The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

Still if you have a commercially viable yard industry, the tax payers don't also have to pay for the "welder" skill base or the high end ship construction engineer skill base. But yes, They will have to pay for the specialists.

Sorry, I've been speaking from experience again...

The bigger picture always comes into play when we discuss labour/manpower. At the moment, how many major commercial construction projects are on the go in the UK / across Europe?

Now if Construction Project 'A' is paying 'x' £/hr in wages & Shipbuild Project 'B' is paying 1/4 of 'x' £/hr in wages, which project will pull in the more experienced manpower ??

This has ALWAYS been a big problem in Europe. With the boom & bust approach, the shipyard lays off it's skilled labour force, to keep the company afloat, so the workers have to go & find another job.

Luckily, a BIG construction job turns up, so they all go there & lo and behold 12 months later the shipyard get another order & needs labour.

But, there's none to be had, as they're all working on a building site.

In the last 15 years basic wages in the shipyards across the UK have increased by about 25%, but construction wages are still at least x2 of what a shipyard worker gets. Add to that the number of hours that can be classed as / worked as premium (overtime), & the rates that can be obtained on construction vs. shipbuild & you're lucky if a shipyard worker can earn a maximum of £25K/yr, vs. £100K/yr that can be earned by the construction worker.

So, the shipyard DOES have to pay to maintain it's skill base / labour force, no matter the skill level of the trade.

&, your %-age fgures for Asian vs. European wages are pretty much on the money, which is something that we in Europe will never be able to combat, along with the government subsidiy issues, so we'll never be on a level playing field.

I have a hard time buying the: "We can't sell our ships because they are too good for the customers" British shipbuilding is not better than than other european shipbuilding (Frankly the the opposite is obviously the case) and UK warships a likewise not better, as far as I can see.
I have little respect for "standards and regulations" if they don't materialize in specific functional cababilities/properties. Infact, if not, I am inclined to see "standards and regulations" as the excuse for not being able to do innovation.

I haven't said that British shipbuilding is better than anywhere else, I've explained that the expected / demanded quality from the customer is higher, because of the regulations & standards that are demanded.
...And as for your 'dis-respect' for them, Military equipment MUST be built to more exacting requirements than commercial products, to ensure that the user can survive while operating the equipment while under fire, not just while sailing the ocean.

Yes, in comparison with the american commercial yards. My explaination is that the protection of american yards have resulted in inefficient shipbuilding. On the other hand not protecting the european shipbuilding has resulted in a sharp decrease in share of world market (I think 85% or more of ships are builded in Asia (measured by tonnage).

Yes your figure of 85% is based on tonnage, not technical input, with 95% down to Commercial build, not Military. Many of these commercial hulls are just BIG empty boxes with a fuel tank & an engine.

...& another useless, throw-away comment . Based on reports (although heavily from my memory of these reports), in the year 1991 -92, more tonnage of shipping was lost at sea, than ALL the Allies lost in the whole of WWII ! Most of it was lost in the Pacific & around 10 - 15 of these vessels were lost without trace.

Now does that have anything to do with standards, such as build quality, material tolerances & the like, or is it down to Human error & the weather / sea conditions ??

I'll let you decide....

SA

 

[Palnatoke]

SA

So, the shipyard DOES have to pay to maintain it's skill base / labour force, no matter the skill level of the trade.

Yes and if the shipyard do ordinarry buisness, then the taxpayers don't have to pay for that.

I've explained that the expected / demanded quality from the customer is higher, because of the regulations & standards that are demanded.
...And as for your 'dis-respect' for them, Military equipment MUST be built to more exacting requirements

Notice my "IF". If there is no real or significant function of the requirements. On the otherhand if there is a real function, then other customer would like to pay the price - don't you think?

which is something that we in Europe will never be able to combat,

But you can build ships that are more challenging to build. Construction where inefficiency can't be solved by throwing twice as many (cheap) hands on the problem.

 

[StevoJH]

...& another useless, throw-away comment . Based on reports (although heavily from my memory of these reports), in the year 1991 -92, more tonnage of shipping was lost at sea, than ALL the Allies lost in the whole of WWII ! Most of it was lost in the Pacific & around 10 - 15 of these vessels were lost without trace.

Now does that have anything to do with standards, such as build quality, material tolerances & the like, or is it down to Human error & the weather / sea conditions ??

I'll let you decide....

SA

I'd be interested in seeing any more recent numbers if you ever find them. Because thats a lot of ships....

With the decrease in shipping over the last couple of years due to the financial downturn (i've seen photos of hundreds of ships "parked" off singapore), i'm assuming the average age of ships has decreased a bit in the last couple of years?

Especially with the current requirements for double hulled tankers etc.

 

[swerve]

...
...& another useless, throw-away comment . Based on reports (although heavily from my memory of these reports), in the year 1991 -92, more tonnage of shipping was lost at sea, than ALL the Allies lost in the whole of WWII !

SA

U-boats sank 14.7 million tons, & there were considerable losses to aircraft & mines, bringing the total up to maybe 20 million. Deadweight tonnage of the worlds merchant fleet (ships over 1000 GRT) in 1995 was 735 million tons, up from 683 million in 1980. To exceed the WW2 Allied merchant shipping losses, we're talking a few percent loss rate per year in 1991-2, which seems remarkably high.

 

[Systems Adict]

U-boats sank 14.7 million tons, & there were considerable losses to aircraft & mines, bringing the total up to maybe 20 million. Deadweight tonnage of the worlds merchant fleet (ships over 1000 GRT) in 1995 was 735 million tons, up from 683 million in 1980. To exceed the WW2 Allied merchant shipping losses, we're talking a few percent loss rate per year in 1991-2, which seems remarkably high.

Have a look at this link...

2009: Total losses down, tonnage lost up

There's also the IUMI website....

IUMI - International Union of Marine Insurance - IUMI Statistics - Archive

If you download the 2009 Hull Casuality Statistics PDF & go to page 4, there's a nice graph showing that 1991 there was a loss of 1,185,000 GRT.

What was worring was the fact that the figure increased to nearly 2,000,000 GRT, but that was only from just over 175 vessels.
(it should be noted that they only register vessels over 500GRT in these figures & the figures are based on info from Lloyds List)

So while my figures would seem to be over inflated (sorry!), the point I was aiming at does have quite a bit of fact in it....

SA

 

[swerve]

Out by a factor of 10. Well, easy to misplace a decimal point.

It was a bad spell, though. Anything to do with wars? 1990-2 & 1994 break the downward trend of the previous decade, before a return to trend from 1995 onwards.

 

[spsun100001]

Telegraph article on defence cuts

Link attached:

RAF to shrink to World War One levels - Telegraph

If this is in the ballpark I'm suprised. I thought that the 4 Type 22 batch 3's woould be vulnerable because they are older ships which I would imagine would have a higher maintenance cost and which have large crews. I thought the 7th Astute was certain to be cancelled.

The article suggests the loss of two submarines and three amphibious ships. It makes no mention of carriers, escorts, MCM's or MARS.

Unless one of the submarines is an SSBN (and going down to three has been discussed) then that would leave just 5 Astutes. Is that a viable submarine force?

As to the amphibious ships where might the cuts fall? Ocean, Albion's, Bay's or the reserve ro-ro ships?

Time will tell if the article is true and it might be part of that well known political strategy of leaking a doomsday scenario so that when the real bad news comes people are relieved that it isn't as bad as was first suggsted (this scenario usually involves announcing that the Red Arrows are under threat and then the stupid tabloids announce a campaign to save them, congratulate themselves when their reprieve is announced and fail to even notice the cuts in fighting capability in the last paragraph of the 'Red Arrows saved' press release )

If reductions are to come then the RAF cuts are the most sensible area IMHO (we are surrounded by our allies not our enemies so short range tactical fighters are not out first priority and they are the capability most duplicated by our allies). The number of 200 fighters quoted of which 107 would be Typhoon's suggests that the Harrier force would be retained which hopefully hints at some future buy of the F35's needed to replace them down the lineas their airframes wear out.

All speculation of course. If it was true then it isn't the end of the world for the navy but I wonder whether our SSN and amphibious forces (the two components of the RN that mark us out above most other navies in terms of capability) would remain viable with these reductions in numbers.

 

[Sampanviking]

I would not be surprised if 90/91 and 08/09 had higher than average reports of losses at sea, both were recession years with Sea Freight volumes significantly down.

Whether ships were actually sunk or simply tucked away into remote bays for future resale is anybodies guess

 

[WillS]

If this is in the ballpark I'm suprised. I thought that the 4 Type 22 batch 3's woould be vulnerable because they are older ships which I would imagine would have a higher maintenance cost and which have large crews. I thought the 7th Astute was certain to be cancelled.

The article suggests the loss of two submarines and three amphibious ships. It makes no mention of carriers, escorts, MCM's or MARS.

Unless one of the submarines is an SSBN (and going down to three has been discussed) then that would leave just 5 Astutes. Is that a viable submarine force?

As to the amphibious ships where might the cuts fall? Ocean, Albion's, Bay's or the reserve ro-ro ships?

On the subject of SSNs, it really depends on how you read it. A casual look at the RN website (and 'casual' is all that our terribly ill-informed and lazy defence journalists will muster) would suggest that reducing to an SSN force of 6 would be a reduction of 2. I suspect that is what is going to happen, a reduction of the eventual Astute order to 6 with an accelerated decommissioning of one of the Trafalgars to ensure that the paper SSN force is 6 (same as France).

Amphibious ships? Ocean and a couple of Bays for the chop probably. I still think the Type 22s are going. As you say they're expensive to run.

The number of 200 fighters quoted of which 107 would be Typhoon's suggests that the Harrier force would be retained which hopefully hints at some future buy of the F35's needed to replace them down the lineas their airframes wear out.

Or, please God, Super Hornets and conventional carriers instead

WillS

 

[1805]

Maybe the 909 and 910 functions could have been combined into one set? Common practice in earlier vessels would suggest that the arrangement to reload would have a ready use magazine close to the launcher and at least one deep magazine with a hoist to the same deck as the ready use magazine and launcher.
As I said I have never set foot on a 22 the thrust of the conversation with 1805 is with regard to what constitutes an acceptable warship and what would have constituted an adaptable and successful vessel of the period. Obviously the 22 would have required considerable modification to mount a Sea Dart as fitted to the fleet but could a VLS have been used or a lighter single arm launcher?

I hope that times have changed and that the Type 26 is a versatile and adaptable design with plenty of export potential. Given the advantage of modern VLS systems I would hope that the capacity for a large number of cells is included even if not fitted initially as I suspect that this will give the ship a capacity to evolve given the wide range of missile systems that can be launched from them.

It's an interesting thought of a T22 with Sea Dart instead of Sea Wolf (I know you were suggesting both). I certainly think the T22s would have stayed in service much longer, in fact with their superior sea keeping I doubt all of the batch 2 & 3 T42 would have been built?

I agree with a layered defence to a degree, but would have gone for Goalkeeper. As said before the development of only one missile, must have had a positive impact on the performance of that system.

 

[deepsixteen]

It's an interesting thought of a T22 with Sea Dart instead of Sea Wolf (I know you were suggesting both). I certainly think the T22s would have stayed in service much longer, in fact with their superior sea keeping I doubt all of the batch 2 & 3 T42 would have been built?

I agree with a layered defence to a degree, but would have gone for Goalkeeper. As said before the development of only one missile, must have had a positive impact on the performance of that system.

You could well be correct I have to agree it would have made a much more desirable weapons fit (Wolf Dart CIWS) always liked the look of the Goalkeeper although it and the Phalax were after my time in skimmers although I do recall watching an A10 making mince out of a splash target with its similar gun.

Today it is much easier to achieve layered defence for example Quad Mica Aster15 and 30 all fit in Sylver A50 cells plus CIWS give 4 layers although Mica and CIWS are in the same zone, provided that your warship packs a large VLS you have flexibility to mount a range of missiles or not to suite the requirements of the mission. Although none of these will be much use if your vessel does not mount a resilient radar and EW fit.

 

[swerve]

Today it is much easier to achieve layered defence for example Quad Mica Aster15 and 30 all fit in Sylver A50 cells

Mica hasn't been quad-packed in Sylver, & I see no sign of DCNS trying to market a quad pack. It might need modification first.

You can quad-pack the VT1 missile in Sylver, from A35 up to A50. That's been demonstrated. Thales says the interception range is over 11 km.

 

[1805]

Mica hasn't been quad-packed in Sylver, & I see no sign of DCNS trying to market a quad pack. It might need modification first.

You can quad-pack the VT1 missile in Sylver, from A35 up to A50. That's been demonstrated. Thales says the interception range is over 11 km.

It will be interesting to see what type of VLS the T26 ends up with. I wouldn't be surpised if they dropped Sylver in favour of the MK 41. I am sure they will be designed to be very modular but I doubt a Sylver equip ship would be so attractive to RAN.

 

[AndrewMI]

It will be interesting to see what type of VLS the T26 ends up with. I wouldn't be surpised if they dropped Sylver in favour of the MK 41. I am sure they will be designed to be very modular but I doubt a Sylver equip ship would be so attractive to RAN.

TBH the entire weapons fit out of the ship will be interesting. We are talking about a ship that is so far away from service that such weapons as TacTom and Harpoon may be greatly changed from as they are now, or CIWS could have moved from bullets to directed energy. who knows.

The main principal is that it needs to have the ability to be expanded upon, and remain flexible and heavily armed. Aside from that i have no idea what could remotely be planned.

 

[swerve]

It will be interesting to see what type of VLS the T26 ends up with. I wouldn't be surpised if they dropped Sylver in favour of the MK 41. I am sure they will be designed to be very modular but I doubt a Sylver equip ship would be so attractive to RAN.

Why would the RN drop Sylver? It's in service. We have all the logistics in place. We have weapons that use it. We don't have weapons we want to fire from a surface ship VLS which are integrated with Mk 41, but not Sylver. We'd therefore not only have to set up another logistics chain, but also pay to integrate our weapons with a new VLS. Why waste the money?

The RAN wouldn't want it, but how is that relevant? Any RN/RAN co-operation on T26 would have to be confined to the basic ship, as we use different weapons & sensors. You design in a VLS space, suitable for either Sylver or Mk41, & the RN has one, & the RAN the other.

 

[1805]

Why would the RN drop Sylver? It's in service. We have all the logistics in place. We have weapons that use it. We don't have weapons we want to fire from a surface ship VLS which are integrated with Mk 41, but not Sylver. We'd therefore not only have to set up another logistics chain, but also pay to integrate our weapons with a new VLS. Why waste the money?

The RAN wouldn't want it, but how is that relevant? Any RN/RAN co-operation on T26 would have to be confined to the basic ship, as we use different weapons & sensors. You design in a VLS space, suitable for either Sylver or Mk41, & the RN has one, & the RAN the other.

I agree with you it makes little sense to have two VLS, but I understood the RN was not keen on Sylver originally. As T26 will not have Aster 15/30? and CAMM looks like it might have its own VLS the Mk 41 might be a better option for Tomahawk (if we ultimately arm them with).

 

[overlander]

Link attached:

RAF to shrink to World War One levels - Telegraph

If this is in the ballpark I'm suprised. I thought that the 4 Type 22 batch 3's woould be vulnerable because they are older ships which I would imagine would have a higher maintenance cost and which have large crews. I thought the 7th Astute was certain to be cancelled.

The article suggests the loss of two submarines and three amphibious ships. It makes no mention of carriers, escorts, MCM's or MARS.

Unless one of the submarines is an SSBN (and going down to three has been discussed) then that would leave just 5 Astutes. Is that a viable submarine force?

As to the amphibious ships where might the cuts fall? Ocean, Albion's, Bay's or the reserve ro-ro ships?

Time will tell if the article is true and it might be part of that well known political strategy of leaking a doomsday scenario so that when the real bad news comes people are relieved that it isn't as bad as was first suggsted (this scenario usually involves announcing that the Red Arrows are under threat and then the stupid tabloids announce a campaign to save them, congratulate themselves when their reprieve is announced and fail to even notice the cuts in fighting capability in the last paragraph of the 'Red Arrows saved' press release )

If reductions are to come then the RAF cuts are the most sensible area IMHO (we are surrounded by our allies not our enemies so short range tactical fighters are not out first priority and they are the capability most duplicated by our allies). The number of 200 fighters quoted of which 107 would be Typhoon's suggests that the Harrier force would be retained which hopefully hints at some future buy of the F35's needed to replace them down the lineas their airframes wear out.

All speculation of course. If it was true then it isn't the end of the world for the navy but I wonder whether our SSN and amphibious forces (the two components of the RN that mark us out above most other navies in terms of capability) would remain viable with these reductions in numbers.

If these cuts finally arrive they wil leave the RAF with a similar number of fighters to the spanish air force, i hope that the still valuable force of tornado gr4,s bombers will not be scrapped.

I think the best way that Britain could make the cuts would be with the withdrawal of all the army soldiers in Afghanistan and leaving only the bombers, and the logistic support with tankers and transport helicopters and aircraft to the americans this way they would have not to reduce the numbers of fighters and navy escorts as the british armed forces are already overstretched.

 

[riksavage]

If these cuts finally arrive they wil leave the RAF with a similar number of fighters to the spanish air force, i hope that the still valuable force of tornado gr4,s bombers will not be scrapped.

I think the best way that Britain could make the cuts would be with the withdrawal of all the army soldiers in Afghanistan and leaving only the bombers, and the logistic support with tankers and transport helicopters and aircraft to the americans this way they would have not to reduce the numbers of fighters and navy escorts as the british armed forces are already overstretched.

Withdrawing the PBI from A-Stan is simply not an option, too much blood and treasure lost to turn tail and run for cover - phased down sizing if anything.

Cuts aren't going to happen overnight, there will be phased reductions. Ultimately the RAF will end up with two manned fast jets: Typhoon and F35B or SH. Long range strike will be transferred to a UCAV platform. Six Astute's, not seven will be built. The Astutes high Tomahawk carrying capacity gives the strategic planners plenty scope for offensive strike operations against likely failed states / terrorist havens. Typhoon will be a predominantly a UK air-defence asset, leaving F35B or SH for the expeditionary role.

I'm more and more convinced that both QE & PW will be built at the expense of Ocean (not replaced) and 2 x Bays. The 2 x Bays can be disposed of right now, Ocean when the first QE is commissioned. The QE class will simply have to be geared along the lines of a USMC Wasp class rather than a pure strike carrier - no dramas there IMHO, they represent such a huge leap in capability and capacity compared to the 'Invisibles' and Ocean (assuming at least 12 F35B's are deployed). A single QE can host enough F35B, Apache, Merlin and Wildcat to sustain most low-medium tempo operations in support of a 3 Commando Brigade. Anything above an beyond that will be in conjunction with the USN and their enviable umbrella of land, sea and air assets.

Fortunately the UK is surrounded by Allies, any major conflict threatening the UK will involve NATO and its collective military. The Conservatives recognise that the UK needs to maintain an expeditionary capability for far flung situations, which may not involve all or any of our existing NATO partners. 2 x QE's, 2 x Albion's plus 2 x Bays supported by vessels drawn from the civi list can still lift and support a reinforced Commando.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Should just kill the trident. Cold war relic.

 

[AndrewMI]

Should just kill the trident. Cold war relic.

If we kill Trident it would almost certainly go down as the greatest mistake of a generation.

The fact that attitudes like those of Weasel 1962 exist are testament to Trident's quiet effectiveness. It is the sort of political weapon that you will not appreciate until it is gone.

Osborne's gerrymandering of the budget lines are solely a ploy to force an effective 40% cut on the Defence budget by stealth. Reduce the headline budget by 10% whilst forcing it to cope with the purchase of something that will, if paid for in that way, will lead to a 40% cut in conventional forces.

If he wants the system to be paid for in that way perhaps the decision on using Trident in war should go to the heads of the armed forces instead of the politicians