The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

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.

I think it is fair to say the T45s are recognised internationally as very impressive ships, if offered to Brazil in combination with say 4 T22 (which must have 10+ years left and fit well with their existing T22) and maybe a couple of Bays this would be cheaper than 8 FREMM and a lot more capable/useful.

You maybe quite right and they may say no not what we want, in which case we should keep the T45. Actually why not Saudi or Canada, buying an off the shelf proven design at a competitve price de-risks the who procurement exercise?. But we will never know unless we offer and whats the alternative just lay down and watch the RN die?

The UK politicans don't care what the RN buys, as long as its within what they want to spend on defence, so if there is the money in 2020 to build 2-3 T45 they will not care.

Yes the French can build a CVF but they don't have the money either. The art of a great deal is to offer them a compelling proposition. If the RN brought 40 Rafale M in exchange for POW, that is a real win/win.

Yes we would have to convert QE to catapults. I would agree the Rafale is inferior to an F35b or c but more than capable of dealling with anything we are likely to have to face and considerably better than nothing at all which is a strong possibilty. Also the Rafale is maybe £30m-£40m each cheaper (£1.2bn saving)

If you canned most of the RFA I recon you would save c£100m pa, plus the capital of replacement.

A fleet of:
2 Albions + I bay
8 AWD 8,000t
16 2500t frigates (keep to an average of £100m each)
2 carriers
60 Rafale & 6 Hawkeye
4 RFA
7 SSN
3 SSBN

Is very acheivable and probably would cost less than the likely available budget. The would be other advantages of Brazil (or others having Sampson) reducing development costs. We need to get away from building 6 AWD ships over 10 years and moving to building 2-3 a decade, spreading development and maintaining a drumbeat construction.

Just because a country has not stated a public requirement does not mean if offered a bargin they will not grab it.

I know the 7000t T26 v 2500/3000t ASW/patrol frigate has been discussed at length but in the new post defence review reality a c£500m T26 looks most likely to kill the carriers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A gentle word of advice.. I refer specifically to the comment about Admirals being "idiots"

Lets try to avoid denigration in general. It oversimplifies, its simplistic, it conveniently avoids the reality of how procurement decisions are made

eg. the platform selection process involves teams extracting the requirements from operators - NOT admirals., the UK like Australia has a review process where invariably the govt injects its own view of the world upon the uniform community. The senior sirs will obviously have input, but its not an oligarchy where the senior sirs make the decisions about whats in and whats out. That involves the project teams, it involves the Exchequer elements, it involves various Ministers (not just Defence),

As an example, if we were going to blame some of the recent stuff ups in australian procurement I could point to political interference in nearly every major project we have - and there another 4-5 on the horizon. In a number of cases (95+ %) the politicians ignored the tactical and strategic requirements and weighted the outcome on political requirements such as budget cuts, non defence monies having priority, the closeness of an election, the fragility of the electorate, the fickleness of the press and the populace etc.....

Where there is scope creep, then thats not just the province of the acquiring service, it involves all service elements, it requires acknowledgement, acceptance and sign off by the suit Executive etc.....

This is far more complex than just blaming "Admirals" - it's far more complex than this and the debate needs to reflect the reality of how the decision making process does work, not how we think it works because we're frustrated with the outcome.

On another note, the debates have started to slip a bit in the fact that they're becoming hostile, and/or personal. Seriously, this is the internet, we're not waging war here, the Mod Team does expect that Senior Members and DefProfs (especially) exercise a degree of self moderation.

Play the ball, not the man. If you can't then ignore each other. We're interested in the nuggets of information, opinion and insight, we can do without colour and movement thats not adding to this.

I don't expect any chat re this as it's all self evident. Self Moderation can and should work, external Moderation should be a last resort.


I can tell you that the UK Military goes through the same grief.

 

[jaffo4011]

and just to lighten the discussion,i was shocked to find the following report re the grounding of the astute!

The Spoof : George Michael in Nuclear Submarine Driving Accident funny satire story fftopic

 

[AegisFC]

You maybe quite right and they may say no not what we want, in which case we should keep the T45. Actually why not Saudi or Canada, buying an off the shelf proven design at a competitve price de-risks the who procurement exercise?. But we will never know unless we offer and whats the alternative just lay down and watch the RN die?

Canada would have no interest in T45. They have a vested interest in APAR and use SM-2 and ESSM, even if you sold the ships for a steal they'd need to buy whole new stocks of missiles.

 

[gf0012-aust]

..........buying an off the shelf proven design at a competitve price de-risks the who procurement exercise?.

buying an off the shelf design is only useful if you have the same logistics and support train, and that you also don't need to develop any integration into the rest of your force.

the expense is not the platform - its the training, sustaining and that can be 20-30 years. - and then there are integration and development costs.

the cost of a platform is not reduced even if you get it for free - if you don't have a "fit" with the rest of your force, then you already traveling down the path of having 3 times its drive out price about to hit you in the arse. you then have the other force and service integration issues and the other on costs of which come along for the ride.

buying a platform which is not readily integrated and requires development to "make it so" can actually end up hurting your future force development - it can do more harm than good.

 

[1805]

Canada would have no interest in T45. They have a vested interest in APAR and use SM-2 and ESSM, even if you sold the ships for a steal they'd need to buy whole new stocks of missiles.

I was not saying they would definately be a buyer, and they wouldn't be high up on the list but that said their current destroyers although refitted are approaching 40 years old and I didn't think their was any commitment yet to the Province Class planned for 2016(or that they will be built at all) very near last T45 arriving. I am sure a T45 either just lauched or about to be launched could be tempting. As I said we really will get nowhere unless we make offers.

The UK defence budget is actually ok, the problem is to much going on at present, so if we can sell high value assets now even at a small loss it doesn't matter (it probably is not a loss if you take the tax/employment considerations).

I am sure the Canadians were influenced by the cost of Sampson, but if they are getting it cheaper this might swing it the other way. Saudi the UK has a fair bit of influence over and they already operate Aster. Brazil doesn't operate ESSM/Standard.

For the record I would much prefer Sampson had been matched to Standard/ESSM/Mk 41 VLS. But we are were we are.

 

[1805]

buying an off the shelf design is only useful if you have the same logistics and support train, and that you also don't need to develop any integration into the rest of your force.

the expense is not the platform - its the training, sustaining and that can be 20-30 years. - and then there is integration and development costs.

the cost of a platform is not reduced even if you get it for free - if you don't have a "fit" with the rest of your force, then you already traveling down the path of having 3 times its drive out price about to hit you in the arse. you then have the other force and service integration issues and the other on costs of which come along for the ride.

buying a platform which is not readily integrated and requires development to "make it so" can actually end up hurting your future force development - it can do more harm than good.

Of course your right but I think the T45 were built with the option to have Mk 41 VLS, not ideal but it all comes down for cash now for the RN. These ships are far from dogs and given time and a bit of marketing I am sure 2 could be sold for a good price c£500m (some will not be in commisioned for 3-4 years). How much will the Hobarts cost?

If the RN just sits on its arse the RAF will get those F35c cancelled at the next pressure on the budget and both carriers will get sold.

 

[gf0012-aust]

These ships are far from dogs and given time and a bit of marketing I am sure 2 could be sold for a good price c£500m (some will not be in commisioned for 3-4 years). How much will the Hobarts cost?

you can't do class costs because the metrics are different enough to be almost irrelevant.

eg, numbers in class, systems on board, integration of systems, numbers of cots/mots issues, FMS issues and numbers of, how TLS was determined, construction model used etc... etc....

 

[1805]

you can't do class costs because the metrics are different enough to be almost irrelevant.

eg, numbers in class, systems on board, integration of systems, numbers of cots/mots issues, FMS issues and numbers of, how TLS was determined, construction model used etc... etc....

Surely there is still a total budget for the acquisition of the 3 AWD?

As for selling T45 If you are short of cash which the RN is, it can undercut new construction, the original cost (£1bn is irrelevant), which would be the case for Canada. If they wanted to swap out Sylver/Aster for Mk 41/Standard/ESSM, it probably would be cost effective (and a good idea) as they already have the missiles and launchers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Surely there is still a total budget for the acquisition of the 3 AWD?

The UK does not have the same through life model costs as Australia. eg we factor in facilities costs to support and sustain an asset, that includes proportionate lease costs etc....

thats why class cost comparisons are basically a woftam. the UK and US are apparently moving to the australian cost model as its regarded as more "truthful" and reflective of actual financial burden.

 

[1805]

The UK does not have the same through life model costs as Australia. eg we factor in facilities costs to support and sustain an asset, that includes proportionate lease costs etc....

thats why class cost comparisons are basically a woftam. the UK and US are apparently moving to the australian cost model as its regarded as more "truthful" and reflective of actual financial burden.

Either way you still must have the cost of acquisition and running cost. I appreciate if the running cost is higher this impacts TCO. The number acquired although impacting acquisitions cost is a fact of life if as happened to the RN numbers reduced (although they knew 12 were not affordable). Anyway back to the suggestion of selling a couple of T45 now. I think we could find buyers as they are according to BAe/RN (ok not impactial sources) the most advanced AWD currently available. Obviously not to a country that has just acquired AWD such as Australia.

If unit cost is c£650m they real cost on puchasing a couple of replacements 2020+ is not that great.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Either way you still must have the cost of acquisition and running cost. I appreciate if the running cost is higher this impacts TCO. The number acquired although impacting acquisitions cost is a fact of life if as happened to the RN numbers reduced (although they knew 12 were not affordable). Anyway back to the suggestion of selling a couple of T45 now. I think we could find buyers as they are according to BAe/RN (ok not impactial sources) the most advanced AWD currently available. Obviously not to a country that has just acquired AWD such as Australia.

If unit cost is c£650m they real cost on puchasing a couple of replacements 2020+ is not that great.

atypically the TLS costs are 3 times the platform costs - TLS is significant in any platform

 

[KiwiRob]

Harland & Wolff building dock would need some money spent, I think. AFAIK it's not currently equipped to build a single ship that size. But less work than Rosyth needed, though.

I'd forgotten about Cammell Laird. Good call.

They wouldn't need cranes, Sampson and Goliath are the largest in the UK, I would have thought Harland & Wolff would have easily been able to assemble blocks into a completed CVF. They have built ships as big and bigger in the past.

 

[Neutral Zone]

They wouldn't need cranes, Sampson and Goliath are the largest in the UK, I would have thought Harland & Wolff would have easily been able to assemble blocks into a completed CVF. They have built ships as big and bigger in the past.

I think they were part of BAe's original CVF bid team. H&W haven't built a ship for several years they just do repair work now. Most of the land around the building dock has been sold off for the "Titanic Quarter" development project.

 

[riksavage]

Now that the F35C option is 90% confirmed, will both QE & PW be built without ski-ramps?

Due to the greatly reduced numbers (batch 1 for sure) are they planning to sub-divide the sqn's between the RAF & FAA? 2 x sqns of 12 aircraft (one sqn each) plus training and operational conversion unit.

Various rumours floating that the typical mix (PW) is going to be 12 F35C (CAP), 6 Wildcat (find), 6 Apache (kill) and 6 Merlin (carry) plus MASC?

One of the primary factors in reducing the size of the crew was the fully automated ammunition storage and handling system, this being designed to allow for the rapid re-arming of the resident fixed wing element thus contributing to high sortie rates. If QE is scheduled to be constructed as a helo carrier (upgraded or sold later) then is this system destined to fall under the 'fitted for but not with' category?

 

[1805]

Now that the F35C option is 90% confirmed, will both QE & PW be built without ski-ramps?

Due to the greatly reduced numbers (batch 1 for sure) are they planning to sub-divide the sqn's between the RAF & FAA? 2 x sqns of 12 aircraft (one sqn each) plus training and operational conversion unit.

Various rumours floating that the typical mix (PW) is going to be 12 F35C (CAP), 6 Wildcat (find), 6 Apache (kill) and 6 Merlin (carry) plus MASC?

One of the primary factors in reducing the size of the crew was the fully automated ammunition storage and handling system, this being designed to allow for the rapid re-arming of the resident fixed wing element thus contributing to high sortie rates. If QE is scheduled to be constructed as a helo carrier (upgraded or sold later) then is this system destined to fall under the 'fitted for but not with' category?

That’s quite a light complement for a 65,000t ship (c34). Would it not be better to have 12 each of Apache/Merlin and 18 F35c probably more likely to be in the strike role? It's still only 50 with Wildcats/MASC. BTW if Apaches operated as near permanent at sea, is their a danger of corrosion?

 

[swerve]

If you canned most of the RFA I recon you would save c£100m pa,

You'd also have a navy which couldn't deploy very far, or for very long. Might as well scrap most of the warships, if there's no fleet train to support them.

 

[1805]

You'd also have a navy which couldn't deploy very far, or for very long. Might as well scrap most of the warships, if there's no fleet train to support them.

With the reduced fleet we would need less anyway. If fact there is evidence of them being under utilized in their core role, being given various patrol roles. You would still have 4 large and fairly modern RFA (Waves & Fort II). Most RN ships have much greater ranges than in the past, and if we cannot rely on bases, we should be able to share resource with Allies, as we are already doing this in more critical areas.

I think merging the administration in to the RN is fairly logical. I do like the idea of a Bay as a replacement for Diligence and it is difficult to justify Argus when there are other ships that can do this (the Fort II have big helicopter facilities).

We must watch every penny so there is no justification in cancelling the F35 and selling both carriers.

 

[1805]

Now that the F35C option is 90% confirmed, will both QE & PW be built without ski-ramps?

Due to the greatly reduced numbers (batch 1 for sure) are they planning to sub-divide the sqn's between the RAF & FAA? 2 x sqns of 12 aircraft (one sqn each) plus training and operational conversion unit.

Ownership is very interesting. The RAF will fight very hard and probably win, and as we know cannot be trusted with Naval affairs (Harrier or MR4). I was looking at the capability of attack helicopters and they really are fairly poor compared to an A10 (hitting power and protection). Do they exist in such numbers because airforces do not let armies have fixed wing aircraft?

The A10 is likely to be replace by F35 but would the US Army chose it? In the same way the RAF has chosen Tornado over Harrier, when all the evidence is that the Army and Certainly the Navy would have retained the Harriers.

 

[swerve]

With the reduced fleet we would need less anyway. If fact there is evidence of them being under utilized in their core role, being given various patrol roles..

If the RFA was being fully utilised when we're not fighting a maritime war (& we're not), I'd be panicking.