The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Musashi_kenshin]

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.

So far only four Astutes have been "ordered" - that's not enough. Peter should not be robbed to pay Paul - Paul should be paid what he needs to start with.

The only issue where maybe a change could be made is over the SSBN replacement - it has been suggested that a modified Astute design be used to reduce costs.

 

[Systems Adict]

...What it doesn't address, of course, is how to prevent a terminal decline in the navy's personnel levels, along with the loss of knowledge and skills gained with so much sacrifice over the years.

I suppose the UK Navy is in a bit of a state with regards personnel, but by the same token, so are all 3 armed forces.

At present I have been reliably informed by my local tri-service recruiting office, that the good old days of the RN are gone. At present, not one RN ship that's patrolling the oceans of the world doesn't have at least one RN reservist onboard, filling some role or other. (I know all this as it's something I've tried to do recently - join up that is....)

There are other factors that should be considered when looking at manning of all 3 armed services....

#1. The size of the population - In the Western world (Europe specifically), population size has been reviewed, counted & recorded for at least the last 200-300 years. Since 1900, figures for population size have gradually rose upto WWI, declined due to the war, rose gradually up to 1939, then declined again due to the war.

In the period after the war from 1946 - 1970, European population size steadily increased, peaking around 1970, (the last year of the post war Baby Boom). Figures, I believe, show that numbers had more than doubled those of the 1891 census, with UK population being somewhere around 55 million.(but don't quote me !!)

What does this mean ???

Average age of those born in final years of that boom is now between 35 & 40 !!
The bulk of European population is now 40 or older, meaning unless they are already in the services, they're too old to join.

The reverse of that is since 1970, actual birth numbers have been in decline(yes figures will show a decline then a gradual rise from about 1971 up to 1995, due to the baby boomer kids having thier own kids, but numbers are significantly lower).

This all means that there are fewer people of a suitable age to fill those posts. Additionally, fewer of those people see a need or a valid reason to support the services.

#2.The Government - In the early 1980's, then Conservative Gov't. ruling the UK decided to have a defence review. Defence Secretary of the day, Sir John Nott, swung a big axe at the armed forces, reducing numbers across the board. As we know, no sooner had this happened, that the RN had to drag it's collective butt half way across the planet to defend "UK territory".

Since that point, numbers of both equipment & personnel have been drastically reduced across the board, across Europe.

This fall is due to factors from the fall of the iron curtain & the reliance on "Modern Technology".

These points, added to the costs of support, the WOT, meeting the demands of previous commitments, such as the promises that they make in parliment to build new hospitals/schools/roads/support for the older generation, etc, etc. These stretch the pot that funds all the commitments that we as a nation have to fulfill as a duty to our people.

Unfortunately, for the UK's RN especially, spending on weapons & the support structure around them is always a soft target for the politicos to hack away at...


But I digress...... A bit!

Systems Adict

 

[swerve]

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

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

That links to a bit of text on the notoriously unreliable Strategypage.com, lifted from a speculative published article. Where's the serving naval officer mentioned in your previous post?

 

[swerve]

One RN Aircraf Carrier will be deleted ? :shudder

The navy would rather have two, each half the size, than one big one, so I doubt it.

 

[swerve]

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

7 amphib assault ships . . . . Ocean (getting old by then), Albion, Bulwark & the four Bay class.

 

[Padfoot]

That links to a bit of text on the notoriously unreliable Strategypage.com, lifted from a speculative published article. Where's the serving naval officer mentioned in your previous post?

Click on View Comments. He goes by the moniker of HorribleSailor.

 

[Seaforth]

7 amphib assault ships . . . . Ocean (getting old by then), Albion, Bulwark & the four Bay class.

Doubt that there will be 7 amphib assault ships in 2020 based on current direction.

Ocean will be scrapped around 2020. Ocean seems to be a very useful ship - but she suffers from being one of a kind. By 2020 Ocean will be extremely "tired" and expensive to maintain.

Albion is being touted as one of the ships to be moved to extended readiness this year.

That leaves Bulwark and the Bays. The argument could be made (by bureaucrats) that you don't need 4 Bays if you only have one Bulwark, so it's likely that 1 or 2 Bays will be gone by 2020 - probably sold to another navy.

 

[Tasman]

Doubt that there will be 7 amphib assault ships in 2020 based on current direction.

Ocean will be scrapped around 2020. Ocean seems to be a very useful ship - but she suffers from being one of a kind. By 2020 Ocean will be extremely "tired" and expensive to maintain.

Albion is being touted as one of the ships to be moved to extended readiness this year.

That leaves Bulwark and the Bays. The argument could be made (by bureaucrats) that you don't need 4 Bays if you only have one Bulwark, so it's likely that 1 or 2 Bays will be gone by 2020 - probably sold to another navy.

This seems a pessimistic prediction Seaforth but I can see where your coming from. Cut one program and that immediately provides an argument to cut another!

Surely though the amphibious force is one of the few bright spots in the RN order of battle at present and IMO it seems to fit in well with the kind of operations that the UK is likely to get involved in. I just can't believe the British government would throw it away - then again government is run by politicians!

Cheers

 

[Seaforth]

This seems a pessimistic prediction Seaforth but I can see where your coming from. Cut one program and that immediately provides an argument to cut another!

Surely though the amphibious force is one of the few bright spots in the RN order of battle at present and IMO it seems to fit in well with the kind of operations that the UK is likely to get involved in. I just can't believe the British government would throw it away - then again government is run by politicians!

I absolutely agree, it's a very well structured force, and very modern with most units (12 of the 14) being delivered post 2000:
1 x LPH (Ark Royal or Ocean)
2 x LPD Albion Class
4 x LPD Bay Class
6 x RoRo Point Class
1 x Argus as an LPH or hospital ship
14 units

The issue will be keeping it together!

 

[Super Nimrod]

A couple of the 'sirs' LSL's are still technically available if they needed to do a proper beach landing. Sir Galahad actually isn't that old (but laid up currently awaiting decisions) and sir Bedivere was SLEP'd not long ago and still active

 

[swerve]

Doubt that there will be 7 amphib assault ships in 2020 based on current direction.

Ocean will be scrapped around 2020. Ocean seems to be a very useful ship - but she suffers from being one of a kind. By 2020 Ocean will be extremely "tired" and expensive to maintain.

Albion is being touted as one of the ships to be moved to extended readiness this year.

That leaves Bulwark and the Bays. The argument could be made (by bureaucrats) that you don't need 4 Bays if you only have one Bulwark, so it's likely that 1 or 2 Bays will be gone by 2020 - probably sold to another navy.

You're assuming that we'll start selling new ships. While that's possible, it's speculative, & it's clear that you speculate only one way. You may be right, but you may also be wrong. I take your arguments in the same way I do those of a barrister: you're trying to prove a case, not evaluating evidence.

7 is the number of ships which we now have, or are finishing off, which will still be well within their service lives in 2020. Ocean will be less "tired" in 2020 than any of the Invincibles are now.

 

[rickusn]

"Ocean will be less "tired" in 2020 than any of the Invincibles are now."

Yes one would tend to think that but nevertheless according to my Combat Fleets the RN only intends to operate her until 2018.

Some of her drawbacks real or supposed:

Max 19 kt speed.
Built to merchant vessel standards
No command and control facilities for either Flag officer facilities or Royal Marine Brigade staff.
Cannot transport heavy armor.
Hull blisters had to be added in order to launch and recover landing craft safely.
Capable of transporting only 40 1/2 ton trucks, 34 trailers and six 105 mm towed guns.
No well deck.
Can only transport but not operate Harriers.

But for me it greatly enhances the RM/RN ability to project a modicum of power independently.

But with the new ships in other navies now coming into commission, building or proposed she is likely to quickly be seen as rather modest in capability, outmoded and obsolete.

The USMC considers this type of ship(an LPH) to be a dead-end.

Although the air officers of the USMC like the proposed LHA(R)(In essence a far larger and more capable version of the LPH concept) because of its ability to operate effectively the new F-35 in relatively large #s.

However the ground officers are not enthused.

 

[Tasman]

"Ocean will be less "tired" in 2020 than any of the Invincibles are now."

Yes one would tend to think that but nevertheless according to my Combat Fleets the RN only intends to operate her until 2018.

Some of her drawbacks real or supposed:

Max 19 kt speed.
Built to merchant vessel standards
No command and control facilities for either Flag officer facilities or Royal Marine Brigade staff.
Cannot transport heavy armor.
Hull blisters had to be added in order to launch and recover landing craft safely.
Capable of transporting only 40 1/2 ton trucks, 34 trailers and six 105 mm towed guns.
No well deck.
Can only transport but not operate Harriers.

But for me it greatly enhances the RM/RN ability to project a modicum of power independently.

But with the new ships in other navies now coming into commission, building or proposed she is likely to quickly be seen as rather modest in capability, outmoded and obsolete.

The USMC considers this type of ship(an LPH) to be a dead-end.

Although the air officers of the USMC like the proposed LHA(R)(In essence a far larger and more capable version of the LPH concept) because of its ability to operate effectively the new F-35 in relatively large #s.

However the ground officers are not enthused.

I agree with the comments re Ocean and LPHs in general.

My understanding is that when The USN introduced the LPH they were designed to be part of a large amphibious task force that would also include (in the 1980s) several assault transports (LPD), several dock landing ships (LSD), several tank landing ships (LST) and an amphibious cargo ship (AKA). The LPH carried troops and a large number of helicopters. When the LHAs of the Tarawa class and the subsequent LHDs of the Wasp class were introduced they combined the functions of the LPH and the LPD. Whilst this has obvious advantages it is also akin to 'putting all eggs in one basket' and a very large basket at that.

The RN's first attempts at an LPH, apart from light carriers pressed into this role in the Suez campaign in 1956, were the 'Commando' carriers Albion and Bulwark. They were converted carriers (as were the early USN vessels) but they did carry a handful of landing craft (4 LCVPs as reported in the 1975/76 edition of Janes Fighting Ships). They operated in conjunction with the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid, similar in concept to the USN LPDs.

I am a little surprised that the RN did not go the American way and introduce LHD type vessels when Ocean was designed but I guess that the drawback was the size and cost of vessels like USS Wasp.

In recent years we have witnessed the development of medium sized multi purpose amphibious ships such as the Spanish Navantia design and the French Mistral design which are proving suitable for medium sized navies (eg the RAN). Consequently when the time comes to replace Ocean I can see benefits in the RN acquiring vessels of this type. A ship like the Navantia BPE could not only replace Ocean (and perhaps one of the assault ships as well) but it could act as a backup to the carrier force when a CVF is unavailable because of docking.

 

[Galrahn]

I'm not ready to agree with the statements of the USMC regarding the usefulness of the LPH. In many ways, the LHA(R) is more of a LPH than a LHA because it doesn't have a well deck.

If anything, Afghanistan and Iraq has proven the LPH concept may not be dead yet. In Afghanistan, the US Navy stripped down the Kitty Hawk and used it as a LPH, and in Iraq the HMS Ocean showed the LPH still has a role to play when it supported operations on Basra by providing a safe place for helicopter support to deploy.

In the end though, it isn't the MV-22 per se that makes me think the LPH isn't a dead concept, it is the emphasis of the MV-22 by the USMC that makes me think the LPH may have a role in the future. The MV-22 is a lot of things, but the one thing both supporters and detractors can agree on is it is a big platform. Because of its size, it increases the need for more aviation capability by sea to support operations, particularly the operational requirements stated in the Sea Base concept (1 battalion by sea and 1 battalion by air in 1 ten hour period of darkness). Given it takes 96 MV-22 sorties to move 1 battalion by air in 10 hours at the range requirements set forth, it doesn't seem to me current platforms provide enough capability.

The battalion by air option is a ridiculous logistics nightmare without more aviation capability, and the LHA(R) isn't enough unless it gives up JSFs, which I don't think is an option. That may open the door for a LPH in the future, albeit probably a LPH wholly unlike the older Vietnam era LPH platforms the US used to deploy, and very much unlike the HMS Ocean.

 

[Systems Adict]

Doubt that there will be 7 amphib assault ships in 2020 based on current direction.

Ocean will be scrapped around 2020. Ocean seems to be a very useful ship - but she suffers from being one of a kind. By 2020 Ocean will be extremely "tired" and expensive to maintain.

Albion is being touted as one of the ships to be moved to extended readiness this year.

That leaves Bulwark and the Bays. The argument could be made (by bureaucrats) that you don't need 4 Bays if you only have one Bulwark, so it's likely that 1 or 2 Bays will be gone by 2020 - probably sold to another navy.

I can understand where some of the arguement came from with regards the Bay class LSD(A)'s, after all, with the delays, the cost over runs, then the talk of converting Lyme Bay into a hospital ship, it's not surprising.

However, Albion & Bulwark where only commissioned in 2003/2004. They are RN vessels, not RFA. They were built to replace Intrepid & her sister ship, which were literally falling to pieces. Even after much redesign, including removal of a full deck, prior to construction, they have achieved all they were built to do & will continue to fulfill that role through to 2025 (probably).

The 4 bays, although late (with Lyme Bay not being finished final construction till mid/late 2007), are the shining stars of the RFA fleet. Although based on the Royal Schedle design, they are built to commercial standards (Lloyds).

The 3 ships that have been completed, again, have achieved the role/requirements they were designed for &, in some cases, have exceed these requirements, much to the joy of the DPA.
It has also been hinted that the RN were even thinking of "taking " one of them, as they are a tad jelous ! (but that's just hearsay!)

Even with concerns about budget cuts etc, I don't believe that the RN/RFA will let any of them go, due to issues around the MARPOL regulations regarding single hulled tankers. Although partially exempt, the rules will kick in soon, meaning that Rover/Leaf class tankers will be obsolete, thus to maintain a "Replenishment at Sea" capability, the Bays, along with the Wave Class Oilers will become the back bone of the fleet.

These facts added to current ideaology regarding future deployment of armed forces in support of humanitarian aid & small conficts, make the need for all 7 vessels even more core to the operation of UK forces.

But we digress, again! (slightly):

Systems Adict

 

[Whiskyjack]

I would think with the Army focus that is coming through that Amphibious lift would be more of a requirement. So I find it hard to believe that a cut here would be contemplated.

The ability to land and sustain forces ashore would be a priority at the moment I would have thought…

 

[Super Nimrod]

Regarding the HMS Ocean major refit in 2007, does anyone know if they are going to address the speed issue and tune her up a little ? It seems such a shame that it struggles to do about 20 knots

 

[overlander]

cuts and more cuts that,s all

i have to remember that in 2003 richard beedall predicted nearly exactly the heavy cuts that only 1 year later were announced in british parliament, if only 2 years later after these heavy cuts they are thinking to make another ones i agree totally with beedall that in 2025 the R.N. will be only a coastal force, as many retired officers say would better to scrap totally the R.N. THAN TO HAVE A RIDICULOUS NAVY, if british politicians are unable to maintain a decent british armed forces for the size and importance of britain better to srap it now than step by step.

 

[Tasman]

i have to remember that in 2003 richard beedall predicted nearly exactly the heavy cuts that only 1 year later were announced in british parliament, if only 2 years later after these heavy cuts they are thinking to make another ones i agree totally with beedall that in 2025 the R.N. will be only a coastal force, as many retired officers say would better to scrap totally the R.N. THAN TO HAVE A RIDICULOUS NAVY, if british politicians are unable to maintain a decent british armed forces for the size and importance of britain better to srap it now than step by step.

Surely a small navy is better than no navy!

What the British government must do is give the navy a clear statement about what its tasks are to be and then provide the funds to equip it for those tasks. At present it seems to me like it is the other way round. That is funds are cut and the navy then has to adjust its role to its new budget.

 

[contedicavour]

What is more appalling is the cyclical nature of defence spendings, with ups and downs. This means that once politicians want to revamp the armed forces from a low point in spending, it costs a lot more than if spending levels had been preserved at an average level. Especially if the decision is linked to an urgency like the Falklands in 1982. In that case you have to spend a lot just to recover lost time.

cheers