overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,401
I don,t critic the r.n. I am against the massive cuts the politicians are doing, a strong british defence is important for european and western defence .
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,402
Simply to spend more in defence, this is the question, british armed forces are overstretched, to reduce the number of servicemen and number of escorts to unaceptable levels is not good for a credible deterrent, do you think that now Britain is able to defend in a major conflict alone ?? to depend from other countries is dangerous if not look what happened in Suez in 1956.
We haven't historically planned around being the sole participant in a major conflict in forty years. Or more...
Credible deterrent ? We're fifth or sixth biggest navy in the world, still are one of the very few countries capable of conducting major operations at distance, one of the few countries with a fleet of nuclear powered attack boats, shortly to be one of a very small number of countries operating 5G fast jets from carriers.
Who is it that we'd be fighting *alone* that could stand up to us ? I emphasise "alone" here....
Short of a Battleship style alien force field being dropped around the UK and us having to fight off some CGI monsters, I think we're okay.
Government spending is near 47% of GDP, the Government is forcing most areas to take cuts. The MOD needs to become more efficient, and reduce the waste, in a number of areas it seems to be moving in the right direction. We just need to get over some big structural gaps.
Agreed, once you take out allies, there are probably few countries that could even stand up to us on our own.
kev 99
Member
The only way for this to be achieved realistically (without raising taxes or increasing borrowing) is for the Government to dip into the budgets that it has stated are ring-fenced. Sooner or later they will probably need to do that anyway, the NHS budget can't be protected forever but the foreign aid budget is a darling of the Tory party and this won't be cut in a hurry unless they are replaced in Government.
^^^^^^^ this.
Tbh people have too many vivid imaginations of the Royal Navy facing off alone against China or whatever. At best, the typical yardstick is Argentina for obvious reasons. I'd bet that if a list of realistic future UK 'enemies' was counted off, there'd probably be several other nations who would want in for whatever reason.
The people that imagine the RN expanding to how it was during the 2 world wars are the kind of people that read UKIP's defence policy and believe it's a legitimate policy which can be implicated in 2013.
Should point out, I drool over it too, but it's pretty much "If I had more money i'd get . . . . . ."
This is the thing - and fact is, the patrol/DEA/anti piracy missions are things that can be done by other countries with less capable ships - it's the sort of thing any of the world navies can tackle if need be. Particularly if the UK or similar are providing the tanker and logistics.
If it were a choice between three OPV's and say, CEC for Type 45, I'd chuck the money down on CEC in a heart beat - if you opened that up to "and for the Type 26 as well" I'd say "shut up and take my money". Ditto getting a fifth MARS tanker (not an option but just an example of what sort of money you're into)
The RN can put up a pretty solid expeditionary capability, can plug into an international force, and can generate force effects at a distance. Dismissing all of that as "just 19 surface combatants" is missing the point.
Yes, I'd like more Type 45's, yes, I'd like more of everything, but "spend more money" isn't a persuasive or fully costed argument.
If it were a choice between three OPV's and say, CEC for Type 45, I'd chuck the money down on CEC in a heart beat - if you opened that up to "and for the Type 26 as well" I'd say "shut up and take my money". Ditto getting a fifth MARS tanker (not an option but just an example of what sort of money you're into)
The RN can put up a pretty solid expeditionary capability, can plug into an international force, and can generate force effects at a distance. Dismissing all of that as "just 19 surface combatants" is missing the point.
Yes, I'd like more Type 45's, yes, I'd like more of everything, but "spend more money" isn't a persuasive or fully costed argument.
Agreed 1805, Hammond seems like he's done a decent enough job to make the MOD more efficient in it's procurement (even if the Treasury do grab back all the leftovers).
A mixture of this with a more stable economy is what we need.
Just got to hope to God that the Type 26 will be managed appropriately and costs roughly as advertised. Hell, add on a couple of export boats to it and factor in the technology pullthrough and we should be onto a winner.
Chances if she's cheaper than advertised we'll buy some more?
A mixture of this with a more stable economy is what we need.
Just got to hope to God that the Type 26 will be managed appropriately and costs roughly as advertised. Hell, add on a couple of export boats to it and factor in the technology pullthrough and we should be onto a winner.
Chances if she's cheaper than advertised we'll buy some more?
On a completely different track, here's a nice bit of info from DefenseNews about the Type 26 with respect to Brazil
Seems positive progress in trying to flog Brazil the Type 26, doesn't seem to be the same amount of inclusion that Fincantieri can offer with FREMM, interestingly it names Navantia, presumably offering the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate. Which is a new piece of info, I thought DCNS were offering their flavour of FREMM too but I suppose not.
Brazil Opens Sub Shipyard, Plans Fleet Update | Defense News | defensenews.com
Seems positive progress in trying to flog Brazil the Type 26, doesn't seem to be the same amount of inclusion that Fincantieri can offer with FREMM, interestingly it names Navantia, presumably offering the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate. Which is a new piece of info, I thought DCNS were offering their flavour of FREMM too but I suppose not.
I certainly think it is critical that costs do not overrun on the Type 26 and that we get a reasonable numbers. I am not sure I understand the role of the GP model enough to want more, I would rather any spare money was spent on strengthening capability in ASW (MPA & USV), CEC and ABM (I see this as a real threat with Iran/NK).Agreed 1805, Hammond seems like he's done a decent enough job to make the MOD more efficient in it's procurement (even if the Treasury do grab back all the leftovers).
A mixture of this with a more stable economy is what we need.
Just got to hope to God that the Type 26 will be managed appropriately and costs roughly as advertised. Hell, add on a couple of export boats to it and factor in the technology pullthrough and we should be onto a winner.
Chances if she's cheaper than advertised we'll buy some more?
Well, in my mind the GP/ASW variants are different breeds of the same ship.
I see the ASW configured ships silently doing their ASW work protecting the carrier out at sea, while the GP variants ready on task (like a SSN would be) for land strikes in the form of cruise missiles + NGFS.
But tbh I understand that's my idealised set of events with what variant does what, it could also be imagined that a GP variant could replace a ASW variant on station to free up the ASW T26 for emergency deployment.
IIRC it's the situation we have right now, or are progressing too before the Type 26 comes in, with only 8 frigates with 2087 sonar. The only difference between the GP/ASW variants are that the GP variants don't have the ASW kit but still have the spaces to do so.
Personally any such investment in ABM technology would require a step up in investment in the Type 45 meaning at least the extra 16 cells she reportedly has room for.
I see the ASW configured ships silently doing their ASW work protecting the carrier out at sea, while the GP variants ready on task (like a SSN would be) for land strikes in the form of cruise missiles + NGFS.
But tbh I understand that's my idealised set of events with what variant does what, it could also be imagined that a GP variant could replace a ASW variant on station to free up the ASW T26 for emergency deployment.
IIRC it's the situation we have right now, or are progressing too before the Type 26 comes in, with only 8 frigates with 2087 sonar. The only difference between the GP/ASW variants are that the GP variants don't have the ASW kit but still have the spaces to do so.
Personally any such investment in ABM technology would require a step up in investment in the Type 45 meaning at least the extra 16 cells she reportedly has room for.
I am not sure how many strike length VL cells the RN will eventually end up with but I suspect the less than could be accommodated on 19 ship (all Type 45/26s). To make up hull numbers I think the OPV makes more sense and free up cash for investment in equipment that makes the ships we do have more effective. For example 1 GP type 26 could equal 3 P8s.
On ABM I remember in GW1 the challenges old Scuds cause (little more than a copied V2). I don't think this has been lost on the Iranian and yet 20 years on the RN has done little....thankfully it has been the focus of other navies.
To be honest, i'm just glad that the Type 26 has been confirmed to have strike length cells (although I couldn't see how she couldn't) in either flavour, i've been becoming more interested in MdCN too so either is good for me. In regards to the Type 45 IIRC BMD Aster fits in the A50 too, but i'd still be in favour of putting in the A70 if they were slotting more in, considering the space is there to be used.
There is a lot to be said for losing a Type 26 for several OPVs, don't get me wrong. I've recently been thinking about (rather than buying OPV's NOW) adding extra numbers onto the MHPC program which an earlier poster - forgot who, sorry - mentioned 2028 as the date which if it's the case will be on the tail end of the Type 26 program. If we could base in the Carribean then we won't need a frigate or more importantly an RFA asset doing the job.
But I dunno, I need to think about it a bit more. The idea of losing frigates still irks me so.
But what's definite is that if we lost a frigate, it would probably either be OPV's OR cash investment (in the best circumstances), not both.
There is a lot to be said for losing a Type 26 for several OPVs, don't get me wrong. I've recently been thinking about (rather than buying OPV's NOW) adding extra numbers onto the MHPC program which an earlier poster - forgot who, sorry - mentioned 2028 as the date which if it's the case will be on the tail end of the Type 26 program. If we could base in the Carribean then we won't need a frigate or more importantly an RFA asset doing the job.
But I dunno, I need to think about it a bit more. The idea of losing frigates still irks me so.
But what's definite is that if we lost a frigate, it would probably either be OPV's OR cash investment (in the best circumstances), not both.
Well, the GP Type 23's differ from the TSA equipped versions by spending 100% of their time doing what the ASW variants spend 90% of their time doing - force presence, patrol, disaster relief, supporting UK nationals in turbulent times, blowing away bad guys etc. This is why I can never work out why folk even ask the question as to why we need 'em
2028 looks far to late, I would rather sell a few existing MCMV to finance bringing some forward. Also if we don't have a product in the space we can't be in the market. We shouldn't ignore job creation as a case for retaining/expanding budgets.
A really robust design for a Global Patrol Vessel...along the lines of the Knud Rasmussen Class, longer range (c10,000) and a hanger for a Lynx helicopter, c2,500, complete flexibility on weapons/systems fit, from just a 30mm (for the RN) to the options for 57mm/CAMM/Phalanx (for export).
That said I don't think this will need to be an and/or decision. That said I would like to see a small squadron of P8 (6 aircraft).
With regards to the P-8, the author of UK Armed Forces Commentary seems very hopeful, he wrote an article about how an increasing portion of UK aviators under Project Seedcorn (retaining MPA skills) are being deployed to operate the P-8.
I'm pulling the following from the sources he linked, credit to him for finding the sources and compiling it all together.
This particular newsletter being published late Oct 2011 so the agreement will last at least up until early 2015. VX-1 being an OT&E squadron which operates the P-8.
As a side note, the number of personnel elsewhere deployed as part of Seedcorn are
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 24 Nov 2011 (pt 0003)
Commonwealth usage right there! But yeah, not particularly sure what'll actually happen. I'm sure we'll find out post SDSR-2015 but I'd like it to happen, AFAIK it's supposed to be cruise missile capable for the US so I'd like the possibility of hanging some Storm Shadow's off her.
IIRC I heard a rumour that because we lost MPA capability that a frigate is supposed to be assigned for escorting the Vanguards in/out of the naval base, or something like that. So that'd be another frigate free for other uses.
Anyway, onto the surface fleet. We'll have a vessel to match what you outline (no doubt) when MHPC comes about, it'll be much more flexible and useful than just a patrol vessel so that'll be a good selling point.
If anything, the whole idea of building OPV's right now was brought about by BAE saying they'll close a shipyard. Supposedly an announcement was going to be made "definitely" by the end of 2012, it's April 2013 right now, so something must be going on.
Of course we shouldn't ignore job creation , but the problem is job retention. Imagine what it's going to be like post CVF, after the work boom it's going to shrink (as advertised, i should point out) down. I'd favour giving the workforce a predicable chain of work in the form of Type 26, then towards the backside of that it's MHPC and so on.
If the Type 26 arrives as advertised (1 per year), then it'll be say early 2030's when the last construction work happens, MHPC (alongside works like replacing the Fort's with MARS SSS, or Argus or Diligence) would fill the gap (s OPV's aren't that much ultimately) until ships like the Albions would be replaced (late 2030's most probably). A nice, solid, predictable chain of work that is there for at least the next 3 decades. If you look at Barrow, the timing of 2028 for the first Vanguard successor couldn't be more perfect in terms of the submarine drumbeat.
I'm pulling the following from the sources he linked, credit to him for finding the sources and compiling it all together.
http://www.maritimepatrolassociation.org/documents/updates/MPA_Community_News_10282011.pdf
This particular newsletter being published late Oct 2011 so the agreement will last at least up until early 2015. VX-1 being an OT&E squadron which operates the P-8.
As a side note, the number of personnel elsewhere deployed as part of Seedcorn are
- Canada - 7 (CP-140)
- New Zealand - 5 (P-3K Orion/P-3K2 Orion) & 1 (Beech King Air B200)
- Australia - 4 (AP-3C)
- USA - 1 (operational staff duties) & 2 (P-3C)
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 24 Nov 2011 (pt 0003)
Commonwealth usage right there! But yeah, not particularly sure what'll actually happen. I'm sure we'll find out post SDSR-2015 but I'd like it to happen, AFAIK it's supposed to be cruise missile capable for the US so I'd like the possibility of hanging some Storm Shadow's off her.
IIRC I heard a rumour that because we lost MPA capability that a frigate is supposed to be assigned for escorting the Vanguards in/out of the naval base, or something like that. So that'd be another frigate free for other uses.
Anyway, onto the surface fleet. We'll have a vessel to match what you outline (no doubt) when MHPC comes about, it'll be much more flexible and useful than just a patrol vessel so that'll be a good selling point.
If anything, the whole idea of building OPV's right now was brought about by BAE saying they'll close a shipyard. Supposedly an announcement was going to be made "definitely" by the end of 2012, it's April 2013 right now, so something must be going on.
Of course we shouldn't ignore job creation , but the problem is job retention. Imagine what it's going to be like post CVF, after the work boom it's going to shrink (as advertised, i should point out) down. I'd favour giving the workforce a predicable chain of work in the form of Type 26, then towards the backside of that it's MHPC and so on.
If the Type 26 arrives as advertised (1 per year), then it'll be say early 2030's when the last construction work happens, MHPC (alongside works like replacing the Fort's with MARS SSS, or Argus or Diligence) would fill the gap (s OPV's aren't that much ultimately) until ships like the Albions would be replaced (late 2030's most probably). A nice, solid, predictable chain of work that is there for at least the next 3 decades. If you look at Barrow, the timing of 2028 for the first Vanguard successor couldn't be more perfect in terms of the submarine drumbeat.
spsun100001
New Member
Further defence cust
In a number of articles over the last couple of days Cameron has confirmed that there would most likely be further cuts to the MOD budget if the Conservatives were in power after the 2015 election. I certainly can't see either of the other parties being more generous to defence if they were in government either.
Although Cameron promises to protect the equipment budget I can't see how that's possible as the only other saving you can make is manpower and we'll end up with a situation where we have insufficient personnel to deploy the kit. The problem will be even worse because the Treasury are holding their ground that the SSBN replacement will have to come from the existing defence budget rather than being outwith the MOD's expenditure as has previously been the case.
Were these cuts to be implemented and assuming that the equipment budget was included what might be at risk? Obviously, the size of the cut would dictate that to some extent but I wonder if the kinds of options on the table as far as the Navy goes might be:
1) Only order 6 Astutes and stretch out the construction programme to keep Barrow in Furness going until we are ready to built SSBN's. This is likely to be a false economy in the long run but politicians are only ever interested in solving today's problems..
2) Reduce the Type 26 buy, perhaps to the 8 ASW variants with the GP variants either cancelled or replaced by OPV's and Type 23 numbers immediately drawn down to save modernisation and operating costs.
3) Commission only one of the carriers as a Commando carrier with the other being mothballed. Cameron's comments during this governments defence review suggested he would have cancelled the carriers if he could. I can well see politicians arguing that having done without this capability for years proves we don't need it. The savings would come from lower crewing and operating costs, cancellation of/reduction in the F35 order and saving the costs of converting Merlin helicopters to take AEW radars.
4) Taking Illustrious/Ocean and a number of RFA's out of service with either no replacement or replacement by fewer hulls.
5) Further chipping away at the MCM fleet
I don't think any of these things are a good idea but sadly I would expect to see some of them becoming a reality in the 2015 to 2020 time period.
In a number of articles over the last couple of days Cameron has confirmed that there would most likely be further cuts to the MOD budget if the Conservatives were in power after the 2015 election. I certainly can't see either of the other parties being more generous to defence if they were in government either.
Although Cameron promises to protect the equipment budget I can't see how that's possible as the only other saving you can make is manpower and we'll end up with a situation where we have insufficient personnel to deploy the kit. The problem will be even worse because the Treasury are holding their ground that the SSBN replacement will have to come from the existing defence budget rather than being outwith the MOD's expenditure as has previously been the case.
Were these cuts to be implemented and assuming that the equipment budget was included what might be at risk? Obviously, the size of the cut would dictate that to some extent but I wonder if the kinds of options on the table as far as the Navy goes might be:
1) Only order 6 Astutes and stretch out the construction programme to keep Barrow in Furness going until we are ready to built SSBN's. This is likely to be a false economy in the long run but politicians are only ever interested in solving today's problems..
2) Reduce the Type 26 buy, perhaps to the 8 ASW variants with the GP variants either cancelled or replaced by OPV's and Type 23 numbers immediately drawn down to save modernisation and operating costs.
3) Commission only one of the carriers as a Commando carrier with the other being mothballed. Cameron's comments during this governments defence review suggested he would have cancelled the carriers if he could. I can well see politicians arguing that having done without this capability for years proves we don't need it. The savings would come from lower crewing and operating costs, cancellation of/reduction in the F35 order and saving the costs of converting Merlin helicopters to take AEW radars.
4) Taking Illustrious/Ocean and a number of RFA's out of service with either no replacement or replacement by fewer hulls.
5) Further chipping away at the MCM fleet
I don't think any of these things are a good idea but sadly I would expect to see some of them becoming a reality in the 2015 to 2020 time period.
I can't see any things as radical as these now. I was reading the leader in the FT on Tues, saying that departments which hard done well should not be punished and asked to cut more. It then quoted Defence & Local Government as star departments, and specifically that further defence cuts could impact our role on the world stage. I think better planning and budgeting should hopefully deliver much of what is needed and a bit more to rebuild capability.