2087 is a fairly chunky bit of kit in that it's a towed array - you need all the winding gear and so forth - it's not something that'd be easy to move between ships, so unplugging a set from a ship going into refit and putting it on another ship isn't going to be particularly practical I suspect.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I was actually thinking about the V-22, although if it is that heavy, it may not work for that either. I just think if we will have invested so much in the CVF/F35 programme, to accept a Merlin based AEW solution seems a false economy. We just will not get the best out of the rest of the kit; to me it's the same argument as making do without CEC.
A better use of resources than the muddled thinking around the GP Type 26 concept.
We have Merlin airframes, there are already Merlin based AEW systems out there in service with Italy for instance. V22 is an expensive and maintenance heavy platform and no solution exists off the shelf. By the time we'd developed it we could have gone cat and trap then bought E2.
I am surprised at your hostility to the idea, you seemed keen on the potential for E2’s if CATOBAR had happened. The V22 has twice the maximum take-off weight of the Merlin. I’m all for getting value for money and buying off the shelf when we can, but if we invest £10bn+ in CVF/F35b, not to spend c5% of that on a decent AEW capability seems strange. If cost was the sole driver there are a number of ways it could be financed, subsitute some for the 16 Chinook order (might be commited now), 1-2 less GP Type 26, less need for E3s.
E2 already exists - so yes, if we'd gone CATOBAR, then scrubbing around for some E2 would have been a good idea. There's no comparison between that and deciding to develop a bespoke solution using an expensive airframe that costs a lot of money to run.
I'm not "hostile" to the idea, I just think it's unaffordably expensive and impractical.
We need the Chinooks badly, ditto the GP frigates - why let go of things that we need to fund something that costs more than the alternatives ? V22's strengths are it's speed in the air and the endurance - do we need those for something that will spend a lot of time flying racetrack patterns around the fleet ?
V22 isn't something the RN can afford to run, particularly not in a small fleet of five or six.
Actually I don't see we do need the GP Type 26 badly, it's not clear what they will offer over the non TAS Type 26, other than maybe cruise missiles which could be fitted to the Type 45. The service ceiling of a V22 is 25,000ft v 15,000 for a Merlin, even if we fitted the current suite it would be worth it.
We are by far the largest operarors of Chinooks outside the US, and will be out of Afghanistan by the time they arrive. The Merlin frames could replace some of them....
He didn't suggest buying 2087 for all 13. He suggested building all the ships with provision for it, so that when a ship is in refit or repair the sonar can be fitted to another ship.
The chief argument against that I can see is that the sonars probably also need major overhauls & upgrades from time to time, & this may be done while the ships carrying them are in refit.
The RAF says we are though, it must be true
I think the Iranians might have slightly more than us, depending on how many are still flying. Certainly the Japanese license built about 53-54 ?Let's not get off the subject on Chinook fleet sizes, I accept the Japanese are a larger fleet. But the RAF one is big and having a few of the new buys replaced with Merlin's would not be the end of the earth. Well ownership might be as they have handed over the Merlins to the RN.
Apologies, misread the comment, though my position still stands, 1.5bn is a lot of dosh (and this.is a conservative estimate of 5 GP T26s)
Ships are expensive, we need them....
Right, but are they the right ones? 1.5bn could probably buy any (or a mixture) of the following;
* 2 SSBNs (one almost paid for)
* 3 T45s
* 8 Absalons
* 12 Visby class corvettes
* 18 Canterbury style MRVs or BAMs
All proven example off the shelf designs.
Do you want to maximise the RN bang per buck or subsidize the BAE marketing programme?
* 2 SSBNs (one almost paid for)
* 3 T45s
* 8 Absalons
* 12 Visby class corvettes
* 18 Canterbury style MRVs or BAMs
All proven example off the shelf designs.
Do you want to maximise the RN bang per buck or subsidize the BAE marketing programme?
But why do we need them? If it's hulls a OPV/Black Swan type can do in greater numbers. You can get much more for the money, a CVF would not cost as much, create more jobs and have more presence/flexibility. A CVF cost will be spread over c50 years a Type 26 over c30. Thats probably in the region of half the CAPEX cost of 4 Type 26 over 30 years if they are only £350m.
Don't really class SSBN's as OTS, after all, Vanguards replacement isn't even designed yet (unless you suggest buying more Vanguards only to replace them?) more importantly, why do we need 6 SSBNs anyway? I'd rather buy another Astute with that cash.
As for the rest, i'd personally prefer to see the 5 T-26 on this one, the most of the ships on that list are either not what the RN want, type or up to what the RN want them to do.
In terms of getting a capable flexible escort to replace the T-23, then the T-26 is what we should get, not a rag-tag mixture of corvettes or numerous ships which are cumulatively no better.
I think that is a typo and he means SSNs, there is a case for another SSN both for capability and industrial cycle. There is also a good case for some more robust patrol craft, after the HMS Cornwall incident. The armoured RHIB does not look like the answer, to being surounded by armed speed boats.
Sorry, yes meant SSNs rather than SSBNs... Though anti piracy ops using a SSBN would put the wind up the buggers
The crux of the issue is that everyone starts with equipment and then works back to the requirement.
14 world class AAW and ASW vessels is more than enough to defend UK Territorial waters, and also support a 100% available world wide CVBG/ARG which would only be 2nd to the US in terms of capability.
The question should be what is the RN's role outside of these high end activities and what kit is required.
Assuming the RN does eventually get say 12 MHPCs (replacing the MCMs, Echos and Rivers), outside of UK EEZ / Fishery patrols (3 vessels), Falklands patrol ship, Clyde MCM, worldwide survey (2 vessels) and Gulf MCM duties (say 3 vessels) - what is left for other tasking? Probably, one max.
So if you go down the 5 GP T26 route, you can probably say two at one time will be available - so at best a total of 3.
The crux of the issue is that everyone starts with equipment and then works back to the requirement.
14 world class AAW and ASW vessels is more than enough to defend UK Territorial waters, and also support a 100% available world wide CVBG/ARG which would only be 2nd to the US in terms of capability.
The question should be what is the RN's role outside of these high end activities and what kit is required.
Assuming the RN does eventually get say 12 MHPCs (replacing the MCMs, Echos and Rivers), outside of UK EEZ / Fishery patrols (3 vessels), Falklands patrol ship, Clyde MCM, worldwide survey (2 vessels) and Gulf MCM duties (say 3 vessels) - what is left for other tasking? Probably, one max.
So if you go down the 5 GP T26 route, you can probably say two at one time will be available - so at best a total of 3.
Ah, no, last single unit price for T45 was about 750 million so it's either 2 T45's with AWD, no ASW or ASuW beyond the embarked helicopter, or five capable frigates with a wide spectrum of roles. I'd take the frigates every day of the week and so would the RN.
A single Astute would be about a billion (don't start down the "difference between delaying it and building another one." comparison - that money's already been squandered.)
Neither do we save any money in terms of design costs by building either of those since we still have to buy Type 26 with TAS - and that effectively means that the 5 GP variants will be "proven" or OTS or whatever you like to call it.
I don't agree that 14 surface combatants is "enough" when we're struggling to cover everything with 19 right now.