The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[ProM]

If there was RN focus on an industrial strategy (before anyone says the ACA is an industrial strategy is was simply a rationing job to put off painful desicions)..

There is of course a UK defence industrial strategy covering the RN as well as the other 2 services. From memory it does not identify the short of ship-building needed for auxiliaries as a critical capability that we need to retain. But you can go look it up, I think it is published on the web.

No, the ACA is not an industrial strategy. Nor however, is it, or was it, what you describe

 

[StobieWan]

I would agree if you were doing the cheapest option, then the best route would be to sell the three oldest with least value, delay T26 production, maybe even source the hulls form South Korea.

All the points are very relevant any actually why I was suggesting selling with CAMM for that very reason. This would not only be an opportunity to get a reasonable price for the ships but convert their navy to CAMM. Imagine selling to Chile offering and tying in the upgrade of their existing 3 T23s.

None of this post makes any sense at all and I'm baffled as to what you're talking about.

Taking the first sentence, if you're assuming that Type 26 gets curtailed, cheapest option going forward would be to skip the mid life updates on three Type 23's as their updates overlap with Type 26.

Delaying type 26 isn't going to be cheap, or cost effective as there are contracts in place for BAE to construct 15 surface vessels - which seem to be the two carriers and 13 Type 26. If you delay 26, you end up with the same gap that was so needlessly expensive with the carriers and also with Astute.

No-one is talking about placing orders for surface combatants overseas as we have yards with experience building them and a viable workflow - MARS went overseas as we didn't have any yards with the capacity or the facilities to tackle them.

Type 26 is very much within the capacity to be built locally however, hence their being built in the UK.

But you *know* this...

 

[RobWilliams]

The Armada de Chile's already fitted Barak to Almirante Williams (ex HMS Sheffield) in place of Sea Wolf, according to its website. Why wouldn't they carry on with Barak?

You need to look at what the customer is already doing, & is likely to want, not just what you want to sell to them. Chile already has too many types of missiles on its ships. It's not likely to want to introduce a new type unless it's either very cheap (e.g. already fitted to a ship which is being sold off cheap), or offers tremendous advantages over everything that's already in the inventory.

True, i'd have thought that if Chile was interested in any shape or form in any air-defense missile operated by the Royal Navy it would have been made obvious + included in the deal in some form or another.

 

[1805]

None of this post makes any sense at all and I'm baffled as to what you're talking about.

Taking the first sentence, if you're assuming that Type 26 gets curtailed, cheapest option going forward would be to skip the mid life updates on three Type 23's as their updates overlap with Type 26.

Delaying type 26 isn't going to be cheap, or cost effective as there are contracts in place for BAE to construct 15 surface vessels - which seem to be the two carriers and 13 Type 26. If you delay 26, you end up with the same gap that was so needlessly expensive with the carriers and also with Astute.

No-one is talking about placing orders for surface combatants overseas as we have yards with experience building them and a viable workflow - MARS went overseas as we didn't have any yards with the capacity or the facilities to tackle them.

Type 26 is very much within the capacity to be built locally however, hence their being built in the UK.

But you *know* this...

I think what I am saying if fairly clear you just don't agree with it. I guess it comes down to:

1, do you believe that 13 Type 26 will be built (fairly naive)
2, you don't believe but you ignore the fact and continue to plan on that basis and hope for the best, head in the sand (irresponsible)
3, you don't believe and anticipate there by mitigating the worst effects

 

[1805]

There is of course a UK defence industrial strategy covering the RN as well as the other 2 services. From memory it does not identify the short of ship-building needed for auxiliaries as a critical capability that we need to retain. But you can go look it up, I think it is published on the web.

No, the ACA is not an industrial strategy. Nor however, is it, or was it, what you describe

I think it was written by the guys that dreamt up the ACA....have achieved prehaps the most irresponsible gap in capability since the late 70/80s, and brought the RN to it's knees, I shall not be wasting my time reading it...but I do no it exists.

 

[1805]

The Armada de Chile's already fitted Barak to Almirante Williams (ex HMS Sheffield) in place of Sea Wolf, according to its website. Why wouldn't they carry on with Barak?

You need to look at what the customer is already doing, & is likely to want, not just what you want to sell to them. Chile already has too many types of missiles on its ships. It's not likely to want to introduce a new type unless it's either very cheap (e.g. already fitted to a ship which is being sold off cheap), or offers tremendous advantages over everything that's already in the inventory.

I was thinking about the T23 which would be a logical fit for CAMM, your very negative about it's export potential. I would have thought selling a ship with CAMM, would have been a good way to get it back into that navy, the slightest sign of competition and you seem to want to give in without a fight.

 

[1805]

Who said anything about full capacity? I asked which yard you thought could build these tankers. You haven't answered that question.

Note that being able to start building them in a few years time, after expanding the workforce & building or refurbishing facilities, is not an acceptable answer. BMT expects the first of the current order to be in service with the RFA in 2016.

The Berlin class doesn't have the capacity to support the carriers we're building. It looks like a fine ship - for Germany, or any other country with no warships bigger than a destroyer, & which needs multi-purpose support ships for replenishment of all kinds of liquids & dry stores, medical support, etc.

Ok the MN Durance class (yes their carrier is nuclear and always in dock...but did complete 3 times the stikes we manged in Libya). Actually we don't operate much more than the German's until the CVF turns up. I would look to the Waves to make do or as has been suggested 4 x 18-20,000t and 2 x 37,000t or accept a capability gap, until the capacity is built up to deliver the later two ships of 37,000t.

I will tell you why no one will have bid, because it's expensive and when you know what the client whats to hear, is not what you ar offering, you don't submit.

Appledore built the Scott in actual tonnage probably not to far away from an 18-20,000 tanker loaded. But others would have welcomed the business if genuinely offered.

 

[swerve]

Actually we don't operate much more than the German's until the CVF turns up.

Not much more? That's barmy!

Illustrious, Ocean, two LPDs, three Bay class, Argus - tot up the tonnage of that lot, & compare the individual tonnages with German navy ships. We have a few times the tonnage of ocean-going ships, quite a few of them larger than anything Germany has except its tankers, & they spend far more time in distant waters.

I reckon that in proportion to our usage we have far fewer tankers, & far less capacity, than the Germans. They have two general (including fuel) replenishment ships with another building, & two tankers which are slightly smaller than the Rovers.

 

[Preceptor]

Re-opened Royal Navy Discussion thread. Please keep discussion relevant to the RN.
-Preceptor

 

[deepsixteen]

Re-opened Royal Navy Discussion thread. Please keep discussion relevant to the RN.
-Preceptor

Hi

Perhaps you could clarify for me (having a blond day) which part of the discussion you consider as not relevant/ off topic?


Regards

Deepsixteen

Check PM gf

 

[kato]

I reckon that in proportion to our usage we have far fewer tankers, & far less capacity, than the Germans. They have two general (including fuel) replenishment ships with another building, & two tankers which are slightly smaller than the Rovers.

Don't forget the six tenders that also act as small multi-product replenishment ships and the two small coastal tankers in that calculation, especially in littoral environments.

Although one also has to take the difference in operations into account. Germany basically runs a high-survivability layout, which emphasizes having a variety and multiple numbers of supply points available in theater. That's mostly something stemming from the Cold War though (it also shows in armament of supply units in the German Navy; note that even the Berlin class are still wired for and ready to mount RAM and the same self-defense suite as German frigates).

The RFA has a bit other strengths. I wouldn't necessarily rate survivability among those.

 

[Anixtu]

The RFA has a bit other strengths. I wouldn't necessarily rate survivability among those.

Every class of RFA since Fort Victoria was launched in 1990 has been at least fitted to receive CIWS and softkill systems. Fort Victoria and Fort George were originally designed for Seawolf and still have the missile silos in place. With the exception of Mounts Bay, each of these ships has received Phalanx CIWS.

That doesn't answer for passive survivability, but on the active side it sounds at least broadly equivalent to what you say the Berlin class are FTR, but in the RFA's case it is fitted, commissioned and exercised.

Some of the older RFAs do lack these measures, so it is a fair comment with regard to them, but their forthcoming replacements such as the recently announced MARS FT address these shortcomings.

 

[kato]

That doesn't answer for passive survivability

Strategic survivability goes a bit further. When you have on average one supply point per three oceangoing units that is more survivable in a high-intensity conflict than the RN/RFA approach of nearly one-to-five.

their forthcoming replacements such as the recently announced MARS FT address these shortcomings.

Well, we'll see... if MARS ever gets anywhere. This time.

 

[StobieWan]

Every class of RFA since Fort Victoria was launched in 1990 has been at least fitted to receive CIWS and softkill systems. Fort Victoria and Fort George were originally designed for Seawolf and still have the missile silos in place. With the exception of Mounts Bay, each of these ships has received Phalanx CIWS.

That doesn't answer for passive survivability, but on the active side it sounds at least broadly equivalent to what you say the Berlin class are FTR, but in the RFA's case it is fitted, commissioned and exercised.

Some of the older RFAs do lack these measures, so it is a fair comment with regard to them, but their forthcoming replacements such as the recently announced MARS FT address these shortcomings.

Looks like they're fitted for and will be carrying 1b in pairs, plus maybe 30mm. Given CAMM's soft launch options, if you wanted to get really frisky, it wouldn't be a major deal to put together a rapid deployment kit of some sort for the ships, pre-run the necessary data cabling and power. Depends on what you think is worth doing I guess.

Given that in high threat situations, the MARS tankers would be travelling in a task force backed by CVF, in concern with a Type 45 it's less of a priority I guess.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Strategic survivability goes a bit further. When you have on average one supply point per three oceangoing units that is more survivable in a high-intensity conflict than the RN/RFA approach of nearly one-to-five.


Well, we'll see... if MARS ever gets anywhere. This time.

Contracts have been placed, they're going to Korean yards with a very good track record of delivering on time. This is as good as it gets for MARS right now.

 

[Seaforth]

Reverting to F35B?

Hmmm... Guardian reports that decision to buy F35C instead of F35B may be reversed as the redesign of carriers and installation of cats and traps is more expensive than expected.

I guess on a positive note it might mean serious F35B trials (and potentially earlier in service date?) on Queen Elizabeth instead of having to wait for PoW and F35C.

Maybe after Libya and with the Falklands/Malvinas issue raising its head, questions are being asked about whether the current strategy is wise:
* a moth-balled QE or a QE helicopter-only carrier for years
* while PoW is built with cats and traps at a much higher cost eliminating any savings in choosing F35C over F35B
* with the risks that integration of cats and traps might cause significant delays
* and with the extra skills that need to be acquired to operate cats and traps

I hope I didn't mix up my C's and B's... easy done!

What are other's views..

 

[Anixtu]

Strategic survivability goes a bit further. When you have on average one supply point per three oceangoing units that is more survivable in a high-intensity conflict than the RN/RFA approach of nearly one-to-five.

With MARS FT coming and Fort Austin regenerating it will get close to 3:1 (27:8).

 

[StobieWan]

Hmmm... Guardian reports that decision to buy F35C instead of F35B may be reversed as the redesign of carriers and installation of cats and traps is more expensive than expected.

I guess on a positive note it might mean serious F35B trials (and potentially earlier in service date?) on Queen Elizabeth instead of having to wait for PoW and F35C.

Maybe after Libya and with the Falklands/Malvinas issue raising its head, questions are being asked about whether the current strategy is wise:
* a moth-balled QE or a QE helicopter-only carrier for years
* while PoW is built with cats and traps at a much higher cost eliminating any savings in choosing F35C over F35B
* with the risks that integration of cats and traps might cause significant delays
* and with the extra skills that need to be acquired to operate cats and traps

I hope I didn't mix up my C's and B's... easy done!

What are other's views..

It's the Guardian. They have no clue at all as to anything defence related. Seriously, there are so many holes in that article it's a joke to call it journalism.

This is the same bunch that spent four years telling everyone that or or both carriers had been sold off to one foreign country or another, repeatedly being corrected almost on a weekly basis by the MOD, until quite publicly they offered to directly and personally brief the staffer in question on the matter.

I note they refer to the C model as the "cats and flaps" model - does that tell you everything you need to know about the quality of the article?

 

[kev 99]

Hmmm... Guardian reports that decision to buy F35C instead of F35B may be reversed as the redesign of carriers and installation of cats and traps is more expensive than expected.

I guess on a positive note it might mean serious F35B trials (and potentially earlier in service date?) on Queen Elizabeth instead of having to wait for PoW and F35C.

Maybe after Libya and with the Falklands/Malvinas issue raising its head, questions are being asked about whether the current strategy is wise:
* a moth-balled QE or a QE helicopter-only carrier for years
* while PoW is built with cats and traps at a much higher cost eliminating any savings in choosing F35C over F35B
* with the risks that integration of cats and traps might cause significant delays
* and with the extra skills that need to be acquired to operate cats and traps

I hope I didn't mix up my C's and B's... easy done!

What are other's views..

The MOD has already ordered 1 EMALs set, that should tell you all you need to know.

 

[AndrewMI]

Know "something" we don't Andrew ????

This is what BAE has on their website...
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020346

SA

Did i miss an update?!

I can assure you there is no inside knowledge here!!