The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

Press reports over the weekend and quotes from Cameron leads one to think that at least one carrier will be built and not placed in reserve (as advocated by Jock Stirrup, number one RAF supporter). The second PW carrier definitely cancelled. Industry consolation prize (to avoid penalty clauses) immediate contracts awarded for smaller vessels (one assumes 26 & C3) to begin construction once the yards finish QE work. Decision on actual number of F35B's to be determined later.

Best case scenario in my opinion: 1 x QE built as planned. Batch 1 T26 ordered (six off), Batch 1 C3 ordered (six off). Then (fingers crossed) a smaller commando carrier is ordered capable of carrying limited numbers of F35B (6-8) to cover QE downtime, similar to Spanish or Italian current offerings minus well deck subject to improvements in the economy. Second batch of T26 & C3 to follow-on. C2 downgraded to C3 status - general purpose MCM/OPV capable of anti--piracy and global littoral tasks against low-level threats.

At least the RN would end up with limited numbers of cutting edge Destroyers, Frigates, MCM/OPV's and SSN's capable of protecting the ARG. Older T23's fitted with CAMM and kept on for policing / piracy work.

Also if one carrier is built we may see the retention of both Albions and at least two Bays.

I also reckon MR4 will be cancelled and replaced by marinised Predator/Reaper to compliment the planned ten already on order for the RAF based out of Waddington and Scotland (to provide Faslane coverage). Huge cost savings (man-power & training) using an existing platform fitted with a surveillance system suited to a maritime environment. Not a patch on MR4, but fit for role based on current threat levels (post Cold War). May even be able to fly from QE?

 

[swerve]

Press speculation has been consistently wrong. I'm baffled that anyone would place any credence in it.

Ditto with quotes. Carefully selected quotes, removed from context (as seen in the press), are misleading. You need the full statement, or full interview, to make sense of them.

C3 (which is no longer called C3, BTW) is over the horizon at the moment. It was postponed until some time after 2020 by the last government, & there's no sign of it being brought forward by this lot. The OPVs & survey ships are fairly new, & the minesweepers have very long hull lives, & are in no need of replacement.

Building only one CVF, & substituting a lighter carrier for PoW, wouldn't save a penny now, & very little, if anything, in the next parliament. We'd have to cancel orders already placed. All orders for CVF have been for TWO ships: we're not buying them after the other, but as one batch, to be built together. We'd have to commission a design, or buy plans for an existing ship (e.g. Cavour) & modify them, which would cost money & take time.

MRA4 is built & paid for, & the OCU is already up & running.

The amphibs are built & paid for. Bulwark has just been refitted. The only savings in disposing of them would be operating costs, almost all of which could be saved while keeping the ships, by mothballing them - & that has just been done with one Bay.

The oldest T23s are currently planned to retire in the early 2020s, still with Seawolf. The NEWER T23s are to be fitted with Artisan & CAMM, their sonars moved to T26s, & kept on for the policing/piracy etc. stuff until eventually, long after the current financial crisis, they're replaced by C2.

You're failing to take into account time (some of your proposed measures won't make any difference until ca 2025), what current plans are, what the actual current costs are, what financial commitments have already been made, & what extra costs some of your proposals will incur. Do you work for the MoD?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Building only one CVF, & substituting a lighter carrier for PoW, wouldn't save a penny now, & very little, if anything, in the next parliament. We'd have to cancel orders already placed. All orders for CVF have been for TWO ships: we're not buying them after the other, but as one batch, to be built together. We'd have to commission a design, or buy plans for an existing ship (e.g. Cavour) & modify them, which would cost money & take time.

There's no dry dock capable of hosting a vessel the size of the CVF so that still needs to be built.

Downtime isn't too bad with CVF. CVF has a requirement to spend 46 weeks every year operational and every 6 years having 1/2 year dock time. Although CVF has double the a/c capacity as the CVS, its still 50% air power capability reduction (as there were 3 CVS compared to just 1 CVF without considering how much more capable is the F-35B compared to the Harrier).

But impact to industry is significant. When UK had 3 CVS, at least 1 was in refit at any time. That means Rosyth needs to maintain industry capability just for that 1/2 year in that 6 year cycle rather than 1/2 year for every 3. That's going to have a major impact + they won't be able to maintain the same level of maintenance staffing. That could hurt operational capability ie may not maintain 46 weeks target. Cut other ships, that's going to hurt industry more.

There's not going to be much spares around either. When one CVS was in refit, items could be transferred to the remaining operational 2 to ensure capability. Won't happen with just 1 CVF.

Staffing-wise, some people are going to be happy with 6 months ashore every 6 years but there's again going to be more inefficiencies.

There will be cost savings from smaller F-35B purchase but how much industry offset can be lost is unclear.

RAF currently maintains 2 harrier sqn (1 & 4) and 2 OCU units with harriers (20 & 41 sqn) with a requirement of ~58-60 F-35Bs. The other 78-80 will equip the CVF (40 each in 2 sqn) so it may not be 50 but only 40 that gets chopped (without touching the RAF requirement).

The development cost is quite high £2.06b (US$3+b) and I'm not sure if UK can lower its commitment to this cost at this stage. This will only put more pressure on the F-35 programme (and the declining sterling won't help). Originally, total unit cost for 138 F-35Bs would have been £55m each (assuming unit production cost of £40m). Cutting it down to 88 increases unit cost to £64m each (assuming unit production cost stays at £40m which it will not).

 

[kev 99]

There's no dry dock capable of hosting a vessel the size of the CVF so that still needs to be built.

Hasn't this been done already? I was under the impression that this would be nearing completion by now, after all work was well under way last time it was reported in Desider.

 

[swerve]

There's no dry dock capable of hosting a vessel the size of the CVF so that still needs to be built. .

Not true. The dock exists, Rosyth no. 1, which has been there since 1916, IIRC. It's had its entrance enlarged, & various facilities are being installed, e.g. a very large crane. Work began a couple of years ago, & is mostly done. There's no money to be saved there: it's been spent.

The first block has already arrived at Rosyth.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Not true. The dock exists, Rosyth no. 1, which has been there since 1916, IIRC. It's had its entrance enlarged, & various facilities are being installed, e.g. a very large crane. Work began a couple of years ago, & is mostly done. There's no money to be saved there: it's been spent.

The first block has already arrived at Rosyth.

If the dock could handle the CVF, no work would have been needed. Every other dock exists, just needs more money to upgrade to handle a 65k ton CVF compared to dock 1.

Tot this is a good summary.
http://www.maritimejournal.com/feat...progress-rosyth-refurbishment-fit-for-a-queen

But apologies for not making myself clear. Its still money spent for a dock that would only service 1 CVF rather than 2 which is the point I'm making. Its cost like this that can't be saved from cancelling PoW. Having said that, the dry dock works didn't cost that much (35m quid).

 

[harryriedl]

Not true. The dock exists, Rosyth no. 1, which has been there since 1916, IIRC. It's had its entrance enlarged, & various facilities are being installed, e.g. a very large crane. Work began a couple of years ago, & is mostly done. There's no money to be saved there: it's been spent.

The first block has already arrived at Rosyth.

I believe its all been completed bar the crane which is arriving next year. Both CVF's should be build far too much has been on sunk costs for contracts for 2 ships I have a feeling Defence could be a winner from the spending review. especially if they can cut a few of the top ranks.
Their was an interesting comparison a while ago comparing the procurement offices of the British army compared with the IDF. The IDF complete procurement org was done by 300 people while in the UK it 5,000. Although its not an entirely fair comparison as the UK requirements are very different which would require more man power but it seems too heavy especially considering the about foul ups.

 

[ASFC]

I think that reading between the lines during the PMs interview at the weekend, all he did was confirm that at least one CVF was going to be built, and that only the future of the second was in doubt. I don't think I could read it any other way and jumping up and down saying that POW has been cancelled when there is nothing to back that is jumping the gun a bit.

Anyway, in other news:

All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy

A Type 45 has finally fired a missile!

 

[riksavage]

Press speculation has been consistently wrong. I'm baffled that anyone would place any credence in it.

Ditto with quotes. Carefully selected quotes, removed from context (as seen in the press), are misleading. You need the full statement, or full interview, to make sense of them.

C3 (which is no longer called C3, BTW) is over the horizon at the moment. It was postponed until some time after 2020 by the last government, & there's no sign of it being brought forward by this lot. The OPVs & survey ships are fairly new, & the minesweepers have very long hull lives, & are in no need of replacement.

Building only one CVF, & substituting a lighter carrier for PoW, wouldn't save a penny now, & very little, if anything, in the next parliament. We'd have to cancel orders already placed. All orders for CVF have been for TWO ships: we're not buying them after the other, but as one batch, to be built together. We'd have to commission a design, or buy plans for an existing ship (e.g. Cavour) & modify them, which would cost money & take time.

MRA4 is built & paid for, & the OCU is already up & running.

The amphibs are built & paid for. Bulwark has just been refitted. The only savings in disposing of them would be operating costs, almost all of which could be saved while keeping the ships, by mothballing them - & that has just been done with one Bay.

The oldest T23s are currently planned to retire in the early 2020s, still with Seawolf. The NEWER T23s are to be fitted with Artisan & CAMM, their sonars moved to T26s, & kept on for the policing/piracy etc. stuff until eventually, long after the current financial crisis, they're replaced by C2.

You're failing to take into account time (some of your proposed measures won't make any difference until ca 2025), what current plans are, what the actual current costs are, what financial commitments have already been made, & what extra costs some of your proposals will incur. Do you work for the MoD?

The big issue is not the cost of the asset, it's manning. Manning (salary, pension, accommodation et al) represents a third of the defence budget. If we introduced conscription again then this becomes less of an issue, but this is simply not an option in peace time.

Regardless of whether MRA4 is built or not, the manning costs (training, pilots, flight engineers, ground crews) plus servicing add exponential costs to the programme above and beyond opting for an unmanned cheaper platform, which can undertake the primary task of SSBN surveillance (departing and returning from Faslane) and littoral maritime patrols. Tie this in with the current expanding UAV programmes (Reaper, Watchkeeper and others) and like the joint Helo force, you can set-up a joint purple UAV force covering both the land/maritime arena, without suffering from the headache of very labour intensive manning and support. With Sentinel and the recently purchased ISTAR manned aviation assets coupled with ongoing UAV purchases, MRA4 could be cut and sold off. The argument about it being essential for Falklands defence can be mitigated by basing long range UAV's at Stanley. It takes two to fly and monitor a Reaper sized UAV, how many crew are need to man and support a single MRA4? Buy something like Global Hawk and you have 60 hours endurance!

We can't look at the Navy in isolation, the problem with the carriers is they eat up so much in the way of manpower, fixed wing and escorting units to make them a credible platform. The army is arguing that such prestige projects take away much needed assets needed elsewhere.

Building one carrier now means that we have a platform able to sustain the critical mass of people and fixed wing assets to train and maintain a credible strike force until the economy picks-up. Cancelling or delaying PW and bring T26/C3 forward means we will end up with a much more balanced fleet in the short term. A second smaller carrier (40k tonne) can be added later maintain fixed wing naval operations and support 3 Commando Brigade during any asymmetrical campaign when QE is in refit. Should an all out war kick off the RN will be part of a NATO task force, which will bring with it a US carrier battle group.

If you throw BAE a bone and say we will build QE then transition into the the T26 programme you may convince them to forfit any penalty clauses associated with NOT buying the complete 'batch'. BAE wants its yards kept busy, whether they build carriers or frigates doesn't matter to them they need continuity.

FT Quote:

'Mr Cameron and Mr Fox recognise it would be too wasteful to scrap the first carrier as almost £1.2bn of work is under way. But there is a push to find options to a second carrier, as a means of bulking up the navy’s fleet of frigates and destroyers. A factor here is whether industry can bring forward production of the Type-26 destroyer, which is in its design phase. '

Better one than none IMHO, and we we get new Frigates then even better.

 

[Troothsayer]

Better one than none IMHO, and we we get new Frigates then even better.

I agree with this, even if one carrier is strategically stupid. The RN have to be a bit long termist about the balance of their fleet and recognise this isn't 1998 and times have changed.

I think they would be light-frigates if it is a stop gap to replace work until T26 is ready but the RN for some reason have been totally opposed to corvettes in recent history. I think they'll have to suck it up frankly.

 

[swerve]

If the dock could handle the CVF, no work would have been needed. Every other dock exists, just needs more money to upgrade to handle a 65k ton CVF compared to dock 1.

Tot this is a good summary.
Maritime Journal - Work In Progress: Rosyth refurbishment fit for a Queen

But apologies for not making myself clear. Its still money spent for a dock that would only service 1 CVF rather than 2 which is the point I'm making. Its cost like this that can't be saved from cancelling PoW. Having said that, the dry dock works didn't cost that much (35m quid).

Hmm. Some crossed wires here. You said it doesn't exist, which was arguably true three years ago, but not now. The entrance of the dock has been widened, & the works at the entrance of the harbour should be just about complete now.

Agreed on the rest.

 

[swerve]

The big issue is not the cost of the asset, it's manning. Manning (salary, pension, accommodation et al) represents a third of the defence budget. If we introduced conscription again then this becomes less of an issue, but this is simply not an option in peace time.

Regardless of whether MRA4 is built or not, the manning costs (training, pilots, flight engineers, ground crews) plus servicing add exponential costs to the programme above and beyond opting for an unmanned cheaper platform, which can undertake the primary task of SSBN surveillance (departing and returning from Faslane) and littoral maritime patrols. Tie this in with the current expanding UAV programmes (Reaper, Watchkeeper and others) and like the joint Helo force, you can set-up a joint purple UAV force covering both the land/maritime arena, without suffering from the headache of very labour intensive manning and support. With Sentinel and the recently purchased ISTAR manned aviation assets coupled with ongoing UAV purchases, MRA4 could be cut and sold off. The argument about it being essential for Falklands defence can be mitigated by basing long range UAV's at Stanley. It takes two to fly and monitor a Reaper sized UAV, how many crew are need to man and support a single MRA4? Buy something like Global Hawk and you have 60 hours endurance!....

Manning, yes - but also capital cost. We can't recover any of the capital cost of MRA4, except perhaps by selling off equipment (radars, engines etc). There are no prospective customers for the aircraft. We should assume that almost nothing can be recovered by scrapping the aircraft.

Any new capability to provide the capability would cost a hell of a lot to set up. Unless we're going to operate it all at the discretion of the USA (very, very, undesirable), we need our own ground control stations & worldwide satellite communications system, with a lot of bandwidth. Have you costed all of that, & the cost of all the new UAVs, to balance against the manpower requirements of MRA4? A few billion, I think, which would cover a lot of years of MRA4 operations, & would still not give us the same capabilities. Reapers & Globab Hawks can't hunt subs. It's also more cost in the near term, to set it all up, & we're short of money now, which is what almost all the "scrap X because it's expensive to operate & buy Y because it's cheaper to run" advocates forget. You can't argue from an abstract, general, position, you have to look at the current situation, & when money will need to be spent for each proposed new capability.

In almost every case, buying to save only works as a long-term solution, & we need short-term savings. We also need to preserve capabilities for the future, if possible, as it would cost far more to regenerate them from scratch than to cut them back to a cadre from which the full capability could be rebuilt in future, e.g. keeping some of the MRA4 fleet in reserve to save on operating costs.

 

[1805]

How many MR4s are planned, is it still 9? Could we not sell 3 and keep 6. They must be worth c£100m (best to ignore what they cost...this project must be one of the worst ever) as they are effectively new aircraft?

I would think the cost of building T26s and picking up the cost of long lead items (even without any cancellation charges) would be greater than finishing the PW and selling at a knocked down price (must be worth £1bn?)

I have said on many occasion (and been shouted down) there is a need for numbers on Frigates, a batch of 6-8 FS2000 sized ships, followed by a similar number of T26 (if we have to) could keep the RN escort fleet at critical mass (18-22).

 

[KiwiRob]

Not true. The dock exists, Rosyth no. 1, which has been there since 1916, IIRC. It's had its entrance enlarged, & various facilities are being installed, e.g. a very large crane. Work began a couple of years ago, & is mostly done. There's no money to be saved there: it's been spent.

The first block has already arrived at Rosyth.

There are several other drydocks in the Uk that could dock a CVF if necessary.

Inchgreen and Harland & Wolff, both were under consideration as the final assembly site for CVF, the UK does not have a shortage of drydocks. Another dock that is large enough is the King George V dock in Southampton.

 

[swerve]

I think the King George V dock is no longer a dry dock. The gate was reported as having been removed some years ago, & it's now used as part of the cargo terminal.

 

[swerve]

How many MR4s are planned, is it still 9? Could we not sell 3 and keep 6. They must be worth c£100m .

Sell to who?

I can't think of anyone who we could sell three (or any) MRA4s to.

This is the standard problem with all these "Let's sell X" suggestions: who to? In many cases, there is no prospective customer. We'd probably have great difficulty selling an Albion-class, for example. There are markets for some military kit, e.g. the Bays are probably saleable, but it is folly to assume that something built for one country will be wanted by another. Look at the sad fate of the Nakhoda Ragams, still tied up in the UK.

 

[1805]

Sell to who?

I can't think of anyone who we could sell three (or any) MRA4s to.

This is the standard problem with all these "Let's sell X" suggestions: who to? In many cases, there is no prospective customer. We'd probably have great difficulty selling an Albion-class, for example. There are markets for some military kit, e.g. the Bays are probably saleable, but it is folly to assume that something built for one country will be wanted by another. Look at the sad fate of the Nakhoda Ragams, still tied up in the UK.

Everthing has its price, the market is probably not ideal, and we will not get anything like the £400-500m or whatever it is they now cost. But ignoring the madness of their expense, they do sound well spec'd virtually new aircraft. I would think any country looking to replace its current ageing Orion fleets, might be interested in a bargin. Better to sell now than paying to store them while they depreciate and decay as we did with the Upholders.

New Zealand has particularly old P3s, more value that the 3rd frigate they will not get. They may not be looking right now, but the nature of bargins is you have to take when you get the offer.

I wouldn't sell an Albion, also the lack of hangers will I assume limit their attractiveness. But the Bays can have a temporary hanger (so maybe a perm fitting?). Again all very sad, but I have been saying all along the real thing we need to do is to learn from these disasters. Stop buying more than can be afforded, build more attractive ships for export, stop gold plating and stagger production over a longer period.

Hopefully we will get at least one QE, but if not who is to blame? The Labour party for agreeing to much when they knew the money was not there, the Tories for not borrowing more, or the RN for requesting ships to large, to high a spec and to close together?

Lets hope just this one time the Tories turn a blind eye to the debt and just proceed with the order.

 

[swerve]

Everthing has its price,....

And in some cases, the price is negative. You are familiar with the concept of the white elephant? Some things can't even be given away. I fear MRA4 is in that category. The only countries with the requirements & budgets for such an aircraft already have something else, or are looking for things to cut, or aren't on the permitted recipients list.

The timing is perfectly wrong, because of economic factors & because the best potential customers have already committed to alternatives. Nobody wants an orphan aircraft. Everybody who wants so few aircraft wants something cheaper to own.

 

[1805]

And in some cases, the price is negative. You are familiar with the concept of the white elephant? Some things can't even be given away. I fear MRA4 is in that category. The only countries with the requirements & budgets for such an aircraft already have something else, or are looking for things to cut, or aren't on the permitted recipients list.

The timing is perfectly wrong, because of economic factors & because the best potential customers have already committed to alternatives. Nobody wants an orphan aircraft. Everybody who wants so few aircraft wants something cheaper to own.

I am inclined to agree with you, they do look an astonishingly bad call financially, that no one has been brave enough to cancel. After the AEW Nimrod, it gives no confidence that these people will ever learn anything. I suppose we should be grateful they didn’t try and build a tanker version (what is it about the UK and the Comet/Nimrod curse!)

That said they will be worth something and if not, better to give them away to a friendly country than pay to store them.

Sadly we have a whole herd of white elephants....rather than hammer the projects lets focus on those who caused them.

 

[riksavage]

The problem with defence projects is that by the time the come to fruition in todays ever changing world they have either been superseded by technology or the threat has changed.

The MRA4 was designed to hunt modern submarines. It is a state of the art platform, which has amazing capabilities for ISTAR and sub hunting. Unfortunately it provides overkill in a time of austerity. Russian Akula's are no longer populating the North Atlantic at a level consitant with the orginal concept behind MRA4. And whilst the platform would be useful in A-Stan, there are cheaper and better solutions out there.

RAF Waddington will soon be up and running as the default UK center of excellence for UAV activity. Previously this was centered at Creech in the US. Whilst we have paid for MRA4, it remains a very expensive over spec'd asset to keep running over an expected life-cycle of 25 plus years. Whilst a modern UAV looks expensive on paper, over the long term it will prove far more versatile, easier to upgrade and cheaper to keep in the air. For example the UK would risk sending a modern UAV over hostile territory (recent Pakistan example), but never a manned platform unless total secrecy is guaranteed. The last thing the UK or any other western nation needs or wants is a Gary Powers moment. A shot down UAV whilst embarrassing is acceptable politically and on the home front. Plus the amount of time and energy companies such as BAE are putting into UAV/UCAV development it would not be too difficult to fit the selected system with marinized weapons (SeaSkua II for example). Whilst not capable of hunting subs, they would be ideal for dealing with littoral threats presented by pirates or low level swarm attacks in the Persian Gulf.

Something has to go, MRA4 is an acceptable loss, if part of the running costs can be diverted to increasing the UK's unmanned capabilities. Flog them to India, the country is looking for up to 20 maritime survailance platforms of different types.