Future Carrier (Including Costs)
"The denizens of the House of Darkness, however, be happy to trade potential lost lives for saving a few quid on the acquisition cost."
I doubt they'll finish up being low cost - a 20,000 ton Mistral equivalent - built in the UK as well........... and once again we can't seem to agree anything with the Europeans so its a one off design for our use only. That's not a good omen.
Your list of questions is a good one - only I doubt they have any real idea of what the answers might be
I doubt they'll finish up being low cost - a 20,000 ton Mistral equivalent - built in the UK as well........... and once again we can't seem to agree anything with the Europeans so its a one off design for our use only. That's not a good omen.
Your list of questions is a good one - only I doubt they have any real idea of what the answers might be
ORAC,
I should have been clearer that I was only responding to Compass Calls's comment about minimum wage.
I was already aware of Sean's posts and admired his willingess to consider entering the RFA as an apprentice with the concomitant remuneration. Beancounters will only pay the minimum they can get away with. The RFA isn't unique in failing to have the flexibility to allow entry at non-standard points in the hierarchy and recognise relevant experience (in his case specialism and sea time) by pay - rigidity in recruitment is widespread in the public sector and the more hidebound institutionalized private sector.
The ability to rely on high unemployment and a sense of public duty to recruit sufficient of the best candidates in the defence sector is long gone. Adherence to rigid pay scales and age restrictions don't help, we live in a world where Ts&Cs need to be negotiable to attract the best individuals. There needs to be an acceptance that training is a punt and expectations of ROS may be an inappropriate discincentive and service notice periods are unrealistic for those with considerable experience (ramble, ramble)
I should have been clearer that I was only responding to Compass Calls's comment about minimum wage.
I was already aware of Sean's posts and admired his willingess to consider entering the RFA as an apprentice with the concomitant remuneration. Beancounters will only pay the minimum they can get away with. The RFA isn't unique in failing to have the flexibility to allow entry at non-standard points in the hierarchy and recognise relevant experience (in his case specialism and sea time) by pay - rigidity in recruitment is widespread in the public sector and the more hidebound institutionalized private sector.
The ability to rely on high unemployment and a sense of public duty to recruit sufficient of the best candidates in the defence sector is long gone. Adherence to rigid pay scales and age restrictions don't help, we live in a world where Ts&Cs need to be negotiable to attract the best individuals. There needs to be an acceptance that training is a punt and expectations of ROS may be an inappropriate discincentive and service notice periods are unrealistic for those with considerable experience (ramble, ramble)
Thread Starter
What exactly does your first sentence mean?
It is a diagram that illustrates the lobe of the main beam from a warship's radar, and the radar horizon. It demonstrates why low flying prevents long range detection by surface radars - think of the Argentine tactics in the Falklands. The only answer is airborne radar. Just as airborne radar provides early detection, early engagement by fighters provides the best opportunity to defeat incoming raids, particularly if the enemy aircraft are armed with anti ship missiles that can be fired beyond the range of ship based defences.
All fundamental stuff really - as noted by a comment from a former US Navy flyer on thread about why carriers needed are in the Atlantic (and elsewhere of course) for Air Defence and ASW:
...the primary mission for the CV/CVN in the North Atlantic was not ASW (it was an additional role) but rather AAW to prevent the Backfire/Bears from attacking the convoys. The A-6/A-7s were the organic tankers to push the F-4/F-14 CAP stations out to a range to shoot the archer, not the arrows...
There is also the 1977 RN training film at the IWM Collections: Principles of Anti Air Warfare
Navy Lookout is reporting 'The Defence Secretary will confirm in a speech today that the MRSS programme has been approved and the RN will receive up to 6 amphibious vessels'
NL are positing a ship in the region of 20,000 tons so (assuming full load) slightly heavier than both Albion and Bay classes, lighter than Argus or Juan Carlos, roughly Mistral or Ocean.
Many questions come to mind, including:
As I have said before, IMHO the ideal would be a mix of LHD and LPD(A) which might be provided by a common hull and machinery with modular systems. The denizens of the House of Darkness, however, be happy to trade potential lost lives for saving a few quid on the acquisition cost.
2.5% or preferably 3% of GDP might be a sustainable defence budget going forward, the problem is that no politician is going to handle the short-to-medium term requirement to address filling the asset gaps caused by 24 years of deluded underspend. Especially when snake oil salesmen are selling the illusion of cheap uncrewed and AI based solutions. Here endeth the rant.
NL are positing a ship in the region of 20,000 tons so (assuming full load) slightly heavier than both Albion and Bay classes, lighter than Argus or Juan Carlos, roughly Mistral or Ocean.
Many questions come to mind, including:
- How are they to be crewed? RFA, RN or RFA/RN split? Currently both would be a problem numbers wise,
- Will they have C4 capability? If so will the kit be modular and only fitted on a role specific basis?
- NL's contacts say hangars but how big a deck, full or behind super structure?
- What defensive suite will they get, sensors, weapons, decoys, datalink etc?
As I have said before, IMHO the ideal would be a mix of LHD and LPD(A) which might be provided by a common hull and machinery with modular systems. The denizens of the House of Darkness, however, be happy to trade potential lost lives for saving a few quid on the acquisition cost.
2.5% or preferably 3% of GDP might be a sustainable defence budget going forward, the problem is that no politician is going to handle the short-to-medium term requirement to address filling the asset gaps caused by 24 years of deluded underspend. Especially when snake oil salesmen are selling the illusion of cheap uncrewed and AI based solutions. Here endeth the rant.
Meanwhile, as was feared - two of our dwindling number of frigates are to be axed. HMS Argyll has been reportedly in a poor state for years, but the loss of HMS Westminster means losing another Type 2087 fitted one. Neither ship is fully crewed or active at the moment, and the RN is still living with Cameron's decision to deny an uplift of around 1500 people to the RN (and a similar one to the RAF) at the time of SDSR 15, but still it seems painful.
There is some confusion between 'efficient' and 'effective' in the policies of successive Governments. The idea promulgated since the 1980s by politicians that business practice can be applied to military organisations is seriously misplaced.
The business notions of efficiency of production and operation are narrow concepts for single products/services which rarely put people's lives in jeopardy. The military does not, and cannot, work in the same way. Too much depends on the tools being provided to them working properly in situations not conceived of by anyone. In a combat operation, people's lives depend on the kit, weapons and tools working in extremis, and possibly not in their originally intended role. An office worker taking a delivery of the wrong sort of paper-clips does not seem to reach the same level of criticality...
From page 327 of British Defence Planning and Britain’s NATO commitment, 1979 – 1985 - a 2016 PhD thesis by Dr Kenton White.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th May 2024 at 23:06.
SoS's statement as delivered can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...etarys-address
No mention of Westminster or the retention of Albion and Bulwark. Sugar coating the disposal of HMS Argyll (or Argyle as PlymouthLive would sa
y)
The slithy tove had already told the BBC 'three ships would "definitely" be built and there were "plans to construct the next three".'
The RN website is more informative confirming the LPDs remain until 2023/2024 and Westminster is to decommission.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...nes-operations
P.S. Once Westminster's refit was delayed given she was the next ASW T23 due to go it was inevitable. Similarly Argyll was the next GP due to go an her crew members can be better used elsewhere. Looking at keeping the remainder in service as long as necessary, it is down to affordability an best use of the money; MoD and the Navy Board would ber wise not to be taken in by the sunk cost fallacy when resources are needed elsewhere, particulary in ensuring T26, T2531 and fingers crossed T2432 are in service asap.
No mention of Westminster or the retention of Albion and Bulwark. Sugar coating the disposal of HMS Argyll (or Argyle as PlymouthLive would sa
y)The slithy tove had already told the BBC 'three ships would "definitely" be built and there were "plans to construct the next three".'
The RN website is more informative confirming the LPDs remain until 2023/2024 and Westminster is to decommission.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...nes-operations
MRSS will be extremely versatile warships, able to deploy on a wider variety of operations, and designed to carry vehicles, aircraft, insertion craft and a broad range of uncrewed systems for complicated missions. They will also be able to act as primary casualty receiving ships, providing urgent medical care to British forces wherever they are deployed.
The MOD has entered the first, or concept, phase of the MRSS Programme and will work with industry as part of early market engagement ahead of developing the vessel design.
MRSS Programme Director, Commander Alex Allen said: “As the son of a Royal Marine who fought in the Falklands War, I recognise the importance of this capability to a global navy.
“But these ships must be ready to meet a future threat where they will be required to exploit new technology and change roles quickly.
“Adaptability and flexibility will be central to the Multi Role Support Ship design, as will interoperability with our NATO allies.
“This announcement is a significant step in the programme bringing these ships into service and modernising the Royal Navy’s littoral strike capability.”
The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, said: “I am delighted that the Secretary of State has cemented the future of our Royal Marines by committing to this new class of up to six amphibious vessels.
“These will be the most capable amphibious warships the nation has ever owned, designed to be fully interchangeable with our closest allies in Europe, and in NATO.
The MOD has entered the first, or concept, phase of the MRSS Programme and will work with industry as part of early market engagement ahead of developing the vessel design.
MRSS Programme Director, Commander Alex Allen said: “As the son of a Royal Marine who fought in the Falklands War, I recognise the importance of this capability to a global navy.
“But these ships must be ready to meet a future threat where they will be required to exploit new technology and change roles quickly.
“Adaptability and flexibility will be central to the Multi Role Support Ship design, as will interoperability with our NATO allies.
“This announcement is a significant step in the programme bringing these ships into service and modernising the Royal Navy’s littoral strike capability.”
The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, said: “I am delighted that the Secretary of State has cemented the future of our Royal Marines by committing to this new class of up to six amphibious vessels.
“These will be the most capable amphibious warships the nation has ever owned, designed to be fully interchangeable with our closest allies in Europe, and in NATO.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 14th May 2024 at 22:07. Reason: PS
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sir Humphrey not impressed…
A 10% cut to the Royal Navy escort fleet was announced today, alongside not fully funded plans to deliver up to 6 'Multi Role Support Ships' to replace the LPD/LSD and ATS vessels. Is this really a 'golden age of shipbuilding'?
Thread+ Blog - https://tinyurl.com/bdzfrfuz
A 10% cut to the Royal Navy escort fleet was announced today, alongside not fully funded plans to deliver up to 6 'Multi Role Support Ships' to replace the LPD/LSD and ATS vessels. Is this really a 'golden age of shipbuilding'?
Thread+ Blog - https://tinyurl.com/bdzfrfuz
Times POLITICAL SKETCH this morning
Grant Shapps provides our best proof that deepfakes are already here
The defence secretary was witness to the terrifying power of artificial intelligence on Good Morning Britain. Some viewers may have struggled to tell human and machine apart
Good morning Grant Shapps, we can be sure it’s you can’t we?” said Susanna Reid. It certainly looked like Grant Shapps, but it’s always wise to check. “Would you know how to spot a deepfake?” read the on-screen caption. Grant Shapps smiled gamely. The defence secretary knows better than most that deepfakes can actually be quite easy to spot.
And what happens after that? Could a deepfake become, I don’t know, the secretary of state for defence of an independent nuclear power? “There are some aspects of this that you’ll appreciate I can’t talk about,” said Shapps. This must have been one of them.
The main thing he couldn’t talk about though, was the “up to six new warships” he’d just announced he was going to provide for the Royal Marines. He couldn’t talk about it because in his five-minute-long interview, given shortly before a speech at some fancy naval defence conference, he wasn’t asked a single thing about it.
Others had done though. He’d been on Today on BBC Radio 4 just a few minutes before, where they’d wanted to know if these “up to six” warships were the same “up to six” warships that were announced two years ago. No. No they weren’t. But actually, erm, yes they were. “We have previously talked about replacing those ships,” he told Justin Webb. “Today we’ve been able to bring those plans to fruition.”
Yes. It’s not just words anymore. Now it’s action. No longer are we just saying we’re going to build up to six ships. Now we really are going to build up to six ships. We’re not sure exactly when, or exactly how many, but this is definitely a really big deal. Could he, possibly, give any more detail on what was meant by up to six? “Well we’ll definitely build the first three, then there are plans in place for the next three.” Whether those plans for the next three involve maybe just printing off some new name badges for the original three he did not say.
At one point the “up to six” magically became 28 but by that point no one was really listening. Something didn’t seem quite right. His lips were moving but the words that came out made no sense.
Grant Shapps provides our best proof that deepfakes are already here
The defence secretary was witness to the terrifying power of artificial intelligence on Good Morning Britain. Some viewers may have struggled to tell human and machine apart
Good morning Grant Shapps, we can be sure it’s you can’t we?” said Susanna Reid. It certainly looked like Grant Shapps, but it’s always wise to check. “Would you know how to spot a deepfake?” read the on-screen caption. Grant Shapps smiled gamely. The defence secretary knows better than most that deepfakes can actually be quite easy to spot.
And what happens after that? Could a deepfake become, I don’t know, the secretary of state for defence of an independent nuclear power? “There are some aspects of this that you’ll appreciate I can’t talk about,” said Shapps. This must have been one of them.
The main thing he couldn’t talk about though, was the “up to six new warships” he’d just announced he was going to provide for the Royal Marines. He couldn’t talk about it because in his five-minute-long interview, given shortly before a speech at some fancy naval defence conference, he wasn’t asked a single thing about it.
Others had done though. He’d been on Today on BBC Radio 4 just a few minutes before, where they’d wanted to know if these “up to six” warships were the same “up to six” warships that were announced two years ago. No. No they weren’t. But actually, erm, yes they were. “We have previously talked about replacing those ships,” he told Justin Webb. “Today we’ve been able to bring those plans to fruition.”
Yes. It’s not just words anymore. Now it’s action. No longer are we just saying we’re going to build up to six ships. Now we really are going to build up to six ships. We’re not sure exactly when, or exactly how many, but this is definitely a really big deal. Could he, possibly, give any more detail on what was meant by up to six? “Well we’ll definitely build the first three, then there are plans in place for the next three.” Whether those plans for the next three involve maybe just printing off some new name badges for the original three he did not say.
At one point the “up to six” magically became 28 but by that point no one was really listening. Something didn’t seem quite right. His lips were moving but the words that came out made no sense.
The six is a one for one replacement of Albion, Bulwark, Argus and the three remaining Bay class RFAs. Any bets on these being RFA flagged rather than White Ensign? With ensuing manning issues
The following 2 users liked this post by Davef68:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://archive.ph/2024.05.15-091123...ears-0kmk00q2p
Titanic shipyard could face closure after 160 years
British Navy ships could be built in Spain if chancellor blocks support package for historic Harland & Wolff shipbuilder in Belfast
Titanic shipyard could face closure after 160 years
British Navy ships could be built in Spain if chancellor blocks support package for historic Harland & Wolff shipbuilder in Belfast
The following users liked this post:
Ben Wallace has been laying the blame on the late Nick Hunt's boy's opposition to the National Shipbuilding Strategy. It strikes me there is a lot of brinkmanship involved.
The Times article includes:
The Belfast Telegraph is reporting H&W's response:
Back to MRSS,
I'm marginally more hopeful than Sir Humphrey betting on 4/5, the comedian in my head says they will be RM crewed, in reality replacing both Warships (LPD) and Auxiliaries LSD(A) with a common platform raises questions about what roles require Naval rather than Auxiliary crew to perform. More importantly there is the restriction of Belligerant acts against state parties to vessels defined as warships not auxiliaries e.g. Royals can be sent to attack ISIS from Argus but an attack on IRG units from her may be a war crime. There is also the issue that RFAs can visit ports that are closed to commissioned warships. All new RFA members have had a compulsory Maritime Reserve membership for some time but it remains voluntary for those who were already in.
Then there is the 10k ton warship and 15k ton auxiliary limits for passage into the Black Sea
.
I'm not sure what the implications on RN v RFA crewing is of Ben Key's statement as reported by The Times but he refers to the LPD crews of 400 being replaced by crews of c.100 but the Bay class core crew is 60-70 and Argus's is 80 RFA plus 50 RN aviation support.
One better bit in the statement was (re-)confirmation that T26 and T31 will receive a land attack capability - FC/ASW aka SPEAR 5.
The Times article includes:
“All 28 ships will be built in the UK,” the (Whitehall) source said. They added that in the worst-case scenario, if Harland & Wolff closed, the ships would still be built in the UK, but gave no further details.
But in a statement, a spokesperson for Harland & Wolff said: “Our application for a UKEF Export Development Guarantee has not been rejected and the process is ongoing.
“We will not comment further on inaccurate speculation.”
DUP interim leader Gavin Robinson, the East Belfast MP, also said: “Today's headlines are wide of the mark. Strong support for the yard in London.”
“We will not comment further on inaccurate speculation.”
DUP interim leader Gavin Robinson, the East Belfast MP, also said: “Today's headlines are wide of the mark. Strong support for the yard in London.”
I'm marginally more hopeful than Sir Humphrey betting on 4/5, the comedian in my head says they will be RM crewed, in reality replacing both Warships (LPD) and Auxiliaries LSD(A) with a common platform raises questions about what roles require Naval rather than Auxiliary crew to perform. More importantly there is the restriction of Belligerant acts against state parties to vessels defined as warships not auxiliaries e.g. Royals can be sent to attack ISIS from Argus but an attack on IRG units from her may be a war crime. There is also the issue that RFAs can visit ports that are closed to commissioned warships. All new RFA members have had a compulsory Maritime Reserve membership for some time but it remains voluntary for those who were already in.
Then there is the 10k ton warship and 15k ton auxiliary limits for passage into the Black Sea
.I'm not sure what the implications on RN v RFA crewing is of Ben Key's statement as reported by The Times but he refers to the LPD crews of 400 being replaced by crews of c.100 but the Bay class core crew is 60-70 and Argus's is 80 RFA plus 50 RN aviation support.
Admiral Sir Ben Key, the first sea lord, said the advance of technology meant that machines could take on the roles traditionally performed by large numbers of navy personnel.
Instead of a crew of about 400, up to six new multi-role support ships coming into service from the 2030s could have a crew of about 100. This would also help to solve a recruitment crisis that has engulfed the armed forces and left ships short of sailors.
“If you look at the new MRSS (multi-role support ships), which clearly is a design still to settle, I would anticipate the crew of that will be much smaller than the crew of [HMS] Albion or Bulwark, which is around 400,” Key said in a briefing on the fringes of the First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference 2024, hosted by the Council on Geostrategy.
“There are good reasons for this, technology allows you to reduce the numbers. Why would you put into harm’s way more people than you need to?”
Key said there was a “sweet spot” somewhere between a crew size of 250 and 30. A navy source predicted the figure would be between 100 to 130, adding that a crew smaller than that would struggle to carry out the tasks expected of it.
By reducing the crew, sailors would no longer have to carry out “menial tasks that people don’t like doing”, such as painting the ship, Key said, adding that the navy could instead focus on recruiting those with specialist skills.
Instead of a crew of about 400, up to six new multi-role support ships coming into service from the 2030s could have a crew of about 100. This would also help to solve a recruitment crisis that has engulfed the armed forces and left ships short of sailors.
“If you look at the new MRSS (multi-role support ships), which clearly is a design still to settle, I would anticipate the crew of that will be much smaller than the crew of [HMS] Albion or Bulwark, which is around 400,” Key said in a briefing on the fringes of the First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference 2024, hosted by the Council on Geostrategy.
“There are good reasons for this, technology allows you to reduce the numbers. Why would you put into harm’s way more people than you need to?”
Key said there was a “sweet spot” somewhere between a crew size of 250 and 30. A navy source predicted the figure would be between 100 to 130, adding that a crew smaller than that would struggle to carry out the tasks expected of it.
By reducing the crew, sailors would no longer have to carry out “menial tasks that people don’t like doing”, such as painting the ship, Key said, adding that the navy could instead focus on recruiting those with specialist skills.
https://archive.ph/2024.05.15-091123...ears-0kmk00q2p
Titanic shipyard could face closure after 160 years
British Navy ships could be built in Spain if chancellor blocks support package for historic Harland & Wolff shipbuilder in Belfast
Titanic shipyard could face closure after 160 years
British Navy ships could be built in Spain if chancellor blocks support package for historic Harland & Wolff shipbuilder in Belfast
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Asturias56,
Just as a reminder this loan was on very shaky legal grounds when first suggested, if the official advice is to refuse it, I can understand the Treasury saying no - and the governmental would be in very thin ice to override them…
https://archive.ph/2024.03.11-003808...olff-8xtfmfdb8
Ministers accused of ‘backdoor bailout’ for Harland &Wolff
Just as a reminder this loan was on very shaky legal grounds when first suggested, if the official advice is to refuse it, I can understand the Treasury saying no - and the governmental would be in very thin ice to override them…
https://archive.ph/2024.03.11-003808...olff-8xtfmfdb8
Ministers accused of ‘backdoor bailout’ for Harland &Wolff
It isn't a loan, it's a guarantee which H&W are seeking to enable them to secure refinancing on more favourable terms. H&W are predicting EBITDA break-even in FY24 and increasing revenues going into the future. The preservation of the Belfast and Appledore yards surely meets the NSS aims of competition within the UK (especially beyond the cosy BAES/Babcock duopoly) particular for HMG funded vessels, and social benefit. As far as I can see the guarantee is to cover a loan which will be repaid to a large extent from revenues earned from HMG. To me there was a very strong argument for the exception to the 80% rule on national security grounds, as we have gone over ad nauseam the loss of naval shipbuilding capacity has been inflicted by a succession of UK governments putting off replacement of warships - which has also led to the T23s being knackered.
I also understand that some Spanish government export guarantees (not necessarily directly equivalent) are for up to 99%, which may (I'm only guessing) influence Navantia's thinking. Given Hunt's views on benefit recipients he probably thinks H&W should be condemned to the business equivalent of a Victorian workhouse.
H&W issued a statement for investors via the London Stock Market news service in response to the Times story.
I also understand that some Spanish government export guarantees (not necessarily directly equivalent) are for up to 99%, which may (I'm only guessing) influence Navantia's thinking. Given Hunt's views on benefit recipients he probably thinks H&W should be condemned to the business equivalent of a Victorian workhouse.
H&W issued a statement for investors via the London Stock Market news service in response to the Times story.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 16th May 2024 at 11:30. Reason: delete Navantia
The following users liked this post:
https://www.navylookout.com/peregrin...he-royal-navy/
Peregrine rotary wing UAV to enter service with the Royal Navy
Peregrine rotary wing UAV to enter service with the Royal Navy
Peregrine will fly in conjunction with the Wildcat helicopter but its data can be fed directly into the ship’s combat management system, (unlike the Wildcat which lacks a TDL), aiding situational awareness and rapid decision-making.
The following users liked this post:
Navy Lookout is reporting 'sources' say Westminster's S2087 will be fitted to the Iron Duck, which would mean taking a ship that only emerged from a 49 month LIFEX last June out of service for several more months.