The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

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:

I would suspect the Type 45 could have easily couped with 2 Merlin. If you compare with the Absalon that comfortably manages 2 (6,600t 137.6m x 19.5m) v T45 (8,100t 152.4m x 21.2m). Where do you get 1/3 increase from( c28m!) the Shirane class and Iroquois class were 17.5m & 15.2m respectively. The Príncipe de Asturias is only 24.5m!!!

The R&D has been spent on Sampson/PAAMS and will need to be maintained. So building 4 more at say £650m (often quoted as the production cost of a T45) instead of say 6-8 T26 at say £500m (any value engineering that would get to this figure should be applied to a T83). This would provide a more uniform fleet able to operate independently. Supported by 16 x 2,500 light frigates focused on ASW/LCS/Patrol) and enabling a combined fleet of c24 hulls. This approach would save on running costs and a cash injection now of c£1bn from the sale of 2 x T45, would help finance bring a carrier back in for 2016.

We have 4 modern RFAs with the Fort II & Waves, if we are to rely on our Allies for air cover (for 14 years!!!) than I feel more relaxed with relying on them for replenishment support now and again. My comment on MARS was not the need for replacement tankers, but the mad proposal that was put forward by the RN (only in 2007, 11 ships of 4 designs!); the scale was just so unnecessary and unaffordable it was like a repeat of the assault fleet expansion. Had MARS proceeded and the full 12 T45s, it would have commited us to prehaps another £6.5-7bn expenditure up to 2020. That ignores what the original Astute plan was.

 

[kev 99]

2 Hangers for Merlin side by side is doable on a T45 size hull as per the Absalon. It would require a large redesign of the hanger complex (probably the whole aft section of the ship), the hanger superstructure would probably have to come up flush with the hull as in the case of the Absalon, this would probably have a negative effect on the RCS of the T45, also the position of the ships boats are a problem, to get over this it would probably require lengthening the T45 to fit a double hanger. I'm no ship architect but I suspect it would add at least several hundred tonnes to the ship and of course push the cost up.

 

[1805]

2 Hangers for Merlin side by side is doable on a T45 size hull as per the Absalon. It would require a large redesign of the hanger complex (probably the whole aft section of the ship), the hanger superstructure would probably have to come up flush with the hull as in the case of the Absalon, this would probably have a negative effect on the RCS of the T45, also the position of the ships boats are a problem, to get over this it would probably require lengthening the T45 to fit a double hanger. I'm no ship architect but I suspect it would add at least several hundred tonnes to the ship and of course push the cost up.

I think T45 does have a lot of room for growth. But if you added a bigger flexideck Absalon and accomodation for up to 500 and say 600t of mission load. displacement might creep to 10,000t. I don't think this would have to much impact of cost, as this is largely steel and a design, but even if it moved to £700m, we would be saving on number of T26.

Such a ship would have the potential on its own to transform a local situation. It would have additional benefits such as higher radar location, requiring less need for dedicated mission ships to be escorted and act as a command ship for the 2,500t ASW/LCS light frigate.

 

[kev 99]

No way you're getting that ship for an extra £50m, you've added 2000 tonnes and doubled the complement. Are you putting a TAS on it? If you're not building T26 then you need one as the Corvettes that you're building probably won't have the space for a 2087 sonar and all the electronics it requires.

Also worth pointing out that you're always talking the T26 down as being too expensive based mostly on it's size and yet you're advocating developing a 10,000t cruiser instead?

 

[1805]

No way you're getting that ship for an extra £50m, you've added 2000 tonnes and doubled the complement. Are you putting a TAS on it? If you're not building T26 then you need one as the Corvettes that you're building probably won't have the space for a 2087 sonar and all the electronics it requires.

Also worth pointing out that you're always talking the T26 down as being too expensive based mostly on it's size and yet you're advocating developing a 10,000t cruiser instead?

You might be right about the cost being more, but I am just talking about space/size not equipments so I can't see more than £100. The Absalons only cost c£160m.
I think you could fit a TAS on a 2,500t frigates, but if not then, a 3,000t ship.

I am running the T26 down because we can't afford a meaninful number of them and I am concerned that they will be arriving just at them time of the carrier(s). The RN has to recognise they have a real fight on their hands to get a carrier and fixed wing type in service, and the usual game of ordering regardless of budget will just kill them. There has to be more responsible approach adopted.

I don't have a problem with expensive ships, but even at £750m 3 Type 83 and 16 light frigate (say average £100m). would cost less than 10 T26 (if they end up £500m). Its all right saying we need hi-end platforms but unless you have enough platforms to do the patrol work the public will not see the value of the RN and what they don't value they will not pay for.

 

[kev 99]

Regardless of the cost issue you're planning for an Escort fleet of 23+ vessels, the SDSR has stated that the RN will only operate 19 in the future, history tells us that this is almost certainly a maximum not a minimum.

 

[1805]

Regardless of the cost issue you're planning for an Escort fleet of 23+ vessels, the SDSR has stated that the RN will only operate 19 in the future, history tells us that this is almost certainly a maximum not a minimum.

I don't accept this argument that once set a number can never be exceeded. I am sure the Treasury has only a passing interest in what the RN does with the funds allocated to it. Yes the RN has to justify expeniture, but the past has demonstrated they have been very light touch on demand challenging/investment appraisal of projects (half the problem). They only show interest when they are over budget, sadly when they can have minimal impact. After all they got 2 65,000t carriers through when we all knew deep down that was excessive.

The Treasury generally doesn't have the technical knowledge to successfully challenge a requirement at the earlier stage so they accept the numbers/costing. Had they said; no you only require 2 50,000t CVFs and are you absolutely sure you will have the budget, can't you stagger construction, we might be in a better place.

 

[StobieWan]

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).

I'm surprised you've not been paying closer attention - that 8% is a cut of a budget that already had a 34bn hole in it, to which has been added the burden of the Trident replacement, which traditionally had been sourced from outside the defence budget. Additionally, the RN had already given up over a dozen surface escorts to get the carriers funded - why are you suggesting they didn't accept a reduction in numbers? This is plain wrong.

Here's a summary of a statement by senior Naval personnel which describes this decline in numbers:

Navy would struggle to fight a war - report - Telegraph


I can't see why you're happy that the last batch of the T-45's were cancelled (which would have been progressively cheaper due to economies of scale and with the development costs being spread over more hulls, but are proposing an entirely new vessel to be developed?

This isn't what we need - what is this Type 83 intended to do? It looks to be a completely new design as the hull will have to be wider by almost a third, which means the length will have to increase proportionally in order to keep her speed to the general requirement of 28 or so knots.

I don't understand why you want it or what it's supposed to do, or why simply fitting the systems your require to the existing T-45's isn't more appropriate. Why do you need two Merlins? And why a flex deck?

Ian

 

[1805]

I'm surprised you've not been paying closer attention - that 8% is a cut of a budget that already had a 34bn hole in it, to which has been added the burden of the Trident replacement, which traditionally had been sourced from outside the defence budget. Additionally, the RN had already given up over a dozen surface escorts to get the carriers funded - why are you suggesting they didn't accept a reduction in numbers? This is plain wrong.

Here's a summary of a statement by senior Naval personnel which describes this decline in numbers:

Navy would struggle to fight a war - report - Telegraph


I can't see why you're happy that the last batch of the T-45's were cancelled (which would have been progressively cheaper due to economies of scale and with the development costs being spread over more hulls, but are proposing an entirely new vessel to be developed?

This isn't what we need - what is this Type 83 intended to do? It looks to be a completely new design as the hull will have to be wider by almost a third, which means the length will have to increase proportionally in order to keep her speed to the general requirement of 28 or so knots.

I don't understand why you want it or what it's supposed to do, or why simply fitting the systems your require to the existing T-45's isn't more appropriate. Why do you need two Merlins? And why a flex deck?

Ian

If you had read my post you would see that I was saying the 8% cut caused by the economic crisis, is not the problem it is poor management by the defence chiefs which has caused the massive budget overspend to mentioned. My comment about the additional 6 T45 was the impact of another 4bn on the figure you mentioned

Trident has been put off, so is not currently an issue (although it will be just the time the carriers will be coming in).

You seemed to have got a but confused on the numbers, I was suggesting more ships are required and that numbers are getting to a sub critical state.

I am suggesting fitting TAS to the T45/T83 there would be no need for a significant increase in size to the T45 to get 2 Merlin.

 

[swerve]

The Absalons only cost c£160m..

Smaller, slower (to save money!), more cheaply built in many ways & the quoted price is for a bare bones ship. Weapons are extra.

 

[Repulse]

As we seem to be keeping most of our amphibious capabilities (especially the Bays) the argument for Absalon style ships in the foreseeable future is not there.

In my view, the RN needs to concentrate on structuring itself around 3 task groups (2 CVF and 1 Amphibious). To me this suggests a first rate escort fleet of 18 vessels, 6 T45 and 12 T26 (6 ASW and 6 general purpose). The real backbone of the fleet would be a relatively large number of light Patrol Frigates capable of long unsupported patrols, supporting small special force interventions in low threat environments and of course being able to be upgraded in times of crisis. A capability of supporting an additional 60 troops (like the T45) should be more than sufficient.

 

[1805]

Smaller, slower (to save money!), more cheaply built in many ways & the quoted price is for a bare bones ship. Weapons are extra.

Agreed, I didn't make it clear, I was only quoting its as an example that adding space for a second Merlin and a flexideck should not add more than £100m (if that) to a T45 if the whole Absalon only cost £160m. I suspect the hanger on a T45 is probably fairly generous anyway.

 

[1805]

As we seem to be keeping most of our amphibious capabilities (especially the Bays) the argument for Absalon style ships in the foreseeable future is not there.

In my view, the RN needs to concentrate on structuring itself around 3 task groups (2 CVF and 1 Amphibious). To me this suggests a first rate escort fleet of 18 vessels, 6 T45 and 12 T26 (6 ASW and 6 general purpose). The real backbone of the fleet would be a relatively large number of light Patrol Frigates capable of long unsupported patrols, supporting small special force interventions in low threat environments and of course being able to be upgraded in times of crisis. A capability of supporting an additional 60 troops (like the T45) should be more than sufficient.

I might agree with your suggestion if it were not for the fact you are falling into the same trap the RN has consistently done. The RN is unlikely to get 12 x T26 (a near 1 for 1 replacement of T23), ask your self honestly how many we are likely to get, if they end up being £400-500m each? All the T26 would achieve is to put further pressure on the budget just as CVF is planned to arrive, almost guaranteeing one will be sold.

I firmly believe that unless funds can be found to get a CVF back ontrack for 2016 with some fixed wing aircraft, a combination of: budget pressure, RN mismanagement and RAF influence will get the RN out of fixed wing aviation. I ask you if it was down to selling 2 T45 (plus other belt tightening) now to get QE in 2016 would you take it?

I am not suggesting 8 T45/83 with all with flexidecks because we would have 4 T45 without them (assuming 2 are sold), so realistically 3-4 T83 entering service 2026-32 and the Bays will be going 2032 onwards. Hasn't one Bay already gone into reserve (sell it now while it has value) and the LPH role will go into the CVF, so the assault force as it stands will be down from 7 to 5. I think its likely to end up at 3-4 ships, if the RN is to keep them it needs to get the army on them regularly, operate with armour/challengers and the rest of the time turn them into multi purpose docks, operating as a tender for MCM ROVs, patrol boats(CB90h type boat? not ridiculous armoured RIBS)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

not ridiculous armoured RIBS

If you are referring to the ORC it certainly isn't a RHIB. It just has fenders along the sides. They look sort of similar to many RHIBs.

 

[1805]

If you are referring to the ORC it certainly isn't a RHIB. It just has fenders along the sides. They look sort of similar to many RHIBs.

I was, and just going from the photo posted so thanks for correcting me. I'm sure they are more robust than they look.

I have now looked it up and think I would prefer a Storebro SB90E or CB90h.

 

[StobieWan]

If you had read my post you would see that I was saying the 8% cut caused by the economic crisis, is not the problem it is poor management by the defence chiefs which has caused the massive budget overspend to mentioned. My comment about the additional 6 T45 was the impact of another 4bn on the figure you mentioned

Trident has been put off, so is not currently an issue (although it will be just the time the carriers will be coming in).

You seemed to have got a but confused on the numbers, I was suggesting more ships are required and that numbers are getting to a sub critical state.

I am suggesting fitting TAS to the T45/T83 there would be no need for a significant increase in size to the T45 to get 2 Merlin.

I did read your post and you specifically lambasted the RN for asking for large carriers without sacrificing hull numbers to meet the budget. I pointed out you were wrong. You're now widening this to claiming it was defence chiefs

The budgetary problems have been largely caused by the previous government trying to fight a war on a peacetime budget - last I heard the cost of the Afghan war alone was reaching 10bn, which of course would have quite neatly refurbished the entire of the army's current stock of IFV's, plus a tranche 3 buy for the RAF and still had change left over for 36 F35B's I suspect.

The MOD's procurement strategy is broken for sure and I've pointed to this previously -I just don't think that the RN were wrong in specifying the size of carrier arrived at, nor were they wilfully incompetent in scheduling the carrier builds back to back.

It's immediately obvious that the RN needs more hull numbers - which is why I'm confused about your positing a new ship type which is rapidly approaching the size of a star destroyer in size and cost.

We don't need a new Type 83 - we need the Type-26's in whatever quantity we can get them.

Ian

 

[Repulse]

I did read your post and you specifically lambasted the RN for asking for large carriers without sacrificing hull numbers to meet the budget. I pointed out you were wrong. You're now widening this to claiming it was defence chiefs

The budgetary problems have been largely caused by the previous government trying to fight a war on a peacetime budget - last I heard the cost of the Afghan war alone was reaching 10bn, which of course would have quite neatly refurbished the entire of the army's current stock of IFV's, plus a tranche 3 buy for the RAF and still had change left over for 36 F35B's I suspect.

The MOD's procurement strategy is broken for sure and I've pointed to this previously -I just don't think that the RN were wrong in specifying the size of carrier arrived at, nor were they wilfully incompetent in scheduling the carrier builds back to back.

It's immediately obvious that the RN needs more hull numbers - which is why I'm confused about your positing a new ship type which is rapidly approaching the size of a star destroyer in size and cost.

We don't need a new Type 83 - we need the Type-26's in whatever quantity we can get them.

Ian

Ian, I agree with the thrust of your arguement apart from the "we need the Type-26's in whatever quantity we can get them" part. I think at best (and I sincerly think it is required) that the T26 will be a one to one (ish) replacement for the T23. Based on 12 hulls this means we could push out the commission date of these till 2024 with a one per year roll out. IMHO we should be focusing on getting additional light Patrol Frigates before then.

I've also read that 2036 ish is when we expect the first T45 to be decommissioned; perhaps we should then focus on a common hull design for the T26 and the T45 replacement?

 

[1805]

I did read your post and you specifically lambasted the RN for asking for large carriers without sacrificing hull numbers to meet the budget. I pointed out you were wrong. You're now widening this to claiming it was defence chiefs

The budgetary problems have been largely caused by the previous government trying to fight a war on a peacetime budget - last I heard the cost of the Afghan war alone was reaching 10bn, which of course would have quite neatly refurbished the entire of the army's current stock of IFV's, plus a tranche 3 buy for the RAF and still had change left over for 36 F35B's I suspect.

The MOD's procurement strategy is broken for sure and I've pointed to this previously -I just don't think that the RN were wrong in specifying the size of carrier arrived at, nor were they wilfully incompetent in scheduling the carrier builds back to back.

It's immediately obvious that the RN needs more hull numbers - which is why I'm confused about your positing a new ship type which is rapidly approaching the size of a star destroyer in size and cost.

We don't need a new Type 83 - we need the Type-26's in whatever quantity we can get them.

Ian

You didn't prove anything. I only widened to "defence chiefs" as the RAF & Army have also be responsible for the overspend.

I was not suggesting the RN originally sacrificed number to get the carriers, but now we are in a mess, we need to be realistic on priorities. In fact I have been arguing for a Hi-Low mix that maintains a reasonble number of high end mult role escorts, supported by a capable light frigate.

The overspend has very little to do with the wars. These have been funded by the Treasury directly. Where is your evidence, MR4, T45, Astute and CVF have nothing to do with Afghanistan & Iraq?

"we need the Type-26's in whatever quantity we can get them" just sums up a head in the sand approach. So would 6 be acceptable? You typify a reluctance to accept reality that I find amazing.

Oh and can you justify to me how a 65,000t carrier is needed for an air group of 36 fixed wing aircraft?? While you're there look up the complements of the: USS Midway, LHA-6 & the Charles De Gaulle. If you want a real laugh look up the last fixed wing complement of the 28,000t HMS Hermes in 1969 (I think 29 aircraft including Buccaneers). If they had been 45-50,000t, we could have afforded three comfortably, entering service 2008-10 (maybe instead of a few assault ships), 2018-20, and 2028-30.

 

[StobieWan]

"we need the Type-26's in whatever quantity we can get them" just sums up a head in the sand approach. So would 6 be acceptable? You typify a reluctance to accept reality that I find amazing.

Right now the 22s and 23's are getting old, and need replacing. What do you suggest we do with that situation?

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Ian, I agree with the thrust of your arguement apart from the "we need the Type-26's in whatever quantity we can get them" part. I think at best (and I sincerly think it is required) that the T26 will be a one to one (ish) replacement for the T23. Based on 12 hulls this means we could push out the commission date of these till 2024 with a one per year roll out. IMHO we should be focusing on getting additional light Patrol Frigates before then.

I've also read that 2036 ish is when we expect the first T45 to be decommissioned; perhaps we should then focus on a common hull design for the T26 and the T45 replacement?

I'd be really relieved if we could get one for one replacements - I suspect that we won't and that we need to find some relief on the pressure for hulls from somewhere. I believe the MCM fleet is also due for replacement at some stage. If that replacement can do the MCM role by remote using helicopters, unmanned submersibles etc, then that dispenses with the need to have composite hulls etc -so we could build a fairly handy frigate around that specification with a capacity for mission modules. Think LCS without the program growth and cost escalation please

We may also be able to export this puppy as it'd be light, cheap and flexible. I think a couple of existing designs were also suggested earlier for this role.

We have some high end escorts for carriers, what we need is the ASW and general purpose hulls that can fill out the remainder of those holes in the fleet.

Some commonality in the eventual replacement for both seems sensible - and a lot of discussion was made about the FSC/Type 26 perhaps using the T45 hull - which doesn't seem to have happened,

Ian