The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

@deepsixteen

I am not british, though I think it's in the best interests of the british people and their goverment to try to optimize their procurement and defend british, in this case, defense industry.

And in my mind that's best done in coorporation and under fair and square free market principles.
And the rest of Europe is your best candidate for that purpose.

 

[deepsixteen]

@deepsixteen

I am not british, though I think it's in the best interests of the british people and their goverment to try to optimize their procurement and defend british, in this case, defense industry.

And in my mind that's best done in coorporation and under fair and square free market principles.
And the rest of Europe is your best candidate for that purpose.

I continue to see nothing fair or free in being part of something that I have not had the opportunity to vote on the British people have only ever been able to vote on the common market back in the seventies. It seems to me that the uk follows the rules that Europe puts in place and others do not, only action will alter my opinion.
:splat

 

[deepsixteen]

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?

You do seem to be happy with the services being underfunded, I really think that you are a politician and will only be happy when the RN is operating half a dozen patrol boats.

 

[1805]

@deepsixteen

I am not british, though I think it's in the best interests of the british people and their goverment to try to optimize their procurement and defend british, in this case, defense industry.

And in my mind that's best done in coorporation and under fair and square free market principles.
And the rest of Europe is your best candidate for that purpose.

I agree with you on cooperation with other countries and even pulling out of areas we can not be a major player in. But I think there is too much focus on European partnerships, these often have to similar competitive interests. I would rather follow David Cameron’s recent diplomatic ventures, Turkey, India and also put more effort into traditional areas of British influence, Australia, Canada, Brazil/South America.

If the RN plays its cards right it will get Astute out to India via Brazil packet with the best BAE sales team ASAP. Maybe even ending the trip in Australia.

 

[1805]

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

I agree with you, efforts have been made to sell them once built, but I think there is scant evidence exports were in the mind of the RN when ordering them. Actually the T42 were the last exported so maybe it was not penny pinching that have hit exports. I would think you are near to the mark with the extreme focus, lack of flexibility and excessive cost compared to other designes available in the market place both cheaper and more expensive.

 

[1805]

You do seem to be happy with the services being underfunded, I really think that you are a politician and will only be happy when the RN is operating half a dozen patrol boats.

Get this right the UK armed forces are not underfunded, if they chose to waste half of it, I don't think it is unreasonable for the tax payer to call a halt and ask people to be accountable.

 

[Palnatoke]

I continue to see nothing fair or free in being part of something that I have not had the opportunity to vote on the British people have only ever been able to vote on the common market back in the seventies. It seems to me that the uk follows the rules that Europe puts in place and others do not, only action will alter my opinion.
:splat

How your own goverment runs or should run UK's membership of the EU is a thing for you brits to decide in the "voting booth" (I think it's called in english).

However, there is no arguing that the common market is good for European including British buisnesses. That succes should be carried into European defense, imho.

 

[Palnatoke]

I agree with you on cooperation with other countries and even pulling out of areas we can not be a major player in. But I think there is too much focus on European partnerships, these often have to similar competitive interests. I would rather follow David Cameron’s recent diplomatic ventures, Turkey, India and also put more effort into traditional areas of British influence, Australia, Canada, Brazil/South America.

1805; Look at a map. Look at Britain's involment with Europe, tradewise, politically and securitywise.
And Plz understand that the EU with 500M+ customers is British firms's home market. and that could also be the case in defense-industry.

If you can do buisness with other countries that's really good, but get your priorities straight. First comes first.

 

[Palnatoke]

Get this right the UK armed forces are not underfunded, if they chose to waste half of it, I don't think it is unreasonable for the tax payer to call a halt and ask people to be accountable.

I wholeheartedly agree.

If the defense can deliver good value for the money, more money is likely to come. If the defense can't deliver good value for money, at somepoint some guy pulls the plug and says: "What do you need the least?, because we don't think more money is going to fix the problem"

 

[Sampanviking]

I broadly find myself agreeing with Palnatoke and 1805.

I am sure that future options for the next decade will budget driven and the consequences of cuts are clearly going to be severe.

If things go through as discussed we have a 20% of current budget cut, plus eradication of overspend, plus the inclusion of the replacement cost of Trident. I bet altogether that would take the overall reduction in available spending far closer to the 40% (as hinted at in Government statements: prepare cuts for between 20 - 40%) rather than the headline 20%.

There is a huge amount of room with the UK to develop a uniform class of ship with its EU/NATO neighbours to protect both the North Sea/Baltic and the Atlantic Approaches. If a shooting war with an external opponent, ever did break out, the benefits of uniformity would very quickly become apparent.

 

[swerve]

I continue to see nothing fair or free in being part of something that I have not had the opportunity to vote on the British people have only ever been able to vote on

What?! We had a referendum in 1975. I voted in it. Look it up. It was very decisive. You're objecting on the wrong grounds. EU membership is the only association we have had a vote on.

We didn't have a referendum on union with Wales, or Scotland. Do you object to being a citizen of the UK, because you've never had a chance to vote on it? Should we have a vote every generation? Should every US state vote regularly on whether to remain part of the USA? And what if one year, there's a majority for separation? Should it be taken as final? Should this regular voting be one-way only?

 

[Palnatoke]

I broadly find myself agreeing with Palnatoke and 1805.

I am sure that future options for the next decade will budget driven and the consequences of cuts are clearly going to be severe.

If things go through as discussed we have a 20% of current budget cut, plus eradication of overspend, plus the inclusion of the replacement cost of Trident. I bet altogether that would take the overall reduction in available spending far closer to the 40% (as hinted at in Government statements: prepare cuts for between 20 - 40%) rather than the headline 20%.

There is a huge amount of room with the UK to develop a uniform class of ship with its EU/NATO neighbours to protect both the North Sea/Baltic and the Atlantic Approaches. If a shooting war with an external opponent, ever did break out, the benefits of uniformity would very quickly become apparent.

Though we have to conceede to the other side, that so far coorperation have been dragged down by persistend idiocracy on behalf of decission makers.
You know; "If we are going to do this together, we want 33% procent of the work load, not 30%, but 33%! And if it's necessary to stuff a submarine into an air transport and fly it to "our" plant so that we can get the last 3%, that's what we are going to do! - You know I have an election coming up!"

 

[AndrewMI]

DISGRACEFUL.

BBC News - Trident costs must come from MoD budget, Osborne says

If I were Dr Fox I would quite happily tell the idiots who play political football with the single most important defence asset we have that I would quite happily divert funding from Afghanistan to pay for its costs.

Ultimately, Trident provides more for our security than that farce of an operation ever will. Let there be no ambiguity about this, if Cameron, Clegg and Osborne squeeze the MoD so tightly that we are either forced to give up such vital defence projects as Trident, CV or forced to pull out of Afghanistan then it will be their failure to see it through, not that of Blair or Brown (or even Fox).

Nuclear deterrents are the only weapons in existence which have a 100% success rate.

Ended WW2
Prevented WW3
Prevented war in Korea in 2010

Hear this Osborne, force the MoD into a corner over this and you will be gone faster than you can say GSCE grade C (which bearing in mind you are a C grade student you should be able to say quite quickly).

DO NOT MAKE SHORT TERM CUTS THAT WILL DAMAGE THE LONG TERM FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY

 

[AndrewMI]

What?! We had a referendum in 1975. I voted in it. Look it up. It was very decisive. You're objecting on the wrong grounds. EU membership is the only association we have had a vote on.

Swerve,

This was before my time. As i understand it the UK vote was on the common market (Economic union which everyone agrees is a very good thing). The vote we have not had, which Brown et al (and every leader in the EU did in the end) was on Political Union (which most people hate). This was bottled when i think Ireland and the Netherlands both voted "no".

 

[Palnatoke]

Swerve,

This was before my time. As i understand it the UK vote was on the common market (Economic union which everyone agrees is a very good thing). The vote we have not had, which Brown et al (and every leader in the EU did in the end) was on Political Union (which most people hate). This was bottled when i think Ireland and the Netherlands both voted "no".

Out off topic.

As a dane I have voted serveral times on different EU treaties. I think that while danes are more or less split in halves on the subject, most agree that the referendums are bad. Ordinarry People have no chance in hell to make an informed oppinion on 1000s of pages of law stuff. So the referendum becomes a battle between easy to understand things like; "Should we or should we not have a custom officer standing under a danish flag at the german-danish border or not" etc.
The really important things are left in the dark. F.ex. to say something negative about the EU (That I otherwise mostly surport) Had the public understood that the effect of the free movement of labour meant that (btw hard working and nice) polish workers could offer themselves on the danish job market at half the usual union tariff, the referendum would have been a resounding no, and not a yes.
But people didn't understand that, at the time.

 

[Sampanviking]

Though we have to conceede to the other side, that so far coorperation have been dragged down by persistend idiocracy on behalf of decission makers.
You know; "If we are going to do this together, we want 33% procent of the work load, not 30%, but 33%! And if it's necessary to stuff a submarine into an air transport and fly it to "our" plant so that we can get the last 3%, that's what we are going to do! - You know I have an election coming up!"

No doubt about it, but this time, maybe some serious and shared austerity will help concentrate peoples minds. Hopefully Cameron; as the first real post Cold War Tory leader, will not be as weighed down with political baggage as his predecessors to be able to explore this option.

 

[WillS]

DISGRACEFUL.

BBC News - Trident costs must come from MoD budget, Osborne says

...<snip>

DO NOT MAKE SHORT TERM CUTS THAT WILL DAMAGE THE LONG TERM FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY

I disagree. The long term future of the country is not served by running a huge budget deficit. All through this new government we are seeing radical proposals to address 21st century problems (except in protected expenditure areas) but not the MoD which seems very quickly to have fallen into its usual game of name calling with the Treasury - and this after only a few months of the new government.

Dr Fox is beginning to look very out of touch with his cabinet colleagues and the spat between him on one side and Cameron/Osborne on the other will have severe consequences for the influence of the MoD in government. This isn't going to result in any kind of victory for Dr Fox.

It's all very depressing. Perhaps we should rename the MoD "The Ministry of the Defence Manufacturers Association" as it is their interests, rather than those of service personnel, that it seems most concerned about protecting.

We need to take a radical look at the actual threats this country is likely to face in the near future and how quickly more serious threats (like high end state on state warfare) are likely to evolve. From that we can make decisions about the readiness we need high-end capabilities to maintain.

In this instance, is a continuous at sea deterrent needed? If not then can we make do with 3 or even 2 boats and reconstitute CASD when serious threats evolve? If CASD is needed then does it need to be a specialised boat with 16 tubes or can/should we consider a hybrid designed based on a 'stetched' Astute with fewer missiles carried?

The Royal United Services Institute paper on deterrence (currently sitting on their home page at RUSI -) makes interesting reading.

WillS

 

[WillS]

If the RN plays its cards right it will get Astute out to India via Brazil packet with the best BAE sales team ASAP. Maybe even ending the trip in Australia.

I note that there was indeed a RN SSN out in the Indian Ocean at the time of Cameron's visit, conducting cat and mouse exercises with Indian navy units.

WillS

 

[WillS]

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.

Remember the Tornado's we're talking about here are the deep-strike type rather than the F3 CAPs (which are being pensioned off as fast as the RAF can manage). Getting rid of the Tornados will have little effect on the UK's ability to conduct air superioirty missions.

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 agree. Cutting down on types in service is a good way to save operational costs. I wish they'd take the same approach with transport and find a way of getting out of the A400M contract and buy some more C130Js and C17s instead (there'd be no capital savings but I suspect operational savings would be significant).

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).

The press keep on talking about this stuff because most journalists are morons who have no knowledge of even basic defence matters and no interest in learning. Witness their inability to distinguish between Trident and Trident Replacement, which often gives uninformed listeners the impression that we're about to ditch nuclear weapons entirely (wish fulfilment from all those CND leaning BBC journalists probably).

My doom and gloom forcast for the future:

.. actually looks quite rosy to me!

Cutting down on escorts is quite feasible if you remove the single unit taskings they are lumbered with (like drug smuggler chasing in the Caribbean or pirate interdiction off the horn of Africa - tasks for which high-end frigates are entirely unsuited). Stick a few RFA's out there with helicopters and CIWS. Do we really need to carry the operational cost of deploying a Seawolf/Harpoon armed frigate to chase untrained, drugged-up chancers in speedboats armed with RPGs?

I think we'll end up with less F35s than you do (60?) with more emphasis on using the carriers for combined strike/ampib ops (UAVs, Lots of helicopters). After all, 24 F35Bs as an air group is still a hell of a lot more strike power than the RAF normally manages to deploy even to friendly countries for high-end ops.

No replacement for Ocean, which is a pity. Building to commercial standards seemed to work on the cost front (hell the Japanese even do it for Destroyers) but the Admirals don't like it.

Of course, we could get really lucky (fantasy time) with the MoD announcing that the carriers will be completed as conventional types and that we're buying the (cheaper, better, easier to maintain, more likely to be delivered on time) F35C instead with decent AEW (hawkeye).

I think you're estimate of RFA ships is a little under the mark. If you can free up some operational costs from retiring a few T23s, then a couple of Joint Support Ships (which MARS was supposed to deliver) becomes feasible.

My guess on MCM would be that the current force is radically cut (8?) with replacements to be considered 'later'. 6 Astutes (eventually), fudge on the SSBN issue.

Will.

 

[1805]

I note that there was indeed a RN SSN out in the Indian Ocean at the time of Cameron's visit, conducting cat and mouse exercises with Indian navy units.

WillS

Interesting, maybe not as commercially naive as we think. It really annoys me that the Russians/Israelis are all over the huge India market and France is helping Brazil with their steps to SSNs