The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

W

WillS

Member
StobieWan said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's an equally funny article in the Telegraph:

Navy aircraft carrier plans hit by further delays

... which informs us that "Australia and Canada are reconsidering their investment in the carrier-variant model of the jets". Canada. Australia. Carrier version. Really?!?!? In the Canadian case this is actually quite funny as it seems the reporter-monkey has confused the F35C with the CF-35. :)

The Times (behind a paywall alas) reports on Jim Murphy's letter, which is the root of all this, but refers only to "speculation" about a switch back to STOVL model.

There was an article in the Times yesterday that alleged that CEC for the Carriers and the T45s wasn't yet fully funded and was one of the projects left that way so that the Defence Secretary can claim that the budget is now balanced.

WillS
 
N

Neutral Zone

New Member
Of course this is the same Jim Murphy who was a member of a Labour Government responsible for the price of the carriers escalating because they spent years faffing about over placing the final order as well as halving the T45 order together with FRES and numerous other screw ups.

As has been said so many times the problems aren't with the carriers that are now on time and on schedule, the concern is over the F-35. Why would Britain have to go back to the B model? If the C doesn't come up to scratch or is delayed further the RN can simply buy Rafale.
 
exPrivate

exPrivate

Member
Is there any possibility that the first carrier QE will be with a F-35B air group, while the second POW is with a F-35C air group? I know, it seems absurd still wonder...:confused:
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
exPrivate said:
Is there any possibility that the first carrier QE will be with a F-35B air group, while the second POW is with a F-35C air group? I know, it seems absurd still wonder...:confused:
Click to expand...
I'm getting the impression that the RN would have trouble crewing both simultaneously in the 2020's - if they could, they'd go F35C for both as not converting the second carrier to cats and traps would mean they'd have to have two different aircraft for two different carriers.

Far better to convert both for CATOBAR ops (which would be cheaper than standing up a dozen or so F35B just for the one ship)

That'd give them the opportunity to provide an assured availability of one carrier for strike ops at all times, as opposed to losing the CATOBAR carrier for refits then the STOVL one in sequence.

Not a great idea, put it that way,

Ian
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
exPrivate said:
Is there any possibility that the first carrier QE will be with a F-35B air group, while the second POW is with a F-35C air group? I know, it seems absurd still wonder...:confused:
Click to expand...
Nope.

AFAIK the plan is HMS Queen Elizabeth will act as a giant LPH like HMS Ocean/Illustrious until PoW comes (with EMALS) but i could be wrong.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Good article

Awesome Astute

It appears HMS Astute duelled USS New Mexico in wargames.

Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing
Click to expand...
Looks like the Astute class are proving themselves to be a decent bit of kit, shows the delays + expenditure still turned out a pretty good vessel.

IIRC wasn't the idea of using the Astute design thrown around as a replacement design for the Vanguard class? Or am I talking out of my backside.
 
exPrivate

exPrivate

Member
I read that info only in one place and it mentioned the necessity to build a longer hull, but obviously they will use a lot of the lessons, learned from the Astute. It is a truely remarkable sub obviously and I will be very happy if they ordered at least one hull more despite all the cuts.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
exPrivate said:
I read that info only in one place and it mentioned the necessity to build a longer hull, but obviously they will use a lot of the lessons, learned from the Astute. It is a truely remarkable sub obviously and I will be very happy if they ordered at least one hull more despite all the cuts.
Click to expand...
According to Beedall in 2007 the MoD put the cost of the first 3 Astute class SSNs at a cost of £3.65bn

Navy Matters | Astute Class

Then according to an MoD document about Britains nuclear deterrant (released in 2006 but looking at the SDSR 2010 summary on the MoD site it doesn't look like these funds have changed, any info otherwise would be welcomed)

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00...56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

Specifically

Our initial estimate is that the procurement costs will be in the range of £15-20 billion (at 2006/07 prices) for a four-boat solution: some £11-14 billion for the submarines; £2-3 billion for the possible future refurbishment or replacement of the warhead; and £2-3 billion for infrastructure over the life of the submarines
Click to expand...
£11-14bn for the subs when Astute works around at something like just over £1.2bn-ish (again, using '07 numbers so its most likely way up) but 11-14bn gives us plenty of room to play with in regards to the actual subs themselves
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
1805 said:
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.
.
Click to expand...
Your approach assumes such ships could be constructed and delivered in a short period. Asian yards can deliver a standard designs quite quickly provided you have an engine. In some cases the lead time on these can be quite long.

The RFA vessels are not a 'standard design' and will take a bit longer to to be delivered and I would expect the RFA would want to get quite a bit of life out of them. As such I seems reasonable that these will be required to support CVF operations and the suggestion that the UK should 'wait for the CVF to turn up" to build a bigger vessel is really a moot point. If such an option was exercised it would see delivery well after the CVF operations commence.

Where you can afford it, and where suits your operational model, building greater capacity has an advantage as you get ecomies of scale out of the operation of the ship and the cost of construction as a function of uplift capacity per unit of cost. This should result (depending on a number of factors) in creater sustainablity, however, I suspect (as has been suggested) the size decided on is a cost issue given the force review. If additional funds have been available maybe a bigger, and more capable ship would have been sought. This is simply postulation as I have no idea of what went on in the minds of the decision makers.

In noting this (and a bit off topic) I would also note that the RN are way better of than the RAN in this regard. The RAN have one aged Durance class AOR of questionable reliability and a converted tanker with the most useless, and hideous, flight deck ever fitted to a ship to support a navy with 12-11 escorts, 2 LHD, the ex-Largs (still cannot stand the name we gave her) and numberous support vessels of yet to be deciced arrangement........ and replacement options are still aspirational.
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
WillS said:
There's an equally funny article in the Telegraph:

Navy aircraft carrier plans hit by further delays

... which informs us that "Australia and Canada are reconsidering their investment in the carrier-variant model of the jets". Canada. Australia. Carrier version. Really?!?!? In the Canadian case this is actually quite funny as it seems the reporter-monkey has confused the F35C with the CF-35. :)

The Times (behind a paywall alas) reports on Jim Murphy's letter, which is the root of all this, but refers only to "speculation" about a switch back to STOVL model.

There was an article in the Times yesterday that alleged that CEC for the Carriers and the T45s wasn't yet fully funded and was one of the projects left that way so that the Defence Secretary can claim that the budget is now balanced.

WillS
Click to expand...
It appears to me neither the Guardian or the Telegraph have any knowledgeable defense beat writers. Australia and Canada intend to buy the A version, whereas the British intend to buy the C version of the F-35. And rest assured the US Navy and Lockheed Martin will solve the tailhook problem, even if they have to turn to Grumman or Boeing for help.

But I am sure if the British decide to return to the B version and cancelled their EMALS order they can. Of course Liverpool FC fans already knew the British media prints lies...
 
P

ProM

New Member
Sea Toby said:
It appears to me neither the Guardian or the Telegraph have any knowledgeable defense beat writers.
Click to expand...
I am used to the lack of defence knowledge in the media. It scares me far more that Murphy is so manifestly stupid given that he could in theory become defence minister after the next election.

I thought Bob Ainsworth was bad, Murphy looks set to challenge him
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
ProM said:
I am used to the lack of defence knowledge in the media. It scares me far more that Murphy is so manifestly stupid given that he could in theory become defence minister after the next election.

I thought Bob Ainsworth was bad, Murphy looks set to challenge him
Click to expand...
Frankly, I have been disappointed with Janes of late. The only defense media I trust with the straight dope is Aviation Week and Space Technology. Too many of the rags are more interested in the political agenda hack jobs and sensationalism to sell their rags than printing anything resembling the truth, whether in the UK or the US.
 
V

Vanguard

New Member
RobWilliams said:
Does anyone have any info regarding the future replacement for HMS Ocean?

The small amount of info i have is gleamed from BAE

http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020359/amphibious-vessels
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware the BAe LHD is not for the Royal Navy, HMS Ocean will be replaced by HMS Queen Elizabeth in or abouts 2018, I would assume however that she may stay on for a couple of other years if possible to make sure the QE is fully ready to replace her. I cannot see Britain being able to afford to order a direct amphibious replacement unless one of the two new carriers is not going into service in which case it could be a likely option. One alternative is if Britain decides to go with the LHD platform to replace the LPDs in the near future but this would not be that design. Really the BAe LHD is just them trying to re-enter the market to compete against the Mistral and JCI.
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
Vanguard said:
As far as I am aware the BAe LHD is not for the Royal Navy, HMS Ocean will be replaced by HMS Queen Elizabeth in or abouts 2018, I would assume however that she may stay on for a couple of other years if possible to make sure the QE is fully ready to replace her. I cannot see Britain being able to afford to order a direct amphibious replacement unless one of the two new carriers is not going into service in which case it could be a likely option. One alternative is if Britain decides to go with the LHD platform to replace the LPDs in the near future but this would not be that design. Really the BAe LHD is just them trying to re-enter the market to compete against the Mistral and JCI.
Click to expand...
This could change in fifteen or twenty years depending upon the economy. I would assume if the QE is retrofitted with EMALS and arrestor gear, the CVF which isn't being used as a carrier would assume the LPH role. The CVFs are so large one of the pair could do both roles if at a reduced capacity.
 
V

Vanguard

New Member
Of course, I only mentioned the Queen Elizabeth as that is likely to be the direct replacement in the fleet. One other option that I did not think of earlier was the likely replacement of RFA Argus for 2020, most likely to be covered in the 2015 review, if the Navy was smart they could try and move for an LHD platform here with extensive medical facilities so that it could also be used as an AAS in times of crisis, that is assuming that the funding for such a replacement would be hard to find as it is likely to be and the chances of keeping her on are nil due to her age.
 
Anixtu

Anixtu

New Member
alexsa said:
Where you can afford it, and where suits your operational model, building greater capacity has an advantage as you get ecomies of scale out of the operation of the ship and the cost of construction as a function of uplift capacity per unit of cost. This should result (depending on a number of factors) in creater sustainablity, however, I suspect (as has been suggested) the size decided on is a cost issue given the force review. If additional funds have been available maybe a bigger, and more capable ship would have been sought. This is simply postulation as I have no idea of what went on in the minds of the decision makers.
Click to expand...
There is an interesting paper at this URL which addresses some of the cost issues and design drivers of MARS FT. It doesn't directly address the cost/capacity relationship that as you say may have defined the selected cargo capacity of MARS FT, but it does address the other issues regarding speed, machinery configuration, aviation facilities and extent of RAS provision as a proportion of unit cost. I particularly like Figure 8 in that regard. Per that chart, the selected features come in at just under 90% of the maximum spec. price for a given size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top