Originally Posted by
rattman
I had it explained to me by someone I trust, it originally came up when I ****ting on the french about the time the suffren took. He pointed out to me that both the UK and French long build times were sorta intentional. Both countries have been burned in previous generation by building them and 20 years later build the next one, meanwhile all the skills had atrophied. I dont think we are going to get 8, think its going to 6 nuclear and 6 conventional. But time will tell. Also note the cost of the astutes are actually going, astute actually came in massively overbudget and it was thanks to GDEB to save the program and made the boats cheaper
Juggling the shipyard orders to ensure continuity of work for the skilled workers was what the current Australian government was trying to achieve with the schedule for the OPV’s, Attack class submarines & Hunter class frigates but it’s all unraveled with the cancellation of the Attack class & delays with the Hunter class design. The article (below) is a well thought out discussion suggesting a quick decision to build 3 more Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) to provide the necessary employment until the SSN’s & Hunters commence construction. Funding would be mainly using the money previously allocated in the next few years for building the Attack class.
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/deliv...er-navy-faster
I don’t think the RAN could manage two different submarine types (6 nuclear and 6 conventional) as suggested by Rattman. This government appears to be willing to spend the money because they see a real threat (another reason to build the additional AWD’s) so I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s. If there is a change of government at the upcoming election, the funding may be more restricted.
The UK government appears to be restricting their defence spending with early retirement of some naval vessels, reduction of the E7 order from 5 down to 3 (not a viable fleet for operations), insufficient P8’s, early retirement of C130J’s, no boom refuelling on the A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft despite having a number of types which use the boom, fitted for (but not with) designs on the Type 26 & 31 frigates, etc.
The latest report on the Royal Navy says that they need more escort ships & attack submarines as well as existing ships require a lot more offensive firepower.
”The fleet will continue to suffer from well-documented problems with several key assets for at least the next few years:
- Delays to crucial procurement programmes mean that old ships are becoming increasingly challenging to maintain and spend too long unavailable for operations.
- Even for newer ships maintenance projects take too long. At one point in July 2021 only one of six Type 45 destroyers was not undergoing maintenance: three vessels were in refit; one was in planned maintenance; and one was “experiencing technical issues” (in layman’s English, it broke down).
- The budget for operations and maintenance is tight and will likely lead to yet more ships sitting in port, failing to deter our increasingly emboldened adversaries.
- “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”. What offensive capabilities these ships do have will be reduced even further in three years’ time when the Government retires the Harpoon anti-ship missile without a planned replacement.
- Three important vessels – RFA Argus, RFA Fort Victoria and HMS Scott – will also retire without replacements: the Navy will likely lose its current ability to provide medical care, replenish vessels at sea, and monitor the sea bed.
- The fleet is increasingly reliant on allies for many capabilities, with a limited scope to act independently, and the Government needs to do more at the political level to ensure this support will be provided when needed.
Professor Till was among several witnesses who told the Defence Committee that Royal Navy vessels are often
“decidedly under-armed and with worryingly limited magazines”when compared with peers and adversaries.”