The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Its not the most expensive way to procure ships, the most expensive way is to order then delay which is what we have ended doing.

But ordering them in some other way just loses the savings but delivers no safety from delays. There's nothing inherently easier or safer about ordering three smaller units and there's nothing to say that the cost increases that hit the order of a pair wouldn't apply easily as well to an order of three.

Worse, from a risk of cancellation point of view, the total projected cost of the project is 30% higher *from the outset* - all being equal, your three units at 90% of the cost vs the projected cost of 2 units is 1.35 x the cost of the two carriers. Also, given the fact that much of the material hasn't been ordered, its' easier to cancel one or all of the carriers.

Recall that one of the major obstacles to cancellation was the fact that the RN had ordered two of everything up front - cancelling the second unit would just yield a large pile of expensive spares in a "some assembly required" carrier kit with very few savings.

Ordering carrier number 1, with no follow on materials, means it's a lot easier and simpler to decide to delay or cancel the successive builds.

Ian

 

[1805]

But ordering them in some other way just loses the savings but delivers no safety from delays. There's nothing inherently easier or safer about ordering three smaller units and there's nothing to say that the cost increases that hit the order of a pair wouldn't apply easily as well to an order of three.

Worse, from a risk of cancellation point of view, the total projected cost of the project is 30% higher *from the outset* - all being equal, your three units at 90% of the cost vs the projected cost of 2 units is 1.35 x the cost of the two carriers. Also, given the fact that much of the material hasn't been ordered, its' easier to cancel one or all of the carriers.

Recall that one of the major obstacles to cancellation was the fact that the RN had ordered two of everything up front - cancelling the second unit would just yield a large pile of expensive spares in a "some assembly required" carrier kit with very few savings.

Ordering carrier number 1, with no follow on materials, means it's a lot easier and simpler to decide to delay or cancel the successive builds.

Ian

I'm not sure i follow your post, I was suggesting my ideal was ordering within an industrial cycle, not a fixed commitment contract for 3 over 25-30 years.

 

[PeterCrisp]

If the second carrier is just used as a back-up will it still get upgraded with all the same stuff as the carrier in use? Could that be a way to have the jobs needed to upgrade but without all the hassle of paying for using the carrier?
If they don't upgrade could we be in a situation where we need it but it's going to take so long to get it ready it's not going to be useful before the end of any conflict unless we know for ages beforehand of any action.
What will they do with it while it's just sitting around doing nothing. Can they use it to help train the next carrier crew or maybe they could turn it into a swanky hotel as it's got great helicopter access.

 

[Systems Adict]

I'm not sure i follow your post, I was suggesting my ideal was ordering within an industrial cycle, not a fixed commitment contract for 3 over 25-30 years.

...I THINK, I’m like most others here, in that WE can't follow your un-bending, inane 'ideal'. :flame

Over the last 30-40 posts, you've advocated a 'natural cycle' for shipbuilding (something that's not happened in the last half century of the warship building Industry in the UK), stated that they should have built 3 carriers over 25-30 years (even though you know all too well that we're building 2, over a 10 year period) & intimated that we should sell T45's while having retained the T42 / sea dart ensemble & updated their design instead, some 10-20 years ago.


How can you sit there & not see the reality of what HAS actually happened & discuss that?


This thread is about the UK ROYAL NAVY, it's not the 1805 show & his ideals from cloud cuckoo land !

You have, systematically rebuffed any comment made about your posts, poo-poo'd any suggestion made by anyone else that may contradict or conflict with your statements, & quaintly side-stepped direct questions, turning any comments to further extend your inane ethos that the UK Govt has done the wrong thing & should have listened to / followed your ‘ideal’ !

The most honest thing that you've stated since the beginning of the Xmas period is that hind-sight is a wonderful thing & helps point out glaring errors/problem points !

Now before you accuse me of anything, let me state, yet again, that I see you as a welcome addition to the 'debate', but that you should read thru the whole thread, to see the discussions that took place before you joined, & how they detail the UK RN's sorry state and the ACTUAL / FACTUAL reasoning as to why it's where it is at this time.

PLEASE !, take the opportunity to understand why the RN has the equipment it has, because of the governmental choices that have been made over the last 30-40 years, and possibly even learn that the TRUTH is more interesting than this made-up, hypothetical fiction you've been peddling for the last 12 months !

As ever, I await your comments / rebuttal.....

SA

 

[Systems Adict]

If the second carrier is just used as a back-up will it still get upgraded with all the same stuff as the carrier in use? Could that be a way to have the jobs needed to upgrade but without all the hassle of paying for using the carrier?
If they don't upgrade could we be in a situation where we need it but it's going to take so long to get it ready it's not going to be useful before the end of any conflict unless we know for ages beforehand of any action.
What will they do with it while it's just sitting around doing nothing. Can they use it to help train the next carrier crew or maybe they could turn it into a swanky hotel as it's got great helicopter access.

Oh, to have a magical crystal ball & be able to look into the future !

Peter, you've asked a question / made a statement that I don't think has been aired/ discussed an any of the bulletin Boards, forums or Blogs that I read on a daily/weekly basis !

So, let's start the ball rolling... !

At present, it's relativley safe to assume that carrier#1 will be built, with the foundations & lower blocks of carrier#2 taking shape at the same time.

As it's gonna take about 3-5 years for carrier#1 to be at a state where it will be ready to embark ANY aircraft, it is again safe to state that decisions will be made in that 3-5 year period that will address how exactly carrier#2 will look when she's nearing completion.

AFAIK, the design currently, is looking like the standard layout that we have on the INVINCIBLE class, with the ski-jump, but there's provision for EMALS (which can be installed later, once it's design has been fully proven). Other than that, I 'believe' that BOTH ships will be built to the same specification.

In otherwords, YOUR guess is as good as mine !

SA

 

[PeterCrisp]

I'm thinking they could use it to test systems for the active carrier without the hassle of testing things at sea but still in real life conditions.

 

[1805]

...I THINK, I’m like most others here, in that WE can't follow your un-bending, inane 'ideal'. :flame

Over the last 30-40 posts, you've advocated a 'natural cycle' for shipbuilding (something that's not happened in the last half century of the warship building Industry in the UK), stated that they should have built 3 carriers over 25-30 years (even though you know all too well that we're building 2, over a 10 year period) & intimated that we should sell T45's while having retained the T42 / sea dart ensemble & updated their design instead, some 10-20 years ago.


How can you sit there & not see the reality of what HAS actually happened & discuss that?


This thread is about the UK ROYAL NAVY, it's not the 1805 show & his ideals from cloud cuckoo land !

You have, systematically rebuffed any comment made about your posts, poo-poo'd any suggestion made by anyone else that may contradict or conflict with your statements, & quaintly side-stepped direct questions, turning any comments to further extend your inane ethos that the UK Govt has done the wrong thing & should have listened to / followed your ‘ideal’ !

The most honest thing that you've stated since the beginning of the Xmas period is that hind-sight is a wonderful thing & helps point out glaring errors/problem points !

Now before you accuse me of anything, let me state, yet again, that I see you as a welcome addition to the 'debate', but that you should read thru the whole thread, to see the discussions that took place before you joined, & how they detail the UK RN's sorry state and the ACTUAL / FACTUAL reasoning as to why it's where it is at this time.

PLEASE !, take the opportunity to understand why the RN has the equipment it has, because of the governmental choices that have been made over the last 30-40 years, and possibly even learn that the TRUTH is more interesting than this made-up, hypothetical fiction you've been peddling for the last 12 months !

As ever, I await your comments / rebuttal.....

SA

I do read the post, and try to repond constructively and avoid rants such as the above. I also try to ensure they are as accurate as possible, but no one can be perfect as you know.

 

[swerve]

At present, it's relativley safe to assume that carrier#1 will be built, with the foundations & lower blocks of carrier#2 taking shape at the same time.

As it's gonna take about 3-5 years for carrier#1 to be at a state where it will be ready to embark ANY aircraft, it is again safe to state that decisions will be made in that 3-5 year period that will address how exactly carrier#2 will look when she's nearing completion.

AFAIK, the design currently, is looking like the standard layout that we have on the INVINCIBLE class, with the ski-jump, but there's provision for EMALS (which can be installed later, once it's design has been fully proven). Other than that, I 'believe' that BOTH ships will be built to the same specification.

SA

Official statements (I asked the MoD, & they replied) say that it is intended that both carriers will be completed with cats & traps. No decision has been taken on what type. It will probably be EMALS but there is a lower budget British programme running alongside it (EMCAT). EMALS should be proven by the time the build of Queen Elizabeth progresses to the point where fitting it has to be done.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm not sure i follow your post, I was suggesting my ideal was ordering within an industrial cycle, not a fixed commitment contract for 3 over 25-30 years.

Which still doesn't deliver any savings...

Let's get this down to Peter and Jane level.

If Peter and Jane both have a requirement for say, some cake, and both have to have a certain amount of cake for say, a party they're having, what's the cheapest of your two options?

Peter orders two cakes, which are nice and big and he pays £2 for the cakes. Jane orders three slightly smaller cakes at 90 pence each.

How much does Jane pay for her cake?

Add to which, these cakes all have a crew of 700 and staff costs of, say, £24 million. At the end of the fifty year life span of these cakes, does Peter have less of his pocket money left over or does Jane?

Answers at the foot of the paper,

Conclusion should be simple and obvious - purchasing and running three smaller carriers costs most than purchasing and running two slightly larger carriers.

Ian

a) Jane pays £2.70 for her cake.
b) Peter pays 2x 1.4billion in staff costs = 2.8bn. Jane pays 3x 1.4bn = 4.2bn *


*assume for the purposes of the exercise that staff costs don't increase for inflation because the target audience of the exercise can't count to ten without taking his shoes off..
Staff costs calculated at an arbitrary £40K a year per head as it's agreeably low and can't be considered to be over egging the pudding.

Yes, my analogy gets a bit stretched at the end...I know...

 

[1805]

Which still doesn't deliver any savings...

Let's get this down to Peter and Jane level.

If Peter and Jane both have a requirement for say, some cake, and both have to have a certain amount of cake for say, a party they're having, what's the cheapest of your two options?

Peter orders two cakes, which are nice and big and he pays £2 for the cakes. Jane orders three slightly smaller cakes at 90 pence each.

How much does Jane pay for her cake?

Add to which, these cakes all have a crew of 700 and staff costs of, say, £24 million. At the end of the fifty year life span of these cakes, does Peter have less of his pocket money left over or does Jane?

Answers at the foot of the paper,

Conclusion should be simple and obvious - purchasing and running three smaller carriers costs most than purchasing and running two slightly larger carriers.

Ian

a) Jane pays £2.70 for her cake.
b) Peter pays 2x 1.4billion in staff costs = 2.8bn. Jane pays 3x 1.4bn = 4.2bn *


*assume for the purposes of the exercise that staff costs don't increase for inflation because the target audience of the exercise can't count to ten without taking his shoes off..
Staff costs calculated at an arbitrary £40K a year per head as it's agreeably low and can't be considered to be over egging the pudding.

Yes, my analogy gets a bit stretched at the end...I know...

You ignore the fact Peter, did not have the money for two cakes so tried to delay the contract a few times and ended up paying £5.4bn and is still not sure if he can have the cakes at all.

Jane only spent 90p over the same 10 years period, which as this was a lot less than £2 and he was clever elsewhere did not get delayed. However as there was a nasty big storm he took the precaution of scaling back his plans to just 2 cakes, which didn't cost him anything as he only ordered one at a time.

Operating costs would not be much different as similar number of aircraft and you are not operating Ocean.

Sadly because Peter was an idot and had staked his whole shop on the cakes he had to make do with one old moldy biscuit for 10 years with his fingers crossed that nothing would happen or his friends would dig him out of any mess.

 

[StobieWan]

Official statements (I asked the MoD, & they replied) say that it is intended that both carriers will be completed with cats & traps. No decision has been taken on what type. It will probably be EMALS but there is a lower budget British programme running alongside it (EMCAT). EMALS should be proven by the time the build of Queen Elizabeth progresses to the point where fitting it has to be done.

I'm going to be cynical and point out that the fitting out of the carriers is now due to occur outside the life of the current parliament. All bets are off basically. I suspect that with the back of the deficit broken and a hopefully less trashed budget, we'll see both fitted out with cats and traps. There's been a lot of confusion about what carrier will go into service but I think it's intended to get the QE out there with cats and into service, then complete the POW, rather than float the QE out as a STOVL equipped carrier to be used as an LPH.


Ian

 

[StobieWan]

You ignore the fact Peter, did not have the money for two cakes so tried to delay the contract a few times and ended up paying £5.4bn and is still not sure if he can have the cakes at all.
.

And if there is a level playing field, the three carrier buy is hit with the same delays and cost hikes due to the government deferring the orders and placing work. I've asked you about four times now - assuming both orders are placed in the same time frame, under the same operating conditions, surely a three carrier build gets hit with the same delay?

It's a very simple question and you've dodged it or simply flapped your hands aimlessly every time - all being equal, the government still run out of money and defer the build cycle, leading to the costs climbing just as they did with the two carrier buy.

Ian

 

[1805]

And if there is a level playing field, the three carrier buy is hit with the same delays and cost hikes due to the government deferring the orders and placing work. I've asked you about four times now - assuming both orders are placed in the same time frame, under the same operating conditions, surely a three carrier build gets hit with the same delay?

It's a very simple question and you've dodged it or simply flapped your hands aimlessly every time - all being equal, the government still run out of money and defer the build cycle, leading to the costs climbing just as they did with the two carrier buy.

Ian

I am not dodging the issue you're not comparing the proposals correctly, they are very different, I am not suggesting buying over the same timescales so why would it be useful to compare it over the same time (2 1/2 - 3 times the scale). Also I have clearly stated they would be three separate orders, does the USN order 2 carrier in a row....its the RN who makes orders risky (probably encouraged by the suppliers). When I say money is a unit of value x time I am not making this up, this is basic stuff, I have spend most of my working life in finance, it is the basis of business.

The fact you can't see this even with hindsight defies belief, nothing demonstrates to me more the need to re examine the past to learn from the lessons. I don't know if it is a determination to not agree with me that makes you take such a fixed position but from the way it comes across it’s as though if you had the time again you would repeat the same mistake without doing anything differently, when it has so clearly been a disaster for the RN.

So just to be clear, a) there is no point comparing cost over the same time period this as I have suggested a longer period b) the risk of cost overrun delay is far less because the contracts are far lower and the option to cut the number far easier. Surely you can see this in the example above even if you don't agree? So let’s put this to bed.

 

[KiwiRob]

This topic has become rather stupid and for the last 10 or so pages has just being going around in a circle, is it possible to get this thread back on track.

 

[Systems Adict]

This topic has become rather stupid and for the last 10 or so pages has just being going around in a circle, is it possible to get this thread back on track.

...where's the 'LIKE' button..... ?

:lol2


Anyways, getting back to our topic of choice, here's a link to the RN 'News-videdeocast',(6 video clips in little boxes across the bottom of the page). It's about various things, including a whirl-wind tour of HMS Dauntless(clip No.4 of 6) & the 1st Sea Lord discussing the SDSR(clip No. 6 of 6).

http://www.rncom.mod.uk/ReferenceLibrary/RN_Video/two_six_video.aspx

SA

 

[1805]

This topic has become rather stupid and for the last 10 or so pages has just being going around in a circle, is it possible to get this thread back on track.

Well I guess you could always make a post yourself, if you can think of something that is not stupid?

 

[StobieWan]

...where's the 'LIKE' button..... ?

:lol2

SA

Works for me.

I'm done talking to 1805, I just get a headache and the same numb feeling I get when I bang my head.

So, getting back on topic:

Shopping list for type 26:


Anyone got any scoop on what it'll be ?

So far, nearly 6Kt - anyone want to put money on IFEP as with the type 45 ? Power plant choices? CODAG with isolated diesels for quiet slow speed ASW work, like the 23?

Six inch gun, in or out does one think? FLAADS - silo launch or cell launchers to port and starboard? (seen some conflicting interpretations of the models displayed)

Silo seems likely, theres' what looks like a single 8 cell silo aft of the gun.

Hangar for sure. What else?

Ian

 

[Systems Adict]

Shopping list for type 26:
Anyone got any scoop on what it'll be ?

So far, nearly 6Kt - anyone want to put money on IFEP as with the type 45 ? Power plant choices? CODAG with isolated diesels for quiet slow speed ASW work, like the 23?

Six inch gun, in or out does one think? FLAADS - silo launch or cell launchers to port and starboard? (seen some conflicting interpretations of the models displayed)

Silo seems likely, theres' what looks like a single 8 cell silo aft of the gun.

Hangar for sure. What else?

The 'idea' of IFEP (Integrated Full Electric Propulsion ) may be 'borrowed' from T-45, but I don't see them running out to get more WR-21's to make it CODAG. It's more likely to be CODAD, to try & save on some of the costs of running gas turbines, while having commonality with the diesels that are fitted to T-45, CVF, AO's, LSD(A) & LPD, as I believe that they're all from Wartsilla. This commonality will help specifically with parts & spares costs, as they all use common parts, making it cheaper over the life of the ships.

Layout will probably be 4 diesels, with x2 electric motors (with short shaft lines) & no common gear box, as the wiring will be such that x1 diesel can be run full tilt to power both motors / shafts.

FLAADS (Future Local Area Air Defence System) , looks like it's on the T-23 wish list & may well roll-onto T-26, well according to this pre-SDSR article...

Common Anti-Air Modular Missile family (CAMM)

As for the 6 Inch gun, there have been some serious discussions on here about a year ago. The article below details a slightly out of date, but still highly relevant discussion point or 3...

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Study may see Navy get increased firepower

It's more likely that the 4.5" MOD1 will be used, although there have been rumours of using the Oto-Melara 127mm / United Defence (BAE Systems) MK 45 Mod4, 5 Inch gun.

Then again, NOTHING is certain on T-26, as we've not heard that the design has been fully agreed yet.

Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System - BAE Systems

OtoMelara - Large Calibres

Here's a nice 'picture', from the MOD website...

LargeImageTemplate

...& here's the article it was attached to....

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Contract signed for Assessment Phase of Navy's next warships

From the Image (bow to stern), it shows the MK45 US gun, a small silo for CAMM, Nav Radar, the obligatory SCOT domes, ESM (the Toblerone shapes below the Artisan 3D radar) Artisan, 'Rubber-Duck' decoy launchers, 30mm Guns (P+S), Harpoon (just fwd of the Main mast), another 'decoy' system (similar to that currently fitted on the Batch 3 T-22's), Phalanx/Goalkeeper (on the hanger roof) & a 'ramp' for UAV's

With it assumed that you'd have a helo, which would need a torpedo system & an additional small silo for CAMM, it's no wonder that the ships design weight was estimated to be over 7,000 GRT.

How the SDR has affected all of this is now the topic of discussion.....

Finally, here's another view of the T-26, from the opposite side, from another forum. From memory the image is annotated in SPANISH, but you'll get the picture...

Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate

[ame="http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/rgc/?action=view&current=TYPE-26_9b.jpg"]TYPE-26_9b.jpg picture by rgc - Photobucket[/ame]

Note: this image was previously discussed back in post # 4479 (on page 299), by Fluffythoughts...



SA

 

[StobieWan]

The 'idea' of IFEP (Integrated Full Electric Propulsion ) may be 'borrowed' from T-45, but I don't see them running out to get more WR-21's to make it CODAG. It's more likely to be CODAD, to try & save on some of the costs of running gas turbines, while having commonality with the diesels that are fitted to T-45, CVF, AO's, LSD(A) & LPD, as I believe that they're all from Wartsilla. This commonality will help specifically with parts & spares costs, as they all use common parts, making it cheaper over the life of the ships.

Layout will probably be 4 diesels, with x2 electric motors (with short shaft lines) & no common gear box, as the wiring will be such that x1 diesel can be run full tilt to power both motors / shafts.

FLAADS (Future Local Area Air Defence System) , looks like it's on the T-23 wish list & may well roll-onto T-26, well according to this pre-SDSR article...

Common Anti-Air Modular Missile family (CAMM)



As for the 6 Inch gun, there have been some serious discussions on here about a year ago. The article below details a slightly out of date, but still highly relevant discussion point or 3...

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Study may see Navy get increased firepower

It's more likely that the 4.5" MOD1 will be used, although there have been rumours of using the Oto-Melara 127mm / United Defence (BAE Systems) MK 45 Mod4, 5 Inch gun.

Then again, NOTHING is certain on T-26, as we've not heard that the design has been fully agreed yet.

Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System - BAE Systems

OtoMelara - Large Calibres

Here's a nice 'picture', from the MOD website...

LargeImageTemplate

...& here's the article it was attached to....

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Contract signed for Assessment Phase of Navy's next warships

From the Image (bow to stern), it shows the MK45 US gun, a small silo for CAMM, Nav Radar, the obligatory SCOT domes, ESM (the Toblerone shapes below the Artisan 3D radar) Artisan, 'Rubber-Duck' decoy launchers, 30mm Guns (P+S), Harpoon (just fwd of the Main mast), another 'decoy' system (similar to that currently fitted on the Batch 3 T-22's), Phalanx/Goalkeeper (on the hanger roof) & a 'ramp' for UAV's

With it assumed that you'd have a helo, which would need a torpedo system & an additional small silo for CAMM, it's no wonder that the ships design weight was estimated to be over 7,000 GRT.

How the SDR has affected all of this is now the topic of discussion.....

Finally, here's another view of the T-26, from the opposite side, from another forum. From memory the image is annotated in SPANISH, but you'll get the picture...

Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate

TYPE-26_9b.jpg picture by rgc - Photobucket

Note: this image was previously discussed back in post # 4479 (on page 299), by Fluffythoughts...



SA

That's a comprehensive roundup - I'll have a closer look this evening. I definitely think we need a calibre shift for the main gun as there's sod all chance of anyone developing any munitions for the 4.5 incher - either bigger for the six inch stuff or much smaller like the Vulcano etc, depending on what you wanted to achieve.

Either something with a much longer reach or a much more rapid rate of fire for wider CIWS layer as with LCS?

Ian

 

[Systems Adict]

That's a comprehensive roundup - I'll have a closer look this evening. I definitely think we need a calibre shift for the main gun as there's sod all chance of anyone developing any munitions for the 4.5 incher - either bigger for the six inch stuff or much smaller like the Vulcano etc, depending on what you wanted to achieve.

Either something with a much longer reach or a much more rapid rate of fire for wider CIWS layer as with LCS?

Agreed about the upping of calibre, but CIWS is always a point of arguement.

If they were to fit the MSI - BUSHMASTER 30mm, some would argue that it CAN act as CIWS.The gun & Ammo is good out to about 6 miles / 10Km. Having seen it personally taking out a towed target at 3Km, that was travelling at over 400MPH (yes, I know that's not Mach 3, but it was damn good shootin !), I'd vouch for it.

Again that's all down to the ability to track the target at extended ranges, the accuracy of the alignment of ALL the equipment onboard the ship (i.e. that they are all reading the same level / point in EXACTLY the same direction) & the computing capability of the gun fire predictor, with it being FULLY Interfaced / Integrated with the command system.

Add to that a well trained & competent crew, & you have the makings of a GREAT system. :dance2

...But that's just my tuppence worth....

SA