The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

riksavage

Banned Member
Whilst news on the surface appears very, very grim with Nelson spinning in his grave, there are a few bright lights in the darkness. The current SDR is basically geared to maintaining and enhancing the UK's current A-Stan adventure up to 2015. The Conservatives don't want to repeat the mistake of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq courtesy of a bunch of back-stabbing Labour politicians. Post 2015, we may see funds diverted back to the Navy and with a switch to F35C, the future FAA should hopefully be regenerated to a footing not seen since the loss of Phantom and Buccaneer.

The UK in the short term has signalled (quite rightly IMHO) a switch to improving SF, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Forces with intention of building/re-equipping and dovetailing civilian, police and military units to better deal with a Mumbai scenario at home. With the Olympic's coming up they would be fools not to make this a priority. This runs parallel with the importance of keeping the A-Stan mission on track. I would like to see a para-military police force created, which can deploy overseas the same way the Portuguese deployed units to East Timor. Dealing with failed states you need a combination of hard military power and less in-your-face para-military units with a robust means of defending themselves.

Comments about not being able to undertake a another Sierra Leone mission is clap trap, that was largely achieved using OCEAN and helo assets (Lynx & Chinook). If the UK ends up with Just Lusty, 1 x active Albion and 2 x Active Bays they can still undertake humanitarian missions and deal with policing actions against a foe with zero CAP/CAS. A Falklands retake will be an impossibility, but that should not worry the General's because the place can be reinforced in 24 hours and have the existing infrastructure to transform itself in to a static aircraft carrier. I would ship a load of bulldogs over there right now for use by te resident Infantry Company, practically brand new following the recent refit. Any increase in tension all the UK has to do is elude to the fact there's an SSN in the vicinity and fly in the high readiness battalion by C17, which is on stand-by 24-7 (Para or RM).

The one area of concern, which others have alluded to, is the F35 factor, and when the final order is likely to be confirmed. This will be a 'white elephant moment', cancellation and the carriers will definitely die an inglorious death and be sold off, the excuse being they kept the yards active until T26 (or similar) were ordered. I understand the final commitment on numbers will be 2015? Unfortunately there is a growing cadre amongst not just the UK armed services and military thinkers, but other nations, that the aircraft carrier is the new battleship post 1940. It's basically obsolete because it's simply too vulnerable to SSK/SSN's, modern sea skimmers, future ballistic threats (PRC) and more worrying cheap swarm attacks by inexpensive fast boats loaded with explosives driven by ideological nutters. This coupled with the huge expense of funding assets to protect it (DDG's and Frigates) and the value simply doesn't offset the cost unless you are the USA will endless assets at your disposal. I only hope this argument doesn't win the day and RAF don't start a black ops campaign for F35A and the scrapping of the QE's.

One area I'm very happy about is firm confirmation on seven Astute's (I seriously thought the order would be reduced to six). They represent the most important, powerful and versatile strategic enabler in the RN's armoury. Only tier one nations have the ability to deal with SSN's, the threat of just one in the near vacinity will keep all but the most sophisticated Navies in port. It also appears clear the Trident replacement will have only eight missile tubes sustained by a stock of only 120 warheads. Basically a stretched Astute.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Post 2015, we may see funds diverted back to the Navy and with a switch to F35C, the future FAA should hopefully be regenerated to a footing not seen since the loss of Phantom and Buccaneer.
Wishful thinking in the first part and second part no different aircraft for aircraft than with the F-35B. In fact the RN will suffer considerably in its ability to put F-35s to work by going from Bravo to Charlie. STOVL is far more accessible and flexible a way to fly from carriers.

one area of concern, which others have alluded to, is the F35 factor, and when the final order is likely to be confirmed. This will be a 'white elephant moment', cancellation and the carriers will definitely die an inglorious death and be sold off, the excuse being they kept the yards active until T26 (or similar) were ordered. I understand the final commitment on numbers will be 2015?
Are you referring to the F-35 being cancelled? No chance of that. Reasonable chance but that HM Govt. will kill off the carrier between now and 2020 anyway. If they can’t cut a deal with the French for a joint carrier force they may decided that the 1+1 carrier force may be too expensive. As you mention RAF may pull the pin on UK F-35s or on F-35C. I’m sure they’d be working on ways of doing this as I type. The 10 year carrier holiday is going to be a very precarious time for the RN. I don’t know of any such similar case where an institution was put out to pasture for 10 years and ever made it back into business.

Unfortunately there is a growing cadre amongst not just the UK armed services and military thinkers, but other nations, that the aircraft carrier is the new battleship post 1940. It's basically obsolete because it's simply too vulnerable to SSK/SSN's, modern sea skimmers, future ballistic threats (PRC) and more worrying cheap swarm attacks by inexpensive fast boats loaded with explosives driven by ideological nutters.
Good thing that’s all bollocks. In a war footing a carrier battle group is not vulnerable to submarines. It’s a different game in peacetime when the surface ships can’t drop torpedos on suspects which the sub community leverage to impress the outsiders. Anti ship ballistic missles aren’t in service yet but ship based anti ballistic systems are. Sea Based MSE provides a low cost bulk interceptor if the Chinese ever field the threat. Other threats are easily countered by any contemporary frigate not to mention the carrier’s air wing.

Only tier one nations have the ability to deal with SSN's, the threat of just one in the near vacinity will keep all but the most sophisticated Navies in port.
You don’t need a SSN to keep the name only navies in port. They tend to do that all by themselves. I think the 7th SSN has a lot more to do with industrial politics than force structure planning. The entire SDR smacks of this. Which – apart from Afghanistan and fighting terror – how can we keep defence industry ticking over without the slightest concern for what gets slashed in the Forces.
 

AndrewMI

New Member
Wishful thinking in the first part and second part no different aircraft for aircraft than with the F-35B. In fact the RN will suffer considerably in its ability to put F-35s to work by going from Bravo to Charlie. STOVL is far more accessible and flexible a way to fly from carriers.
Agree with the first part - although the review has left a great deal of scope for bringing additional capabilities online in the future.

Remember, this is about short term savings, and i would be very suprised in QE and PoW are not, eventually, fully fledged carriers. When this will happen is difficult to say.

Can you clarify your point on STOVL being far more acessible? Of course both have pros and cons, but i cannot see how having cats and traps makes a carrier less acessible?

For me, the decisive advantage is the MASC capability of the Hawkeye. With CoEG it will allow all other radars to be turned off (including F35) which will add greatly to a Task forces tactical options - that is of course if they are ever bought!!!

Very happy with the Astute news. Few people will every grasp the capability of SSN's - for that i am thankful.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Agree with the first part - although the review has left a great deal of scope for bringing additional capabilities online in the future.

Remember, this is about short term savings, and i would be very suprised in QE and PoW are not, eventually, fully fledged carriers. When this will happen is difficult to say.

Can you clarify your point on STOVL being far more acessible? Of course both have pros and cons, but i cannot see how having cats and traps makes a carrier less acessible?

For me, the decisive advantage is the MASC capability of the Hawkeye. With CoEG it will allow all other radars to be turned off (including F35) which will add greatly to a Task forces tactical options - that is of course if they are ever bought!!!

Very happy with the Astute news. Few people will every grasp the capability of SSN's - for that i am thankful.
There is a very good article floating around the www written by a USMC aviator who at one point advocated increased numbers of smaller STOVL carriers over lesser numbers of larger super carriers. His argument was based around sortie rates, STOVL aircraft can maintain a much higher sortie rate than conventional cat & trap aircraft, meaning less aircraft can do the same job from a smaller platform.

One argument supporting the new EMALS technology (hence the switch to F35C) is the fact that the launch speeds can be very tightly controlled and varied according to what you are launching. Meaning you could launch a variety of next generation UCAV/UAV's which might require a much slower and less stressful launch than say a F35C. Or transversely launch something like a marinised Taranis, which would not be restricted by G-forces on the pilot, so launch speeds could be set much higher. With an expected 50 year lifespan the PW must have inbuilt flexibility to cope with future advances in aviation technology, which is moving away from manned paltforms. If as I suspect the number of F35C's committed to the UK carrier is to be reduced to a sqn in peace time (12 aircraft) the RN may be thinking ahead and be already looking at possible unmanned EMALS launched systems, which would be substantially cheaper o buy/run but fulfill a valuable role such as deep strike.

Everyman and his dog is caught up or playing catch-up with regards to UCAV. Attached link covers France's latest options, including that of a JV with the UK over Mantis. Mantis being twin prop and capable of hosting a heavy payload might end up being a possible MASC host in the future, who knows?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Apres-Harfang-Frances-Next-High-End-UAV-06451/
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Reasonable chance but that HM Govt. will kill off the carrier between now and 2020 anyway..
Both carriers are going to be built, because of the contracts signed by the last government. As Cameron said a few days ago, it's cheaper to build them both & then scrap them than to cancel the contracts.

I think that's probably why the second one hasn't been cancelled. I reckon Cameron & Osborne would have cut the order to one if any money could have been saved by doing so.

If one wants to be deeply cynical, one could suggest that building them with cats is to increase the chances of selling them after completion. But come what may, they'll be built.
 

WillS

Member
If one wants to be deeply cynical, one could suggest that building them with cats is to increase the chances of selling them after completion. But come what may, they'll be built.
I'm deeply cynical but what prevents me from being so in this particular case is figuring out which countries would want to buy them that we'd feel comfortable selling them to:

  • India:Is developing it's own carrier building capacity and has no declared need for a carrier other than the one they're getting from the Russians and their own efforts to build.
  • France: No money either and anyway likes to build it's own stuff.
  • China: Has a need but no way.
  • Brazil: Has a need but votes with Argentina every time the Falklands is discussed. So, hard sell to the UK public.

Anyone else in the market, even potentially? I suppose we could sell one to the Aussies and then change our minds at the last minute again ;)

In fact, if they hadn't already ordered the Canberras that'd be the likely target as they are/will be a F35 nation.

WillS
 

SASWanabe

Member
Anyone else in the market, even potentially? I suppose we could sell one to the Aussies and then change our minds at the last minute again ;)

In fact, if they hadn't already ordered the Canberras that'd be the likely target as they are/will be a F35 nation.
The Canberras' and a QE provide completely different capabilitys (Aside from Helos'), We have the money (Just that the government wont give it to the navy) Would gain an advantage with the carrier. (Given defence expenditure rises to above 2% GDP).

Main problem for us is crewing it...

i personaly would vote for any government that buys a QE



Then Again, If we dont want it you could sell it to the Kiwis:D
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
[*]France: No money either and anyway likes to build it's own stuff.
The French are more likely than not. Buying a CVF would allow them to avoid refuelling the CdG every six years. Since a CVF could be brought at a knock down price ($2 billion Euros?) it would pay for itself within a decade. Also it would be much more capable, hopefully less troublesome than the CdG and easier to operate as part of a Franco-British joint carrier force. And they could call it King Louis XIV which would make a nice pair with Queen Elizabeth.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Naah. The republic does not use monarchs names. Their ministers, though . . . IIRC Richelieu was on the cards as a carrier name.

PoW with catapults would fit the PA2 spec very well, especially as we modified our design slightly to take into account some French suggestions during the design co-operation period a few years ago when they intended to build their own CVF-based PA2. But the French would have to overcome their financial troubles, & their aversion to buying foreign-built warships.
 

1805

New Member
I'm deeply cynical but what prevents me from being so in this particular case is figuring out which countries would want to buy them that we'd feel comfortable selling them to:

  • India:Is developing it's own carrier building capacity and has no declared need for a carrier other than the one they're getting from the Russians and their own efforts to build.
  • France: No money either and anyway likes to build it's own stuff.
  • China: Has a need but no way.
  • Brazil: Has a need but votes with Argentina every time the Falklands is discussed. So, hard sell to the UK public.

Anyone else in the market, even potentially? I suppose we could sell one to the Aussies and then change our minds at the last minute again ;)

In fact, if they hadn't already ordered the Canberras that'd be the likely target as they are/will be a F35 nation.

WillS
Brazil and I wouldn't rule out India. Have got to be the best bets, the RN has got to run as efficiently as possible over the next 10 years, nothing must be able to give justification for cancelling the F35s (remember the RAF will be watching like a hawk). I would put everything up for sale and see what attracts interest. Call in all the favours....see if we can sell a couple of T45 brand new for £500m (completely de-risked now they are tried and tested) to either Brazil, Canada or Saudi (who else doesn't have a AWD). these would be a bargin probably cheaper than the Hobarts? £1bn at the right time might swing a government to keep both carriers.

Lets seriously look at a high low mix, 18- 24 F35c and 18-24 Gripen for light attack? The Gripen has got to be a 1/3 the price and for light attack isn't a F35 over kill (mind same argument applied to the Harrier/Tornado and they ignored that!!).

If we could get a good price for a CVF in the next 5 years £1bn has got to be bargin, I know Brazil and India like to build locally but a 40,000t carrier locally built with foriegn assistance has got to cost much much more?? We could then get a commitment to build a 2nd carrier (post 2025 (sensible size 45-50,000t/25 knot LHA 6 like not cost).

The RN has got to get behind creative ideas not just sulk. The also need to work with BAe to lobby hard at home and sell abroad.

The RN has to make a clear message to the politicans: if we deliver on the budget we can afford 2 carriers, trust use we will not let you down.
 

1805

New Member
Naah. The republic does not use monarchs names. Their ministers, though . . . IIRC Richelieu was on the cards as a carrier name.

PoW with catapults would fit the PA2 spec very well, especially as we modified our design slightly to take into account some French suggestions during the design co-operation period a few years ago when they intended to build their own CVF-based PA2. But the French would have to overcome their financial troubles, & their aversion to buying foreign-built warships.
Well as we are thinking the unthinkable, there is two way I think the French could be induced to buy a Britsh built carrier...what would they want more than anything... we could buy Rafale M or even more political M51??
 

Repulse

New Member
The key thing for me is to try and keep the FAA as a crediable unit. Also, keeping HMS Illustrious over Ocean and see if we can get some timeshare of US Harrier AV-8Bs, whilst training the pilots on the F35C and anything else we can get our hands on.

As people in this forum say, the RN needs to be able to show financial prudence and creativity with what they've got. After all who turned a through-deck cruiser into an aircraft carrier? a model now copied throughout the world. How about some creative RFA designs? or a re-jig of RFA Argus...
 

1805

New Member
The key thing for me is to try and keep the FAA as a crediable unit. Also, keeping HMS Illustrious over Ocean and see if we can get some timeshare of US Harrier AV-8Bs, whilst training the pilots on the F35C and anything else we can get our hands on.

As people in this forum say, the RN needs to be able to show financial prudence and creativity with what they've got. After all who turned a through-deck cruiser into an aircraft carrier? a model now copied throughout the world. How about some creative RFA designs? or a re-jig of RFA Argus...
Completely agree they need to drop all previous positions nothing should be out of scope. In the low state threat environment we are in, why not just 3 SSBNs (can we not supplement with some free fall/stand off weapons). With the Fort II & Waves do we need to replace the other RFAs (exit Rovers, Fort Is, Leafs, Argus right away). They need to close the gap without fixed wing aircraft, if QE get catapults we could be back in the game in 6 years (a long time). I know we want to reduce the number of aircraft types but a F35c or Rafale M (if they buy POW) and Gripen mix would save a huge about (20 Gripen a saving of 1.4bn?).

Lets guarantee RAN participation in T26 and just adopt their spec (we don't have to fit all the systems).
 
Last edited:

WillS

Member
Completely agree they need to drop all previous positions nothing should be out of scope.
Showing flexibility and creativity is the key here. An earlier comment about our 'through deck cruiser' is an appropriate one. I'm just worried that the RN has lost its habit of creative thinking, based on recent experiences it just repeats the "gold plate this, now!" mantra again and again.

Deploying one of the Bays (+ helicopter) on drug hunting duty last year was a good example of flexibility, as is the recent deployment of one of the Forts off Somalia. You could argue that those vessels (at least the 2 recent Forts with their decent sized hangers) with helicopters and marine detachments are more suited to handling nobs in speedboats armed with AK47s and RPGs than a £300m frigate. Certainly a lot cheaper. But the RN seems almost embarrassed by the deployments instead of using them as an example of appropriate forces/role matching.

A few other remarks:

- Forget about Sea Gripen. Firstly, it doesn't exist and the one thing none of the forces can really afford is further uncertainty about price, timing or operating costs. Secondly the Govt has made it very clear that it wants a 2-type fast jet fleet of Typhoon and F35. Adding another just will not happen.
- If I'm wrong about the 2 fast jet argument, number 3 would be Super Hornet not Gripen. The Hornet's a known quantity and FAA pilots are already flying it. I'd be willing to place a (small) bet that we'll see F18s, possibly on a temp lease, flying off QE pre her official in service dates.
- The RFA's: I'm guessing Argus will stay (flexible + casualty receiving asset), the Leafs will go (single hulled and mostly used to ferry fuel now rather than RAS) and possibly so will the earlier Forts. I'm surprised the RFA continues to survive as a separate arm and not sure that I agree that it should.

WillS
 

WillS

Member
The key thing for me is to try and keep the FAA as a crediable unit. Also, keeping HMS Illustrious over Ocean ...
I'm assuming that's a given judging by the comments I often see about Ocean's serviceability? Mind you, Lusty's still in refit so if they can cancel it and save some cash they might do so + Ocean has a better ampib capability.

WillS
 

1805

New Member
Showing flexibility and creativity is the key here. An earlier comment about our 'through deck cruiser' is an appropriate one. I'm just worried that the RN has lost its habit of creative thinking, based on recent experiences it just repeats the "gold plate this, now!" mantra again and again.

Deploying one of the Bays (+ helicopter) on drug hunting duty last year was a good example of flexibility, as is the recent deployment of one of the Forts off Somalia. You could argue that those vessels (at least the 2 recent Forts with their decent sized hangers) with helicopters and marine detachments are more suited to handling nobs in speedboats armed with AK47s and RPGs than a £300m frigate. Certainly a lot cheaper. But the RN seems almost embarrassed by the deployments instead of using them as an example of appropriate forces/role matching.

A few other remarks:

- Forget about Sea Gripen. Firstly, it doesn't exist and the one thing none of the forces can really afford is further uncertainty about price, timing or operating costs. Secondly the Govt has made it very clear that it wants a 2-type fast jet fleet of Typhoon and F35. Adding another just will not happen.
- If I'm wrong about the 2 fast jet argument, number 3 would be Super Hornet not Gripen. The Hornet's a known quantity and FAA pilots are already flying it. I'd be willing to place a (small) bet that we'll see F18s, possibly on a temp lease, flying off QE pre her official in service dates.
- The RFA's: I'm guessing Argus will stay (flexible + casualty receiving asset), the Leafs will go (single hulled and mostly used to ferry fuel now rather than RAS) and possibly so will the earlier Forts. I'm surprised the RFA continues to survive as a separate arm and not sure that I agree that it should.

WillS

Actually since you mention it I don't think it would be a bad thing if we just went for SH, realistically they would be able to deal with any likely threat we will see over the next 20-25 years. However if we could sell POW (and built a replacement 10 years later) in exchange for 30 Rafale I would be very happy.

The real issue here is the RN has tried to do too much in to short a time. History now but I was looking at the MN SSBNs launched/commission about 3-4 years between each boat, whereas the Vs 18m-24ms. The Astutes/T45 are even worst, even the USN lays its super carriers down one after the other.

Completely agree the RFA look a luxury, integrate into the RN and cut to just the Waves/Fort II. A while back someone one here (sorry I forget who) suggested converting one of the Bays to a repair ship to replace Diligence. We could buy some 4-5 CB90s and use a Bays (fix a perm hanger for a couple of Lynx) as a tender in the Gulf, probably more use and a lot cheaper than a frigate using RHIBs
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Completely agree the RFA look a luxury, integrate into the RN and cut to just the Waves/Fort II. A while back someone one here (sorry I forget who) suggested converting one of the Bays to a repair ship to replace Diligence. We could buy some 4-5 CB90s and use a Bays (fix a perm hanger for a couple of Lynx) as a tender in the Gulf, probably more use and a lot cheaper than a frigate using RHIBs

The Bays are already very flexible in their capabilities & assigning them to this role would be a 'BAD MOVE'.

While I apprciate that one of them is 'laid up' (due to technical / mechanical issues), they would serve the RN well if the RFA ever gets combined with the RN.


SA
 
Last edited:

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
...Lets guarantee RAN participation in T26 and just adopt their spec (we don't have to fit all the systems).
A VERY nice thought if the Global version of T26 gets going.

It seems the 'AULD enemy', is trying to steel some thunder from BAE...

U.K. in the race to sell Brazil warships - UPI.com

(Link 'borrowed' from some one else blog on www)

...& am I correct in stating that this is the 5000th post on this subject ??

SA :D
 
Top