The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[mark22w]

I note with interest a couple of statements in this weeks JDW (31 Jan 07) relating to the T45 programme.

Firstly: “The overall cost of the programme has to date overrun by GBP635 mil, bringing overall costs up to GB6.1 billion. However Dauntless has worked out 11% cheaper than Daring, and the aim is to cut 30% of the cost from the first to the sixth ship.”

Let’s hope comments relating to increased savings, as more hulls are built, encourage the bean-counters to sanction not just six, but a final eight T45’s.

Secondly: “UK Procurement Minister Lord Drayson told Janes at the launch that a decision on 7 & 8 will be made this year”

Only hope continued pressure from the press, armed services and general public forces a positive decision from the incumbent short-sighted Labour Government.

With you all the way... every opportunity to keep the topic in the public domain with a change of PM if not government in the next year or two helps.

Question to all: 8 T45's as currently planned (weapon fits etc) or the existing 6 with deleted features added back in? TLAMs perhaps, larger VLS, and a Merlin? IMHO its a tough call and depends on future escorts; right now 8 IF reasonable chance a suitable T22/23 replacement with land attack option is on the cards...

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Question to all: 8 T45's as currently planned (weapon fits etc) or the existing 6 with deleted features added back in? TLAMs perhaps, larger VLS, and a Merlin? IMHO its a tough call and depends on future escorts; right now 8 IF reasonable chance a suitable T22/23 replacement with land attack option is on the cards...

8 Type-45 destroyers without a second thought. What the carriers will need, more than anything, is adequate cover that can only be provided by dedicated AAW ships. With 8 we will be sure there will always be enough for a taskforce - maybe even have one or two on "waving-the-flag" missions.

6 will mean the Darings could only be available for escorting the big ships - having them elsewhere would be far too dangerous if they were needed to provide escort at short-notice - 1 would not be enough to cover a taskforce.

And please no-one blither on about relying on the Europeans - there is no guarantee they would want to contribute. You can't bank on "if everything worked out for the best".

 

[swerve]

The RFA has an important role to play supporting the fleet and though some defensive weapons are highly desirable lets not make them land attack fleet units... Westminster would add Aster-30s and have an excuse to cut the T45's back to four...

The SSN TLAM combo has proved most effective and in the absence of suitable carriers and aircraft the UK's principle land attack option of late. No question it would make sense to add a similar option to the T45 and T22/23 replacements, even if small numbers for each.

Agreed. Rather have a few strike-length Mk 41 or Sylver A70 on each T45 than a couple of floating VLS batteries.

Definitely 8 Type 45 in the full AAW configuration.

For the T22/23 replacement I'd favour a mix of T45 hulls (maybe cut down slightly) with frigate-style fit-out (should be cheaper), & some smaller, cheaper, "global corvette" ships with Stanflex-style flexible weapons fits, suitable for the W. Indies station & other low-risk tasks with reduced crew & minimum weapons, but quickly (Stanflex is hours!) upgradable to warfighting rig. They'd keep up numbers, free the big boys for the big jobs, & in peacetime reduce the cost of the patrolling jobs, while being real warships when needed. Best if at least a couple could be kept in full warfighting rig permanently.

All the T45 hulls should have provision for strike VLS, even if some have to be "for but not with" to keep costs down.

 

[overlander]

Rumours Of Further Cuts

in some newspapers such as the standard and other press AGAIN they write about the possibility to sold the hulls of the 2 last type 45, reducing the total numer to only 4, about the cvf project more and more is evident that only 1 will be built for britain and the other maybe shared between france and britain, the delay in the approval of the order maybe because of this and in relation to my previous post that in 2025 only 15 destroyers and frigates will remain, i only suggest that everybody remember how many ships the r.n. had only 15 years ago and compare with the present 25 and reducing. in my opinion in 2025 the r.n. could be as a maximum the 3rd navy in europe, 2nd would be italy and far away by power and strenght as the 1st navy of europe will be the marine nationale of france.

 

[contedicavour]

in some newspapers such as the standard and other press AGAIN they write about the possibility to sold the hulls of the 2 last type 45, reducing the total numer to only 4, about the cvf project more and more is evident that only 1 will be built for britain and the other maybe shared between france and britain, the delay in the approval of the order maybe because of this and in relation to my previous post that in 2025 only 15 destroyers and frigates will remain, i only suggest that everybody remember how many ships the r.n. had only 15 years ago and compare with the present 25 and reducing. in my opinion in 2025 the r.n. could be as a maximum the 3rd navy in europe, 2nd would be italy and far away by power and strenght as the 1st navy of europe will be the marine nationale of france.

Being based in France, I've also heard rumours in Paris that France is pushing for a shared 2nd Queen Elizabeth carrier. The socialist candidate for the April presidential elections has stated it clearly and the centre-right candidate keeps talking about better efficiency of defence spending, not increasing it.
Of course, given the recent differences of opinion between Blair and Chirac (on Iraq for instance) I don't know how such a shared ownership of an aircraft carrier could function but we could be surprised in the next few months...

A separate comment : I'm more and more convinced that building 2 QE2 carriers of 70,000 tonnes and 8 Astute SSNs is too much of a stretch if it means cutting too severely the escort force (DDG/FFG).
In Italy and France priority has been given in the recent past to CVs, SSs, DDGs and amphibious forces. The bulk of the fleet, the FFGs, are now relying on FREMM programme for replacement. Though FREMM construction has started in France and soon will in Italy, there is still a big question mark on total numbers that will be built. Unfortunately.

cheers

 

[Dave H]

I cant ever see us sharing a warship with France and I think we can afford both carriers and will build two. I think the question is whether France wants to build one for herself.

As you point out, the UK often sides with the US and France normally puts economic or trade relationships with dodgy regimes first. Therefore the political argument would be massive.

The shared carrier would need to be catapult equipped as France wont get the F35B, and I doubt the UK would buy Rafaele if we are spending a fortune on the F35 and have the rival Typhoon for the RAF.

Can you advise on the cost of equipping a large carrier with catapults? Would £200 million be reasonable? If that is the case I would reduce the F35 buy by 6 aircraft and fit the two new RN carriers with catapults from the outset. At least then on missions that the UK and France agree on, French Rafaels and RN F35's could fly some sorties from RN carriers and vice versa with the DeGaul and future French one. In that way there would be no need for a complicated part share.

I am not worried about perceived cuts in the escorts now, a future government could build more but I believe that politicians have finally woken upto the idea that without a means of projecting force then you might as well not bother with a navy, and the carriers are central to this strategy.

 

[Dave H]

Also I have read that the BAE estimate for navalising the Typhoon was £2 billion, I would happily accept £2 cuts in the T45, (5 rather than 8) in the short term, in exchange for the creation of navalised Typhoon in a joint RN/RAF pool of aircraft flying from two carriers. What do you think could protect a fleet from air attack better? A combo of 3 Type 45's and F35's or reduced number of Type 45 ( two) and F35 plus Typhoon? I still have some concerns that the F35 will not perform in the fighter role. I would rather shoot down enemy aircraft at 200 miles using navalised Typhoon and have less Type 45 shooting them at 40 miles

Januarys AFM had a good piece on the F35 and mentioned that the UK government still has a back up plan involving Typhoon.

 

[contedicavour]

With the new phase of the JSF/F35 signed by all member countries (may be Denmark still hasn't signed ? italy is signing today in Washington) I'm pretty sure the F35 will materialize.
So I doubt navalized Typhoon will ever be studied seriously.
In the hypothesis of a shared French-UK carrier, it would be up to the French to finance the catapult for their Rafale. The RN will have the F35s and shouldn't bother financing catapults after all...

Last but not least, regarding the DDG vs extra aircrafts argument, the DDG has the very useful anti-missile job that embarked jets can't perform. A cruise missile launched from far away, or a SSM launched by a SSK/SSN, for instance, require a dedicated AAW ship supplementing embarked jets.

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I cant ever see us sharing a warship with France and I think we can afford both carriers and will build two. I think the question is whether France wants to build one for herself.

It's a pipe-dream put about by French politicians, who are desperately trying to find ways to save money from the budget but don't want to see the millions spent on the UK design wasted. The UK would never agree for the simple reason that it would be impossible to manage, as well as cut down on our ability to use CVF.

conte, first the carriers are NOT 70,000 t - it's 65,000. Second, we need them and we have spent so much money on the project thus far that re-developing a smaller design would not be that cheap. If you offered me more Darings or 2 CVF, I would go for CVF every time. That is also the Royal Navy's position.

 

[Dave H]

Contedicavour,

I agree that we need DDG's but not at the cost of carriers. Hopefully the refit intervals for the carriers will be long meaning that we could use both together, thats an airwing of 80 F35 or F35/ (fall back eg typhoon, Rafaele (doubtfull) or who knows some leased Superhornets/ UCAV's).

Two Carriers with three Type 45's as air defence (the other two in refit or transit), an ASW screen of 6-8 Type 23's with Sea Wolf. Embarked AEW aircraft, Storm Shadow launched from the Fixed wing aircraft and TLAM's from the 4 nuclear subs that make up the task force.

That is better than one carrier escorted by 6 Type 45's in my mind.

The life of the carrier is 50-plus years, by 2065 there will have been several tyoes of escorts that have entered serice and retired from service, I would bet that by 2065 RN warships might even be powered by bio fuels or nuclear. The point being there are decades to add to the surface escort fleet, the key point, in fact the only point worth making is that the carriers MUST be built. They will be.

 

[swerve]

... If you offered me more Darings or 2 CVF, I would go for CVF every time. That is also the Royal Navy's position.

For several very good reasons Among them are:-
A few more T45s are an incremental addition. 2 CVFs add a whole new set of abilities.
More escorts can be built relatively quickly. If needed urgently, they can even be bought secondhand. That is not true of carriers.

 

[Dave H]

The actual air component seems to be shrinking,

AFM reports in February that the total F35 buy will be less than 138 airframes for an in service fleet of 86 aircraft, and that might include 22 F35C models for the RAF as the manned element of the Future Combat Air Capability (replacing 142 Tornado GR4's).

There would be 4 squadrons of F35B's of 12 aircraft each in the Joint Combat Aircraft Fleet and 14 aircraft in an OCU. The RAF would have two 8 plane squadrons of F35C's and a OCU of 6.

The carriers would be able to operate 3 squadrons of 12 aircraft. However doesnt that mean that there will only be aircraft available for one carrier at a time?

Meanwhile the RAF will get some 232 Typhoons which will eventually get multirole capability and are more than capable of providing air superiority against current soviet developments whereas the F35 may struggle in the fighter role.

It would make more sense in my mind to either reduce the overall number of F35's and pay to navalise the next block of Typhoons (how hard could it be?) allowing RAF aircraft to fly from RN carriers and provide a mixed airwing for both carriers.

OR.. reduce the Typhoon buy drastically and buy more F35's to allow more to be placed on the carriers.

Cancelling the last batch of Typhoon would save £3 billion, that would ensure the carriers are built. Cancelling numbers 6,7 and 8 of the Type 45 would also save nearly 2 billion. The five billion saved could ensure the carriers are built with catapults (RAF F35C and Hawkeye capable) or bigger for larger capacity or....and this aint going to happen....a third carrier in the 2020 timeframe.

Unfortunately the RAF and navy will always battle for money, but now the RN will be able to bomb as well as the RAF and possibly gain air superiority as well as the RAF, I believe there is an argument for merging the budgets and realising that as an isolated Island in the North Sea our defence needs arent met by rivalry.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The carriers would be able to operate 3 squadrons of 12 aircraft. However doesnt that mean that there will only be aircraft available for one carrier at a time?

It would only ever be possible to rely on having one carrier available at any one point, given they're go into refit from time-to-time, etc. But with two carriers, one would always be sure there would be one available for deployment.

To be fair, at this time no one is sure how many F-35s the Royal Navy is going to end up with. The lion's share of the order may well go to it, so that it could operate two carriers at the same time.

By the way, can you explain how you've gone from 138 planes to only 36 being available for the Royal Navy? Where are the other 52 going, even if the OCU and RAF figures are right?

 

[Dave H]

I assume the buy of 138 covers the entire order, the actual pol operated at any one time being 80odd, the rest in reserve or storage and rotated over the 25 yr life of the type?

The Uk refitted 144 tornados to GR4 spec but we only operate 80 something at squadron level.

Either that or the AFM article was badly phrased and the three RN squadrons are separate, but that would add to 132 leaving just 6 for attrition spares. Im not sure but I expect the order wont be much bigger particularly as the cost per unit finalises.

I thought the carriers were planned to have 36 fixed wing each, more on overload so I would have expected at least 72 F35B for the RN's use , maybe we will get it, either way for the next 25-30 years the bulk of the 232 typhoons will be largely redundant.

Im not sure the report is accurate in that the RAF will only have 22 aircraft for deep strike, that seems to be cutting capabiliites too finely.

 

[Tasman]

The actual air component seems to be shrinking,

AFM reports in February that the total F35 buy will be less than 138 airframes for an in service fleet of 86 aircraft, and that might include 22 F35C models for the RAF as the manned element of the Future Combat Air Capability (replacing 142 Tornado GR4's).

There would be 4 squadrons of F35B's of 12 aircraft each in the Joint Combat Aircraft Fleet and 14 aircraft in an OCU. The RAF would have two 8 plane squadrons of F35C's and a OCU of 6.

The carriers would be able to operate 3 squadrons of 12 aircraft. However doesnt that mean that there will only be aircraft available for one carrier at a time?

I presume that the initial plan would be for each carrier to have a normal 'peacetime' complement of 24 F35Bs with extra aircraft drawn from the OCU in an emergency. When only one carrier is available it would be able to operate a third squadron and provide experience in the operation of an enlarged airgroup.

The important thing though, IMO, is to ensure that the RN gets the carriers. If having fewer than the optimal number of F35s ordered now helps with funding a two carrier fleet then so be it. More fighters can be ordered later. I think this is a better option than reducing the carrier order to one or to shrinking the design.

Cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The Uk refitted 144 tornados to GR4 spec but we only operate 80 something at squadron level.

Yeah, but is that because only 80 are required? If they don't need more they can keep the rest out of service/rotate.

I thought the carriers were planned to have 36 fixed wing each

Depends. I've read 30 standard with helos, MASC, etc, 36 if no helos - you could get more on with overload, yeah.

either way for the next 25-30 years the bulk of the 232 typhoons will be largely redundant.

Im not sure the report is accurate in that the RAF will only have 22 aircraft for deep strike, that seems to be cutting capabiliites too finely.

Last articles I read suggested that the Typhoons will be upgraded so they can be used in a strike role.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Lets remember that the RN will have (if the carriers are both ordered) in 2020 1 amphibious group and 1 carrier group ready to be deployed at minimum, with the possibility of the second carrier available.

So at a minimum the RN will need 2 escort groups ready to go at any one time, which would total 2 DDs, 4FFs (my assumption that two FFs would be needed per group) and 2 SSNs, so based on 1/3 in maintenance, 1/3 working up and 1/3 ready to go you are talking 6 DDs, 12FFs and 6 SSNs to support the two groups.

That doesn’t even take into account independent deployments and escorts for merchant shipping through/to a conflict zone.

Also remember that in an emergency situation, most of the vessels working up and some of the vessels in maintenance can be surged into active service (I am thinking Falklands here) but that would obviously have a downstream effect of messing with maintenance and training and effecting any deployments or crisis that may occur post emergency.

 

[Dave H]

Yep, The Typhoons in later tranches will be multirole and are going to replace the Jaguar and Tornado. The RAF seems to be looking at a very small number of F35's for the stealthy strike role along with cruise missiles and possibly UCAV's in the longer term as a mixed solution to the strike needs. I would still take less Typhoons in exchange for carriers.

The leap in capability that the two new carriers will give is illustrated by looking at what the forces are expected to achieve in the worst case scenario currently. The 2004 MOD document, Delivering Security in a Changing World, outlined perceived requirements for deployments, stating that in a large scale 'concurrency' (I think that means a war!) we could deploy 20 fighter aircraft and 64 offensive support aircraft. Although those are small numbers, it would be possible for the Two new carriers to provide the bulk of those numbers. ie 60 aircraft in a standard configuration. With in service dates of 2015 and 2017 there shouldnt be any need to refit until 2025 at the least so there should be a two ship capability for some time.

As to the airgroup the ever usefull navy matters site gives varying options for several design variations,normal and max as follows, from 24(30), 30(36) and 36(42), and all offering 4 AEW and 6 Merlin. More is better as far as I am concerned, although the F35 wont be the only aircraft, manned or unmanned over the next 50 years to operate from the decks.

Although some articles have voiced concern about the F35's ability to beat the Russian designs in Air to air by 2015 period , it is undoubtedly a fantastic improvement on the harrier. I still think that the decision not to navalise some or most of the typhoons verges on almost criminal short sightedness patricularly as we as a nation give enough away in third world aid PER YEAR, enough to build four carriers. Meanwhile our wonderful chancellor throws away the cost of a type 45 on educating african kids....sorry for the cynicism.

 

[Dave H]

Would the amphibious group sail without the carrier group? If we are involved in a conflict that needs large scale amphibious operations I would think we would be looking at sending overwhelming airpower, in that case both groups could be escorted economically, two Destroyers and two frigates to keep the carrier (s) safe (AAW, ASW) and one destroyer and three frigates closer in to shore for the amphibious group (NGS, AAW, ASW)??

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I would still take less Typhoons in exchange for carriers.

From what I've read, although we have to pay for Tranche 3 eventually, the MoD is putting that off for quite a few years. So they shouldn't cause CVF to fail.