The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

For what it's worth I would of like to have seen some of the T45 A50 cells swapped out for A70s during build, as soon as it became clear that DCNs were going to produce it. I'm not sure what that would have done for the T45 build schedule and obviously we would have had to pony up money for TLAM integration ourselves or buy Naval Scalp. The opportunity appears to have gone now (or at least disappeared into the distance) as Swerve says the budgets are being cut.

 

[StobieWan]

I would have thought placing 4 or 8 Harpoons would have been a dead easy, cheap, effective way to add capability. As modern harpoons have some ground attack capability (limited but its there), would be a nice little upgrade adding surface and land attack capability that would compliment TLAM or SM-6 capability (if such VLS are installed in the future).

Australia was able to squeeze 8 harpoons on a tiny Anzac. I would imagine the T45 would be able to fit the same.

They're a bit bigger than either the Type 22 or 23 and there is space reserved for Harpoon - faster they get them the better from my point of view. I'm not so worried about a lack of torpedoes on the Darings, they can carry a pair of Wildcat and have no real ASW capability otherwise so it's redundant.

More interesting yet would be to see NSM integrated in the future - that sounds like a very capable tool.

 

[StobieWan]

For what it's worth I would of like to have seen some of the T45 A50 cells swapped out for A70s during build, as soon as it became clear that DCNs were going to produce it. I'm not sure what that would have done for the T45 build schedule and obviously we would have had to pony up money for TLAM integration ourselves or buy Naval Scalp. The opportunity appears to have gone now (or at least disappeared into the distance) as Swerve says the budgets are being cut.

There's space reserved for strike length cells in the design so it's a possibility for a mid life update.

 

[1805]

I would have preferred swapping out to the A70 as suggested, during construction (before ordering A50s would have been better). Yes the SSN have the capability but it must put them at risk firing them. To fit out 1 ships with 24 cells can not be to expensive. I assume it's to late to store the A50 on one of the fitting out T45s, saving the refit. Yes money is tight but I can't see the point in building ships and then not provide them with the tools to do the job.

 

[swerve]

The opportunity appears to have gone now (or at least disappeared into the distance) as Swerve says the budgets are being cut.

Yes. I find that disappointing, as I'd like to see the T-45 with the ability to carry land attack missiles, but in current circumstances, there are higher priorities.

One day, I hope, along with anti-ship missiles & CEC.

 

[StobieWan]

Yes. I find that disappointing, as I'd like to see the T-45 with the ability to carry land attack missiles, but in current circumstances, there are higher priorities.

One day, I hope, along with anti-ship missiles & CEC.

Now we've actually got more than one ship to work with, CEC looks to be more and more the thing to pray for There's been some work on getting SAMPSON to handle ABM tracks I understand - and given Aster block 1 has demonstrated interceptions, well, I'm just thinking aloud here...

 

[swerve]

Well yes.

Smart-L/S1850M has demonstrated (with minor modifications) that it can detect & track ballistic missiles at rather long ranges. Most of the building blocks are in place or being put together.

 

[StobieWan]

Well yes.

Smart-L/S1850M has demonstrated (with minor modifications) that it can detect & track ballistic missiles at rather long ranges. Most of the building blocks are in place or being put together.

Just been looking at a post by Abe Gubler on the Australian Navy forum on the Sea Based Missile Segment Enhancement - quad packed ABM - should fit into a Sylver 50 since ESSM already does. Cor...


Ian

 

[spsun100001]

We have SSNs capable of firing TLAM, & few enough missiles that unless we buy a lot more there's no need for more launchers.

What would you cut to pay for the extra missiles & refitting the ships? Budgets are being cut, not expanded.

I'd cut

1) The Tornado bomber force given that newer versions of Typhoon can carry the same weapons and their capabilities are therefore duplicated.

2) I'd cut the Hawk trainer inventory to reflect the reduction in the number of RAF fast jets

3) I'd vastly cut the number of RAF bases. These have been reduced by nowhere near the same proportion as the number of airframes. I suspect most are kept open due to the civilian jobs they provide. Withdrawal of Tornado would facilitate further base closures.

4) I'd cut civilian staff numbers as a result of the airbase closures. Desperately sad to see anyone lose their jobs but the priority for a limited defence budget should be defence not job creation or protection.

5) I'd cut the budget for FRES and buy off the shelf solutions only.

6) I'd abandon the Joint Helicopter Command and the staff posts that go with it. All Merlins would transfer to the RN for RM use and all Chinooks and Puma's would transfer to the Army Air Corps.

7) I'd split the order for new generation aircraft from 50 to 60 F35c to 30 F35c and 30cheaper F18E. The F35 would provide overmatch Air to Air and SEAD capabilities through stealth and the F18E is fully cabable of mutli-role operations against most of the opposition we are more likely to be engaged against in the coming decades.

I think that should pay for CEC and some ASM's and ASW torpedoes (which are already in our inventory) for Type 45's, cats and traps for our second carrier and proper AWAC's capability for the carrier as well (E2's) and up to 10 P8's for maritime patrol.

 

[StobieWan]

7) I'd split the order for new generation aircraft from 50 to 60 F35c to 30 F35c and 30cheaper F18E. The F35 would provide overmatch Air to Air and SEAD capabilities through stealth and the F18E is fully cabable of mutli-role operations against most of the opposition we are more likely to be engaged against in the coming decades.

You won't see any savings from operating two very small fleets and you need to remember that F35C will be a "purple" asset. Better to buy all F35C.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Not only that the F-35 may be cheaper to run full stop. Being single engine with extensive technology invested to lower operating costs.

There are figures showing comparison against a F-15 (similar vintage to a F-18, twin engine, american, etc) and the F-35 was something like less than half the cost to operate. Add to that the F-35 is generally more capable than a vintage 4th gen, there is considerable savings to be had.

Australia has an advantage operating the F-18 SH because we already operate hornets, the F-35 isn't going to make it in time, it reduced flying hours on the older F-18 frames meaning we didn't have replace the centre barrel (expensive).

None of these are really applicable to the UK. Just stick with the F-35...

 

[kev 99]

They're a bit bigger than either the Type 22 or 23 and there is space reserved for Harpoon - faster they get them the better from my point of view. I'm not so worried about a lack of torpedoes on the Darings, they can carry a pair of Wildcat and have no real ASW capability otherwise so it's redundant.

More interesting yet would be to see NSM integrated in the future - that sounds like a very capable tool.

I do very much like the look of NSM, I know it doesn't have a vertical launch version yet but I'm wondering if a vls version could fit a Sylver A50, being a dual use weapon I'd love to these on a T45.

 

[swerve]

I'd cut

1) The Tornado bomber force given that newer versions of Typhoon can carry the same weapons and their capabilities are therefore duplicated.

2) I'd cut the Hawk trainer inventory to reflect the reduction in the number of RAF fast jets

3) I'd vastly cut the number of RAF bases. These have been reduced by nowhere near the same proportion as the number of airframes. I suspect most are kept open due to the civilian jobs they provide. Withdrawal of Tornado would facilitate further base closures.

4) I'd cut civilian staff numbers as a result of the airbase closures. Desperately sad to see anyone lose their jobs but the priority for a limited defence budget should be defence not job creation or protection.

5) I'd cut the budget for FRES and buy off the shelf solutions only.

6) I'd abandon the Joint Helicopter Command and the staff posts that go with it. All Merlins would transfer to the RN for RM use and all Chinooks and Puma's would transfer to the Army Air Corps.

7) I'd split the order for new generation aircraft from 50 to 60 F35c to 30 F35c and 30cheaper F18E. The F35 would provide overmatch Air to Air and SEAD capabilities through stealth and the F18E is fully cabable of mutli-role operations against most of the opposition we are more likely to be engaged against in the coming decades.

I think that should pay for CEC and some ASM's and ASW torpedoes (which are already in our inventory) for Type 45's, cats and traps for our second carrier and proper AWAC's capability for the carrier as well (E2's) and up to 10 P8's for maritime patrol.

1. Not enough Typhoons, & they don't have the weapons integrated that Tornado has. Accelerating weapons integration would exacerbate the shortage, & bring forward spending.

2. Already under way, & the savings already in the budget

3. Ditto. If anything, I think we're at risk of over-concentrating the RAF.

4. Ditto.

5. Good idea. But add "modernise existing vehicles where advantageous, rather than scrapping good vehicles & buying new".

6. Are there many joint staff posts which wouldn't end up duplicated in the two separate commands?

7. This would cost a lot of money. It's been beaten to death, many times, on many fora. Adding a new type increases logistics costs. More spares stocks, higher training costs, etc. E.g. we'd either have to buy more types of US weapons, or pay for integration of our weapons on an additional type. For the small numbers mooted, those costs would be far more than any savings on the aircraft price. Also, note that not a penny of the price of an F-18E stays in this country, unlike a Typhoon or even F-35C.

 

[RobWilliams]

Not only that the F-35 may be cheaper to run full stop. Being single engine with extensive technology invested to lower operating costs.

There are figures showing comparison against a F-15 (similar vintage to a F-18, twin engine, american, etc) and the F-35 was something like less than half the cost to operate. Add to that the F-35 is generally more capable than a vintage 4th gen, there is considerable savings to be had.

Do you have a link to either a document or official website that backs that up? I'd be very interested to see it as I thought the F-35 would have been much more to operate than those other 2 aircraft.

 

[spsun100001]

1. Not enough Typhoons, & they don't have the weapons integrated that Tornado has. Accelerating weapons integration would exacerbate the shortage, & bring forward spending.

2. Already under way, & the savings already in the budget

3. Ditto. If anything, I think we're at risk of over-concentrating the RAF.

4. Ditto.

5. Good idea. But add "modernise existing vehicles where advantageous, rather than scrapping good vehicles & buying new".

6. Are there many joint staff posts which wouldn't end up duplicated in the two separate commands?

7. This would cost a lot of money. It's been beaten to death, many times, on many fora. Adding a new type increases logistics costs. More spares stocks, higher training costs, etc. E.g. we'd either have to buy more types of US weapons, or pay for integration of our weapons on an additional type. For the small numbers mooted, those costs would be far more than any savings on the aircraft price. Also, note that not a penny of the price of an F-18E stays in this country, unlike a Typhoon or even F-35C.

1) I'd rather have too few tactical bombers (the most duplicated resource amongst our allies) then no maritime patrol aircraft or destoyers in high threat zones with serious capability gaps or only one carrier with cat and trap. As you said; it's about choices of what to cut. I choose Tornado. Later versions of Typhoon carry all of the weapons Tornado currently has. Sorry, there are more important priorities in my book than Tornado, particularly two full cat and trap capability carriers with a proper air wing embarked. They are an order of magnitude more relevant to our defence needs than Tornado.

2) As per my earlier comment Tornado withdrawal would allow more base closures. In any event there are 67 RAF bases to go at in the UK and as I said, barring evidence to the contrary, the proportion of runways has not reduced to anything like the degree that the number of aircraft has in the last twenty years.

3) Disagree. See point 2. If we had 140 Typhoons and around 100 transport and training aircraft we don't need 67 bases. The French Air Force I believe operates from around 38 bases with a similar sized fleet.

4) If there's been an announcement I haven't seen it but that would be sensible

5) We agree

6) I stand to be proved wrong but I understand the Joint Helicopter Command created a number of new staff posts. I doubt this would be a huge saving but it's a sensible thing to cut as it was just a fudge to allow politicians to dodge the sensible decision.

7) I'm happy to go with whatever is cheaper though I would be astonished if the whole life costs of the F35 was less than the F18E but that should be a purely evidential question.

We could argue all day about most of the points but take the one we agree on: FRES. £4 billion off that alone would pay for all of the things I mentioned which I think have a higher priority in terms of their usefulness.

*edited for duplication and spelling

 

[StobieWan]

7) I'm happy to go with whatever is cheaper though I would be astonished if the whole life costs of the F35 was less than the F18E but that should be a purely evidential question.

It's a case of how thing you can spread your fixed costs over a fleet. If you have one training, conversion, maintenance and weapons clearance path, that's one stack of fixed costs spread over the type chosen. If you have two paths, one for each type, for the same or only a little larger pool split two ways, your fixed costs double more or less.

Running sixty F35C would be likely much cheaper than thirty of one and thirty of another.

Worse, those jets are purple assets, and are needed as much to add to the RAF's striking capability as the RN's. If you go out and spend money on a stack of SuperHornet, you'd never see an F35C on deck I dare say.

Particularly not if you gut the RAF by killing a large chunk of their fleet by stripping out Tornado....

MPA - well, I think we need to be smarter about how we do that - better I think to buy in a chunk of a decent UAV with a search radar, and weapons capability, one that can fly off carriers as well as land. They could be used to fill in for some of the MPA role, some of the RAF's strike and ISTAR and also round out the FAA. You can thus have a cheap and very servicable solution to a number of gaps and shortfalls, and perhaps then look at 4-5 P8 if the economy ever gets un-bent.

Avenger (for instance) can stay up there for twenty hours - you can cover an awful lot of the surface search requirements for the MPA, they'd be brilliant in low to medium level conflicts as they're cheap to buy and to run and they'd work well on carriers I believe - particularly on anti piracy/drugs or counter terrorism where a quiet, stealthy platform with day/night capabilities and a long time on station are major plus points.

They're about a quarter of the price of a bare F18 I believe, and vastly cheaper to run.

Ian

 

[swerve]

1) I'd rather have too few tactical bombers (the most duplicated resource amongst our allies) then no maritime patrol aircraft or destoyers in high threat zones with serious capability gaps or only one carrier with cat and trap. As you said; it's about choices of what to cut. I choose Tornado. Later versions of Typhoon carry all of the weapons Tornado currently has. Sorry, there are more important priorities in my book than Tornado, particularly two full cat and trap capability carriers with a proper air wing embarked. They are an order of magnitude more relevant to our defence needs than Tornado.

Tornado is currently well over half of the RAF combat strength, & is the only aircraft that can carry the majority of our current air-ground inventory. We can't cut it now. No Typhoon carries, for example, Storm Shadow or Brimstone. They haven't been integrated yet.

You seem to be getting timescales mixed up. We couldn't have "two full cat and trap capability carriers with a proper air wing embarked" this decade. By the time we could get them into service, Tornado will be gone. They're not alternatives.

More base cuts have been planned, & your 67 'bases' includes an awful lot which aren't air bases but non-flying sites, e.g. the tri-service HQ at Northwood, Halton, Alconbury (a non-flying station used for personnel accommodation by the USAF), Barford St John (USAF comms centre), etc. They wouldn't be affected by aircraft numbers.

 

[spsun100001]

Tornado is currently well over half of the RAF combat strength, & is the only aircraft that can carry the majority of our current air-ground inventory. We can't cut it now. No Typhoon carries, for example, Storm Shadow or Brimstone. They haven't been integrated yet.

You seem to be getting timescales mixed up. We couldn't have "two full cat and trap capability carriers with a proper air wing embarked" this decade. By the time we could get them into service, Tornado will be gone. They're not alternatives.

More base cuts have been planned, & your 67 'bases' includes an awful lot which aren't air bases but non-flying sites, e.g. the tri-service HQ at Northwood, Halton, Alconbury (a non-flying station used for personnel accommodation by the USAF), Barford St John (USAF comms centre), etc. They wouldn't be affected by aircraft numbers.

In terms of air bases the French number includes non flying bases as well. If they need 38 I don't think we need 67. Closing non-flying sites saves money as well as closing flying ones. We might need more bases for USAF personnel but we don't need 29 more bases.

You are also quoting me selectively.

I named maritime patrol capability and upgrades to the Type 45 as capabilities I also value more than Tornado. We need these now so withdrawing Tornado earlier would fund them. Cuts to FRES and base closures would release funds for full cat and trap capability on the second carrier.

The government has decided to take capability gaps to pay for future platforms. If that's where we are as a country (and sadly it is) then I am happy to take a capability gap by withdrawing Tornado early to have other capabilities I value more now and in future.

One would obviously not trash Tornado a week on Tuesday. However, I would advocate an immediate fleet reduction followed by further reductions as later tranches of Typhoon which can carry the weapons you named come into service.

These are real choices. You clearly don't like the consequence of those choices which is fair enough. I don't like destroyers in potentially hostile areas withwea pons gaps, I don't like not having a maritime patrol capability when we are an island and I don't like the idea of only one cat and trap carrier. I prefer the consequences and risks associated with my choices. Only time would prove which one of us was right.

*edited for spelling - again!

 

[Hambo]

I would suggest cutting the number of RAF fast jets is a short sighted move, particularly as GR4 works, is paid for and will be useful for a decade or more. UK PLC needs as many assets as possible, and be they RAF/FAA or joint, we just need to keep the numbers up before short sighted politicians drive them down, when it's gone it's gone.

We are only getting two carriers (we hope), there will only be one available at any particular time and a carrier can only be worked on a mission for so long before the crew and ship need to be relieved. Many of the missions the UK has been involved in would be unsuitable to a carrier force of one ship.

Would you want a carrier to be policing a no fly zone for month after month after month? Being in theatre for 6 months before the shooting starts as in the build up to GW1? Having 2,500 crew on half a dozen ships burning fuel to police a no-fly zone is not economical when the RAF could do it with a tent city, 20 Typhoon/Tornado and a couple of tankers.

It shouldn't be pro or anti RAF/RN,some missions can be carried out with HNS, the RN will never have the ships to be the sole custodian of the UK's offensive punch.
Our economy should be able to support a fast jet fleet of 100 Typhoon and 100 Tornado now and still pay for the carriers, looking to have a future fast jet force of 100 Typhoon, 100 F35 and 50 or so UCAV platforms, with at least 2 squadrons of F35 on one of the carriers for the UK big stick to administer a short sharp kicking if required.

In reality with 100 of each type, we would be deploying 18 of each maximum for a deployment of moderate length, that is similar to the libyan deployment with supporting types, we could not deploy in those numbers if we only had two tiny fleets of F35/F18.

Seeing as the French Navy will be a similar size to ours, it may be telling that the 2008 french white paper set the air combat fleet at 300, 240 for the airforce, 60 for the navy, a front line strength for the AdA of 158 Mirage 2000 and 59 Rafales according to wiki. I would suggest the French anticipate a similar mission profile to us, and the numbers of Tornado and Typhoon likely compares so it might be unwise to drop below that level?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im looking for the exact slide I mentioned but even the main story here at DT about USAF prop planes has some details.

F-15E $44,000 per hour
F-18F $19,000 per hour
F-16D $7,000 per hour

Being singled engine it basically halves the maintenance and associated costs.While it also included a lot of new tech, its also more reliable with longer life and systems to measure wear etc.

So assuming F-35 costs are similar to F-16. Going for F-18 will nearly triple operating costs.

Early decommissioning of the Tornados might save some coin. (as would mothballing some of the Typhoons). If your going to make compromises that may be one area.