on the regular reading list of the majority of active members here.

Britain can no longer afford all-round defense: defense secretary - People's Daily Online

Britain can no longer afford all-round defense: defense secretary

The article touched on a number of areas, but this comment on the Navy is I think most striking



I don't think you can read this without thinking of the Carriers and to my ears it just lends weight to the notion of commissioning them to a far lower operational spec than originally intended, until such time as economic conditions allow to upgrade back to that original spec. Personally I wonder if it will simply mean operating a larger version of the Invincible Class without the "Strike" Capability and allowing the money saved (where retained) in Electronics and Aircraft + manning and Running costs to allow more smaller surface combatants instead.

One thing is that you don't have money, another thing is that that money is wasted to no good.

Palnatoke's short list of what should have been done (by all europeans) to save money:

It's stupid (and costly) that France and the UK have builded two nearly identical submarines (astute and what ever the french is called) it should have been one.

It's stupid (and costly) that we have multiple frigates and other warships that are functionally identical.

It's stupid (and costly) that we have multiple MBTs that are functionally identical.

It's stupid (and costly) that we have multiple IFVs that are functionally identical.

Etc etc etc.

It's stupid (and costly) that we maintain national centric defense-industrial ideas that everybody with a brain can see is hopelessly old fachioned.

A project like the Type45 is so expensive that it is mind boggling. For the same budget you could, at the time, have had something like 45 state of the art AAW frigates that the danish navy is building (3 units - that's a lot of money for us!! In fact the Type45 budget is worth 3 years of the entire Danish defense budget!! ) It's madness.

 

[Troothsayer]

I don't think you can read this without thinking of the Carriers and to my ears it just lends weight to the notion of commissioning them to a far lower operational spec than originally intended, until such time as economic conditions allow to upgrade back to that original spec. Personally I wonder if it will simply mean operating a larger version of the Invincible Class without the "Strike" Capability and allowing the money saved (where retained) in Electronics and Aircraft + manning and Running costs to allow more smaller surface combatants instead.

Fox has been pro-CVF in the past, personally I think this is a little dig at our £1bn a pop destroyers rather than the carriers.

He definitely seems to want a cheap as chips and in quite large numbers T22/23 replacement.

 

[AndrewMI]

A project like the Type45 is so expensive that it is mind boggling. For the same budget you could, at the time, have had something like 45 state of the art AAW frigates that the danish navy is building (3 units - that's a lot of money for us!! In fact the Type45 budget is worth 3 years of the entire Danish defense budget!! ) It's madness.

Yes, but it can track and shoot down a cricket ball travelling at Mach 3, 60km away. That makes it worthwhile!

 

[Sampanviking]

Yes, but it can track and shoot down a cricket ball travelling at Mach 3, 60km away. That makes it worthwhile!

Seems a little excessive just to be able to start winning test matches again.

I had not realised just how expensive the Type 45's are and so yes I certainly appreciate the point about them being made. Fox may well be pro Carrier, but with a 20% budget reduction target (plus overspend to clear) I wonder if the pennies will be there irrespective?

More and cheaper appeals to me more than few and costly, One mistake and one missile being able to sink a large proportion of our offensive capability just sounds way to risky for me.

 

[Troothsayer]

Seems a little excessive just to be able to start winning test matches again.

I had not realised just how expensive the Type 45's are and so yes I certainly appreciate the point about them being made. Fox may well be pro Carrier, but with a 20% budget reduction target (plus overspend to clear) I wonder if the pennies will be there irrespective?

More and cheaper appeals to me more than few and costly, One mistake and one missile being able to sink a large proportion of our offensive capability just sounds way to risky for me.

The RN will be taking a long term view on this though. They'll see this as their last shot at getting a 65k ton ship for a good half a century. The surface fleet will be a lot easier to build up than to cajole the MoD into buying large carriers again. I tend to agree.

Besides, most of the money has been spent anyway. QE is safe imo, but PoW is another story. We are probably locked into either having CVF or nothing.

It also looks like Osborne is adamant that Trident replacement costs will come out of the core MoD budget. Looks like there is no alternative but to extend the life of the current boats then?
Osborne Rejects Nuclear-Weapon Cut Exception in Split - BusinessWeek

“The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defense budget"

Not much room for misunderstanding there is there?

 

[MrQuintus]

Nope, but plenty of room for a fight, depending on how the renewal legislation was worded

 

[AndrewMI]

I am willing to bet that Trident will (effectivly) be renewed and paid for out of the core government budget. Nuclear weapons are a political, not military tool.

 

[AndrewMI]

Seems a little excessive just to be able to start winning test matches again.

Yes, but the development of the T-45 started before we realised we could poach the best players from Ireland and South Africa.

Not even they can hit a cricket ball, bowled at Edgebaston, to the moon whilst standing in the middle at Trent Bridge!

Now if only they could bowl a Tomahawk...

 

[Palnatoke]

Yes, but it can track and shoot down a cricket ball travelling at Mach 3, 60km away. That makes it worthwhile!

Yes!

Let's remove PAAMS from the equation. That's, as far as I remember, a programme cost of £500M.
That leaves us with a ship fitted for, but without, PAAMS. The cost of this ship, with a nice radar is £5.5Bn for 6 units. It's obvious not worth it and priced unrealistically. A waste of money in biblical proportions.

 

[StevoJH]

Yes!

Let's remove PAAMS from the equation. That's, as far as I remember, a programme cost of £500M.
That leaves us with a ship fitted for, but without, PAAMS. The cost of this ship, with a nice radar is £5.5Bn for 6 units. It's obvious not worth it and priced unrealistically. A waste of money in biblical proportions.

The actual "unit cost" was roughly 600 million per year.

I'm guessing a lot of the rest would have been due to the 2 or 3 previous (failed) replacement program costs being rolled into the T45 cost, plus development costs for IEP etc.

 

[Palnatoke]

The actual "unit cost" was roughly 600 million per year.

I'm guessing a lot of the rest would have been due to the 2 or 3 previous (failed) replacement program costs being rolled into the T45 cost, plus development costs for IEP etc.

Let's just consider the money actually spendt. I am sure that there are infinatly many "understandable" reasons why approx. £6Bn was spend to get 6 ships.
But for the sake of clarity let's just content ourselves with the fact that the british taxpayers payed £6bn to get 6 ships. Down in the pub; that's an average cost of £1bn per ship.

 

[swerve]

Yes!

Let's remove PAAMS from the equation. That's, as far as I remember, a programme cost of £500M.
That leaves us with a ship fitted for, but without, PAAMS. The cost of this ship, with a nice radar is £5.5Bn for 6 units. It's obvious not worth it and priced unrealistically. A waste of money in biblical proportions.

UK share of PAAMS development cost was about £1 bn, on top of which there are a lot of other development costs.

Unit production cost was stated in Hansard last year to be £649 mn per ship, including PAAMS. The weapons system (i.e. PAAMS) was stated to be 40% of the total ship production cost. That makes the cost of a Type 45 without PAAMS about £390 mn, or 40% of your estimate.

 

[Palnatoke]

UK share of PAAMS development cost was about £1 bn, on top of which there are a lot of other development costs.

Unit production cost was stated in Hansard last year to be £649 mn per ship, including PAAMS. The weapons system (i.e. PAAMS) was stated to be 40% of the total ship production cost. That makes the cost of a Type 45 without PAAMS about £390 mn, or 40% of your estimate.

I don't know how they break down costs.

Total programme cost can be read here;

# The existing Type 42 destroyers provide only a limited capability. The replacement, the Type 45 destroyer is planned to offer a much greater capability but has experienced considerable delays of over two years and cost increases of £1.5 billion because of over-optimism about what could be achieved, inappropriate commercial arrangements and, in the early stages, poor project management. The Department has taken action to resolve these problems and the project is now more mature and making better progress. As the Department had always planned, several pieces of equipment will be fitted to the destroyers incrementally after they come into service meaning that the full capability will not be available until the middle of the next decade. The development of the long term support solution is running later than planned and the Department may have to extend interim support measures as a fall back measure which could have operational and cost implications. Taken together, these factors mean that, although the programme is on course to meet all Key User Requirements when the first of class enters into service, the Department has not yet demonstrated that it will be able to achieve the full range of benefits that the Department originally envisaged could be achieved from spending £6.5 billion procuring the Type 45 destroyer.

(My underline)

The above is from the national audit.

 

[Palnatoke]

UK share of PAAMS development cost was about £1 bn, on top of which there are a lot of other development costs.

Unit production cost was stated in Hansard last year to be £649 mn per ship, including PAAMS. The weapons system (i.e. PAAMS) was stated to be 40% of the total ship production cost. That makes the cost of a Type 45 without PAAMS about £390 mn, or 40% of your estimate.

By "Unit production cost " I assume that you mean "Marginal production cost". That figure would be interesting if you wanted to procure a 7th Type45.

 

[swerve]

By "Unit production cost " I assume that you mean "Marginal production cost". That figure would be interesting if you wanted to procure a 7th Type45.

No. That's the average unit production cost, not marginal. HMS Daring cost more, & later units cost less. A 7th ship would be cheaper.

The programme cost has gone up since that estimate of £5.5 bn. The final total is over £6 bn. But only 60% of that is for building the ships, & that 60% includes PAAMS production costs (excluding development) of about £250 mn per ship.

 

[deepsixteen]

One thing is that you don't have money, another thing is that that money is wasted to no good.

Palnatoke's short list of what should have been done (by all europeans) to save money:

It's stupid (and costly) that France and the UK have builded two nearly identical submarines (astute and what ever the french is called) it should have been one.

It's stupid (and costly) that we have multiple frigates and other warships that are functionally identical.

It's stupid (and costly) that we have multiple MBTs that are functionally identical.

It's stupid (and costly) that we have multiple IFVs that are functionally identical.

Etc etc etc.

It's stupid (and costly) that we maintain national centric defense-industrial ideas that everybody with a brain can see is hopelessly old fachioned.

A project like the Type45 is so expensive that it is mind boggling. For the same budget you could, at the time, have had something like 45 state of the art AAW frigates that the danish navy is building (3 units - that's a lot of money for us!! In fact the Type45 budget is worth 3 years of the entire Danish defense budget!! ) It's madness.

I’m British not European and expect my government to act in the interest of my country nothing I’ve seen in the way of European cooperation fills me with confidence that any opening up of the market will be fair.

A Barracuda is not really comparable to an Astute your comparing apples to oranges for instance the planned endurance for Astute is in excess of double that of Barracuda and Astute carries more weapons.

 

[1805]

No. That's the average unit production cost, not marginal. HMS Daring cost more, & later units cost less. A 7th ship would be cheaper.

The programme cost has gone up since that estimate of £5.5 bn. The final total is over £6 bn. But only 60% of that is for building the ships, & that 60% includes PAAMS production costs (excluding development) of about £250 mn per ship.

It is surprising how expensive the non PAAMS parts of the T45s are, the impact of the WR21 etc.

Prehaps the greatest value they will have on the RN is the statement that the T26 will be designed with exports in mind. This surely is a huge change in the RN's approach, that they will have to consider other Navies requirements.

Could the RN at last have to accept they do not have the budgets of the USN?

 

[harryriedl]

It is surprising how expensive the non PAAMS parts of the T45s are, the impact of the WR21 etc.

Prehaps the greatest value they will have on the RN is the statement that the T26 will be designed with exports in mind. This surely is a huge change in the RN's approach, that they will have to consider other Navies requirements.

Could the RN at last have to accept they do not have the budgets of the USN?

nope Export has always been on the mind of the RN desgins. The varaties of the Type-14 was partly a result of export and other user reports. Its just that the last set of ships ,T-22, T-42 were very difficult to export due to the penny pinching nature (the T-42) or extreme focus of the vessel and its expence (the T-22 one of the few ships desgined without a gun and was very ASW focused untill B-3)

even so we still tried to foist them on other contries

 

[riksavage]

Looks like the 30 year old Tornado will be sacrificed rather than the GR9's in the up and coming savage cuts, which has to be good news for the future carrier programme. Estimated savings 7 billion rather than 1 billion if the GR9's went. This will leave Typhoon as the primary UK/Falklands CAP resource and GR9 for A-Stan and deployed aboard Invincible and QE (hopefully) until the first F35B's arrive. The loss of the GR9's would have been a catastrophic blow for both the Fleet Air Arm and RAF making the argument for two new QE's very difficult to justify because of the time lag between the loss of GR9 and arrival of F35B.

The Tornado age factor coupled with the potential savings on manpower / maintenance costs make this, under the circumstances, the best outcome. I doubt the UK will ever use/buy a two seat operational fighter/bomber ever again. According to the Times, all three defence chiefs reckon the move is a sensible one based on threat and financial belt tightening.

I don't know why the press keep mentioning the T45, the six are practically paid for. The only way they would be ditched is if the Government paid-off the entire ARG and carrier replacement. They exist for one reason - area defence of the latter. If the T26 order is reduced then I would hope any spare change would be invested in upgrading the 45's to enable them to undertake more general tasks (Harpoon, AsW torpedo, some form of basic towed AsW system).

My doom and gloom forcast for the future:

1 x Active QE, second held in reserve, or as a Commando Carrier. Ocean sold off when PW commisioned.
80 x F35B tranche 1 (future buy put on hold pending economic factors)
ARG - 2 x Albion & 2 x Bays (2 sold off), Enough to support a single Commando ++
6 x T45
8 - 10 x T26
6 - MCM/Corvette C3 vessel
4 - 6 Civi contractored RFA manned tankers
2 x New replenishment ships
6 - 7 x Astute SSN
3 x stretched ASTUTE SSBN 'lite'

 

[Palnatoke]

No. That's the average unit production cost, not marginal. HMS Daring cost more, & later units cost less. A 7th ship would be cheaper.

The programme cost has gone up since that estimate of £5.5 bn. The final total is over £6 bn. But only 60% of that is for building the ships, & that 60% includes PAAMS production costs (excluding development) of about £250 mn per ship.

I read your source and other stuff I could find, and I find it very difficult to understand what these people actually mean.
So I susgest that for now, we use total programme cost, that's the money paid, money comandeered from British taxpayers and if we want the unit price of the ship, we'll use the average of total programme cost. nd then you get the figure of nearly £1.1Bn per ship.

What PAAMS share of this I don't know. Though I would like to.