The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

That's just a re-report of the FT article unfortunately so it's not moving things forward I suspect.

Ian

Here's a Daily Mail article published yesterday saying the decision for F35C had been reversed.

Cameron makes humiliating u-turn on future of Britain's aircraft carriers | Mail Online

It goes ahead to make this claim

Pressing on with the plan could have delayed the £6.2billion HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales by another seven years – until 2027. This was considered ‘untenable, militarily and politically’, said a source.

2027 isn't a figure i've heard talked about.

I cannot testify to the reliability of this source however.

 

[RobWilliams]

Can the present Govt guarantee both ships as STOVL? or just one and can the RN find the crew.
% of GDP is not going to grow, so what else does the RN lose to get one fully fledged CTOL CV without its own airgroup? An astute? 3 T26's, sell another LPD?.

Sarkozy and Cameron cosy up for the cameras now, but will Another plus French PM share the same views, can we really rely long term on sharing ships with france? I don't think it was ever a serious option, we could however cross deck F35B with the USMC, Harriers from the USMC, Italy and Spain.

We also need to increase the A2G on Typhoon, develop UCAV etc etc.

So the question is in my mind, can we get two ships and F35B in service sooner, or do we press ahead with one ship and risk another "review" ten years down the line. One ship with some F35C for approximately 140 days a year in all likelihood is going to mean a smaller fleet of escorts as the money will have to come from somewhere. The question for the Daily Mail readers out there is, can two CV's with 30 "short ranged, lower payload" F35B's defend or retake the Falklands? Could F35B do a Libya mission, contribute to the GW1 and GW2 type missions? The answer is yes to all of them.

This should set your mind at rest in regards to will any following governments swap, well Cameron can't afford - if the flip-flop is correct - to change his mind again and then if Labour get into power (which i hope they don't) they're the ones who originally chose the F-35B and are now heavily criticising the government about overruling the decision anyway, it'd look very bad for them to flip-flop wouldn't it.

The question on A2G Tiffy + UCAV would be better off in the RAF thread.

As to the RN finding the crew, hopefully i'll be among them if all goes to plan

 

[1805]

Interesting nationalisation of YPF, from a distance it looks quite a high handed nationalist/popularist move. The shorter the gap in our carrier capability the better. There is much talk about coverage with having single ships, but it's worth noting that nearly everything was available at short notice in 1982 (both carriers, both LPD, 6 LST).

 

[overlander]

Interesting nationalisation of YPF, from a distance it looks quite a high handed nationalist/popularist move. The shorter the gap in our carrier capability the better. There is much talk about coverage with having single ships, but it's worth noting that nearly everything was available at short notice in 1982 (both carriers, both LPD, 6 LST).

With the current radical government in Argentina is not impossible an adventure to retake the Falklands, other question is if they will but the UK has to be careful about the matter and consider it, the question of YPF is an example that the argies are a banana republic and everything is possible with them.
We in Spain now them very well.

 

[StobieWan]

The Argentinians have no amphib capability. Unless someone teleports in a force of a few thousand troops, as an act of charity, it's not happening.


On top of that, they haven't modernised their air force or Navy since the last war.

Add to which, Mount Pleasant Airfield is incredibly well fortified.

It's not happening.

Nationalising a company belonging to their single biggest foreign investor really doesn't help them with their economy either and I suspect they'll find it increasingly hard to attract overseas investment in future.

 

[overlander]

If finally the british government decides to buy the f 35B it would be a very good option in my opinion, is a very capable aircraft and 1 of the carriers could be used as a multi role patform with LPH role and with fighters the same as was used HMS Hermes in the Falklands.
I hope they preserve the 2 carriers and the 2 operational not 1 in reserve all time , to build 2 big and expensive carriers but to maintain only 1 operational is my opinion a very bad decission. with no sense at all.

 

[swerve]

F35B may be available earlier, other buyers with even more dodgy economies than ours may cut their orders eg could we bag some destined for italy or spain.

Spain hasn't ordered any. It's not in the JSF consortium, & if it buys F-35B (the Armada is very keen, hence building an F-35B-capable LHD, but money's tight), will probably do so after LRIP. It can keep its Harriers flying for long enough to do that. Therefore, there won't be any slots for Spanish F-35Bs being freed for us.

But Italy seems to be cutting its requirement for F-35B to the number needed for carrier operations, & dropping the joint air force/navy F-35B force, to the relief of the navy, which sees it as the air force trying to abolish fixed-wing naval aviation again. There may therefore be some Italian F-35B slots available early.

 

[kev 99]

If finally the british government decides to buy the f 35B it would be a very good option in my opinion, is a very capable aircraft and 1 of the carriers could be used as a multi role patform with LPH role and with fighters the same as was used HMS Hermes in the Falklands.
I hope they preserve the 2 carriers and the 2 operational not 1 in reserve all time , to build 2 big and expensive carriers but to maintain only 1 operational is my opinion a very bad decission. with no sense at all.

Not happening without a defence budget increase over that predicted by the SDSR; the RN don't have the budget or personnel to operate both carriers at once, so it will be one operational and 1 mothballed as per the SDSR.

The decision to procure these carriers was made in the 1998 SDR, just about everything about the force structure outlined in that document has turned out to be either wrong or unaffordable.

 

[RobWilliams]

If finally the british government decides to buy the f 35B it would be a very good option in my opinion, is a very capable aircraft and 1 of the carriers could be used as a multi role patform with LPH role and with fighters the same as was used HMS Hermes in the Falklands.
I hope they preserve the 2 carriers and the 2 operational not 1 in reserve all time , to build 2 big and expensive carriers but to maintain only 1 operational is my opinion a very bad decission. with no sense at all.

I'd much rather have 1 operational and 1 mothballed, it'd not be viable for the RN to operate both at the same time. It guarantees a 100% strike capability 24/7/365. Besides, apart from a serious war, the capabilities of 2 carriers together would be massive overkill and just plain unneccesary.

The standard air component for the carriers is 36 F-35 and 4 helicopters (the type i cannot remember)

 

[Hambo]

Not a bad summary of the issues from a recent briefing in the Parliament library. The downloadable PDF sums up some of the issues as recently publicised in the press.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Commons Library Standard Note - UK Parliament

Of note is that in January 2011 there was a real possibility that the B would be axed due to technical issues so at the time of the reversal in some ways it is understandable that they jumped to C, rather than hold the nerve.

The decision on what cat and trap system was not due until late 2012 and that extra training costs of the C may negate the perceived 25% through life cost advantage over the B.

The government wont even set a firm in service date until after 2013 and the procurement of all types has been delayed.

All in all a complete balls up. But if the decisions have not been made yet on conversion costs this whole process may just be an excuse to delay the problem even more to avoid having to purchase the long lead items. I know there was mention of penalty payments meaning The government said it would cost more to cancel, but with POW only just started, and potential £1 billion plus to convert, is there any window for this lot to pull the plug on POW altogether? Would the penalty be less than the conversion cost allowing then to "save" the taxpayer money, then just press on with QE with a vague promise of a tiny buy of B down the line, "well the french manage with just one carrier"?? Unlikely but I wouldn't put anything passed them, they were quite happy to can £3 billion worth of Nimrod and a perfectly good Harrier fleet. (and who cares if those nasty scots don't have a ship to build after they vote independence in 2014)

The problem is there is not an ounce of honesty amongst them, no long term plan and just an overwhelming desire to build a war chest to win votes in 2015.

 

[1805]

Not a bad summary of the issues from a recent briefing in the Parliament library. The downloadable PDF sums up some of the issues as recently publicised in the press.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Commons Library Standard Note - UK Parliament

Of note is that in January 2011 there was a real possibility that the B would be axed due to technical issues so at the time of the reversal in some ways it is understandable that they jumped to C, rather than hold the nerve.

The decision on what cat and trap system was not due until late 2012 and that extra training costs of the C may negate the perceived 25% through life cost advantage over the B.

The government wont even set a firm in service date until after 2013 and the procurement of all types has been delayed.

All in all a complete balls up. But if the decisions have not been made yet on conversion costs this whole process may just be an excuse to delay the problem even more to avoid having to purchase the long lead items. I know there was mention of penalty payments meaning The government said it would cost more to cancel, but with POW only just started, and potential £1 billion plus to convert, is there any window for this lot to pull the plug on POW altogether? Would the penalty be less than the conversion cost allowing then to "save" the taxpayer money, then just press on with QE with a vague promise of a tiny buy of B down the line, "well the french manage with just one carrier"?? Unlikely but I wouldn't put anything passed them, they were quite happy to can £3 billion worth of Nimrod and a perfectly good Harrier fleet. (and who cares if those nasty scots don't have a ship to build after they vote independence in 2014)

The problem is there is not an ounce of honesty amongst them, no long term plan and just an overwhelming desire to build a war chest to win votes in 2015.

I have some sympathy with your veiw on the timing, short term nature of political oversight generally, and it should not be so, but to say they are all dishonest (either side) is harsh. I think they try their best, I think most people do. They are running huge departments (oftens ones they are not that keen on) with very little real knowledge.

But you can see from the debates in this room, that people who have a real passion for the RN, hold very different views around a number of issues. What I hope for is that we start to spend more wisely and there is a general improvement in the enviroment in which people buy. I would like to see defence chiefs (prehaps with more commerical experience/training) given more freedom and responsibility around what is spent where. But they must learn how to budget.

 

[spsun100001]

F35 report

I think the last government were cynical about defence (asking the military to do things they weren't prepared to pay for and properly resource and using the defence budget for job creation rather than optimum procurement). This lot are just incompetent as their own report seems to show with regard to the F35:

Fighter jets about-turn 'will harm capability’ - Telegraph

 

[1805]

I think the last government were cynical about defence (asking the military to do things they weren't prepared to pay for and properly resource and using the defence budget for job creation rather than optimum procurement). This lot are just incompetent as their own report seems to show with regard to the F35:

Fighter jets about-turn 'will harm capability’ - Telegraph

But this is just the sort of unhelpful mis-information that ministers, with limited knowledge have to battle against. Ever procurement decision is a compromise, lets compare capability of say:

F35c v F35B v Harrier GR9 v FA2 v nothing at all for a decade. If they then look at the likely forces we might face.

If the B helps close the capability gap faster it is by far the better option. How much of the deep strike can be done at less risk an cost by cruise missiles.

 

[spsun100001]

But this is just the sort of unhelpful mis-information that ministers, with limited knowledge have to battle against. Ever procurement decision is a compromise, lets compare capability of say:

F35c v F35B v Harrier GR9 v FA2 v nothing at all for a decade. If they then look at the likely forces we might face.

If the B helps close the capability gap faster it is by far the better option. How much of the deep strike can be done at less risk an cost by cruise missiles.

I'm with you 100% on deep strike and cruise missiles and clearly, the F35B is better than nothing and better than what we have had before.

I don't think you can compare the F35 with the GR9 and FA2 which are aircraft no longer in service. You might as well say it's better than the Spitfire or Hurricane.

The question is, of the platforms currently available is the F35B the most capable and the answer is no. By a long chalk.

Whether it is the only one that is affordable is of course a different question and one that's hard to understand for the laymen as we don't know the through life costs of the available platforms or the truth around the disputed numbers on conversion costs of the carriers. of course, if we had competent politicians who had not added to the cost of the carriers by drawing out the construction process then we could have afforded the conversion costs.

 

[Hambo]

The requirement following the SDR is here on the MOD site, Carrier Strike became Carrier Enabled Power Projection.

Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Maritime | Carrier Strike | Carrier Enabled Power Projection

The specific range was to project "military power" 700 miles from land and sea. F35B plus StormShadow just about equals that, the F35C would exceed that by some considerable margin. All depends on the small print.

Seeing that the QE class will also operate a mixed deck on Helo's including the apache to support Royal Marines, in that mission the ships will have to be close enough to shore for the range characteristics of the helo.

F35B would tick all those requirements, but F35C gives far more flexibility in range and options for AEW and UCAV in future via emals. Going back will be for short term money saving reasons, but we will pay more in future for any UCAV because it will need to be compatible with that ramp. Either is an improvement from now but the B will cost us more in the long term IMO.

 

[StobieWan]

Comment on the future of British shipyards


BAE shipbuilding job cuts 'inevitable' - Defence Management

Interesting remark about Type 26 not being required to be built in the UK.

 

[1805]

Comment on the future of British shipyards


BAE shipbuilding job cuts 'inevitable' - Defence Management

Interesting remark about Type 26 not being required to be built in the UK.

Amazing statement if quoted correctly, but in line with the foolish decision to build the for MARS ships in South Korea. What was all that nonsense about the yards will all be far too busy to spare the time!

It really does show up the all the talk about an industrial strategy, was just rationing to put off hard decisions on consolidation.

Whatever follows the ACA, it’s probably going to look like a single national shipbuilder. I think there should be independent of BAE, there are few synergies and it is a distraction for their business strategy and the RN. Consideration should even be given for the Government to have an interest (for a short time say 5 years and floatation).

The UK/RN alone is one of the largest buyers in the market and should have the muscle to not only sustain but be a major export player.

This needs to be sorted out before we get to far down a commitment on numbers/timescales for the Type T26.

 

[kev 99]

Comment on the future of British shipyards


BAE shipbuilding job cuts 'inevitable' - Defence Management

Interesting remark about Type 26 not being required to be built in the UK.

If that isn't a 'message to the unions' then I'll eat my hat.

 

[StobieWan]

If that isn't a 'message to the unions' then I'll eat my hat.

Might be more of a shot across BAE's bow -I'm wondering if by decoupling the requirement for a UK built solution they're opening the field for DCNS etc to put in an offer?

 

[ProM]

Defenec Management may be reading too much into that. The actual quote only talks about not specifying a particular shipyard - i.e. BAES can close whichever ones they like.

However, the DIS states:

Shipbuilding and integration: there is no absolute
requirement to build all warships and Royal Fleet Auxiliary
vessels onshore, but a minimum ability to build and
integrate complex ships in the UK must be retained.

Hard to see how that could be retained if T26 is not built in the UK