The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

And have to buy all the fighters you're ever going to need in one go, before production ends (bang go any short-term savings), or buy an initial batch & some time in the future have to top it up with a batch of a different type, lumbering you with the costs of operating two types (& bang go any long-term savings).

Oh, I want F35 for JCA - no doubt about that - it's a generation ahead and for the first time since the early 1970's, the RN would have a strike capability that could hang with the US.

Either way, we'd have to spend quite a bit of money right now to get at least a startup order for Shornet, and that's not going to happen in the life of the parliament we have.

At least with Shornet, the production line is there and working at a pace - the Rafale is ticking over at 1 a month more or less - they can ramp up a fair bit from there I'm sure but I guess an order of 36 or so would still be two or three years production. Makes no sense, the aircraft is starving for investment and the figures from Brazil put it at 7.2 billion USD for 36 vs 5.7 billion for the same total of Shornets to the same order (which I hope makes the figures directly comparable)

Nothing wrong with the Rafale per se, it just doesn't strike me as a great idea to buy it for the FAA.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

The RN is in a hole and needs to make some hard desicion, numbers are important. If they sold PW and 2 T45, radically prune the RFA, MCM and assault forces they should be able to get the Treasury onboard to get the QE & 40 Rafales in service for 2016.

You could then build 3-4 T46 2023-2033, instead of the T26. If we have spent all that money on Sampson/PAAMS lets focus on it.

What happens if you sell stuff off is the Treasury take the receipts and say "Thank you for your valiant sacrifice"

We've been down that route already - the RN has given up huge hull numbers to get this far - selling off T45 to get some hulls in 2023 is *suicidal*. Keep every major escort they have, and get the T26 right, with a good lighter hull for the MCM and home waters missions.

I do suspect that a lower capability small Frigate to do double duty is both possible and desirable - mine counter measures can be done remotely from the air and sea - and via mission modules - let's have some small hulls out there with a cannon, a hangar and space for the mission modules - basically, LCS done right, at a lost cost, without the speed requirements, and use that to do some of the low intensity stuff, ready to be re-roled into MCM or ASM platforms if needed.

Ian

 

[1805]

Oh, I want F35 for JCA - no doubt about that - it's a generation ahead and for the first time since the early 1970's, the RN would have a strike capability that could hang with the US.

Either way, we'd have to spend quite a bit of money right now to get at least a startup order for Shornet, and that's not going to happen in the life of the parliament we have.

At least with Shornet, the production line is there and working at a pace - the Rafale is ticking over at 1 a month more or less - they can ramp up a fair bit from there I'm sure but I guess an order of 36 or so would still be two or three years production. Makes no sense, the aircraft is starving for investment and the figures from Brazil put it at 7.2 billion USD for 36 vs 5.7 billion for the same total of Shornets to the same order (which I hope makes the figures directly comparable)

Nothing wrong with the Rafale per se, it just doesn't strike me as a great idea to buy it for the FAA.

Ian

I would rather have F35 and two carriers but its not going to happen. I have just seen John Knott of all people on Newsnight saying these carriers will both be sold as soon as possible. If we can get out of the F35 contract without to much cost, then we may get a good price for the PW for Rafales; for the very reasons you mention, the French are desparate to sell them. Even this is shakey but there is a chance the RN should try.

Interesting Adm West send the Harriers were staying only a few days before the SDR and then the Tornado came back in.

An analyst said the RN had played a very good hand badly.

There really has to be some more realism about this carriers, listerning talking about F35/SHornets as though there is any chance they will have anything to fly form in 10 years is delusional.

That said a deal would have to stand up.

Oh and on trusting the Treasury, lets flip it round if you look at RN procurement over the last 20 years and you were in the Treasury would you trust the Admirals? They have built the house first and then waited for the storm to put the roof on!

 

[Systems Adict]

...You could then build 3-4 T46 2023-2033, instead of the T26. If we have spent all that money on Sampson/PAAMS lets focus on it.

I'm sorry, you've lost me...


Yes, T45 has PAAMS/Sampson, but the PAAMS Missiles cost an absolute fortune, as they've got to be bought as a ships set, not bought by the half dozen.

For x1 ships set, (say x48 same as T45), it's possible that you could buy 2 - 3 sets of ESSM (Sea Sparrow).


Secondly, how many Sampson radars have been made / sold ?

Would a smaller ship not be better suited with Artisan (which is allegedy derived from Sampson) ??


Thirdly, you're specifying a time frame 12 to 22 years in the future. It's more than likely that equipment will have moved on considerably by then (a bit like hard drive & RAM sizes).

Do you really want to pay a kings ransom for something that will be out of date ??

You decide.....

SA :dance

 

[1805]

I'm sorry, you've lost me...


Yes, T45 has PAAMS/Sampson, but the PAAMS Missiles cost an absolute fortune, as they've got to be bought as a ships set, not bought by the half dozen.

For x1 ships set, (say x48 same as T45), it's possible that you could buy 2 - 3 sets of ESSM (Sea Sparrow).


Secondly, how many Sampson radars have been made / sold ?

Would a smaller ship not be better suited with Artisan (which is allegedy derived from Sampson) ??


Thirdly, you're specifying a time frame 12 to 22 years in the future. It's more than likely that equipment will have moved on considerably by then (a bit like hard drive & RAM sizes).

Do you really want to pay a kings ransom for something that will be out of date ??

You decide.....

SA :dance

PAAMS isn't a missile, Aster is the missile? I don't know the cost and how it compares to Standard. I don't see why you have to buy missiles in direct proportion to ships (maybe some more)? I hope that CAMM will be quad packed into either Sylver or its own lauchers.

If we have spent all that money on Sampson/PAAMS we should develop it, I would expect an improved T46. Actually these systems improve with age, look at Sea Dart, I have often wondered how it would have performed if matched to Sampson. Aegis came in in the 80/90s and has kept pace?

The way to maintain 8-9 crusier/destroyers is to build at a steady drumbeat of 3-4 a decade.

 

[StobieWan]

Oh and on trusting the Treasury, lets flip it round if you look at RN procurement over the last 20 years and you were in the Treasury would you trust the Admirals? They have built the house first and then waited for the storm to put the roof on!

That'd put the RN in the same boat as the RAF over Typhoon lock ins - the RN didn't do anything wrong in writing up the contracts the way they did, it made solid sense to order most of the bits in one go - it saves money etc. Neither do I think the RN deserves criticism for not spotting the worst global economic slump in thirty or forty years - neither did the treasury! Most major purchases in life have some contractual obligation - if they didn't, getting anything meaningful built would be impossible and only UOR kit would be funded.

Things will get better - and from every angle I can see it, making a small order for F35 in a timely manner with the intention or hope of buying more over the production run as things improve makes fine sense.

I don't understand why you're advocating losing two T45's in favour of an imaginary T46 class which will costs presumably quite a bit of money to create, when we're already struggling to get the T26 funded and built. Our investment in Aster was about 1bn - and that investment is being reused in CAMM, which will be cheaper and lighter. CAMM is more comparable with ESSM in terms of cost per missile and doesn't require terminal illumination, although ESSM has a much longer range (about 27nm vs about 15nm for CAMM)

Ian

 

[1805]

That'd put the RN in the same boat as the RAF over Typhoon lock ins - the RN didn't do anything wrong in writing up the contracts the way they did, it made solid sense to order most of the bits in one go - it saves money etc. Neither do I think the RN deserves criticism for not spotting the worst global economic slump in thirty or forty years - neither did the treasury! Most major purchases in life have some contractual obligation - if they didn't, getting anything meaningful built would be impossible and only UOR kit would be funded.

Things will get better - and from every angle I can see it, making a small order for F35 in a timely manner with the intention or hope of buying more over the production run as things improve makes fine sense.

I don't understand why you're advocating losing two T45's in favour of an imaginary T46 class which will costs presumably quite a bit of money to create, when we're already struggling to get the T26 funded and built.

I didn't expect the RN to have foreseen the global crisis, but those cuts are relatively small, the issues the RN/MOD faces were caused by procurement overruns. Although some can be put down to development issues and poor project managemen, most are that they have just ordered to much over to short a period of time.

Yes buying together can save money, it clearly hasn't here and I think that was as obvious then as it is now. The fact the Labour government provided poor oversight is little defence, if this was in the private sector it would be difficult not to classify this as incompetence or if deliberate...misconduct?

I don't relish the idea of offering for sale 2 x T45, but they are probably the most desirable and saleable assets the RN has; £1bn would be a bargin (even ignoring their cost) but could pay for a modest number of fighters (F35 or Rafale). Put it this way, I agree it's a complete waste of money selling you house in a slumped housing market, but if you can't pay the mortgage the alternative is repossession?

Yes there is a risk we might not get a T46, (T83 as these would be instead of T26 btw) but I would rather sacrific 2 x T45 than the carrier. It is important to remember the carriers face RAF hostility aswell as budgetary pressure; a T45 is not a threat to the RAF.

 

[1805]

When Paxman was questioning West last night, on the Typhoons at Stanley, he stopped short of saying how he would do it, but did say he had discussed with Thompson how easy it would be to put them out of action. There would then be no way of recapturing the Falklands.

 

[StobieWan]

I didn't expect the RN to have foreseen the global crisis, but those cuts are relatively small, the issues the RN/MOD faces were caused by procurement overruns. Although some can be put down to development issues and poor project managemen, most are that they have just ordered to much over to short a period of time.

Yes buying together can save money, it clearly hasn't here and I think that was as obvious then as it is now. The fact the Labour government provided poor oversight is little defence, if this was in the private sector it would be difficult not to classify this as incompetence or if deliberate...misconduct?

I don't relish the idea of offering for sale 2 x T45, but they are probably the most desirable and saleable assets the RN has; £1bn would be a bargin (even ignoring their cost) but could pay for a modest number of fighters (F35 or Rafale). Put it this way, I agree it's a complete waste of money selling you house in a slumped housing market, but if you can't pay the mortgage the alternative is repossession?

Yes there is a risk we might not get a T46, (T83 as these would be instead of T26 btw) but I would rather sacrific 2 x T45 than the carrier. It is important to remember the carriers face RAF hostility aswell as budgetary pressure; a T45 is not a threat to the RAF.

The MOD is fundamentally incompetent when it comes to procurement.

FT.com / UK / Politics & policy - Jet deal blows £400m hole in MoD budget

The cost overruns on the carriers have largely been triggered by the government delaying commissioning or building the things - the last billion hike was exactly as such.

The private sector doesn't have a spotless record, particularly with PFI initiatives - the common factor tends to be woolly and poorly formed requirement and poor oversight.

Back to the T83 - is this another AWD platform? If so, why are we building it? We have six good platforms already - why distract from the desperate need to replace the aging Type 23s, some of which will have soldiered well past their sell by date by the time the first T-26 comes off the slips.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

When Paxman was questioning West last night, on the Typhoons at Stanley, he stopped short of saying how he would do it, but did say he had discussed with Thompson how easy it would be to put them out of action. There would then be no way of recapturing the Falklands.

The Typhoons can't take any part in recapturing the Islands - they're land based aircraft - they either serve the purpose of repelling an invasion or cease to be useful.

There are ways and means of taking out the Typhoons on the air field - that'd leave the Argentine forces with the uphill struggle of then landing enough forces to over power a 1,000 strong garrison.

As I've said, if I were the MOD, I'd add some Starstreak batteries and a bit of light armour for the airfield as well as some UAVS in the short term, to make a surprise attack very hard to pull off,

Ian

 

[swerve]

maybe not, after all, I'm pretty sure that the USN would do the dame deal for the RN that it it did for the RAAF. if push came to shove. ie they interrupted their own run so that RAAF could get in early, and we could also get the same relief if iwe needed to up the numbers again.

the main embuggerance is multiple types in service...

But you only get that relief for a few years, until production ends.

Multiple types in service is the secondary embuggerance. The primary one is that the timing doesn't fit at all. We don't need to buy new naval fighters in a hurry. The government in its infinite wisdom ( ) has decreed that we don't need any at all for several years, & whatever you think of that decision, that tells you exactly what the chances are of any F-18E order soon. If there was any political will to put jets to sea in the next 5 years, we could do it by simply not canning the Harriers. Acquisition cost is zero, spares are in stock, everyone needed is trained, we have ships to fly them off, & we even have a support contract which the government is currently negotiating a way out of. All of that is being canned to save money on operating costs. Think of that, & consider the likelihood of any money being spent soon to buy new fighters.

Wind forward a few years to when the government may be willing to allow the RN to spend some money on fighters, & F-35C is tested & in production for the USN. Consider the logic of buying F-18E at that point, which is the earliest it could actually be done. Do you see why I get exasperated that anyone even suggests it?

It will not happen. There is no point in suggesting it.

 

[1805]

The Typhoons can't take any part in recapturing the Islands - they're land based aircraft - they either serve the purpose of repelling an invasion or cease to be useful.

There are ways and means of taking out the Typhoons on the air field - that'd leave the Argentine forces with the uphill struggle of then landing enough forces to over power a 1,000 strong garrison.

As I've said, if I were the MOD, I'd add some Starstreak batteries and a bit of light armour for the airfield as well as some UAVS in the short term, to make a surprise attack very hard to pull off,

Ian

I think he was suggesting a SF raid would be sufficient to take out the Typhoons. A 1,000 strong garrison sounds impressive, these will mainly be support staff, I think there is only about 120 troops and the local volunteer force. I am not sure the menace of the SSN is that comforting, as the Argentinians would probably just use the airfield to reinforce the island. Its not going to happen in the next 5 years, as they are not pursuing a military agenda, however this could change as a result of the UK's weakness. Relatively modest equipment acquisitions could make things much worse for us.

 

[Repulse]

Just a quick thought; what would be the cost of taking the Sea Harriers out of mothballs? If we don't use them now we should probably scrap them too.

 

[StobieWan]

I think he was suggesting a SF raid would be sufficient to take out the Typhoons. A 1,000 strong garrison sounds impressive, these will mainly be support staff, I think there is only about 120 troops and the local volunteer force. I am not sure the menace of the SSN is that comforting, as the Argentinians would probably just use the airfield to reinforce the island. Its not going to happen in the next 5 years, as they are not pursuing a military agenda, however this could change as a result of the UK's weakness. Relatively modest equipment acquisitions could make things much worse for us.

There's a local RN vessel - usually a Type 42, so between the 120 or so combat troops, the local defence force, I dare say there's enough on hand to make the outcome uncertain. If you look at the damage the Royal Marines caused in South Georgia with about a tenth of that strength...

All of the support staff will in any event have a secondary combat role and realistically, they just have to hold out for a day or so and they can be reinforced quite heavily by air from Ascension.

It's not (as you say) relevant - the Argentinians aren't keen to pursue a military outcome right now and their main purpose is to act as the bogey man for the various pro-RN commentators.

I do wish they'd keep some Harriers in operation however, it'd help keep the fixed wing flag flying for the RN.

Ian

 

[1805]

The MOD is fundamentally incompetent when it comes to procurement.

FT.com / UK / Politics & policy - Jet deal blows £400m hole in MoD budget

The cost overruns on the carriers have largely been triggered by the government delaying commissioning or building the things - the last billion hike was exactly as such.

The private sector doesn't have a spotless record, particularly with PFI initiatives - the common factor tends to be woolly and poorly formed requirement and poor oversight.

Back to the T83 - is this another AWD platform? If so, why are we building it? We have six good platforms already - why distract from the desperate need to replace the aging Type 23s, some of which will have soldiered well past their sell by date by the time the first T-26 comes off the slips.

Ian

Yes the delays have caused huge cost hikes, but these have been created by ordering when there was no money to pay for them, so the delay could have been foreseen.

Agreed on the private sector, the scale of this is in a league of its own and I do believe that mistakes would have been checked sooner. Budgeting in the private sectors is generally far tighter.

The T83 would be nearer a Burke all round general purpose high end escort however I think there is a case for adding an Absalon type flexi deck to provide useful independent operation capability and mitigate the likely reduced lift capability.

The idea of separate ASW and AWD just seems like a luxury the RN can't afford and will not provide the platform numbers to enable the RN to rebuild its profile to the public.

Surely no one thinks the T26 would replace the T23 one for one, 6-8 looks likely.

 

[StobieWan]

Yes the delays have caused huge cost hikes, but these have been created by ordering when there was no money to pay for them, so the delay could have been foreseen.

Agreed on the private sector, the scale of this is in a league of its own and I do believe that mistakes would have been checked sooner. Budgeting in the private sectors is generally far tighter.

The T83 would be nearer a Burke all round general purpose high end escort however I think there is a case for adding an Absalon type flexi deck to provide useful independent operation capability and mitigate the likely reduced lift capability.

The idea of separate ASW and AWD just seems like a luxury the RN can't afford and will not provide the platform numbers to enable the RN to rebuild its profile to the public.

Surely no one thinks the T26 would replace the T23 one for one, 6-8 looks likely.

I disagree with your assessment of the budget issues.

Your Type-83 is basically a T-45 with everything fitted with instead of for - instead of spending 3-5 bn on a new class of hulls, perhaps spend half or a third as much on strike length cells f'orard of the existing Aster cells, add the Harpoon launchers, add the Merlin, and you're in business.

Type 26, well, I think the key here is taking a solid look at the mine countermeasure and ASW requirement - missionise that and perform much of it from modules that can be loaded at will, build a common platform with a core of a solid gun, hangar, and some simple requirements and you have the low end requirement. Currently the MCM fleet are very single purpose - if we can get some use out of the class all year around as a simple anti piracy tool and home waters intervention hull, we're doing well. That'd take the pressure off the high end solutions.

High end escorts, you have very little choice - they have to be built to a standard, have good survivability to take a hit, strike back - they will be expensive. It's the other areas where we can see better returns for our cash. Recently we saw an RFA vessel sent on anti piracy missions - it had a CIWs and some embarked marines. Genius. Not for a shooting war but for anti drugs, anti piracy, fine.

Let's extend that and get double duty out of the MCM side of things, which I think runs to 12 or so hulls?


Ian

 

[riksavage]

A BAY class acting as mother ship could theoretically host eight off armoured RM raiding craft (photo attached) equipped with GMG's, .50's and GPMG's designed specifically to avoid another Iran hostage debacle. This combination brings far more to the table than a T23/42/45 in the anti-piracy role. Add a rotary UAV for ISAR and you have a self-sustaining package, which can cover a wide area. The Bay's Phalanx and gun mounts provides adequate self defence, should the threat increase the RM contingent could simply use man-pad Starstreak and mount Javelin on the open deck for use against small raiding craft.

LargeImageTemplate Marines take a spin in one of their new Armoured Raiding Craft

 

[1805]

A BAY class acting as mother ship could theoretically host eight off armoured RM raiding craft (photo attached) equipped with GMG's, .50's and GPMG's designed specifically to avoid another Iran hostage debacle. This combination brings far more to the table than a T23/42/45 in the anti-piracy role. Add a rotary UAV for ISAR and you have a self-sustaining package, which can cover a wide area. The Bay's Phalanx and gun mounts provides adequate self defence, should the threat increase the RM contingent could simply use man-pad Starstreak and mount Javelin on the open deck for use against small raiding craft.

LargeImageTemplate Marines take a spin in one of their new Armoured Raiding Craft

The Bays could be very useful tenders/motherships for a number of craft. I think something alone the lines of a CB90h would be even more useful for the Gulf and would be ideal for operating from them. But I don't see why they couldn't operate MCM ROVs and even if you built a permanent hanger for 2 Merlin the flight deck facilities would still be huge.

I understand the RN did not make a very good case for the assault fleet generally, as multi role assets for all 3 services; they were seen very much as exclusively RM.

 

[1805]

I disagree with your assessment of the budget issues.

Your Type-83 is basically a T-45 with everything fitted with instead of for - instead of spending 3-5 bn on a new class of hulls, perhaps spend half or a third as much on strike length cells f'orard of the existing Aster cells, add the Harpoon launchers, add the Merlin, and you're in business.

Type 26, well, I think the key here is taking a solid look at the mine countermeasure and ASW requirement - missionise that and perform much of it from modules that can be loaded at will, build a common platform with a core of a solid gun, hangar, and some simple requirements and you have the low end requirement. Currently the MCM fleet are very single purpose - if we can get some use out of the class all year around as a simple anti piracy tool and home waters intervention hull, we're doing well. That'd take the pressure off the high end solutions.

High end escorts, you have very little choice - they have to be built to a standard, have good survivability to take a hit, strike back - they will be expensive. It's the other areas where we can see better returns for our cash. Recently we saw an RFA vessel sent on anti piracy missions - it had a CIWs and some embarked marines. Genius. Not for a shooting war but for anti drugs, anti piracy, fine.

Let's extend that and get double duty out of the MCM side of things, which I think runs to 12 or so hulls?


Ian

I am surpised you think all this has been caused by an c8% budget cut. if you look at the time frame between ships being laid down, the massive increase in the size of ships without accepting any reduction in numbers. I'm not even counting the stuff the last Government actually did cancel. Thank god they did cancel the last 6 T45, (and what was MARS all about!)we would be in an even worst mess. This was just irresponsible.

My T83 would be the T45, ideally with a hanger for 2 Merlin (that would cost next to nothing), fitted with TAS (this could come across from a T23) and a flexideck plus accomodation for c200crew + up to 300 mission personel (again not going to cost much).

 

[Systems Adict]

I'm not even counting the stuff the last Government actually did cancel. Thank god they did cancel the last 6 T45, (and what was MARS all about!)we would be in an even worst mess. This was just irresponsible.

My T83 would be the T45, ideally with a hanger for 2 Merlin (that would cost next to nothing), fitted with TAS (this could come across from a T23) and a flexideck plus accomodation for c200crew + up to 300 mission personel (again not going to cost much).

Excuse me ?

Can you please give me the name & address of your drug dealer in cloud-cucukoo land, so I can score some of that crap your eating by the tonne.

To have a hanger BIG enough to deal with x2 Merlin (I'm assuming side by side), I'd reckon you'd need to increase the width of T45 by about 1/3rd !

Secondly, going by the figure that had been bandied about for the average price of T45, minus PAAMS R&D, it's still circa £600M.

That is NOT practically nothing !

Finally, why are you happy they cancelled MARS ??

We, as a nation are now pretty much running our x2 oilers into the ground to comply with MARPOL regs w.r.t. compliance with the all tankers must be Double hulled, as it pretty much means that all the RFA's that we use are out. Add this to the fact that the tankers & AOR's (with the Exception of the x2 Waves) are all heading for 20 yrs + in age, we need to address this issue SOONER rather than later.

Maybe the conservatives are gonna use that to sustain our shipbuilding industry, by giving the industry x1, every 2 years to build....

SA nfloorl: