The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I was reposting the comments of Richard Beedall which I think are very soundly based. The comment was about 2nd class or not gold plated ships. There is nothing wrong with 10 x 7,000t ships if they can be afford, however if they end up being £500m each then we are likely to end up with c6. By anticipating this and going for a lesser ship that can do 80% of the work for 20% of the price we can maintain numbers which may be subcritical at 6 T26 + 6 T45.
If we built a modified and updated BAe FS2000 design, with a single Wildcat & Hanger and 57mm gun and a few CAMM, able to be fitted with TAS, you should get a cost effective solution.
I would rather any money saved be focused on 2-3 modifedT45 (TAS + 2 Merlin as a GP escort would that make it a T83?) post 2020, and a similar of ships post 2030. So we can have one Heavy GP escort of say 8-12. If ordered and spec well I see no reason why we could not move back to sustaining this number of ships. Plus of course a similar number of hardworking global light frigates.
This would main development on Samson/PAAMS over a 30 years cycle. We could even try and sell a couple of the current batch to help finances now.
Last edited:
Thats a good site, although you can of course poke holes in most of what they say it indicates that buying from overseas is not necessaraly cheaper (notwithstanding different RN requirements and through life costs).
I think the main advantage of buying overseas is that it removes the element of developmental risk (and subsequent cost escalation) and that is the main criticism. Hence why we should look to keep PAAMS updated like the SM/AEGIS family.
Thanks for the T26 info. Whether is enough remains to be seen, but the next 5 years or so could be rather tough. Hopefully the frontline cuts (i.e. ships and capability) will be minimal.
In a time of prolifigate government spending under Labour, the defence budget was chipped away at and cuts suffered whilst other departments recieved massive funding shots in the arm. All this in a time of war. In this time of Austerity, the Defence budget should not suffer a double loss.
Hopefully Fax has got this point across, and at the moment it looks as though he has.
I think that is an interesting point. However, a GP escort is often jack of all trades and master of none.
I think we are probbably 2 T45's short of guaranteed adequate coverage, but the cost overruns when developing PAAMS has probbably caused that. Hopefully it won't next time.
Ideally, you would go for an escort mix of say:
8 T45 (we will have 6)
10 T26
8 T27
The T27 could be something akin to what you mention although i am sure something a little bigger will be necessary (minus the TAS) as a GP Frigate with a main gun, CAAM, CIWS, Torpedoes, hanger and possibly Harpoon. Give it a basic sensor suite - nothing fancy. Effectivly a T-23 minus the anti-sub capacity with a small crew that is cheap to run and can operate alone for a period of time.
Althuogh such a ship would not be "cheap" it is far from complex and can be based upon existing tech, eliminating development costs.
The above is probably unaffordable, so if they propose this appoach they will end up with 6 + 6. And maybe 6 big OPVs similar to the Dutch. Its this wooden headed denial that was in RB's post.
Lets face it best case we just lose the T22 now so thats down to 18-19. The T26/27? are unlikely to replace the T23 one for one.
I know the arguements for scrapping the T22s over the T23s are around the age of the ships and higher running costs. But are there actually arguements for keeping the 4 T22s and selling the 5 T23s without 2087 sonars to get to this expected first rate escort size of 16-18 ships?
From what I've read the T22s are better GP frigates and the resale price of the T23s must be higher. This would also make it easier in my view to argue for maintaining numbers as they are different ships for different roles.
The T22s could then be the first to be replaced post 2020, either with a dumbed down T45 design or the first T26 batch. The advantage of using a T45 design (probably without Sampson) is that the design costs should be minimal, allowing the T26 (or replacement) to be pushed back to 2025.
I am not sure I know enough about the T22's GP capabilities over a T23, they look fairly similar, on paper. You have the older Sea Wolf and crewing you mentioned.
And again I am not sure how much we would get for a T22v T23, if we need to get cash in, then sell 2 Type 45, given time (they are not even built yet) they should fetch a good sum and if not keep them.
I do prefer development of the T45 in small numbers (over a T26). I would like to think it could be developed into a powerful crusier design, in addition to their current role, able to operate independently under their own air cover. I would love to see capability for 2 Merlin's, TAS and maybe a Absalon type flexdeck (space for 200-300 marines & kit), slower 25 knots, even longer range. Even more useful and flexible if we have to say goodbye to the Bays.
With respect, i do not think the first part of your statement is true in the long term.
I will qualify that by saying that this is subject to the elimination of procurement budget proliforation and cutting the public sector and MoD waste that is being uncovered at the present time. The overall budget, should be able to support such numbers over a 30-35 year cycle.
What this does highlight is the "most likely" scenario based on the previous 10 years of defence procurement.
The second part is probbabbly accurate. Remember the main budget cuts are supposed to be for the next 4-5 years and so they should not have too great an impact on long term projects. However i am sure the RN will have to give up 3-4 escorts in addition to the existing T-42's which will retire ASAP (I believe the T-45's are being delivered faster).
I agree with you that the defence budget has(hopefully is in the future) sufficient to fund commitments, over a 30 year life cycle, without the current level of waste. The issue is can we stop the waste, and achieve export? Once we have done whatever needs to be done to get through this mess, the focus must be on efficiency and exports.
It's not really news, having been reported a month ago. We've signed a defence cooperation agreement with Brazil - as have about 35 other countries, & we have more than that. It's neither a necessary precursor to arms sales, nor an indication that they are likely. We've sold plenty of ships to Brazil in the past without having such an agreement.
The Italians seem far more likely to win a contract with FREMM, with the French probably the second best placed. T26 may be too late, only being in the design stage so far.
We might sell some OPVs, as the rejected Trinidad OPVs are a very close fit to a Brazilian requirement. The three already built (the third is incomplete, but not by much) should be cheap, & even with a fourth at full price the whole deal should still be very attractive.
If timing is an issue, ideal time to work with BAe and create a deal so we can push the French/Italians out. Something like: 2 T45, 4 T22 and a couple of Bays for £1bn.
We could even lend them a T class, see if they really do want a SSNs and then maybe sell them a couple of our Astutes, which we could then replace bridging the gap to our next SSBN.
Still that would be quite a proposition for them. When you sell you need to understand their hot buttons. They may not be so keen on the T22s (they wouldn't be very expensive) but a couple of new T45 would be awesome (say 3rd and 5th). There are not many countries that could offer a SSN on a trial?
Its worth selling ships at the marginal replacement cost (maybe even slighly less). It regains markets, keeps the yards at home in work and would help current cashflow delaying RN orders.
We need to be smarter in the export game, maybe even offer to buy some Embraer KC-390 (I heard France & Sweden even talked about it related to Rafale/Gripen orders).
Brazil will also have to replace their carrier in soon, would be great to sell a CVF and then order a RN replacement after 2020.
Yes Brazil would love to build SSN, AWD & Carriers in local yards but the cost compared to a discounted UK ship would probably not stack up.
Thanks for the update. It does seem rather positive.
The T-26 does appear to have benefits over the FREMM, but of course it does not exist yet.
Whith that kind of deal the RN should be able to get T26 in the numbers it desires, with the spec it desires. So fingers crossed!
Troothsayer
New Member
Whilst a cut is never 'great news' it could've been a whole lot worse. I guess how much relief at the result that preserves carrier strike for the RN is going to be determined by what happens to the amphibious shipping. Nothing on that?
i suppose if something has to give id rather it wasnt our core assets of the 2 carriers,our t45's and typhoon and f35......
if we lose some of our dedicated amphib capability and the harriers and tornados then hopefully we can have a full share of the tiffies and f35's to compensate........
Agreed except the Harriers, without them the F35s are always vunerable to future attack. When TSR2 was canned F111s were promised but never materialised. Its bad enough there were no FA2 to be replaced. We should remember the only thing that seems to have saved these carriers (if they have been) is that the orders were impossible to get out of....not really a firm basis for carrier aviation.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I would like to pose a couple of simple questions.
How effective could the F-35 be without fixed wing AEW to support a carrier force?
Would helo-AEW be sufficient in view of growing sensor capabilities of aggressor a/c?
The irony is that if the CVFs become catapult armed and E-2s get acquired, the cost savings argument goes right out the window (albeit more effective).
I would like to pose a couple of simple questions.
How effective could the F-35 be without fixed wing AEW to support a carrier force?
Would helo-AEW be sufficient in view of growing sensor capabilities of aggressor a/c?
The irony is that if the CVFs become catapult armed and E-2s get acquired, the cost savings argument goes right out the window (albeit more effective).