The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

We don't need or want another CVF - there's some debate about whether we could crew both of the ones we're buying and fitting out.


We've got enough carriers, and not enough escorts.Buying another carrier at the expense of four escorts doesn't make any sense.

 

[1805]

We don't need or want another CVF - there's some debate about whether we could crew both of the ones we're buying and fitting out.


We've got enough carriers, and not enough escorts.Buying another carrier at the expense of four escorts doesn't make any sense.

You have not been able to explain what the role of the GP escort is and why they are needed? I suspect it is for cruise missiles, if this is the case, they should be fitted to the Type 45s, they have space.

The extra time would allow a rethink of the Type 26, which if proceeded with now, will be to restricted.

Ultimately the AWD/ASW escort should merge and the Type 26 should begin that approach.

 

[swerve]

Buying a third CVF as a dedicated Ocean replacement isn't a particularly good idea, it would make more sense to buy something like an Enforcer LHD, in fact you could probably get 2 for less money.

And they'd have fewer crew between them & probably cost less to run.

The Enforcer would be a new design/construction, although not likely to be an expensive construction neither is the CVF both are large bulks of steel. BAE have outsourced some of their current workload to A&P (although this is being reduced). All the cost of the CVF is the delays and design, and set up, its all done.

All the cost? Did you really type that? The expensive engines & generating equipment comes free? Oh no. Even before the delays put the price up, most of the cost of CVF was in the ships, not the design. They're a hell of a lot more complicated than a similar size freighter.

We could buy a pair of OTS LHDs (there's a choice of models) much more cheaply than paying only for minor modifications to fit our own comms kit, etc.

We could even pay for major internal modifications to an existing design, fit all our own comms kit & so on & adopt an expensive construction method involving transporting incomplete ships half way round the world to maximise local work share, & still get two big LHDs for much the same as building one CVF.

 

[kev 99]

I don't think we need more of the Black Swans than proposed (actually less than that document). But you would need some to entre service before the 4 Type 23s leave, so I was not counting the cost here. Also there is no rush for a 3rd CVF to be commissioned certainly the gap between Ocean going could be covered. One of the benefits of a high profile asset is the PR value, and the ability to get additional funding for the RN for the employment it offers (this does work it must have been a big consideration for the Labour party in the initial orders). The Enforcer would be a new design/construction, although not likely to be an expensive construction neither is the CVF both are large bulks of steel. BAE have outsourced some of their current workload to A&P (although this is being reduced). All the cost of the CVF is the delays and design, and set up, its all done.

Sorry but that just isn't true. CVF may be a cheap carrier design but it's not that cheap. You could get 2 Enforcers plus change out of the cost to build a third CVF, and as Swerve says they would probably cost less to run as well.

So you're 30 Black Swans plus unmaned systems to go with them are unfunded. Where's the money for all this coming from then?

 

[StevoJH]

You could get 3-4 T45's for the cost of another Queen Elizabeth class carrier, let alone how many Bay class LSD's or T26's you could get.

 

[StobieWan]

You have not been able to explain what the role of the GP escort is and why they are needed? I suspect it is for cruise missiles, if this is the case, they should be fitted to the Type 45s, they have space.

The extra time would allow a rethink of the Type 26, which if proceeded with now, will be to restricted.

Ultimately the AWD/ASW escort should merge and the Type 26 should begin that approach.

Hull numbers.


The GP 26's will be doing all the stuff that the current non 2087 equipped ships are doing, plus have access to loitering attack munitions, probably Vulcano, some sort of modern ASM. They may or may not get TLAM - currently no surface ship in the RN carries TLAM but Type 26 should be getting strike length cells so it could be a possibility.

We're down to 19 major surface combatants, you're talking about ditching another four to buy a CVF we can't man and have no use for.

Get T26 into the water as scheduled, the thing has a completely replaceable mast, bags of space and it'll have plenty of VLS cells - it'll be fine. I'd prefer a better radar, more like CEAFAR but perhaps in the future - wouldn't be hard to do as it's a solid size ship with good internal reserves for volume.

Merging the AWD and ASW roles will give you a ship costing a billion and a bit each, or about 4 times the cost of a Type 26.

 

[RobWilliams]

You could get 3-4 T45's for the cost of another Queen Elizabeth class carrier, let alone how many Bay class LSD's or T26's you could get.

Agreed.

Our core carrier-bourne strike capability is pretty much sorted, so now - in my opinion - the key now is to get the adequate escorts for the job required.

Hell, i'd toy with the idea of an 8th Astute over a CVF (Aren't Astutes around £1.1bn?*), but i'd still go with a replacement LPH or something of a similar size/complement of Ocean in the future as a CVF acting as an LPH is faaaaaaaaar too big for the job it'd be required to do, at least in my opinion.

Here's a pretty cool video about how they're assembling the modules of the carriers, it's a bit dry though so beware

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctkY391dEYQ"]How to assemble the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers - YouTube[/nomedia]


*Defence secretary invests £1.1bn in future submarines | Royal Navy

It appears that HMS Ajax will use the new PWR3 reactor intended for the Vanguard replacement.

 

[StobieWan]

Agreed.

Our core carrier-bourne strike capability is pretty much sorted, so now - in my opinion - the key now is to get the adequate escorts for the job required.

Hell, i'd toy with the idea of an 8th Astute over a CVF (Aren't Astutes around £1.1bn?*), but i'd still go with a replacement LPH or something of a similar size/complement of Ocean in the future as a CVF acting as an LPH is faaaaaaaaar too big for the job it'd be required to do, at least in my opinion.

Here's a pretty cool video about how they're assembling the modules of the carriers, it's a bit dry though so beware

How to assemble the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers - YouTube


*Defence secretary invests £1.1bn in future submarines | Royal Navy

It appears that HMS Ajax will use the new PWR3 reactor intended for the Vanguard replacement.

Yes - I'd noticed that - bit surprised that we'd have one in a class with a different nuclear reactor, but I suppose it gives the RN a chance to work up one boat with the new technology ahead of the SSBN fleet (which we're maybe/definitely getting)

 

[RobWilliams]

Yes - I'd noticed that - bit surprised that we'd have one in a class with a different nuclear reactor, but I suppose it gives the RN a chance to work up one boat with the new technology ahead of the SSBN fleet (which we're maybe/definitely getting)

It does seem strange, but I suppose because both of the types of reactors are designed to not require refuelling in their service lives so that should decrease the cost by a big chunk in regards to personel training (not to mention the infrastructure required). IIRC the only real difference between the 2 is that the PWR3 reactor is 'safer' so maybe on a more operational level then maintenance etc might not be particularly different?

 

[StobieWan]

It does seem strange, but I suppose because both of the types of reactors are designed to not require refuelling in their service lives so that should decrease the cost by a big chunk in regards to personel training (not to mention the infrastructure required). IIRC the only real difference between the 2 is that the PWR3 reactor is 'safer' so maybe on a more operational level then maintenance etc might not be particularly different?

It probably keeps the design and build people busy in what would otherwise have been a gap between end of Astute and the construction of Successor. This way, we get a reactor designed, tested and built, keep the mill turning so to speak.

Thing is, I'd expect the reactor for a SSBN to be more powerful given the larger displacement and wonder if Ajax will be a little quicker as a result? I doubt very much if they'll come up with a "one of a kind" reactor for Ajax so it'd be a Successor reactor in there. Obviously it'd be limited by the rest of the engineering plant and screws but maybe a little quicker to accelerate or whatever ?

It's positive news I guess - was slightly amusing to watch that SNP divot rattle on about nuclear weapons and have Hammond point out this was nothing of the sort,


Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

Thing is, I'd expect the reactor for a SSBN to be more powerful given the larger displacement and wonder if Ajax will be a little quicker as a result? I doubt very much if they'll come up with a "one of a kind" reactor for Ajax so it'd be a Successor reactor in there. Obviously it'd be limited by the rest of the engineering plant and screws but maybe a little quicker to accelerate or whatever ?

Hmmm, that's interesting. IIRC the difference between the Astutes and the Vanguards top speeds is something around 5 knots (With Astute being the faster) going on RN figures. But would the roughly double displacement of the Vanguard explain this reduction in speed?

Because if it did, then it would just lead me to believe that they're pretty much identical in terms of power output. Then again, the intricacies of nuclear submarine engineering isn't something i'm particularly famailiar with so i expect i'm oversimplifying heavily here.

But still, I assume there would be some advantages, but i'm not really the person to ask.

 

[StobieWan]

Hmmm, that's interesting. IIRC the difference between the Astutes and the Vanguards top speeds is something around 5 knots (With Astute being the faster) going on RN figures. But would the roughly double displacement of the Vanguard explain this reduction in speed?

Because if it did, then it would just lead me to believe that they're pretty much identical in terms of power output. Then again, the intricacies of nuclear submarine engineering isn't something i'm particularly famailiar with so i expect i'm oversimplifying heavily here.

But still, I assume there would be some advantages, but i'm not really the person to ask.

Hmm..I really should do some research before opening my mouth I guess - it may well be the two are identical and I'm way off the mark here

 

[Repulse]

You have not been able to explain what the role of the GP escort is and why they are needed? I suspect it is for cruise missiles, if this is the case, they should be fitted to the Type 45s, they have space.

The extra time would allow a rethink of the Type 26, which if proceeded with now, will be to restricted.

Ultimately the AWD/ASW escort should merge and the Type 26 should begin that approach.

I do have some sympathy with the question over the purpose of the 5 GP T26s. I don't believe for a second they will get TLAM, which means that they will be used for general escort purposes where ASW or area AAW capabilities are not required - basically for flying the flag and making up numbers?

It is a valid question therefore to ask how and if we could get more bang for our buck spending the 1.5bn (5 x £300mn as I don't believe the 250mn hype). Also does having fewer T26s actually mean we get better use of the ones we have.

I would personally:
- Not upgrade 5 T23s - save the money.
- Use £250mn of the money I've saved on 4 Blackswans (fitted with the guns planned for the T26s), to support the existing Patrol fleet (i.e. Rivers), allowing it to cover the Caribbean, Gibraltar and South Atlantic). This easily covers what currently requires atleast 3 escorts and other supporting ships.
- Build an 8th Astute. Recent reports suggest the build was cost neutral, but I would allow £500mn for good measure. Having another Astute should allow the UK to permanently station one in the Indian Ocean / Far East. Plus gives real TLAM capability.
- Fit T45 with SSMs - should be cheap and cost neutral iusing kit from T23s.
- Build 6 Visby style corvettes. Estimate this to be £120mn per vessel - say 750mn in total, though would need to review weapon / sensor fit to keep as close as possible to current RN kit. Would see these ships as effectively providing a task force / major escort with a screen to protect from swarm / UAV / mini submarine attack.

Okay, you now have a major fleet of just 14 escorts - but instead now also have another 10 ships and one more sub. Crew numbers remain the same(ish).

 

[RobWilliams]

I do have some sympathy with the question over the purpose of the 5 GP T26s. I don't believe for a second they will get TLAM, which means that they will be used for general escort purposes where ASW or area AAW capabilities are not required - basically for flying the flag and making up numbers?

Personally, I believe they will get TLAM, partly because i'm optimisitc, but mainly because in the last round of designs released by BAE (in Jan i think) retained the "main VL missile silo" concept from previous rounds of designs which are seperate from the CAMM silos. Whilst I totally understand that these are far from set in stone, I don't see them dumping that particular feature.

Should this feature remain, I can't think of many missiles which would suit that particular use for the RN. Not to mention that I don't think the RN fields ships just for the hell of it.

 

[Repulse]

Personally, I believe they will get TLAM, partly because i'm optimisitc, but mainly because in the last round of designs released by BAE (in Jan i think) retained the "main VL missile silo" concept from previous rounds of designs which are seperate from the CAMM silos. Whilst I totally understand that these are far from set in stone, I don't see them dumping that particular feature.

Should this feature remain, I can't think of many missiles which would suit that particular use for the RN.

Maybe, but I fear those designs were for the benefit of the export market. Does the UK have the funds to buy enough TLAMs to making fitting them to T26s worthwhile? Also, we have space available now on the T45s if we do.

 

[RobWilliams]

Maybe, but I fear those designs were for the benefit of the export market. Does the UK have the funds to buy enough TLAMs to making fitting them to T26s worthwhile? Also, we have space available now on the T45s if we do.

Whilst the T26 is more export orientated, I highly doubt that the MOD would just say "ah to hell with it, who needs them anyway?" and remove it.

I have no idea how the MOD would deal with it, but they're very keen to tell people they've got £8bn on the hip over the next decade (or something like that) so perhaps some if that could go towards it?

We have the space available, but wouldn't it require swapping the cells themselves from A50 to A70? Then - AFAIK - isn't there supposed to be some intergration costs for TLAM to Sylver VLS?

They could go for SCALP Naval, that's got a range of 1000km or something like that, they fit in the A70 for sure.

As for fitting the cells to the T45, then go for it, but i'd prefer to give the T26 a cruise missile strike capability first (as one of it's core capabilities) before moving over to the T45. I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm saying not now.

 

[kev 99]

Agreed.

Our core carrier-bourne strike capability is pretty much sorted, so now - in my opinion - the key now is to get the adequate escorts for the job required.

Hell, i'd toy with the idea of an 8th Astute over a CVF (Aren't Astutes around £1.1bn?*), but i'd still go with a replacement LPH or something of a similar size/complement of Ocean in the future as a CVF acting as an LPH is faaaaaaaaar too big for the job it'd be required to do, at least in my opinion.

Here's a pretty cool video about how they're assembling the modules of the carriers, it's a bit dry though so beware

How to assemble the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers - YouTube


*Defence secretary invests £1.1bn in future submarines | Royal Navy

It appears that HMS Ajax will use the new PWR3 reactor intended for the Vanguard replacement.

I'd definitely go for an extra Astute. The reason the cost is so high is that the length of the time to build them is being dragged out because there will be a gap between the last boat and the first of the successor class otherwise, so building 8 would probably reduce the unit cost a bit.

 

[deepsixteen]

I'd definitely go for an extra Astute. The reason the cost is so high is that the length of the time to build them is being dragged out because there will be a gap between the last boat and the first of the successor class otherwise, so building 8 would probably reduce the unit cost a bit.

HI

I seem to recall the difference between the extra boat and stretching the build was only 200million.

Deepsixteen

 

[1805]

And they'd have fewer crew between them & probably cost less to run.


All the cost? Did you really type that? The expensive engines & generating equipment comes free? Oh no. Even before the delays put the price up, most of the cost of CVF was in the ships, not the design. They're a hell of a lot more complicated than a similar size freighter.

We could buy a pair of OTS LHDs (there's a choice of models) much more cheaply than paying only for minor modifications to fit our own comms kit, etc.

We could even pay for major internal modifications to an existing design, fit all our own comms kit & so on & adopt an expensive construction method involving transporting incomplete ships half way round the world to maximise local work share, & still get two big LHDs for much the same as building one CVF.

"All the cost" meant the bulk of the cost, a CVF would be OTS, and in production. You could build more Enforcer/Bays but it is low profile and we have just sold one. We have access to the Points.

 

[1805]

Agreed.

Our core carrier-bourne strike capability is pretty much sorted, so now - in my opinion - the key now is to get the adequate escorts for the job required.

Hell, i'd toy with the idea of an 8th Astute over a CVF (Aren't Astutes around £1.1bn?*), but i'd still go with a replacement LPH or something of a similar size/complement of Ocean in the future as a CVF acting as an LPH is faaaaaaaaar too big for the job it'd be required to do, at least in my opinion.

Here's a pretty cool video about how they're assembling the modules of the carriers, it's a bit dry though so beware

How to assemble the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers - YouTube


*Defence secretary invests £1.1bn in future submarines | Royal Navy

It appears that HMS Ajax will use the new PWR3 reactor intended for the Vanguard replacement.

I agree an 8th Astute would make sense, in maintaining an industrial cycle, however a big drive of my 3rd CVF is the employment created for the cost and the profile this provides to the RN, in a time of high employment. It's about reconnecting with the public. Outside of people with an interest in naval matters few people really understand the scale or impact of the CVFs, once they are in the water and a few F35 are flying off them the penny will drop and they will love them as the ultimate problem solver.