The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

Agreed. It seems to me that if true, it's a trial balloon floated for the future, in the hope that the financial climate will improve by the time any money would have to be found.

ATR-72 MP/ASW has similar capacity to CN-295 & already has some British sensors integrated, including Seaspray 7500E, the big brother of the Seaspray 7000E the RN will operate on its AW159s. Another candidate, if anything ever happens.

With Liam Fox hammering MOD best practice (oxymoron), the way forward will be off the shelf purchases with minor localised content. A marinised Global Hawk (or Mantis) with folding wings, which can be used from both land and sea (QE Class) would make absolute sense. Crews can be rotated on the ground whilst the airframe is still in flight, a single control room can monitor several platforms - huge savings on crewing, maintenance & training. OK not as versatile as a manned platform, but able to meet the requirement of coastal long range surveillance backed up by QRF Typhoons to scare off the odd Bear when required. With little modification it could be deployed aboard a QE class. Mantis is twin engined, which is the preferred option for maritime use, it's also pretty big and much of the development risk assessments have already been undertaken by BAE.

In a world where failed states are becoming the norm having a platform that can be launched ahead of the fleet with long endurance and capable of providing real-time ISTAR would be a huge asset. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to build-in a deployable payload (life preservation equipment for stricken sailors/pilots or sonar buoys)?

RN has to think smart, they need to ensure as many assets are QE compatible to avoid the 'white elephant' label. The Navy has had to accept short-term capability gaps to achieve its ultimate goal (strike carrier + F35C), they need to ensure post 2015 that their wish list is achievable. A 1 billion budget for MPA does not bring much to the table.

I still chuckle at FRES Recce, they have specified a lower profile ASCOD, why the hell didn't they just go with the standard chassis? I bet your bottom dollar going with a revised design will cost time, money and stretch the budget. The US use adapted Bradley's for recce purposes, so why not a standard ASCOD with LM 40mm turret. The one lesson of A-Stan is off the self purchases with minor alterations can and do work.

 

[Troothsayer]

Yes, a new £1bn procurement within the next 5 years seems far fetched when you read stories like this in the guardian
Cuts could cost RAF its fleet of Tornados | Politics | The Guardian

PR.11 coming up soon, should the RN be worried? can it afford to have a T23 lopped off here, another Bay for sale there?

Personally i'm worried that ditching the new Chinook purchase is politically difficult despite being the sensible thing to do and that savings will be found elsewhere that are less damaging to the Coaltion (considering the big fuss made over Helicopters by Cameron under Browns tenure).

 

[riksavage]

Yes, a new £1bn procurement within the next 5 years seems far fetched when you read stories like this in the guardian
Cuts could cost RAF its fleet of Tornados | Politics | The Guardian

PR.11 coming up soon, should the RN be worried? can it afford to have a T23 lopped off here, another Bay for sale there?

Personally i'm worried that ditching the new Chinook purchase is politically difficult despite being the sensible thing to do and that savings will be found elsewhere that are less damaging to the Coaltion (considering the big fuss made over Helicopters by Cameron under Browns tenure).

They are taking about bringing the Tornado retirement forward only if Typhoon can be brought online sooner. The plan was to have just 18 Tornardo airframes in service by 2015 anyway. Also, no Tornado, no Storm Shadow.

I think the plan to buy 12 Chinook will not be cancelled but either reduced to say six, or stay at 12 if Puma is ditched rather than upgraded. Merlin medium lift will be switched to the Navy leaving the RAF with Chinook only. The recent RAF training cuts included many helo pilots, so I think the Merlin move will still go ahead and fall under the RN as the single operator. Remember all UK helo lift operate under operational control of JHF anyway, so whether light/dark blue or green drives a particular aircraft is largely irrelevant to the squaddie in the back.

Leave heavy/strategic lift to the RAF (Chinook, A400 & C17), give the tactical medium/light/attack to the Army & RN/Commando's. Most soldiers/RM consider the RAF as civvies in uniform and generally prefer the AAC/RN attitude to getting things done.

 

[swerve]

The plan was to have just 18 Tornardo airframes in service by 2015 anyway. Also, no Tornado, no Storm Shadow.

IIRC that's 18 FE@R, i.e. deployable Tornados, out of ca 60 in service. That is, the SDSR plans that we would be able to deploy 18 Tornados to a distant theatre of operations, & support them there for a sustained period. That's a cut of over 50%, from 40 before the SDSR, out of ca 120 in service.

Out of service date was set at 2021 (brought forward from 2025) in the SDSR (see Hansard, 25-11-2010), & a cut to 18 by 2015 is incompatible with that.

 

[swerve]

I still chuckle at FRES Recce, they have specified a lower profile ASCOD, why the hell didn't they just go with the standard chassis? I bet your bottom dollar going with a revised design will cost time, money and stretch the budget. The US use adapted Bradley's for recce purposes, so why not a standard ASCOD with LM 40mm turret. The one lesson of A-Stan is off the self purchases with minor alterations can and do work.

Chuckle? I'm bloody furious! With the numbers cut that now seems to be on the cards, we'll be spending more per unit on development alone than the total unit price of an OTS buy.

We already have spare Warriors, & we're cutting the numbers we want to upgrade & keep in service, to save money. How much less would it cost to take some of those spares & rebuild them to a recce configuration? It'd have the same new gun, turret & engine as the standard WLIP upgrade, & as well as saving hundreds of millions in procurement, it'd save a lot of logistics costs.

 

[kev 99]

Creating a carrier capable armed reconnaissance variant of Mantis makes a great deal of sense, it might get a bit of interest from the French as well as they're reported to be quite interested in a joint venture.

The whole Fres project looks like turning into a case study of everything that's wrong with MOD procurement, from the outside looking in it looks like they're deliberately trying to waste money.

 

[swerve]

Turning into? Kev, I think it already is. FRES & its predecessors are already widely cited as an example of how not to do procurement. I think every possible mistake has been made, some of them more than once, at a total cost of about a billion quid, for which we have nothing at all to show except money in the pockets of a lot of procurement officials.

 

[riksavage]

Creating a carrier capable armed reconnaissance variant of Mantis makes a great deal of sense, it might get a bit of interest from the French as well as they're reported to be quite interested in a joint venture.

The whole Fres project looks like turning into a case study of everything that's wrong with MOD procurement, from the outside looking in it looks like they're deliberately trying to waste money.

FRES was perfectly sound pre-A-Stan, but war turned the concept on it's head, you can't blame the MOD for that. Same way Canada is ditching it's LAV's, operational realities are game changers. In WWII tank designers would change spec's on a monthly basis driven by frontline feed-back.

 

[swerve]

Consider this: the UK dropped plans for heavy wheeled vehicles (MRAV) in 2003, two years into Afghanistan, in favour of FRES. A year later, with more Afghan experience, it reinstated the requirement as part of FRES, & eventually (in 2007) shortlisted the vehicle it had dropped in 2003. It announced a (different) winner in 2008, deselected it (or rather, the supplier) a few months later, then postponed that requirement. It has since selected the same supplier for a different FRES requirement.

Etc. etc. FRES is part of a process of screwing up, via TRACER, FFLAV, MRAV etc. All the AFVs we've bought for 20 years have been via UORs. The successive programmes to replace FV432, CVR(T), etc. have all failed to produce anything. Complete, total, disaster.

 

[riksavage]

Consider this: the UK dropped plans for heavy wheeled vehicles (MRAV) in 2003, two years into Afghanistan, in favour of FRES. A year later, with more Afghan experience, it reinstated the requirement as part of FRES, & eventually (in 2007) shortlisted the vehicle it had dropped in 2003. It announced a (different) winner in 2008, deselected it (or rather, the supplier) a few months later, then postponed that requirement. It has since selected the same supplier for a different FRES requirement.

Etc. etc. FRES is part of a process of screwing up, via TRACER, FFLAV, MRAV etc. All the AFVs we've bought for 20 years have been via UORs. The successive programmes to replace FV432, CVR(T), etc. have all failed to produce anything. Complete, total, disaster.

Looks like a complete dogs dinner!

With Liam at the helm we do appear to be engaged in some severe reality checks! Hopefully the MOD WILL finally be sorted out and the Gov will start buying off the shelf for once. In hindsight we could have simply bought CV90 (recce, AFV, engineering, C&C & 120mm tank killer), fitted Bowman and replaced CVRT, Warrior and 432's and reduced the number of Challengers, thus ending up with a standardised fleet, which would have proved cheaper than upgrading Warrior and developing a dedicated recce vehicle (taking through life costs into account). The MOD can't see the wood for the trees!

One critical decision will be to ensure officers remain in post for the duration of the equipment programme, rather than rotate every two years - talk about lack of accountability!!!

Whilst the ASCOD evolved FRES will proceed, Warrior upgrade will be postponed indefinitely I suspect. The money spent on UOR's means the rush to upgrade is no longer a priority. CVRT replacement should proceed, the existing chassis are knackered. By the time we return to Warrior, we might as well buy a complete new platform.

With the UK land army moving back to Blighty we need to change and create a USMC look-alike. Focus on 16 Air Assualt and 3 Commando Brigade backed by a second wave of medium tracked mech brigades deployable by sea. We need both QE's and at least two Mistral type vessels post 2020.

 

[StobieWan]

..and on that note, I watched with some stunned amazement at a BBC article on defence spending waste, in which it was pointed out that the delays to ordering and proceeding with CVF had added 1.6bn to the cost (Nimrod and the early retirement of Sentinel were also flagged but meh..)

That's dangerously close to fair and informed reporting :faints:

Ian

 

[Repulse]

With the UK land army moving back to Blighty we need to change and create a USMC look-alike. Focus on 16 Air Assualt and 3 Commando Brigade backed by a second wave of medium tracked mech brigades deployable by sea. We need both QE's and at least two Mistral type vessels post 2020.

Completely agree - apart from I would go for three LHDs, backed up by three Zuiderkruis class JSS's. In the order of 2Bn - the same as the cost of delaying the CVFs... :flaming

 

[Waylander]

The UK vehicle procurement is really amazing. Other countries tend to bitch about their procurement system, too, but at least most of them procure some vehicles through normal procedures.
Spending billions on vehicle procurement programs without getting one running is close to treason IMO.
Swerve already mentioned the two prime examples.
I just don't get the rational behind procuring a small number of modified ASCODs while I have tons of Warriors lying around unused but are scheduled for an upgrade.
Why is it in the eyes of the army possible to upgrade the Warrior so that it remains a good IFV but it isn't possible to upgrade some of them to a good recce vehicle?
And why on earth is not even a new ASCOD or CV90 good enough for the army and they need to heavily modifiy it?
Heck, a recce version of an IFV is not rocket science...

And getting out of the Boxer program and then having it as a contestant some years later is so weird that one struggles to believe it.

 

[1805]

The one positive side to this series of disaster is the current government is taking a very firm line with the MOD/military and saying if you can't get it right go without. This could force real change (unlikely I know). It is however very risky should anything be needed while these capability gaps exist.

Lets hope they take an equally robust approach in exiting Afghanistan and avoiding anymore commitments.

This could be an opportunity for the RN to lead the way on getting fit/value for money. A successful: T26, light tanker and general efficiency drive. Why can't the RN set the standard for efficiency in the MOD...actually Goverment as a whole.

I agree with riksavage the QE can't become a "white elephant" or they might just become a millstone that drowns the RN as a blue water navy.

 

[kev 99]

The UK vehicle procurement is really amazing. Other countries tend to bitch about their procurement system, too, but at least most of them procure some vehicles through normal procedures.
Spending billions on vehicle procurement programs without getting one running is close to treason IMO.
Swerve already mentioned the two prime examples.
I just don't get the rational behind procuring a small number of modified ASCODs while I have tons of Warriors lying around unused but are scheduled for an upgrade.
Why is it in the eyes of the army possible to upgrade the Warrior so that it remains a good IFV but it isn't possible to upgrade some of them to a good recce vehicle?
And why on earth is not even a new ASCOD or CV90 good enough for the army and they need to heavily modifiy it?
Heck, a recce version of an IFV is not rocket science...

And getting out of the Boxer program and then having it as a contestant some years later is so weird that one struggles to believe it.

The only possible reason I can see for this is that the army wants its own custom kit because the RAF and RN get their own, basically a "me too" type scenario, there doesn't seem to be any other rational explanation for it.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, they're perfectly entitled to ask for the kit they think they need- a bad day at the office there means you're coming back in a body bag or on a stretcher after all.

The issue seems to be that the procurement process has become so long and cumbersome that millions are being wasted on evaluations or design studies that could have been spent on regunning CR2 with the Rheinmetall barrel or a about half the warrior lethality improvement program.

Currently there's a straight split between the worn out stuff and the shiny new, bought-in-a-hurry stuff that was needed for Afghanistan.

It'd be nice to see some coherency in approach, and some vehicles popping out the other end of the process that can save lives,

Ian

 

[riksavage]

The UK vehicle procurement is really amazing. Other countries tend to bitch about their procurement system, too, but at least most of them procure some vehicles through normal procedures.
Spending billions on vehicle procurement programs without getting one running is close to treason IMO.
Swerve already mentioned the two prime examples.
I just don't get the rational behind procuring a small number of modified ASCODs while I have tons of Warriors lying around unused but are scheduled for an upgrade.
Why is it in the eyes of the army possible to upgrade the Warrior so that it remains a good IFV but it isn't possible to upgrade some of them to a good recce vehicle?
And why on earth is not even a new ASCOD or CV90 good enough for the army and they need to heavily modifiy it?
Heck, a recce version of an IFV is not rocket science...

And getting out of the Boxer program and then having it as a contestant some years later is so weird that one struggles to believe it.

One thing the UK has invested in is equipment for the current engagement in A-Stan. Below provides a link to the number of UOR upgrades, including remote firing stations for the likes of Challenger etc. Upgrading to a smoothbore main gun is way down the pecking order, the current 120mm rifled system has not had any problems dealing with the prevailing threat encountered during GWII and beyond.

PM

Boxer is a no go (I'm glad that didn't proceed to be honest), the UK have sacked the idea of a wheeled FRES, they have enough MRAP's for taxi tides, and following Canada's experience the UK will not go for a wheeled vehicle expected to go off-road in difficult terrain. Rubber tracks are the way forward.

Puma would have been nice if it came with a manned turret. Again experience in Iraq and A-Stan has convinced the UK that for optimum situational awareness a manned turret is the only way to go particularly in an urban environment when the vehicle is surrounded by hostile crowds. Sitting high-up provides for much better overwatch, same goes for vehicles hull down behind HESCO walls at the FOB's in A-Stan.

Back to the RN - between now and 2015 things will be grim for the Navy. Hopefully post 2015 onwards we will see a bit of a renaissance with a wide range of newer platforms already in service or coming on-line (7 x ASTUTE, 6 x T45, CAMM for at least 8 T23, QE'S, Wildcat. F35C ordered and T26 design finalised).

On the MPA question, I wonder whether there is any value in adapting the V-22 Osprey. Large enough for the necessary equipment fit, reasonable range, deployable aboard a QE class and has the ability to hover, allowing for the accurate deployment of maritime rescue systems, sonar buoys and torpedoes.

 

[Waylander]

I excluded UOR procurements. The fact is that the Army, unlike the RN and RAF, seems to be unable to get major equipment into service while using their normal procurement procedures.
Wether Boxer would be the right choice is not the point. The point is that procurement is so f***** up that lots of money is wasted. And getting out of a program only to make a contest for a new vehicle were this program takes part is like burning money.

To get back on topic.
The army actually is a good example of how not to do it. 1805 gets alot of bashing here and I agree that some of his ideas are "interesting..." but he also regularly points us to some important facts.

Gold plating and excessive special requirements may very well lead to the RN not getting anything at all or just in limited numbers.
As cool as it might be to have the greatest stuff since sliced bread it costs a fortune and complicates the whole development and procurement process to a degree were it is difficult to get the equipment into service and achive some economics of scale by exporting it.

 

[Hambo]

I excluded UOR procurements. The fact is that the Army, unlike the RN and RAF, seems to be unable to get major equipment into service while using their normal procurement procedures.
Wether Boxer would be the right choice is not the point. The point is that procurement is so f***** up that lots of money is wasted. And getting out of a program only to make a contest for a new vehicle were this program takes part is like burning money.

To get back on topic.
The army actually is a good example of how not to do it. 1805 gets alot of bashing here and I agree that some of his ideas are "interesting..." but he also regularly points us to some important facts.

Gold plating and excessive special requirements may very well lead to the RN not getting anything at all or just in limited numbers.
As cool as it might be to have the greatest stuff since sliced bread it costs a fortune and complicates the whole development and procurement process to a degree were it is difficult to get the equipment into service and achive some economics of scale by exporting it.

Purchasing equipment for the armed forces in the UK does seem to be carried out under far more media and legal pressure than ever before and that perhaps effects the MOD and ministers who sign the cheques. The Nimrod that went down was surrounded by a media frenzy and scrutiny and understandable anger from the families as to cost cutting, with the associated likelihood of legal action, similarly when the hercules crashed and there was a press backlash about fire prevention systems. There are other example, troops dying in unsuited snatch landrovers, not enough body armour etc etc. And there are no shortages of lawyers waiting to sue the MOD.

With FRES, I may be wrong but I though the new light mobile vehicles were seen as the way forward until some insurgents started burying clusters of artillery shells as IED's or getting their hands on shaped charges?. Wasnt it then seen that the planned vehicles were too light for the task and it was recognised that heavier vehicles provided the best protection? Hence the constant rethink.

Had a minister signed the cheque for 1000 vehicles for several billion £'s a few years back, they might have already been withdrawn from the frontline as inadequate, there might be a sickeningly large casualty rate with it and a media circus of the Daily Mail accusing ministers of risking lives, so add that to our poorly performing politicians with elections to win and its no wonder we see so many knee jerks and re evaluations. Its just a symptom of how society is.

Had the same press , and legal obligations under health and safety acts etc existed in 1982 i'm sure the media would have had a field day with Rapiers that broke in transit, missiles that didn't fire and computers that went into shut down mode, boots that leaked, poor night vision devises etc etc.

In fact I doubt the MOD would get away with pumping troops full of chemicals in 2011 as they did in 1991. things have changed and with massive sums of money involved and careers at stake, I cant see why anyone is suprised by all the balls ups, and indecision. It must be also quite easy for a company like BAE to push up their prices, just show a presentation to the ministers, demonstrating that system A has a casualty risk of X and system B (the more pricey one ) has a casualty risk of Y (Less). It would take a very brave politician to go for the cheaper option hence why we see less numbers of more complex platforms across all three services. What do Politicians care more about? Unions moaning about job loses or the press having a field day before a by-election?

Maybe an example would be as follows, Media reports that large numbers of casualties to IED's are caused by lack of helicopters to move troops, Govt funding of the war criticised, Gordon Brown blamed in the press for cutting the rotor budget a few years previously, Gordon Brown squirming under parliamentary questioning about his funding, Big new order for Chinook as a reaction whether it was actually the best option or not. Thats just my view on how things work.

 

[swerve]

Looks like a complete dogs dinner!

It is.

Whilst the ASCOD evolved FRES will proceed, Warrior upgrade will be postponed indefinitely I suspect. The money spent on UOR's means the rush to upgrade is no longer a priority. CVRT replacement should proceed, the existing chassis are knackered. By the time we return to Warrior, we might as well buy a complete new platform.

The ASCOD-2 evolved FRES-SV is meant to be the CVR(T) replacement, but is to be bought in remarkably small numbers. The rationale for developing what is effectively a new platform (it's very different from the current ASCOD, & we're going to customise it out of recognition) & setting up a production line for it, when we may be buying fewer than 100 (reduced from a previously planned 250), escapes me. At the same time, we'll be retiring a few hundred Warriors early to save money. Do you not see the incongruity? We plan to operate upgraded Warriors for another 20 years: why the hell can't we extend the upgrade to a recce variant, & save a fortune? "[M]ight as well buy a new platform" isn't a good enough reason to do so. It should be justified on cost/benefit grounds, & to me, it falls down very badly on them. Far too much cost for the benefit.

Wether Boxer would be the right choice is not the point. The point is that procurement is so f***** up that lots of money is wasted. And getting out of a program only to make a contest for a new vehicle were this program takes part is like burning money.

Exactly.

We should really move this to the army forum.