Which role the mothership/tender to CB90s or a repairship? I would have though CB90s would be safer than RHIBs in the gulf. Agree they are flexible but unfortunately surplus to requirements, as discussed in detail before this over capacity has lead to them being used as patrol ships andnow likely premature retirement/sale.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
So actually you want to guarantee RN participation in SEA 5000? There is very little for the RAN in getting involved in the Type 26. It isn’t as capable as the SEA 5000 requirement and it doesn’t build on existing Australian shipbuilding. The only thing such involvement does is help prop up the British industry at the expense of the Australian.
Part of the Australian-Spanish deal for the AWD/LHD was to provide Australian Government ownership over the F100 ship intellectual property. This was an important Spanish offer to meet a similar offer from the USA with the DDG 51 IP that was incorporated in the rival Gibbs & Cox offer.
This means SEA 5000 can take the vehicle system of the F100, take out AEGIS and stick in the mission deck/hangar. Everything else can remain common and leverage the same production line established for the AWD. With the Australian combat system 9LV Mk 4 and Australian radars CEAPAR available the only thing British is the excellent Ultra force level ASW system (which is 50% Australian work anyway).
It has been a RAN strategic level goal since 1970 to have a common surface combatant hull. They’ve tried twice so far to achieve it (DDL and MEKO) and failed. Now on the third try when it’s so close with no political obstacles yet arisen you expect them to throw away their plans for a rather unimpressive looking British ship. Sorry but the RN needs to find another mark to fixate upon.
If RAN has no intention of participating in T26 (why has it been showing interest) I'm all for canning it and going for a far more cost effective Fs2000 based design. if we can cut the cost from £500m to £100m we can get 12 hulls and save a shed load of cash that can go on the carriers.
Last edited:
AG - what is the SEA 5000 project?
Its a shame that the Aussies would not go for a Nuke Sub as i feel in the future you could play an important role in preventing Chinese expansion. In this regard the more SSN's the better!
I see the advantage of a common hull design - this appears to be RN thinking with the T45/T26. It will be interesting to see what form this project will take now. They seem to have committed to a class of 16 ships - obviously not all can be the top spec one (which would be a very high spec ship) but i would have thought the basic design is a good one.
Its a shame that the Aussies would not go for a Nuke Sub as i feel in the future you could play an important role in preventing Chinese expansion. In this regard the more SSN's the better!
I see the advantage of a common hull design - this appears to be RN thinking with the T45/T26. It will be interesting to see what form this project will take now. They seem to have committed to a class of 16 ships - obviously not all can be the top spec one (which would be a very high spec ship) but i would have thought the basic design is a good one.
JoeMcFriday
New Member
Not displacing any response AG may give, you can start by following this link :-
Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version
Look towards the bottom of the page.
Cheers,
Mac
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really. They were in the race before we tried to muscle in, so it's a case of us trying to steal a march from them. The Italians seem to be front-runners, though, with us trailing. The Brazilians probably won't want to wait for Type 26.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
Cheers Mac.
Looks very similar to T26 spec (although presumably a different hull going on AG's thoughts).
We could probably put a far more compelling proposition together with ex RN as a HI LO mix. We also have good tradtional links with the Brazilian Navy. I would rather have 4 T22, 2 T45 and a couple of Bays than FREMMs. Also the Brazilians are keen to retain a carrier capability and the POW would almost be perferct timing for the old Foch. With BAe Sea Gripen in exchange we could replace our Hercules with Embraer KC-390 and work with them on a JV for the T26, delaying the puchase of new frigates so they can afford a carrier. And lets face it not any carrier a CVF with catapults will be a stunner.
What other Carrier options does Brazil have Indian; untried and late or Russian (I don't think they would get a reference from the India!).
In fact thinking about it we could probably create compelling propositions for India, Franch and Brazil based on countertrade deals. I bet the production cost of a CVF (without shipping blocks round the country and unplanned delays) would probably be near £1.5bn if you trim the size and speed might be possible to get this to £1bn?
Last edited:
We don't have any spare T45s. The T22s might do for a short-term gap filler until T26 could be delivered, but that's all. Our credibility in the ability to deliver T26 on time is questionable, because of the state of our industry & what's happening to the RN's shipbuilding schedule. We don't have a supply ship we can point to & say "That's what we can sell you". And the Brazilians can buy any carriers they want from the French, who'd be overjoyed to build them. The Italians would also probably be keen, but have the obvious drawback that they've never built a catapult-equipped carrier.
As for Bays, we're only getting rid of one, not a couple, & we have other potential customers. All the Brazilians have to do to get it is to offer us the right price. They've been happy to do that for other ships.
We don't want to trim the speed of CVF, as it's already slow for a carrier. We can't build any without shipping blocks around the country until we've cleared QE & PoW out of Rosyth, as it's currently the only dock big enough & with the necessary facilities. Regenerating another dock is still possible, I think, but would add to the cost.
As for Bays, we're only getting rid of one, not a couple, & we have other potential customers. All the Brazilians have to do to get it is to offer us the right price. They've been happy to do that for other ships.
We don't want to trim the speed of CVF, as it's already slow for a carrier. We can't build any without shipping blocks around the country until we've cleared QE & PoW out of Rosyth, as it's currently the only dock big enough & with the necessary facilities. Regenerating another dock is still possible, I think, but would add to the cost.
I don't mean we should only have 4 AWDs (permanently). But we are short of cash over the next 5 years. If we can sell 2 now (for a good price £500m/each) or any of the 6 other than the first 2 we can build 2-3 replacements taking up the space the T26 would have taken c2020. The T26 is now likely to move back as the original production schedule would surely have been to replace the T22s. The first T23 will not reach 30 years till 2021-23. Assuming they are replaced 1 for 1. If they can serve 33 years then the first T26 does not need to commission till 2026.
We can then build 2-3 T46 improvements from 2030+, this way we can get back to a core of 8-9 Destroyer/Cruiser types, which are continuous improvements rather than completely built from scratch designs, and maintain a drumbeat
If we sell a CVF now (well in 2016 or ideally 2020 if POW) a replacement built say 2020-30 should be much cheaper needing minimal design cost, no need to ship blocks round the country (did that cost 100m?) . I would rather have a 25 knot carrier than non at all.
I don’t think France would be a serious rival for a Brazilian carrier project as they currently plan to us a UK design for themselves?
Looking at further savings if we relied on just the Waves & Fort II they would not need replacement till c2028-2038.
If we then converted a Bay to a repair and the aviation support role was shared with the Bay and Ocean/Lusty. We could dispose of the Rovers, Leafs, Fort I, Argus & Diligence (all of which are getting fairly old). Saving c1000 crews plus the savings from integrating the RFA into the RN?
If we then converted a Bay to a repair and the aviation support role was shared with the Bay and Ocean/Lusty. We could dispose of the Rovers, Leafs, Fort I, Argus & Diligence (all of which are getting fairly old). Saving c1000 crews plus the savings from integrating the RFA into the RN?
I don’t think France would be a serious rival for a Brazilian carrier project as they currently plan to us a UK design for themselves?[/QUOTE]
I understand the UK is offering the spare Bay to Brazil and Aussie. The Brazil sale could be bundled together with a deal for OPV and T26.
The French CdG is broke again, returning to port after just one days deployment to the Gulf. The vessel appears to be cursed. The sooner they sign off on PA2 the better.
Not convinced about Sea Gripen, short range and limited load carrying capacity. The Brazilians would be better off buying 2nd hand or new Rafi's off the French.
I understand the UK is offering the spare Bay to Brazil and Aussie. The Brazil sale could be bundled together with a deal for OPV and T26.
The French CdG is broke again, returning to port after just one days deployment to the Gulf. The vessel appears to be cursed. The sooner they sign off on PA2 the better.
Not convinced about Sea Gripen, short range and limited load carrying capacity. The Brazilians would be better off buying 2nd hand or new Rafi's off the French.
I understand the UK is offering the spare Bay to Brazil and Aussie. The Brazil sale could be bundled together with a deal for OPV and T26.
The French CdG is broke again, returning to port after just one days deployment to the Gulf. The vessel appears to be cursed. The sooner they sign off on PA2 the better.
Not convinced about Sea Gripen, short range and limited load carrying capacity. The Brazilians would be better off buying 2nd hand or new Rafi's off the French.[/QUOTE]
I am sure a deal could be done with the French on POW for Rafale. Difficulties for both countries (UK exit from F35 and France just buying British!) but it could behe a great deal. The French are so desparate to get exports of the Rafale and spread the cost. They appear to be cheaper than F35 c£60m but you never know the real cost.
One thing it does show with hindsight the RN and the French should have joined the Eurofighter programme.
Future CV
Just to be clear it's my understanding that Prince of Wales is to be modified for CATOBAR. The QE, if put up for sale, would then have to be extensively modified if the buyer wanted it for CATOBAR.
Furthermore, the current projection for Prince of Wales is 2020; however, the odds of this date slipping further are not inconsiderable. One significant technical factor is also getting EMALS operational.
Were one to take a cynical view of this whole matter and view the carrier program as first and foremost a jobs program then delays both provide the political jobs benefit while not having to actually pay for operational costs and especially new aircraft. The future purchase of F-35C's and new AEW aircraft will be undertaken by a future government that will be more able to kill the program entirely given the limitations of operating a single carrier and a stated normal air wing of 12 F-35C's. Indeed is it worth buying and operating AEW aircraft for 12 fighters?
Just to be clear it's my understanding that Prince of Wales is to be modified for CATOBAR. The QE, if put up for sale, would then have to be extensively modified if the buyer wanted it for CATOBAR.
Furthermore, the current projection for Prince of Wales is 2020; however, the odds of this date slipping further are not inconsiderable. One significant technical factor is also getting EMALS operational.
Were one to take a cynical view of this whole matter and view the carrier program as first and foremost a jobs program then delays both provide the political jobs benefit while not having to actually pay for operational costs and especially new aircraft. The future purchase of F-35C's and new AEW aircraft will be undertaken by a future government that will be more able to kill the program entirely given the limitations of operating a single carrier and a stated normal air wing of 12 F-35C's. Indeed is it worth buying and operating AEW aircraft for 12 fighters?
You hit the nail on the head, the length of time and change of governments makes the carriers very vunerable. The RN has not helped by asking for such huge ships. This is why the RN must now work very hard to keep within or ideally under budgets. To ensure there is no excuse for the sale of both. Sale of one at a reasonable price to France, Brazil or India would help hugely. Agreed a 12 F35c airwing is mad on a 65,000t ship, but we are stuck with the design now. The RN must cut all waste now, don't wait to be asked by politicians, and the T26 is a real worry. But if we:
Only build 3 SSBN at 3 year intervals
Merge RFA to RN and cut to just Waves/Fort II
Sell 2 T45 (build replacements 2020-26
And cut the T26 to a ship that can be built in reasonable numbers at c£150m
Funding 40 fixed wing jets and 4 Hawkeye can't be impossible. And a 2nd carrier in 2025-35 is not unrealistic either. When you cut out the waste even a 10% reduced defence budget could fund 2-3 CVs and 8 AWD and 16 frigate.
Would you need to regenerate Harland & Wolffs building dock or Cammell Lairds No. 5 dock to put together a hull? Both are big enough and are still in operation.
Oh dear. Where to start?
If we sell 2 T45 now, we end up with 4 destroyers, & that's very likely to be permanent. Unlike the carriers, there's no contract which would cost more to break than complete. A 10 year plus capability holiday is never going to end. It never has. BTW, who out there is showing a serious interest in them? Anyone? Brazil isn't.
A CVF sold in 2016 would be STOBAR. Who will want a STOBAR carrier in 2016, & have the money? The Brazilian budget has no room in it for such a big purchase then, & Brazil doesn't want STOBAR. India is looking to build its own future carrier, & preferably with catapults. Its acquisition is seen as partly a way to gain technology, & shipbuilding experience.
The French have the CVF design, & can use it. They paid for the rights. They also made contributions to the design which we have adopted. It would be foolish to dismiss them as rivals.