The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Truly diabolical. Blair and Brown have presided over the ruination of the fighting fleet (though it must be said that the fleet of amphibious assault ships is in a much better state, albeit with delays and cost over-runs).

They've absolutely stuffed up the shipbuilding capability. Nuke sub capability was so run down the USN had to be called in to do a technology assist.

The parlous state of internal capability was so bad that it set off alarm bells in the US about not maintaining capability. The report made by the "cousins" about the RN and degradation of mil industry standards appears to have had a positive outcome for US mil construction though. Since the report USN has firmed up on Virginia upgrades and orders - and extra money has been pumped into USV/ROV development. That also appears to have splattered the USAF as well, as SecDef has also ordered the services to buy min quantities of platforms when they had originally intended pruning their orders.

The French are the only major euro power with less compromised build and construction capability - and even they're hurting a little.

 

[Seaforth]

More from the Daily Telegraph

5 year promotion freeze for officers, up to 1,500 sailors to go, plus 20% to be cut from RN Reserves, and can't afford redundancy payments for senior officers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy06.xml

Fears over CVF cancellation:

Further stalling has been caused by the MoD insisting on the four major companies, led by BAe Systems, effectively to unite into a single company to build the ships. Legal wrangling over this could lead to a year's delay.

With at least £20 billion being allotted to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent over the next two decades, there are fears that one of the Armed Forces' half a dozen major projects will be shelved.

"If we don't get the two carriers, then effectively there is no real point in us having any surface fleet at all except for home defence," a senior Navy officer said. "Without that four acres of floating British territory, we will also not be able to project any authority in any part of the globe.

The MoD said it was "fully committed" to the carrier project and "steady progress" was being made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy106.xml

Sinking morale:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy206.xml

 

[Distiller]

So what is the RN structure supposed to look like in 2020?

2 Aircraft Carrier
3 Amphib Assault Ships
X Anti-Air Escorts
X ASW Escorts
X Colonial Policing Corvettes
X Logistics Support Vessels
8 SSN + SSBN


No dedicated new ASW ships? The Dukes are old by 2020, are not really strong ships, plus they are too light to keep up with the CVF. Maybe a new dedicated ASW vessel based on the Daring hull? But then the Darings have only one EH101. Would there be space for one or two more?

And what about the mine hunting capability? Going the USN way of airborne mine countermeasure and minature robot-submarines? Any plans for the RN?

 

[Tasman]

5 year promotion freeze for officers, up to 1,500 sailors to go, plus 20% to be cut from RN Reserves, and can't afford redundancy payments for senior officers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy06.xml

Fears over CVF cancellation:

Further stalling has been caused by the MoD insisting on the four major companies, led by BAe Systems, effectively to unite into a single company to build the ships. Legal wrangling over this could lead to a year's delay.

With at least £20 billion being allotted to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent over the next two decades, there are fears that one of the Armed Forces' half a dozen major projects will be shelved.

"If we don't get the two carriers, then effectively there is no real point in us having any surface fleet at all except for home defence," a senior Navy officer said. "Without that four acres of floating British territory, we will also not be able to project any authority in any part of the globe.

The MoD said it was "fully committed" to the carrier project and "steady progress" was being made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy106.xml

Sinking morale:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy206.xml

If the reports are accurate the news just keeps on getting worse and the treatment of personnel is, IMHO, disgusting.

At least there seems to be a determined push to keep the CVFs in the program. Delays are a worry though because, apart from the fact that they are needed before the existing carrier force disappears, the failure to sign firm contracts just adds to uncertainty for the whole of the RN and further damages morale. Delayed CVFs, however, are better than no CVFs!

I think it is essential that the navy be given clear and unequivocal guidelines by government as to what its roles are to be so that it can get on with planning and re-equipping to carry out those roles. The sooner this happens the better.

 

[Padfoot]

5 year promotion freeze for officers, up to 1,500 sailors to go, plus 20% to be cut from RN Reserves, and can't afford redundancy payments for senior officers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy06.xml

Fears over CVF cancellation:

Further stalling has been caused by the MoD insisting on the four major companies, led by BAe Systems, effectively to unite into a single company to build the ships. Legal wrangling over this could lead to a year's delay.

With at least £20 billion being allotted to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent over the next two decades, there are fears that one of the Armed Forces' half a dozen major projects will be shelved.

"If we don't get the two carriers, then effectively there is no real point in us having any surface fleet at all except for home defence," a senior Navy officer said. "Without that four acres of floating British territory, we will also not be able to project any authority in any part of the globe.

The MoD said it was "fully committed" to the carrier project and "steady progress" was being made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy106.xml

Sinking morale:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy206.xml

Seaforth, how is that you believe everything you read in a newspaper? There are more untruths, exaggerations and some downright lies in in those articles that I'm surprised you keep referring to them.

This from a serving Royal Navy officer on another forum:

I'll reiterate what I said before - ignore the inflamatory news stories because they are nothing more. The naval base review will report next summer (and is designed to bring the size of the RN tail into line with the size of the Fleet - it is currently ridiculously overmatched). While it is possible that escorts might be decommissioned in the next defence review, no decisions have been taken and the numbers bandied around are rubbish. I'm a serving officer in the Royal Navy and am writing this having read the lastest personnel support briefs (briefs written by MOD to let serving personnel know what is actually happening - they are unclassified).

 

[mark22w]

If one major programme has to go I suggest it's the replacement Trident SSBN's... any country struggling to fund 6 underarmed 'fitted for but not with..' AWDs and in dispute over projected carrier funding having spent 9 years from announcement (SDR '98) to err, well a pretty polished design... the UK or more importantly the RN can not afford it.

Of course the funding for this is downstream - and might well force further RN cuts in years to come. Assuming the carriers are built, which will make way for SSBN building? One low mileage 60,000 carrier - one careful owner... very little flight deck usage... expressions of interest welcome.

A less stealthy nuclear option might be affordable, spread amongst the SSN fleet as an additional not exclusive role.

This government has arguably the worst record of any UK government in terms of support or regard for the RN or the defence of Great Britain. However, I suggest few of the electorate would have the first inkling of what the RN does day to day and would be hard pushed to name but one RN warship. Without public support and backing it is going to be a hard battle to win over any party...

Of course if someone can work out a way to strap a Eurofighter to a canoe we have some coastal patrol assets to be proud of...

 

[Super Nimrod]

Re the comments about readiness, as was said a ship in extended readiness can be too far gone to recover. Back in the Falklands crisis there was a move to reactivate the light carrier Bulwark as she had been in comission only about 2 years before. However, she was found to be too difficult to get back into service economically (cost wasn't really an issue during that crisis either) and so the idea was abandoned after not very long.

 

[Seaforth]

Media coverage

Hi Padfoot, I know how the media works. Daily Telegraph wouldn't be giving these stories that much coverage especially over successive days without senior, trustworthy sources, e.g. senior RN officers, and with some kind of supporting evidence e.g. something they've seen in writing. They are devoting a lot of coverage to this, which will be based on at least some facts.

This is a turning point in the future of the Royal Navy. Looks like the Royal Navy is fighting for its life (maybe a bit late?), with some senior figures in the RN fighting via the media.

I do, however, appreciate that some things the media says are not correct. Journalists usually get some of the details wrong (they're not subject matter experts), but that doesn't affect the viability of the general thrust of the story.

 

[Seaforth]

So what is the RN structure supposed to look like in 2020?

2 Aircraft Carrier
3 Amphib Assault Ships
X Anti-Air Escorts
X ASW Escorts
X Colonial Policing Corvettes
X Logistics Support Vessels
8 SSN + SSBN


No dedicated new ASW ships? The Dukes are old by 2020, are not really strong ships, plus they are too light to keep up with the CVF. Maybe a new dedicated ASW vessel based on the Daring hull? But then the Darings have only one EH101. Would there be space for one or two more?

And what about the mine hunting capability? Going the USN way of airborne mine countermeasure and minature robot-submarines? Any plans for the RN?

How about (thinking generously!!), in 2020/25:

1 CVF Aircraft Carrier (the other UK CVF won't be built, but the French one will be built. Building one CVF fulfils the political "promise" to build CVF)
1 Amphib Assault Ship (elderly Bulwark remains - Albion & Ocean both retired)
2 or 3 Bay Class LPD (one or two sold in 2008/9)
6 T45 air defence destroyers
3 T23 frigates (elderly, about to retire)
3-5 new frigates / corvettes (further 3 in build). Could this be US LCS?
5 SSN (all Astute, future replacement will be UUV not SSN)
3 SSBN (elderly Vengeance about to retire plus 2 new SSBN, further 1 in build)
2-3 Patrol ships
6 MCMV (some kind of new platform, involving UUVs operated from motherships, thus only half a dozen motherships needed. Or could be a couple of additional LCS instead of special purpose MCMV???)
4-6 Replenishment/fuel vessels
A few (small) patrol boats for training only.

Fighters (available for CVF):
Maximum 36 JSF available, normally 24 embarked on CVF.
Considering trials of new UCAV for strike missions, but in competition with RAF who will be trialling a long range UCAV for strike missions therefore "no future CVF required" as the RAF will put it.

Helicopters (operational):
18 Future Lynx
12 EH101 ASW
4 EH101 AEW (converted from current ASW airframes)
12 EH101 assault (converted from current ASW airframes)
Introduction into service of some new unmanned aerial vehicle that is eliminating the need for a Lynx / EH101 ASW replacement.
Air Force and RN considering a common platform to replace EH101 assault.

 

[Mangusta CBT]

One RN Aircraf Carrier will be deleted ? :shudder

 

[Seaforth]

One RN Aircraf Carrier will be deleted ? :shudder

Unfortunately I think so. They are soooo expensive, that the temptation for the government of the day (whether Labour or Conservative) will always be there. Remember that there will be not just competing demands from the RAF and Army but also from other "popular" departments like the health service.

It's likely that the first two orders place for CVF would be the first CVF for each of the Royal Navy and the French Navy. Therefore the second Royal Navy CVF will be "exposed" for several years, as the order for that one won't be commited to until relatively late (4 or 5 years from now?).

I just can't see the UK government holding out that long and keeping their sticky fingers off it.

The up-side is large too, it's not just the cost of construction, but also the cost of manning + operating it + air group.

I can see it now ... cancel CVF#2 and therefore why do we need so many JSF?

Politicians think in mysterious ways their votes to win... plus they can always point back to the time of the last (CTOL) Ark Royal and remind the Navy that they survived before on one large carrier, so why not again. "One is better than none."

 

[froggb]

This is more for those Ex-pats and fellow Brits that use this board, basically found this on RumRation. Its to do with a petition called Save The Navy.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savethenavy/#detail

Sign the petition, pass it onto friends and family, the more people sign the petition the more attention those in power have to pay.

FrogGB goes Running to the Hills.

I'dd personally like to see a Royal Navy with 2 CVF's, 2 CVF sized LPH's (Biggest in the world), 12 Type 45's, 24 Frigates, and 12 SSN's, But thats not likely with the current lot in town.

 

[Super Nimrod]

I don't think manning would be an issue. According to todays Telegraph which is continuing the story, the navy has 17 people ashore for every one at sea, an all time high I think that may well be where any axe falls, as salaries are the single largest cost of virtually any organisation.
Perhaps there is some headroom for cuts among the MOD's naval civil servants as well ?

 

[Seaforth]

Great, a T45 manned by Commanders, Commodores and Rear Admirals... and ... "The battle stopped for tea".

Personnel will be a problem. The main way to save money through retirement of ships will be to retrench the hundreds of sailors and support staff who run each one of them. The senior officers will still be around, albeit mostly at LtCmdr rank (and they'll all be stick their for 5 years).

Get this... the proportion of senior officers / bureaucrats, which is already too high, is actually going to INCREASE!!

What a larfff... "doomed, we're doomed..."

 

[Seaforth]

Seriously though...

... the RN really is at the most significant tipping point right now.

Is it going to be a true blue ocean navy (as befits one of the biggest world economies), or just a coast guard? Is it going to continue to get smaller or does the rot stop here?

The outcome will depend on the public & media response, NOW!

It's time for you British folk to write letters to your MPs, letters to to your papers and phone your talkback radio shows....

... good luck...

 

[Ram737]

I was looking at Richard Beedall's site and saw under the Astute page that the fourth boat had a 'laid down' date for the 7th Feb 07, does that mean that we may see the fourth sub ordered?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

This from a serving Royal Navy officer on another forum:

I'm not saying you're lying, but could we please have the link to the forum? Thanks.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I was looking at Richard Beedall's site and saw under the Astute page that the fourth boat had a 'laid down' date for the 7th Feb 07, does that mean that we may see the fourth sub ordered?

Authorisation to cut steel at that date has apparently already been given. So if we keep our fingers crossed, we should see construction getting underway.

 

[Padfoot]

I'm not saying you're lying, but could we please have the link to the forum? Thanks.

Musashi, it's not in my nature to lie.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20070103.aspx?comments=Y

 

[type45]

The Submarine service isnt really in trouble in my opinion. Perhaps cutting a few subs might save some of our surface fleet. I think our service fleet is a much more valuble asset.