The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

And bringing this thread back to reality....
So the UK have seemingly given up on cosying up to Brazil?

Why do you say that? None of these proposals are exclusive, & even if they were, there's nothing wrong with pursuing parallel deals, & seeing which one (if any) actually comes to fruition. It's business, not marriage.

The UK is currently trying to sell Largs Bay to both Chile & Australia, & neither potential customer thinks there's anything wrong with that. Both have sent teams to examine her.

 

[riksavage]

The carriers are going nowhere. The engineering work to transform them from STOVL to C&T is already underway. See link to Engineering Blog. I believe both will be retained, one as a fully fitted out strike / helo carrier the other an extremely large Ocean replacement until funds become available to refit the expensive C&T/automated weapons handling system. Manning won't be an issue, the current waiting list to join the UK armed forces is now one year due to oversupply.

Carrier programme accommodates changes | Opinion | The Engineer

According to LM the UK is expected to sign its first production order for the F-35 around mid-2012, with Burbage (Lockheed's executive vice-president F-35 programmes) saying this should be for an initial batch of seven aircraft. A contract for another nine would then be due in 2014. The FAA will continue to keep crews embedded in the US on exchange conducting C&T operations ready for the arrival of the first F35C's. Hopefully this will allow for the OCU to reach IOC by 2016.

If UK needs to save more money then I suspect the RAF will bare the brunt whilst Afghanistan is still under way. GR4 reduced from 100 to 60 airframes, Typhoon Tranche I sold off, Chinook buy reduced from a planned 12 to 8 (remainder already being upgraded to H4&5 standard). Warrior upgrade numbers reduced, CVRT replacement numbers reduced as a result of the large numbers of MARP vehicles now owned by the military capable of undertaking certain recon role's not requiring a tracked vehicle (tracked kept for supporitng armoured battlegroup). Cancel anymore Reaper purchases and make do with existing Reaper + new Watchkeepers. With PAAMS and F35C, MASC may no longer be an urgent priority considering the much longer search capabilties of the T45/F35C compo. The capablity gap in a high-tempo NATO operation will have to be covered by our Allies (French / US) in the short term.

Recent T26 discussions (Canada, Brazil etc.) are driven by the fact the MOD has now got people in place that are looking at commercial factors not just pampering to the needs of the Admiral's. Plenty of work still to be done as stated in the below article. The UK needs to suffer more pain before we see any future gain. No budget increase until 2015.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article2896262.ece

Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt reinforce the need for the UK to retain fully adaptable floating platforms capable of hosting everything from Commando's, F35C's to Chinooks. The UK could end up having to initiate a NEO using a QE class. Also the ongoing natural disaster in Australia shows how useful a large platform capable of hosting 12 odd Chinook could be in delivering aid or recovering stranded nationals.

 

[aussienscale]

Rick, I was under the impression from the review that the RN was touted as not having a fixed wing capability for up to 10 years ? or was this purely speculation ?

 

[SASWanabe]

Rick, I was under the impression from the review that the RN was touted as not having a fixed wing capability for up to 10 years ? or was this purely speculation ?

the CATOBAR carriers (QE) wont be in commission until 2019+, the STOVL carriers have noting to fly since the harriers got the axe. hence 10 years

 

[aussienscale]

the CATOBAR carriers (QE) wont be in commission until 2019+, the STOVL carriers have noting to fly since the harriers got the axe. hence 10 years

Hence the comment, he was obviously talking only specifically about the QE My bad

 

[riksavage]

Hence the comment, he was obviously talking only specifically about the QE My bad

Correct, IMHO no carrier strike in it's most basic form (1 x FAA fully operational sqn) until 2019/20.

As long as the F35C model remains the primary option (even in reduced numbers - max 80 off) the carriers are safe. If the RAF start playing silly buggers and start pushing for the A model because of Tornado sqn draw-downs and the politicians start listening, then and only then will I start sweating about the QE's.

The current strife in the ME (potential domino theory repeating itself) reinforces the need to retain a sustainable and deployable expeditionary capability. This recent thirst for democracy amongst a number of Arab dictatorships could continue and threaten oil supplies, particularly if we see authoritarian governments full to more radical Islamic regimes. If Egypt goes south and the Islamic brotherhood takes hold similar groups in places such as Saudi will be emboldened and push for possible regime change to remove the current ruling elite.

 

[1805]

Correct, IMHO no carrier strike in it's most basic form (1 x FAA fully operational sqn) until 2019/20.

As long as the F35C model remains the primary option (even in reduced numbers - max 80 off) the carriers are safe. If the RAF start playing silly buggers and start pushing for the A model because of Tornado sqn draw-downs and the politicians start listening, then and only then will I start sweating about the QE's.

The current strife in the ME (potential domino theory repeating itself) reinforces the need to retain a sustainable and deployable expeditionary capability. This recent thirst for democracy amongst a number of Arab dictatorships could continue and threaten oil supplies, particularly if we see authoritarian governments full to more radical Islamic regimes. If Egypt goes south and the Islamic brotherhood takes hold similar groups in places such as Saudi will be emboldened and push for possible regime change to remove the current ruling elite.

But thats an easy sell for the RAF...I would start sweating.

 

[deepsixteen]

But thats any easy sell for the RAF...i would start sweating.

Hi
Only if the Politicos have had their brains removed………………oops! Sorry they already have. Leaving the UK with no sustainable secure deployable air for the next decade in an increasingly resource starved and as ever unpredictable world.

I do not care what the RAF lobby or any other politico says history shows that strong naval forces are the key to our place/survival the only question is can the Westminster politicos see past the BS perpetrated about secure overseas air bases or is it already too late.

800 Naval Air Squadron pass into history

 

[1805]

Hi
Only if the Politicos have had their brains removed………………oops! Sorry they already have. Leaving the UK with no sustainable secure deployable air for the next decade in an increasingly resource starved and as ever unpredictable world.

I do not care what the RAF lobby or any other politico says history shows that strong naval forces are the key to our place/survival the only question is can the Westminster politicos see past the BS perpetrated about secure overseas air bases or is it already too late.

800 Naval Air Squadron pass into history

That's a very sad link. Unfortunately the RAF have successfully replaced Trafalgar with the Battle of Britain 1940 as the source of national defence/pride. The problems of the RN are much deeper than shortage of money. They really need to step back and take serious stock of the position they find themselves in and look again at how they can make the RN relevant to the general public.

If it's a straight fight over scarce resources for air assets between the RN and RAF I do not have much faith in the current leadership of the RN to present a successful case. Although I sure nearly all who post in this forum believe RN would be more effective/better value.

 

[StobieWan]

Why do you say that? None of these proposals are exclusive, & even if they were, there's nothing wrong with pursuing parallel deals, & seeing which one (if any) actually comes to fruition. It's business, not marriage.

The UK is currently trying to sell Largs Bay to both Chile & Australia, & neither potential customer thinks there's anything wrong with that. Both have sent teams to examine her.

Indeed - and with respect to Type 26, as long as the core requirements for the RN aren't sacrificed for the sake of an export deal, then it's a welcome development. I believe Canada has many similar requirements in terms of range, capability and so forth - if a deal can be struck, it'd help spread development costs of course (I assume Canada would wish to build their ships?)

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

But thats an easy sell for the RAF...I would start sweating.

It's a non starter and it'd be counter productive for the RAF as they'll likely have all the aircraft under their command - so cutting back on C models is effectively arguing against their own interests (that of having as many capable and useful aircraft as possible.)

Splitting the buy makes no commercial or military sense as you're complicating maintenance and training also. The RAF will have a far stronger case to suggest that they need more C models overall to generate aircraft for land and sea based requirements than to try and split things.

Ian

 

[1805]

Indeed - and with respect to Type 26, as long as the core requirements for the RN aren't sacrificed for the sake of an export deal, then it's a welcome development. I believe Canada has many similar requirements in terms of range, capability and so forth - if a deal can be struck, it'd help spread development costs of course (I assume Canada would wish to build their ships?)

Ian

I think we are at a stage where if it was necessary for the RN to sacrifice for the sake of an export deal this should be done. The RN needs to start to be far more aggressive in building a case for supporting UK PLC and UK jobs. That said it should be so modular a design I can't see there being a need to compromise. But as a principle we need to think this way.

 

[1805]

It's a non starter and it'd be counter productive for the RAF as they'll likely have all the aircraft under their command - so cutting back on C models is effectively arguing against their own interests (that of having as many capable and useful aircraft as possible.)

Splitting the buy makes no commercial or military sense as you're complicating maintenance and training also. The RAF will have a far stronger case to suggest that they need more C models overall to generate aircraft for land and sea based requirements than to try and split things.

Ian

I can think of a number of reasons why the RAF would want to kill the C, in favour of a complete switch to A. If the C turns up there is always the danger of the RAF losing control over naval aviation again, particularly if the Cs do all the work and the Typhoons sit at home inactive as they did 1945-82. Without a Cold War enemy this could even turn into a direct threat to the existance of the RAF?

 

[swerve]

...
If UK needs to save more money then I suspect the RAF will bare the brunt whilst Afghanistan is still under way. GR4 reduced from 100 to 60 airframes, Typhoon Tranche I sold off, ....

Sell off all of tranche 1 & you might have to disband the OCU . . .

For obvious reasons, T1 was very heavy on two-seaters. T2 has a much smaller proportion. Building a high proportion of T3a (i.e. the latest, most combat-capable) aircraft as two-seaters to free T1 for sale would seem to be shooting ourselves in our collective foot.

Let's hope that officialdom isn't completely insane.

 

[StobieWan]

There's a pile of Nimrods in bits if you're unsure of how smart current processes are...

Ian

 

[alexsa]

As if by magic....

The issues with the UK's LSD(A)'s is obvious from the pictures, there's a lift & x2 cranes on the aft 2/3rds of the flight deck, & while it would be nice to fit a hangar to them, the issue of windage, or 'sail' properties is the key factor. I'm sure that because of the cross sectional area of the bridge front, in any reasonable wind (above 25kts) that it will probably slow the ship considerably (possibly even by as much as 5 - 10 kts). Not the best design feature on a ship that can only achieve 18kts !

Then again, i'm not a Naval Arc, so I could be wrong...........

SA

I suspect the vesel will 'sail' but I doubt it will cause any significant reducitons in speed at any moderate wind. I suspect it will push the ful consumptin up but not at a significant rate.

Container ships offer a similar windage in the fwd aspect and draft tends to cause the greatest imapct on speed and fuel economy.

 

[riksavage]

There's a pile of Nimrods in bits if you're unsure of how smart current processes are...

Ian

Nimrod was a given, they had too many design flaws. The Conservatives have stated they will look at a replacement in three years time. I would look for an unmanned platform which can deploy from both the QE and land based airfields, maybe a modified Globalhawk. Technology is moving so fast a long range UCAV capable of deploying sonar buoys, life rafts etc., with a long range search radar and all weather cameras can't be too far from reality.

We need to think smart and invest in purple assets capable of being used by different services. CAMM, Wildcat are a step in the right direction. The latter will have a new joint paint scheme allowing for airframes to be swifter between AAC and RN specifics to mission with only minor modifications.

 

[1805]

Nimrod was a given, they had too many design flaws. The Conservatives have stated they will look at a replacement in three years time. I would look for an unmanned platform which can deploy from both the QE and land based airfields, maybe a modified Globalhawk. Technology is moving so fast a long range UCAV capable of deploying sonar buoys, life rafts etc., with a long range search radar and all weather cameras can't be too far from reality.

We need to think smart and invest in purple assets capable of being used by different services. CAMM, Wildcat are a step in the right direction. The latter will have a new joint paint scheme allowing for airframes to be swifter between AAC and RN specifics to mission with only minor modifications.

I think as far as Nimrod goes, we should do the same as we did the last time with the AEW disaster. Avoid any development however attractive/tempting and by something off the self that is already working/in service, bug ironed out, if there is nothing available let wait and see.

Fully agree on more joint assets, the RN needs to buddy up big time with the AAC/Army, they need to present a much better case for the assault fleet & CVF in particular.

 

[aussienscale]

Correct, IMHO no carrier strike in it's most basic form (1 x FAA fully operational sqn) until 2019/20.

As long as the F35C model remains the primary option (even in reduced numbers - max 80 off) the carriers are safe. If the RAF start playing silly buggers and start pushing for the A model because of Tornado sqn draw-downs and the politicians start listening, then and only then will I start sweating about the QE's.

The current strife in the ME (potential domino theory repeating itself) reinforces the need to retain a sustainable and deployable expeditionary capability. This recent thirst for democracy amongst a number of Arab dictatorships could continue and threaten oil supplies, particularly if we see authoritarian governments full to more radical Islamic regimes. If Egypt goes south and the Islamic brotherhood takes hold similar groups in places such as Saudi will be emboldened and push for possible regime change to remove the current ruling elite.

Agree, recent middle east event's will help the cause, but it will be an interesting battle between the RAF & RN, the RAF may look to their Aussie counterparts for advice on how to do this , although I am not sure about them trying to use the Battle of Britain as an example I don't think anyone in the UK would like to believe that would ever be possible again, so I think that type of arguement just strenghtens the need for Carriers to keep them at bay ?

I think as far as the Government perception towards maintaining the QE and the POW in operational reserve goes looks pretty solid at this stage judging by the comments in the public version of the SDR
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu.../@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

The section concerning the RN begins on page 21 with fairly strong points as to why the UK should (and will) retain the carrier.

Just coming back to dream land, we can look after the POW for you guys ? you know make sure she is working porperly and all

 

[1805]

Agree, recent middle east event's will help the cause, but it will be an interesting battle between the RAF & RN, the RAF may look to their Aussie counterparts for advice on how to do this , although I am not sure about them trying to use the Battle of Britain as an example I don't think anyone in the UK would like to believe that would ever be possible again, so I think that type of arguement just strenghtens the need for Carriers to keep them at bay ?

I think as far as the Government perception towards maintaining the QE and the POW in operational reserve goes looks pretty solid at this stage judging by the comments in the public version of the SDR
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu.../@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

The section concerning the RN begins on page 21 with fairly strong points as to why the UK should (and will) retain the carrier.

Just coming back to dream land, we can look after the POW for you guys ? you know make sure she is working porperly and all

My point about the Battle of Britain 1940 being trotted out by the RAF (they have done quite recently during the SDR debates as it was the 70th), is not about defence of the UK but it is an example the public can relate to which the RN now lack.

Before 1914 there was an near absolute acceptance by the British people of the role of the RN. Trafalgar was not about potential war with France/Spain but a symbal of the RN's role in British security and prosperity in the century that followed. This meant the public were prepared to make considerable sacrifices to build and maintain a navy second to none. This was not balance armed forces, the RN was clearly the senior service in priority of resources a fact accepted by the Army.

The truth of WW2 is the RN did just that. It was the RN that prevent invasion in 1940 (not the RAF) and kept the sea lanes open in the Atlantic, evacuated the Army from the beaches (Norway, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete, Dieppe...). And when it was not there for lack of carrier power disaster followed (Singapore). But these are not seen by the public and this does have an effect on funding.

There is a wooden headed approach in the RN, you can just hear them saying....we shouldn't have to sell ourselves to the public should accept what we say.

I know people this I am hostile to the RAF, but ask yourself this, if the RAF had not been formed in 1918 what would the fleet have looked like that we would have sent to Singapore in 1941?

10 years is a long time the F35c is not guaranteed and could be vunerable to a number of funding threats (switch to As, son of Tarnis...just general cuts).