Ah, I was premature.
NSM - yeah, me too, for the long term.
Aye, there's the rub.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
NSM - yeah, me too, for the long term.
kev 99
Member
The RAF did used to operate Tonados in the anti shipping role but they were all decommissioned years ago, not sure what the missile was but today none of them have that capability.
Me too, now we've settled on the F35c buying the NSM or JCM or whatever the new varient is called makes a great deal of sense.
There is really little logic in what you say here. Why would Brazil want a carrier building capability, as you point out there are few buyers and most have a preference for national construction, they have a 40-50 year life span and Brazil currently only operates one. Yes there is a desire to create employment but a CVF would keep them in the game at far less cost compared to your figures.
We would still have 4 T45, a greater capability than any other European Navy other than Spain (and compared to no carrier capability acceptable), and if the replacement cost is c£650m the downside of a sale at say c£500m, is modest, allowing for RN follow on to make up the numbers post 2020. Ideally we could give up 3rd/5th units not impacting the RN to much. It also cuts out the French/Italians and provides an opening for the T26 (which may be cheaper than planned now).
Trouble with your approach as Wellington said of Napoleons adversaries is: you are defeated before you go into battle and so you will be defeated.
To sell an Astute (and get a replacement later) to Brazil would be a real coup, everyone is always going on about drum beat well this is how to achieve it. The RN needs funding now but in the long term it is less of an issue.
Well, selling T45's to the Brazilian's is an epic fail - they're asking for Frigates, we'd be trying to flog 'em a destroyer
I've no idea why 1805 keeps suggesting we ditch a pair of Type 45's - it takes use below the level at which we can generate escorts for the CVF's (it's still a practise to require three ships for any single deployment - one on station, one gearing up and one in maintenance)
I've also no belief that selling them would result in a flow of cash to the RN.
Both of these points have been met with a lot of hand waving sadly.
I'm hearing good things about the Type 26 design being very modular and flexible - if that is true, then offering a lower cost radar with Aster as an export option seems sensible. I think we're on to a loser on that one mind - FREMM is up and running, and the Brazilians can go look at one floating in the water.
I also take issue with the suggest that it's the *RN* who are refusing to adapt their requirements to the customer - the RN is the customer here, there's no reason they should start ordering ships someone else might fancy - last time we did that, we went with the batch 1 Type 42's which were a bit shorter and more cramped than the later batches. The shipyards need to work out a way to deliver a working frigate for the RN which can be tailored more specifically for export, not the other way around.
Ian
t68
Well-Known Member
If the Spanish can do it with the F100, why can’t the UK shipbuilding do something similar to T45 after all you don’t have to have the same systems fit out as RN Destroyer.
As you are aware the likely next gen frigate for the RAN will most likely be the F100 same hull as the AWD but one is classified as a air warfare destroyer and the other a frigate, only difference will be the electronics combat fit out and armament but will have the same displacement, unless Brazil is not intending to go so large.
As you are aware the likely next gen frigate for the RAN will most likely be the F100 same hull as the AWD but one is classified as a air warfare destroyer and the other a frigate, only difference will be the electronics combat fit out and armament but will have the same displacement, unless Brazil is not intending to go so large.
If we carry on in the route you suggest we will not have a carrier to escort, I don't see the problem the French have only 4 AWD and they even have a carrier to protect?? Its alright saying the RN can order what it likes and stuff the shipbuilding industry but that is not the basis for a long term naval capability. If the RN does not want to pay £1bn for destroyers it need to achieve longer production runs via export (or accept foreign weapon systems)Well, selling T45's to the Brazilian's is an epic fail - they're asking for Frigates, we'd be trying to flog 'em a destroyer
I've no idea why 1805 keeps suggesting we ditch a pair of Type 45's - it takes use below the level at which we can generate escorts for the CVF's (it's still a practise to require three ships for any single deployment - one on station, one gearing up and one in maintenance)
I've also no belief that selling them would result in a flow of cash to the RN.
Both of these points have been met with a lot of hand waving sadly.
I'm hearing good things about the Type 26 design being very modular and flexible - if that is true, then offering a lower cost radar with Aster as an export option seems sensible. I think we're on to a loser on that one mind - FREMM is up and running, and the Brazilians can go look at one floating in the water.
I also take issue with the suggest that it's the *RN* who are refusing to adapt their requirements to the customer - the RN is the customer here, there's no reason they should start ordering ships someone else might fancy - last time we did that, we went with the batch 1 Type 42's which were a bit shorter and more cramped than the later batches. The shipyards need to work out a way to deliver a working frigate for the RN which can be tailored more specifically for export, not the other way around.
Ian
The T42 was not designed cheap for export, although if you exclude the Sandowns to Saudi they are the last RN designs to be exported from new. It always makes me laugh when people on here have a pop at the T42, despite their hull limitations they are without doubt the RN's most successful post WW2 destroyer (hopefully excluding T45)
To clarify your comments, the carriers are being built in sections in the following locations:
Portsmouth (Ex VT / BAE)
Liverpool (Carmell Laird)
Tyneside (Newcastle / A&P)
Rosyth (Babcock)
Glasgow (BAE)
There are minor sections being built in smaller yards across the UK & shipped to the locations listed above.
The Hull will be eventually be brought together in Rosyth.
BAE (Submarines) had featured in the original workload split, but due to specialist / future workload & 'technical difficulties' (i.e. not having correctly built a surface ship in over 30 years (without assistance from or sending ships to be finished off elsewhere)), it was deemed easier to co-locate this 'section' of the contract & split it across the other 'partners'.
It should be noted that the Majority of the build may well be in the Northern half of the country, but this is where the shipbuilding base workforce is located. Just because these areas tend to support the Labour party, doesn't mean that the work should go to less able / well prepared areas of the UK, just to appease constituents.
SA
.
We could certainly do the same with the Type-26 with a bit of nous - select the right components and hit the right size/volume point and there's no reason that the 26 can't do as you suggest. My objection to trying to sell the Type 45 in this context is that 1805 has suggested we sell *existing* Type 45's - which are very capable single purpose vessels right now and would be too expensive and insufficiently flexible as they stand. The Brazilians can't use them unless we offer them at stupidly cheap prices, to allow for their refit to a more general surface combatant role.
The Brazilians need a different hull entirely - they need something like a license built FREMM or a tailored to fit license built Type-26, with a reasonable radar and a good general fit of surface warfare and self defence AAW fit with an ASW helicopter and sensor fit.
The two objections I feel are self evident - we can't afford to lose a third of the 45 fleet under any circumstances, and the Brazilians don't want a Type 45 in it's current format. We can't lose 'em and the Brazilians don't want 'em.
Ian
Oddly, one of the first suggestions for UK/France co-operation was that we could provide AWD escort for their carrier due to their limited escort numbers.
The only reason that four AWD's have been sufficient is that the CDG hasn't been available very much during her chequered career, putting less strain on the escort requirements. You need two AWD assets for a carrier group - and it's still very much true that to guarantee that number of escorts, you need two others behind every one on the line, for the very simple reasons I've outlined. If you don't think this is so, please explain why rather than simply saying it's so.
Batch 1 and 2 42's were a bit shorter and lighter than desirable and I've certainly heard it said that a number of the cost cutting moves were aimed at making it more exportable.
Just to refresh your memory on the 42 :
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_42_destroyer"]Type 42 destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:HMS_Birmingham_D86.jpg" class="image" title="HMS Birmingham (D86)"><img alt="HMS Birmingham (D86)" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/HMS_Birmingham_D86.jpg/300px-HMS_Birmingham_D86.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/86/HMS_Birmingham_D86.jpg/300px-HMS_Birmingham_D86.jpg[/ame]
More authoritative is this link
Type 42
You will I hope, acknowledge the point repeatedly made in both articles that the larger, heavier and more expensive batch threes demonstrated far better sea keeping, and were more survivable due to the displacement of key systems from close proximity to one another.
It bears considerably on your earlier suggestions the RN builds a fleet of corvette size vessels.
I'm not having a pop at the 42's - for the time they were designed for, they were pretty competitive designs and have remained useful for much of their life.
Finally I did not say that the RN should order what they *like* - they are (duty bound!) to order what they feel they need for the task at hand. Unfortunately the RN, like the US and Australia to name a few similar users, need ships with a good range - a global reach - and that driver shapes the propulsion and fuel reserves of the ship. Most of the export markets we'd need to break back into are in need of vessels with only a regional reach, can be smaller and with a shorter range, as well as overall cheaper as they can be locally built, often under licence.
The ships we need for our own purposes are driven by a global commitment and other users with similar requirements already design and build their own equivalents.
We're also in competition with other ship builders who's labour costs and native requirements are more attractive - I can't see us being able to sell a native build high end escort as most of the customers out there want to license build.
Navantia, with a solid design of a good general purpose hull, and lower labour costs than the UK, has mostly made license sales - not complete hulls for instance.
I can't see why the Type 26 can't be made attractive as a license build option however - providing some imagination and flair are applied.
Ian
He's at it again. Who here thinks selling an Astute to Brazil is a wise move? Yes or no answers.
Our nuclear submarines are only bettered by those of the USN. They contain all of our most cutting edge nuclear propulsion secrets, silencing technology and electronics.
Would we seriously want to hand that technology to brazil and see it ripped off by every other foreign power by espionage and/or trade "deals".?
Add the fact that the acoustic and performance of an Astute will be likely very close to our next generation of Trident boats so you really wouldn't want to make our deterrent detectable , would you???
Our SSN's still keep us punching above our weight, they are not something that should be pimped.out.
Our nuclear submarines are only bettered by those of the USN. They contain all of our most cutting edge nuclear propulsion secrets, silencing technology and electronics.
Would we seriously want to hand that technology to brazil and see it ripped off by every other foreign power by espionage and/or trade "deals".?
Add the fact that the acoustic and performance of an Astute will be likely very close to our next generation of Trident boats so you really wouldn't want to make our deterrent detectable , would you???
Our SSN's still keep us punching above our weight, they are not something that should be pimped.out.
My point about them being built in Labour seats what that the positive employment benefit would have helped their case with a far less warlike Brown than Blair. I agree with you the ability of surface warship construction to create employment in areas of high unemployment should be seen as supporting the RN case.
A technical lead can only be maintained by maximising funding, this is why the French will support Brazil and they will use that sharing of top table knowledge to cross sell other products such at FREMM, Rafale and maybe even help with a CV/LPH. (they may have to buy some KC390s along the way but it keeps the income coming into the French defence sector.
The loan of a T and sale of just one UK built Astute (does it matter if it was orginally due for the RN or not as long as it was later replaced) would be such a boast to the UK SSN/SSBN industry.
More likely you could sell one UK built SSN and maybe assist with the local build of 2. SSNs are some of the most, if not the most challenge ships to build so they would need lots of support/ongoing maintenance. A straight local build of all ships would be unlikely.
Look at the Russians they as flogging hi tech kit aggressively to everyone to keep investment in future systems, now that government funding has been reduced.
Oh and before anyone answers your question, can they answer the question who whats the French to sell them a SSN instead of an Astute?
Last edited:
A good sales person could create the case for Brazil to have AWDs, how about your own above; they wish to maintain a CV therefore they should have AWD to protect such asset(s). What is the T45 lacking in the CV protection role (maybe a TAS) . A few SSM can be bolted on if they feel the need (I don't see the need myself). One the sales front how about getting a T45 to Rio asap.
As to the AWD numbers for the RN, I have said the ships should be replaced later when funding is stronger, in the meantime we don't have a carrier to escort and our assault capability will be deployed only as part of allied taskforces (who have plenty of AWD)
You might be quite right and the Brazilians might go for FREMM, but if we don't try we will never get anywhere. The T45 has a wow factor the French/Italians don't have, we have strong connections with the Brazilian Navy, the indigenous part could come from the T26, maybe even getting involved in the design phase. I would not rule out B3 T22 going to Brazil, they are good ships with 10 year+ left in them, this would enable them to delay frigate expenditure until after SSNs?
From what I have seen the drive to cut the T42 hull was because it was built to a budget to provide numbers, I have never heard anyting about exports (but it could be) and if it was the case it wasn't very successful as we only sold 2. It is a pity they didn't redesign the hull as the size is not the issue so much as the poor shape. The B3 were obviously better but by just adding length they created a very poor beam/length ratio (c10) which didn't help the top weight issues much. That said they outshined the 1950s dated before the even entered service Darings, hopeless basket case Counties and backward looking T82. I don't think many if any of these 17 ships did over 18 years RN serivce. Incidently the T42 have also out lived the B1-2 and maybe even the B3 T22 in RN service.
As to your points on exports oddly its the smaller ships where we have achieved some export success (with private designs) when it comes to big/complex ships people have gone with USN/Spanish/French...in fact anything apart from RN designs.
When I see the sales of F100,JC1, Mistral I am reminded of Beatty and "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"
I wasn't aware the french were marketing the Baracudas, any evidence they are? The French will assist on the non nuclear aspects, taking technology from the scorpenes, but the planned Brazilian boat will be quite large, namely due to the older style propulsion unit , still no evidence that french will share the technology they have on the Baracuda.
You still don't seem to accept that there are certain technologies in an SSN that would be against the national interest to export, you haven't commented on the prospect of making our future Trident boats detectable by sharing their likely acoustic signature with potential enemies, The chinese, Russians, even the french would be queuing up off the Brazilian coast to get an acoustic snapshot.
Another problem may be that the licenses and technologies are now tied in with those of the USA, I doubt the US allowed General Dynamics to use the latest CAD designs on the Astute without at least some form of close control,we probably couldn't sell one to anyone other than the Aussies or Canadians even if we wanted to, I doubt the US would take kindly to a Brazilian Admiral giving a tour to his Chinese counterpart of an Astute. (or Trafalgar for that matter )and in the process accelerating their efforts by 20 years.
Its still possibly the worse idea you have had, and thats saying something.
The Russians loan floating deathtraps that are obsolete, and transferring fighters or tanks is not the same thing. By all means market certain technology or components, pressure domes, sonars, thats the niche we could aim for, but some secrets are just too secret.
Nothing substantial, there are references in the attached links. I am assuming the reference to an delivery date is just aspirational, so hopefully there is still an option.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ships_of_the_Brazilian_Navy"]Ships of the Brazilian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Naval_Jack_of_Brazil.svg" class="image"><img alt="Naval Jack of Brazil.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Naval_Jack_of_Brazil.svg/120px-Naval_Jack_of_Brazil.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/fc/Naval_Jack_of_Brazil.svg/120px-Naval_Jack_of_Brazil.svg.png[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorp%C3%A8ne_class_submarine"]Scorpène class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Scorpene_malaisien_vue_de_trois_quart_arriere_2.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Scorpene malaisien vue de trois quart arriere 2.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Scorpene_malaisien_vue_de_trois_quart_arriere_2.jpg/300px-Scorpene_malaisien_vue_de_trois_quart_arriere_2.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/14/Scorpene_malaisien_vue_de_trois_quart_arriere_2.jpg/300px-Scorpene_malaisien_vue_de_trois_quart_arriere_2.jpg[/ame]
I doubt it would have any impact on our SSBNs in any case I am increasingly seeing them as a status symbol, I just can't envisage a senario when it would be used independently. However I could see a senario when the drumbeat on SSN/SSBN production falls silent again and the disaster that was last time, we should avoid at all costs.
Try not to be abusive in your reponses, its not necessary if you can reason logically your arguments should stand up on their own.
As I see it, by hook and by crook and at the cost of as much pain as necessary, this present lot will have reduced the deficit by 50% in four years (election time). The sluggish growth will have picked up, taxes will be filling the treasury, troops will be coming home from Afghanistan and in 2015 we will have a new Govt, be it blue,red , yellow or a combo.
Whatever colour the execs from BAe will be passing them the fat cigars, pointing out the benefits in jobs, taxes and political patronage of supporting UK defence industry. A few knighthoods will be handed out, a few backhanders given to foreign diplomats and UK PLC will continue to build ships, submarines, aircraft, fighting vehicles etc etc.
Barrow will turn out 3 maybe 4 stretched Astutes with six trident tubes, difficulties in gaps will be overcome and by the time they are ready there will be something else in the pipeline.
More importantly one of the carriers will be looking like a carrier and the shipyards will have been tasked to build a new frigate, maybe numbers will drop but the important thing is that the ability to build them will remain and that is better than nothing.
Whatever colour the execs from BAe will be passing them the fat cigars, pointing out the benefits in jobs, taxes and political patronage of supporting UK defence industry. A few knighthoods will be handed out, a few backhanders given to foreign diplomats and UK PLC will continue to build ships, submarines, aircraft, fighting vehicles etc etc.
Barrow will turn out 3 maybe 4 stretched Astutes with six trident tubes, difficulties in gaps will be overcome and by the time they are ready there will be something else in the pipeline.
More importantly one of the carriers will be looking like a carrier and the shipyards will have been tasked to build a new frigate, maybe numbers will drop but the important thing is that the ability to build them will remain and that is better than nothing.
Brazil wants a carrier-building capacity for the same reasons as India, France, China, Russia, the USA or us - to build its own carriers, free of any interference from anyone else - and also to show that they can. Brazilian shipbuilders want to build carriers because they want the work. Their workers will vote for congressmen who'll vote for indigenous building. POLITICS.
The trouble with your approach is that you're picking fights you can't win. Remember what happened to Napoleon in the end.
You've acknowledged that trying to sell what you have, rather than what the customer wants, is doomed, but you still insist that we should do it. Brazil has a long-term naval development plan which specifies commonality, local building, value for money & 'good enough'. T45 doesn't fit into that. To succeed, we need to offer what they want - and it ain't CVF, T45, or Astute!
+1 on everything.Well, selling T45's to the Brazilian's is an epic fail - they're asking for Frigates, we'd be trying to flog 'em a destroyer
I've no idea why 1805 keeps suggesting we ditch a pair of Type 45's - it takes use below the level at which we can generate escorts for the CVF's (it's still a practise to require three ships for any single deployment - one on station, one gearing up and one in maintenance)
I've also no belief that selling them would result in a flow of cash to the RN.
Both of these points have been met with a lot of hand waving sadly.
I'm hearing good things about the Type 26 design being very modular and flexible - if that is true, then offering a lower cost radar with Aster as an export option seems sensible. I think we're on to a loser on that one mind - FREMM is up and running, and the Brazilians can go look at one floating in the water.
Ian
T26 could be a good candidate for the Brazilian requirement (one variant with with a cut-down version of PAAMS & Aster 50, plus an ASW model with Aster 15), but I fear that you're right & it's too late. It could be a candidate for other navies (e.g. Chile) in the future, if offered with suitable systems.