The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[rnrp]

link

Good couple of links, I shall peruse them at my leisure - thanks!

Ian

Ian,

Link 11 and 14 still fitted to the 42S, with Link 16 too. Link 11 is HF/UHF capable and is used and has been for decades. Its improved successor is Link 22 (Sometimes Dubbed Nile, Nato improved Link 11) All the escorts and LPH/LPDS and CVS as well as the SSNs are fitted with link 11.

Link 16 has been fitted to the 42s since early 2000s as recieve only to start with, now can transmit and recieve, it is uhf ( line of sight only) and utilised by the asac 7, and e3s. Initially something called STDL (Satellite Tactical Data Link) was to be fitted to the 23s so that the link 16 picture could be recieved by them via the AAW escorts.

Just as a note, I trialled CEC using Amercian trials kit in 1998! on Gloucester in the portland exercise areas, with Northumberlnd, speaks volumes that it worked a treat and enabled us to target an aircraft at range to enable an successful seadart engagement.
Labour justified network centric enablers to cut escort numbers and like all politicians want everything for nothing, so it still isnt in service, coalition cant say anything either as they havent purchased this kit either, but this was only fourteen years ago so not long eh?


Bill

 

[StobieWan]

Ian,

Link 11 and 14 still fitted to the 42S, with Link 16 too. Link 11 is HF/UHF capable and is used and has been for decades. Its improved successor is Link 22 (Sometimes Dubbed Nile, Nato improved Link 11) All the escorts and LPH/LPDS and CVS as well as the SSNs are fitted with link 11.

Link 16 has been fitted to the 42s since early 2000s as recieve only to start with, now can transmit and recieve, it is uhf ( line of sight only) and utilised by the asac 7, and e3s. Initially something called STDL (Satellite Tactical Data Link) was to be fitted to the 23s so that the link 16 picture could be recieved by them via the AAW escorts.

Just as a note, I trialled CEC using Amercian trials kit in 1998! on Gloucester in the portland exercise areas, with Northumberlnd, speaks volumes that it worked a treat and enabled us to target an aircraft at range to enable an successful seadart engagement.
Labour justified network centric enablers to cut escort numbers and like all politicians want everything for nothing, so it still isnt in service, coalition cant say anything either as they havent purchased this kit either, but this was only fourteen years ago so not long eh?


Bill

Bill - that's fabulous - helps rough out the details in my tiny mind - stupid question but what form does CEC take when fitted? How much space and power does a CEC unit need when installed? I'm trying to get a picture of how much of an impact it'd have on a ship when installed.

I'm hoping we get CEC on the Darings asap as it'll help dovetail with US kit and of course, give a handy boost to the Type 26 (assuming that gets the kit as well)


Ian

 

[rnrp]

Bill - that's fabulous - helps rough out the details in my tiny mind - stupid question but what form does CEC take when fitted? How much space and power does a CEC unit need when installed? I'm trying to get a picture of how much of an impact it'd have on a ship when installed.

I'm hoping we get CEC on the Darings asap as it'll help dovetail with US kit and of course, give a handy boost to the Type 26 (assuming that gets the kit as well)


Ian

Ian

Space isnt a problem, the kit we had installed was put into the computer room, below the ops room on a 42, with some extra equipment installed in the CCR for the comms relay. Power isnt a problem either as all ships fitted with it tend to have high energy consuming electeronics like sonars, spy 1, long range and target indication radars, which are supplied by powerful onboard generating sets.

It basically dovetails into the combat system to enable a transmitting unit to share their radar picture with other units, its a fantastic piece of kit. In the trials we conducted our 996 was black jammed and Northumberlands 996 picture recieved via CEC enabled us to conduct engagement after engagement using the 909s even though we couldnt see the hostile tracks.

IMHO this equipment should have commisioned with the ships as they came out of build, criminal that it hasn`t as we have lost six units in total from the last AAW class the excuse was that since we were going into netcentric equipment we would need less platforms. Doesnt matter how many super platforms we have you can only have so many ships in one place at one time now. Anyway hopefully this kit arrives before the five year docking periods for the Darings.

 

[StobieWan]

Ian

Space isnt a problem, the kit we had installed was put into the computer room, below the ops room on a 42, with some extra equipment installed in the CCR for the comms relay. Power isnt a problem either as all ships fitted with it tend to have high energy consuming electeronics like sonars, spy 1, long range and target indication radars, which are supplied by powerful onboard generating sets.

It basically dovetails into the combat system to enable a transmitting unit to share their radar picture with other units, its a fantastic piece of kit. In the trials we conducted our 996 was black jammed and Northumberlands 996 picture recieved via CEC enabled us to conduct engagement after engagement using the 909s even though we couldnt see the hostile tracks.

IMHO this equipment should have commisioned with the ships as they came out of build, criminal that it hasn`t as we have lost six units in total from the last AAW class the excuse was that since we were going into netcentric equipment we would need less platforms. Doesnt matter how many super platforms we have you can only have so many ships in one place at one time now. Anyway hopefully this kit arrives before the five year docking periods for the Darings.

That's pretty impressive - I'm guessing if the 26's got CEC, they could use the better picture from SAMPSON if a type 45 were near - which would be quite a bit better in terms of update rates etc than the Artisan 3D?

Fingers crossed as you say, that it lands inside the 45's asap,


Ian

 

[WillS]

I don't know if anyone's seen the article on the F35C 'situation' in The Times today? Unfortunately it's behind a paywall but the article reports on notes of a talk given by Admiral Sir Trevor Soar (current CinC Fleet, retires in March) to the ADS Maritime Interest Group last month.

Main points:

He told the audience that there was "mounting concern within the MoD about the escalating costs and delays to the JSF program."

"He was quoted as saying that Britain might do better to invest in what he called an 'interim aircraft capability' and named two potentially cheaper alternatives - the American built F-18 Super Hornet or the French Dassault Rafale jet."

"The carrier is due to be ready in 2019 but Britain might not acquire the JSF until a decade later, Admiral Soar suggested"

Talking about the Pentagon budget cuts and the reduction in US orders (and subsequent higher unit costs) he said "the developments were potentially 'game changing' for Britain and predicated that the purchase of JSF will be the big question in Britain's 2015 strategic defence review."

Which all seems fairly sensible to me. Lease/buy F18s from the US (as that's what RN crew are training on) and buy the F35C later in the production run when the costs are lower (& known). Of course, the newspaper is presenting this as a "RN might have to buy French aircraft" story.

But the weird bit, I think, was at the end of the article:

"The Times understands there is renewed MoD consideration for the [F35B], backed strongly by Mr. Panetta this week."

Comments?

Will

 

[StobieWan]

I don't know if anyone's seen the article on the F35C 'situation' in The Times today? Unfortunately it's behind a paywall but the article reports on notes of a talk given by Admiral Sir Trevor Soar (current CinC Fleet, retires in March) to the ADS Maritime Interest Group last month.

Main points:

He told the audience that there was "mounting concern within the MoD about the escalating costs and delays to the JSF program."

"He was quoted as saying that Britain might do better to invest in what he called an 'interim aircraft capability' and named two potentially cheaper alternatives - the American built F-18 Super Hornet or the French Dassault Rafale jet."

"The carrier is due to be ready in 2019 but Britain might not acquire the JSF until a decade later, Admiral Soar suggested"

Talking about the Pentagon budget cuts and the reduction in US orders (and subsequent higher unit costs) he said "the developments were potentially 'game changing' for Britain and predicated that the purchase of JSF will be the big question in Britain's 2015 strategic defence review."

Which all seems fairly sensible to me. Lease/buy F18s from the US (as that's what RN crew are training on) and buy the F35C later in the production run when the costs are lower (& known). Of course, the newspaper is presenting this as a "RN might have to buy French aircraft" story.

But the weird bit, I think, was at the end of the article:

"The Times understands there is renewed MoD consideration for the [F35B], backed strongly by Mr. Panetta this week."

Comments?

Will

The Times has a flaky record on defence reporting - most days it's very bad, other's it's entirely fictional.

Leasing Superhornet isn't an option - there are no SH's available to lease, so they'd have to be built.

Superhornet isn't particularly cheap compared to F35C - there's a few million in it per copy but it's not "half the price" as a number of un-informed sources report.

Neither are F35C costs for ourselves or other partners climbing because of reduced orders (which haven't happened, in point of fact, Japan has agreed to order another 100) We pay the UFR cost, not the "program cost divided by the number of US orders" that the US is paying.

F35 is largely doing fine - there's some stuff to be nailed down but it all looks doable.

Buying F35 makes sense. Switching back to the B model doesn't make sense after ordering long lead items and killing the ski jumps on both carriers,

Ian

 

[Volkodav]

The Times has a flaky record on defence reporting - most days it's very bad, other's it's entirely fictional.

Leasing Superhornet isn't an option - there are no SH's available to lease, so they'd have to be built.

Superhornet isn't particularly cheap compared to F35C - there's a few million in it per copy but it's not "half the price" as a number of un-informed sources report.

F35 is largely doing fine - there's some stuff to be nailed down but it all looks doable.

Buying F35 makes sense. Switching back to the B model doesn't make sense after ordering long lead items and killing the ski jumps on both carriers,

Ian

Well the RAAFs newly delivered (new build) SH Block IIs are leased as were our leased Phantoms during the early 70s. Maybe, depending on timing, the RN could lease the RAAFs ex kease SHs?

 

[StobieWan]

Well the RAAFs newly delivered (new build) SH Block IIs are leased as were our leased Phantoms during the early 70s. Maybe, depending on timing, the RN could lease the RAAFs ex kease SHs?

That's news to me as the SuperHornet buy is widely reported as a ..well, *buy*...


Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers

 

[WillS]

Superhornet isn't particularly cheap compared to F35C - there's a few million in it per copy but it's not "half the price" as a number of un-informed sources report.

Could you point me towards some sources for that please? I wasn't even aware there was a settled price-per-unit cost for any version of the F35.

Will.

 

[Volkodav]

That's news to me as the SuperHornet buy is widely reported as a ..well, *buy*...


Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers

A 10 year, $10million lease is what it was sold to the Austrlaian public as. The speculation is whether we will keep them or return them at the end of the lease. I should add that considering the last 12 were wired to be converted to Gs my money is now on keep.

 

[StobieWan]

Could you point me towards some sources for that please? I wasn't even aware there was a settled price-per-unit cost for any version of the F35.

Will.

Have a read through this article which touches nicely on price/spec for both platforms.

What's The Price Tag For a Production F-35? | Gannett Government Media | defensenews.com

A couple of defence professionals on this forum have confirmed they're being briefed with solid prices in the high sixties range for their countries as well.

Ian

 

[WillS]

Have a read through this article which touches nicely on price/spec for both platforms.

What's The Price Tag For a Production F-35? | Gannett Government Media | defensenews.com

OK Ian,

I've read that thanks. However, the article only mentions costs for the F35A, not the F35C.

The F35C seems to be working out at 28% more expensive than the F35A. I'm using the figures for the low rate initial production batch 4 found in this Aviation Week post.

Obviously the per unit costs quoted in that article are likely to be wrong, as we'd expect full production units to be cheaper, but the percentage difference in pricing between the three models is likely to stay roughly the same don't you think?

I'm not of course suggesting that the Super Hornet is as good an aircraft as the F35C will eventually prove to be, just that it's good enough for the tasks we need it to perform.

Will.

 

[StobieWan]

OK Ian,

I've read that thanks. However, the article only mentions costs for the F35A, not the F35C.

The F35C seems to be working out at 28% more expensive than the F35A. I'm using the figures for the low rate initial production batch 4 found in this Aviation Week post.

Obviously the per unit costs quoted in that article are likely to be wrong, as we'd expect full production units to be cheaper, but the percentage difference in pricing between the three models is likely to stay roughly the same don't you think?

I'm not of course suggesting that the Super Hornet is as good an aircraft as the F35C will eventually prove to be, just that it's good enough for the tasks we need it to perform.

Will.

Um...no, have a look at the LRIP values for the A model for last year and note how much more they were than this year's figures.They've only just started to knock out the C model and as a result production costs for those aircraft are still high.

The A model is a bit more mature in the production cycle so it's LRIP figures are quite a bit cheaper. The differential between the models will fall, although I understand the C model will still be higher.

Again, we're paying UFR costs, different (lower) number.

 

[WillS]

The A model is a bit more mature in the production cycle so it's LRIP figures are quite a bit cheaper. The differential between the models will fall, although I understand the C model will still be higher.

Fair enough but it will still be higher than the F35A figures quoted in the article. The US govt accountability office report on the program last year still assumed the C would be 18% more expensive than the A in 2016, which I'd have thought is when we're due to start placing orders ($144m vs. $121m, not flyaway costs but presumably including the usual spares etc package).

And these are estimated costs, which are all we have to work on for the F35 variants and which will probably rise on the basis of the program history, whereas we (or someone) knows the price of Super Hornet and it's going to be lower.

There's a certain planning value to cost certainty that the F35 can't give us and the Hornet can.

Will.

 

[StobieWan]

Fair enough but it will still be higher than the F35A figures quoted in the article. The US govt accountability office report on the program last year still assumed the C would be 18% more expensive than the A in 2016, which I'd have thought is when we're due to start placing orders ($144m vs. $121m, not flyaway costs but presumably including the usual spares etc package).

And these are estimated costs, which are all we have to work on for the F35 variants and which will probably rise on the basis of the program history, whereas we (or someone) knows the price of Super Hornet and it's going to be lower.

There's a certain planning value to cost certainty that the F35 can't give us and the Hornet can.

Will.

Again, no, the UFR cost quoted in the article I cited earlier would be your starting point for an F35C cost - take that $70m or so, stick on your 18% extra and you're in business for a single article at it's marginal cost.

Your 144m vs 123 million are LRIP figures which are not what we're looking at for a UK buy.

To be honest, best post this over on the Aviation forum in the F35 thread - there are people who regularly comment in that thread who are actually involved in the program and who are better placed to inform than I am. Suffice to say that everything I can find that's credible puts F35C in spitting distance of SuperHornet for cost - particularly when you take into account our workshare plus the advantage of spreading the costs of integrating weapons etc across a 2000 + aircraft user base.

 

[spsun100001]

Paying for CEC.....

Further to my earlier post on cuts that could be considered in order to pay for capabilities such as CEC there's an interesting article on one such potential opportunity in a number of todays papers:

Northolt: RAF's celebrated airfield 'may be sold to property developers' - Telegraph

Swerve rightly counselled as to the importance of not taking things at face value and we all know how hopeless newspaper reporting is but surely something like this should be investigated? If we can raise hundreds of millions (as suggested) by selling a base who's main use seems to be Royal Flights, the occasional prestige visitor and a flyying visit (if you'll excuse the pun) then it seems well worth asking if those elements of RAF operations could not be based at other South East airfields.

 

[1805]

Further to my earlier post on cuts that could be considered in order to pay for capabilities such as CEC there's an interesting article on one such potential opportunity in a number of todays papers:

Northolt: RAF's celebrated airfield 'may be sold to property developers' - Telegraph

Swerve rightly counselled as to the importance of not taking things at face value and we all know how hopeless newspaper reporting is but surely something like this should be investigated? If we can raise hundreds of millions (as suggested) by selling a base who's main use seems to be Royal Flights, the occasional prestige visitor and a flyying visit (if you'll excuse the pun) then it seems well worth asking if those elements of RAF operations could not be based at other South East airfields.

Off topic, but I wonder what they mean by property developers, Northolt is almost the same distance from Central London as Heathrow, I think there was some talk about a wider civil use....LHR 3rd runway...

 

[aussienscale]

Just as a curiosity to our UK guy's out there, I am still finding many articles on the fate of the QE carriers, particulary in the last couple of weeks. Seems to be a lot of politicians making statements and claims regarding the project. Current estimates are that the Navy still needs to find 36 mil in cuts for the SDR. Are they in trouble ? or is this just political debate and posturing ?

Cheers

 

[StobieWan]

Just as a curiosity to our UK guy's out there, I am still finding many articles on the fate of the QE carriers, particulary in the last couple of weeks. Seems to be a lot of politicians making statements and claims regarding the project. Current estimates are that the Navy still needs to find 36 mil in cuts for the SDR. Are they in trouble ? or is this just political debate and posturing ?

Cheers

As far as any official position is concerned, generating one carrier for CATOBAR ops plus 13 replacements for the Type 23 is enshrined in the SDSR.

Defence reporting in the popular UK press appears to have slid from "incompetent" to "wilfully incorrect" over the last couple of decades so I'll stick with that until something credible surfaces.

I personally think we're past the worst of it in terms of filling the so called black hole caused by fighting an unfunded war in Afghanistan plus a number of unfunded projects, so the major question marks remaining would be how fast we get F35C on deck, how many and what the fate of the remaining QE would be.

There seems to be increasing sympathy for the concept of fitting both with cat and trap, which would obviously make me a happy chappy,

 

[Troothsayer]

Defence reporting in the popular UK press appears to have slid from "incompetent" to "wilfully incorrect" over the last couple of decades so I'll stick with that until something credible surfaces.

Yes, its the dramatisation of every story which grates with mainstream UK media - hence the copious amounts of 'we're not able to retake the Falklands' stories.

Aussienscale, the '38' figure was billions, not millions and it has been reported that the £38bn blackhole (which included future projects) is close to being wiped out thanks to the actions taken in the SDSR. You will see more cuts to reduce the army to about 82,000 + 30,000 reserves and further MoD civil service posts and perhaps a further reduction in Tornado numbers.

I'm confident the navy as is now will not be further hit. With regards to CVF, as Stobiewan says we're guaranteed to have one at least and the decision on what to do with HMS QE will probably not be decided until the 2015 SDSR. It will become politically difficult to have a great big white elephant sat in mothballs doing nothing. By 2015 we'll probably be out of the financial crisis and so I can see QE being converted eventually.

Don't know what other UK forummers opinions are but I would rather sell the 2nd carrier than have it sat there doing nothing and fund an Ocean replacement from the proceeds.