Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[orca]

A subtle point that seems to be missed a lot is that whether it's 6 or 36 JCA onboard - it's (essentially, practically, potentially) 100% of the UK's (not fish head, not crab - the UK's) available FE@R.

So if it's 'paltry' then it isn't our MarStrike capability that's paltry -it's our strike capability in its entirety. (Unless FOAS, FCAC, DPOC is back...anyone?)

That's not the boat's fault.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Frostchamber

recent hints "rebalancing" of the RN in the offing. It wouldn't surprise me if following the next SDR we end up with a slightly smaller number of FF/DDs which would be freed up to concentrate on proper escort functions

Yes

thanks to a number of new low end units to carry out peacetime anti-piracy and similar functions. Cost would be defrayed by trimming a couple of frigates and maybe - because any such new vessels would also be capable of carrying mine hunting kit - by dispensing with some or all of the Sandowns also. Then again I've been wrong before...

Selling off a couple of frigates at eBay prices would probably not even pay for one FFC or whatever. Manpower would be neutral but building and kitting new vessels - that would need more money.

Then when it comes to protecting a QEC on its global mission you might need anti-piracy patrol boats rather than T45. Like who has the ability to launch a viable air threat against a well handled TG?

It is possible that the rebalancing would involve all the MOD? What is the most expensive component in the Army but arguable the least deployable or useable? The Army may have to take an even bigger hit than hither-to-fore and even consider getting more green berets.

[glojo]

A subtle point that seems to be missed a lot is that whether it's 6 or 36 JCA onboard - it's (essentially, practically, potentially) 100% of the UK's (not fish head, not crab - the UK's) available FE@R.

So if it's 'paltry' then it isn't our MarStrike capability that's paltry -it's our strike capability in its entirety. (Unless FOAS, FCAC, DPOC is back...anyone?)

That's not the boat's fault.

Totally agree.

I have also never disagreed with Mr Boffin and I don't suppose I ever will and hopefully my posts are stimulating the debate as opposed to being argumentative and to put more avgas onto the fire..

Are these ships better than nowt??

We have always tried to maintain a presence in areas where we have a presence...

Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antartica, Falklands, South Georgia along with the South Sandwich Islands, British Indian Ocean territories, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno, St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, Sovereign Base ares of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

I have listed those locations just because Her Majesty's Government has a duty to provide security and protection for those far flung areas.

Traditionally we have had a minimum of three warships dedicated to this along with their supporting fleet auxillary vessel, but now this is no longer possible. The merchant fleet flying the red ensign now exceeds over 50million GRT and whilst it could be argued the Royal Navy is legally bound to protect our merchant fleet, it MUST surely be a fundamental role to do just that BUT... We cannot spare a single escort to maintain a presence in the most hostile areas where piracy is a daily threat and that is to me plain wrong!!

The South Atlantic areas has a guardship along with in the summer an Ice Patrol ship with her own aircraft (does the current hired ship carry such a thing?) but we are a fire brigade Navy that is chasing fires as opposed to being on scene preventing any type of ignition.

Would we be better off leaving 'air' to the RAF as they have ALWAYS assured our government ministers that they 'Can do'

Leave 'air' to the RAF and allocate a further four or five escorts along with half a dozen smaller ships to carry out constabulary duties??

I do not agree with this proposal as I have seen how it does not work but at the moment we are going into the fight in a half hearted manner with one hand tied behind the proverbial back with a ship that had the potential to offer so much.

I have read reports all explaining why it would be so difficult to have converted these carriers but it did make me smile when we are told that over 1200 compartments would have to be removed to make way for the extra equipment!! All this was being said before the ship was built!!! Are we talking of CAD drawings or real steel?

Talking of steel... I still cannot understand why such large ships were not designed from the outset to have both cats and traps. You can launch a STOVL aircraft from a CATOBAR configuration but there is not a 'cat' in hells chance of launching a conventional fast jet from these carriers.

I accept the Sea Harrier never had the capability of buddy buddy refuelling but when push came to shove this aircraft could plonk itself on the deck of a nearby 'floating platform' but can the same be said for this latest STOVL aircraft and once refuelled could it take off again from a deck not adapted for this latest magnificent flying machine?

Is the RAF going to offer a refuelling and AEW capability that will be on station as and when required or are we going to have to rely on a rotor wing AEW and no refuelling capability?

Again this is me asking questions and not stating an opinion..

[Frostchamber]

PN:

"Selling off a couple of frigates at eBay prices would probably not even pay for one FFC or whatever."

I agree. I was thinking more that the package might involve trimming two or three of the planned T26s from the current planning assumption of 13 and replacing them with a larger number of low end vessels (largely cost and manpower neutral) to achieve what could then be portrayed as an increase in hull numbers overall.

There does seem to be a realisation that hull numbers is an issue. I guess it's also possible that the funds could be found from savings elsewhere, as the RN isn't exactly over-endowed with escorts now - it depends how "rebalancing" is interpreted in practice.

[peter we]

it's fiscal cliff time in DC - so let's see how that goes. I'm still dubious that Dave-B will survive (indeed, very dubious). Does anyone know how long/how much it would cost to refit EMALS at this point?

The fiscal cliff has no leeway on what gets cut - its 10% off everything. Why should the USMC take the hit?

If anything the C is the most vulnerable and its not wanted by the Navy, has no export demand and is the least developed.

But, exactly how much would it save cutting a particular model, given they share the same assembly line and many parts?

EMALS is obviously a non starter, so an alternative aircraft will have to be found... or not.

but there is not a 'cat' in hells chance of launching a conventional fast jet from these carriers.

Not true, but the payload/tempo maybe limited.

[glojo]

Originally Posted by Peter We

Not true, but the payload/tempo maybe limited

. You have started so you can finish Please name the type of aircraft you are thinking of?

Not only take off but also land and don't forget there are NO arrester wires. I am aware of a British fast jet taking off unassisted from a British carrier but my memory is not what it once was and I am sure this was a pre production or test aircraft that had holes drilled here there and everywhere to make it lighter, everything not needed to make the thing fly was removed and it gave a one off demonstration???

Yes the Russians do this with as you rightly say a reduced payload, BUT they also have to use an arrester wire to stop the aircraft. Our carriers lack this feature and yes it could be fitted, just like a lot of things could be fitted but the bottom line is it is not.

[Bastardeux]

The fiscal cliff has no leeway on what gets cut - its 10% off everything. Why should the USMC take the hit?

You're right that it's 10% off everything, but there's some debate as to how restricted that will be i.e. the 10% might be applied to each individual programme within the weapons procurement budget or it might be applied to just the weapons procurement budget...in which case, the F35 is the elephant in the room.

But the likelihood is that sequestration will be replaced with more responsible cuts...perhaps as high as the $500 billion currently on the table (but definitely looking to be at least another $150 billion at the low end), in which case the whole programme is completely fvcked, and the USAF end up with an order in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

Either way, I think the B is quite possibly already a zombie aircraft, in a world of $trillion deficits, will congress see a necessity for a hovering, supersonic, stealth aircraft with all the bells and whistles, just to act as a close air support aircraft for the marines...IMHO, no.

[Pontius Navigator]

FC, that makes sense. I cruise. I see lots of warships at the cruise ports. In Tunis I was surprised to see a German FF, and Italian PG, and I think a Turkish AK. Off Brest we saw rather a lot of French MSC(?) and in the Caribbean an RFA.

One problem I believe with the smaller patrol craft is they are more suited to day running and distant water ops. The key is for someone that holds the purse strings to do some serious consideration of our political needs.

[LowObservable]

Re JSF and budget cuts:

1 - Sequester or not, cliff or not, more budget cuts are on the way.

2 - You can't cut the DoD topline without a major whack at procurement, because pay and benefits are a bigger piece than ever and can't be cut rapidly.

2 - You can't cut procurement without a whack at JSF because it as big as the next several major programs put together.

The CSBA, indubitably the smartest of the Washington defense think tanks, ran an exercise in the summer where seven teams pulled from industry and government - working independently and off-the-record - aimed at likely budget levels using a common set of tools.

Six teams cut back JSF to a greater or lesser extent. The other let JSF have it, piff-bang in the ol' gazoo.

[peter we]

Our carriers lack this feature and yes it could be fitted, just like a lot of things could be fitted but the bottom line is it is not.

Not expensive or difficult to install. If we have to buy different aircraft, I think the few million it costs will be immaterial.

You have started so you can finish Please name the type of aircraft you are thinking of?

F-18, Rafale or maybe even the F-35C

[Heathrow Harry]

Steve Bush , who produces the Annual "British Warships & Auxiliaries" Guide is always raving about lack of hulls but in his latest edition he makes the point that maybe we should buy some off-the-shelf patrol boats at £100mm each, such as the Omanis use, for anti-piracy, Gib, Falklands etc etc rather than using a type 45 which costs zillions

[Not_a_boffin]

However, Steve Bush would be talking about hulls in addition to the 19 DD/FF, rather than instead of, which would be the case here.....

[airborne_artist]

HH - a fine idea, but you then have resources that can not be tasked to all requirements.

[ORAC]

HH - a fine idea, but you then have resources that can not be tasked to all requirements.

Neither can a handful of large highly expensive multi-role platforms. Being in more than one place at a time not being amongst their capabilities.....

[glojo]

Surely common sense has to prevail and whilst there is a place for patrol craft than that place must surely be coastal waters where shelter is readily available, fuel, stores and provisions. Would a larger, self sustaining craft be better suited with a decent gun,the ability to operate and store a helicopter plus be able to operate a smaller craft for boardings, inspections.

The Spanish are at present giving us the finger with our nice little 8 ton patrol boats with their GPMG main armament and no doubt other interested nations are monitoring our response to these incursions with great interest.

Going back to the thrust of this issue, can it be suggested the the modern navy is loosing sight of the differences between our frigates and the destroyer. Why not go back to the old 2000+ ton type frigates which were fully independent and capable of operating anywhere in the World and in any sea conditions. The type 23 frigate certainly looks like an amazing vessel, but at nearly 5000 tons they are a big ship filled with lots of very expensive goodies. Keep them but for the like of Somalia, the West Indies, the West Coast of Africa and even UK waters, perhaps a much smaller frigate is a better option?

[Biggus]

It's not as if the concept of smaller, simpler, vessels for certain uses is exactly new to the RN:

Peacock class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

700 odd tons, fully air conditioned for working in tropical climates, "capable of remaining at sea during typhoons" (whatever that means). As a crab I don't know how successful they were, but as a concept?

Maybe something slightly (not hugely) bigger next time, able to carry a Lynx size helo, and with a few more close in weapons of 20-30mm size (anti piracy/drug smuggling)? Just a thought....







It would appear the Philippine Navy agreed with me, as they upgraded their ex-RN Peacocks with a 25mm cannon and some smaller caliber weapons.


Jacinto class corvette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Squirrel 41]

LO wrote:

The CSBA, indubitably the smartest of the Washington defense think tanks, ran an exercise in the summer where seven teams pulled from industry and government - working independently and off-the-record - aimed at likely budget levels using a common set of tools.

Six teams cut back JSF to a greater or lesser extent. The other let JSF have it, piff-bang in the ol' gazoo.

Fascinating on the CSBA work - they're excellent, and the conclusion aren't surprising. Even with Tricare reform, manpower reductions, and ending large-scale combat operations in Afghanistan, cuts are inevitable - with procurement taking a big hit. It's much more sensible to take 100% savings from cutting whole programmes rather than a 10% across the board cuts - meaning that some serious thought needs to be given to Dave-B/C, future bomber (is there really a need for a nuclear triad at the projected force levels?), DD(X), future size of the US Army. Interesting times....

S41

[Heathrow Harry]

Airborne artist

That is the point - we don't need hulls that can do EVERYTHING - we need a few that can frighten a few Somalis, sit and chase the Spanish Coastguard in Gibralter Bay and watch over the Falklands Economic Zone etc etc

Using 45's for that sort of thing is a dreadful waste of money

[Heathrow Harry]

"The CSBA, indubitably the smartest of the Washington defense think tanks, ran an exercise in the summer where seven teams pulled from industry and government - working independently and off-the-record - aimed at likely budget levels using a common set of tools."

Today's Times had an article by someone from the States saying the US Defence Budget needs at least a 2% cut, taxes need to go up by 2-3% and entitlements cut by the same sort of number

[Bastardeux]

Today's Times had an article by someone from the States saying the US Defence Budget needs at least a 2% cut

did he not say a cut of 2% GDP?...i.e. a 50% cut, to make their finances sustainable in his view, bit extreme but he is a lefty! Either way, I think the general gist is there is a lot of money needs saving...