Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
It would seem that I missed a very interesting thread whilst offline: Korea Sanctions Blockade
The most interesting part was from Not_a_boffin: Don't go counting numbers - today there are only 6 DD/FF alongside Pompey & Guzz, including those in refit. The rest are either on their way east, invading Sierra Leone or at sea training.....
76% of the FF/DD force deployed, in transit to/from deployments, or on training.
Another snippet from the Vela deployment: OCEAN plays a crucial role
Interesting stuff there relating to the different roles and capabilities of various aircraft types.
The most interesting part was from Not_a_boffin: Don't go counting numbers - today there are only 6 DD/FF alongside Pompey & Guzz, including those in refit. The rest are either on their way east, invading Sierra Leone or at sea training.....
76% of the FF/DD force deployed, in transit to/from deployments, or on training.
Another snippet from the Vela deployment: OCEAN plays a crucial role
Interesting stuff there relating to the different roles and capabilities of various aircraft types.
Last I heard, FOAS had been replaced by SUAV(E) - which to Spams means shampoo and to the MoD means Strategic UAV Experiment, Strategic being in turn a euphemism for "a UAV that kills people and breaks their stuff."
There don't seem to be any active plans for a fast jet beyond Dave-B and Typhoo.
There don't seem to be any active plans for a fast jet beyond Dave-B and Typhoo.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Richard takes a very pessemistic view of all this. Following the demise of the Soviet threat it was inevitable the RN would need to downsize its escort force- fifty small frigates couldn't be justified today- they are far to small to be of any use outside of Eastlant ASW duties. The RN is managing to reinvent itself (again) but warship contracts simply seem to take forever- non of the recent additions were quick. Ocean was first tendered in the late eighties whilst Bulwark & Albion were tendered in the early 90's- reaching service a decade later.
Its not just the UK either- Frances CdeG was first mooted in the 80's- iirc it took them around fifteen years to design & build it!
If we get the two QE's in service by the middle of the next decade we'll be doing quite well.
Its not just the UK either- Frances CdeG was first mooted in the 80's- iirc it took them around fifteen years to design & build it!
If we get the two QE's in service by the middle of the next decade we'll be doing quite well.
Thread Starter
Sunk
If we were keeping to SDR mandated force levels (including 32 frigates and destroyers, 10 SSNs, 21 Nimrod MPA) then you would be entirely correct. However all these things have been cut, despite all being heavily commited to the war on terror.
An underwater reminder: Telegraph Story
China's Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the USS Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the aircraft carrier on October 26, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed defence officials.
How many nations have diesel subs?
If we were keeping to SDR mandated force levels (including 32 frigates and destroyers, 10 SSNs, 21 Nimrod MPA) then you would be entirely correct. However all these things have been cut, despite all being heavily commited to the war on terror.
An underwater reminder: Telegraph Story
China's Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the USS Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the aircraft carrier on October 26, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed defence officials.
How many nations have diesel subs?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEB
Thanks for the link- not a good month for US carriers- with Irans drone and all
Don't forget though that the RN isn't standing still, after the blip in build activity for the two CVF's, there will be a return to escort construction- the DIS stating that its planning a "drumbeat" of one major escort every 18 months (or so), so even though older escorts are going, they'll be made up again in time- hopefully with larger more capable ships (I.m hoping for a BMT pentamaran cruiser, but expecting a T45 derivative).
At that build rate a 20 strong escort fleet is probable.
Lets not get to obsessed with numbers though- if the CVF's get built, the RN will be a far more potent force- almost back to where it was in the early 70's.
Thanks for the link- not a good month for US carriers- with Irans drone and all
Don't forget though that the RN isn't standing still, after the blip in build activity for the two CVF's, there will be a return to escort construction- the DIS stating that its planning a "drumbeat" of one major escort every 18 months (or so), so even though older escorts are going, they'll be made up again in time- hopefully with larger more capable ships (I.m hoping for a BMT pentamaran cruiser, but expecting a T45 derivative).
At that build rate a 20 strong escort fleet is probable.
Lets not get to obsessed with numbers though- if the CVF's get built, the RN will be a far more potent force- almost back to where it was in the early 70's.
Sunk at Narvik,
I wish I had your optimism. I am very much a glass half full person but, I am getting more and more depressed.
We are fighting two major conflicts with approximately 50% of the UK forces in Afghanistan from the RN/RM and we are slash, cut, cut, cut.
I truly hope that CVF is built, because if it isn't there is no-where for the RN to go. The escorts have gone, the submarines have gone, all we have are transport ships. Maybe we could start up the Grey Funnel Line ferries when Portsmouth is sold off!
If CVF is cancelled, then there had better be some resignation letters from certain sectors!
I wish I had your optimism. I am very much a glass half full person but, I am getting more and more depressed.
We are fighting two major conflicts with approximately 50% of the UK forces in Afghanistan from the RN/RM and we are slash, cut, cut, cut. I truly hope that CVF is built, because if it isn't there is no-where for the RN to go. The escorts have gone, the submarines have gone, all we have are transport ships. Maybe we could start up the Grey Funnel Line ferries when Portsmouth is sold off!
If CVF is cancelled, then there had better be some resignation letters from certain sectors!
WEB
Don't forget though that the RN isn't standing still, after the blip in build activity for the two CVF's, there will be a return to escort construction- the DIS stating that its planning a "drumbeat" of one major escort every 18 months (or so), so even though older escorts are going, they'll be made up again in time- hopefully with larger more capable ships (I.m hoping for a BMT pentamaran cruiser, but expecting a T45 derivative).
Don't forget though that the RN isn't standing still, after the blip in build activity for the two CVF's, there will be a return to escort construction- the DIS stating that its planning a "drumbeat" of one major escort every 18 months (or so), so even though older escorts are going, they'll be made up again in time- hopefully with larger more capable ships (I.m hoping for a BMT pentamaran cruiser, but expecting a T45 derivative).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widge
I read an opinion piece in WarshipsIFR the other day complaining about how the RN has declined, was No 1, now smaller than the French etc etc but basicly it was a load of puffed up bluster and tosh
Any navy has got to reflect the defence priorities of its country and the facts are that presently we have no obvious threat to the UK, but rather than celebrate our good fortune, we complain about the decline in the size of the forces! You can't have peace AND Cold War defence spending (a fact that'll dawn on America when the baby boomers reach retirement age) so something has to give. In the RN's case it was the large escort fleet- SNLR?
What the RN is rightly focussing upon is a balanced force across all capabilities from MCMV to SSN's and retaining a core of expertese in each area should we need to expand again in the future. Its also built up its amphib shipping- now far better equiped than ever before. They may not be "fighting ships" in the Nelson/Cunningham tradition, but thats the price of victory at sea.. its a nice "problem" to have.
I read an opinion piece in WarshipsIFR the other day complaining about how the RN has declined, was No 1, now smaller than the French etc etc but basicly it was a load of puffed up bluster and tosh
Any navy has got to reflect the defence priorities of its country and the facts are that presently we have no obvious threat to the UK, but rather than celebrate our good fortune, we complain about the decline in the size of the forces! You can't have peace AND Cold War defence spending (a fact that'll dawn on America when the baby boomers reach retirement age) so something has to give. In the RN's case it was the large escort fleet- SNLR?What the RN is rightly focussing upon is a balanced force across all capabilities from MCMV to SSN's and retaining a core of expertese in each area should we need to expand again in the future. Its also built up its amphib shipping- now far better equiped than ever before. They may not be "fighting ships" in the Nelson/Cunningham tradition, but thats the price of victory at sea.. its a nice "problem" to have.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dems Win good for USN
Seems the Dems victory in the mid-terms was good for the USN:
http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2354833&C=america
Not sure whether a return to CGN's is a good idea, though.
http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2354833&C=america
Not sure whether a return to CGN's is a good idea, though.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widge
I read an opinion piece in WarshipsIFR the other day complaining about how the RN has declined, was No 1, now smaller than the French etc etc but basicly it was a load of puffed up bluster and tosh Any navy has got to reflect the defence priorities of its country and the facts are that presently we have no obvious threat to the UK, but rather than celebrate our good fortune, we complain about the decline in the size of the forces! You can't have peace AND Cold War defence spending (a fact that'll dawn on America when the baby boomers reach retirement age) so something has to give. In the RN's case it was the large escort fleet- SNLR?
What the RN is rightly focussing upon is a balanced force across all capabilities from MCMV to SSN's and retaining a core of expertese in each area should we need to expand again in the future. Its also built up its amphib shipping- now far better equiped than ever before. They may not be "fighting ships" in the Nelson/Cunningham tradition, but thats the price of victory at sea.. its a nice "problem" to have.
I read an opinion piece in WarshipsIFR the other day complaining about how the RN has declined, was No 1, now smaller than the French etc etc but basicly it was a load of puffed up bluster and tosh
Any navy has got to reflect the defence priorities of its country and the facts are that presently we have no obvious threat to the UK, but rather than celebrate our good fortune, we complain about the decline in the size of the forces! You can't have peace AND Cold War defence spending (a fact that'll dawn on America when the baby boomers reach retirement age) so something has to give. In the RN's case it was the large escort fleet- SNLR?What the RN is rightly focussing upon is a balanced force across all capabilities from MCMV to SSN's and retaining a core of expertese in each area should we need to expand again in the future. Its also built up its amphib shipping- now far better equiped than ever before. They may not be "fighting ships" in the Nelson/Cunningham tradition, but thats the price of victory at sea.. its a nice "problem" to have.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boffo,
I'll nail my colours- I'm a civvy, so I ought to bow to your knowledge! However, the economics of the DIS made sense.
The Govt is the only client for warships in the UK- it therefore regulates demand. When demand is low- as at present, what usually happens is that yards compete vociferously for work and the losers go out of business. This has happened. Whats left is "core" and can't be left to wither any further- unless we really do want to buy warships from DCN or B&V? Assuming we think its a good idea to retain "onshore" design & build expertese, we have to guarantee whats left of the supply base a run of work that will enable them to retain key staff. Thats what the DIS does.
Competition works in a bouyant market- plenty of buyers, plenty of sellers. But thats NOT what we have in the UK.
I'll nail my colours- I'm a civvy, so I ought to bow to your knowledge! However, the economics of the DIS made sense.
The Govt is the only client for warships in the UK- it therefore regulates demand. When demand is low- as at present, what usually happens is that yards compete vociferously for work and the losers go out of business. This has happened. Whats left is "core" and can't be left to wither any further- unless we really do want to buy warships from DCN or B&V? Assuming we think its a good idea to retain "onshore" design & build expertese, we have to guarantee whats left of the supply base a run of work that will enable them to retain key staff. Thats what the DIS does.
Competition works in a bouyant market- plenty of buyers, plenty of sellers. But thats NOT what we have in the UK.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The ship builders certainly know how to go through money though. The DDG-1000s cost $3.2 billion each. And that is just construction cost, not whole life......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ship builders certainly know how to go through money though. The DDG-1000s cost $3.2 billion each. And that is just construction cost, not whole life......
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The ship builders certainly know how to go through money though. The DDG-1000s cost $3.2 billion each. And that is just construction cost, not whole life......"
In other words the yanks are building a single destroyer for the cost of one UK CVF or three T45's. They are quite simply utterly barking mad
It was noticable that the Democrat concerned happened to have Ingalls in his constituency...a lethal combination of Mil Industrial complex and "pork barrels"? we used to have an expression for this sort of exponential cost- the military road to absurdity. Just who do they think they are going to fight? The mind boggles!
In other words the yanks are building a single destroyer for the cost of one UK CVF or three T45's. They are quite simply utterly barking mad
It was noticable that the Democrat concerned happened to have Ingalls in his constituency...a lethal combination of Mil Industrial complex and "pork barrels"? we used to have an expression for this sort of exponential cost- the military road to absurdity. Just who do they think they are going to fight? The mind boggles!
Thread Starter
Just out of curiousity I did a Google search for WEBF. Amongst other results was the Sea Jet thread. The page numbers seemed odd though, investigation proved that whilst the PPRuNe default is twenty posts per page, the Google cache has fifteen per page. I lead such an exciting life!
The number of frigates and destroyers we have has been cut down to below SDR levels. Yet has the number of frigate/destroyer tasks reduced? The war against terror places demands on the fleet, and it would appear that we are now making more of an effort to keep one in the South Atlantic most of the time. The numbers cannot be cut any more without making the current level of tasking impossible AND exposing high value assets to increased risks.
See this Telegraph story: Navy too weak
But senior Royal Navy officers last night cast serious doubt over Britain's ability to make a significant naval contribution to the proposed UN force, claiming that drastic cuts in government spending on the navy over the past decade had severely reduced their ability to participate in major foreign operations.
"I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through," a senior Royal Navy officer last night told The Daily Telegraph.
"But it knows that to keep our presence on the Security Council Britain needs to demonstrate what we can do."
Defence experts predicted that the most the Royal Navy could contribute was a single frigate, a Royal Fleet auxiliary support vessel and a Trafalgar class hunter killer submarine.
The number of frigates and destroyers we have has been cut down to below SDR levels. Yet has the number of frigate/destroyer tasks reduced? The war against terror places demands on the fleet, and it would appear that we are now making more of an effort to keep one in the South Atlantic most of the time. The numbers cannot be cut any more without making the current level of tasking impossible AND exposing high value assets to increased risks.
See this Telegraph story: Navy too weak
But senior Royal Navy officers last night cast serious doubt over Britain's ability to make a significant naval contribution to the proposed UN force, claiming that drastic cuts in government spending on the navy over the past decade had severely reduced their ability to participate in major foreign operations.
"I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through," a senior Royal Navy officer last night told The Daily Telegraph.
"But it knows that to keep our presence on the Security Council Britain needs to demonstrate what we can do."
Defence experts predicted that the most the Royal Navy could contribute was a single frigate, a Royal Fleet auxiliary support vessel and a Trafalgar class hunter killer submarine.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes- thats an interesting point and it throws up what "playing the joker" can do to carefully laid plans and assumptions. There have been a few of these recently:
However I suspect that its operating costs that are constraining RN ops, not ship numbers- and this is the price of fighting two "medium" sized deployments simultaneously whilst on 2.7% of GDP.
So yes, a little more money for opex would go a long way, but in overall size/ship numbers, the RN is about right- bearing in mind the threat and the fact that all current wars are wars of choice, not neccesity. I'd question the selling of of the three T23's and the Shar decision- which was criminally stupid.
- It was fortuitous that we had Illustrious in the Arabian Sea just as the army was deploying to Helmand- Lusty was on a long planned Group Deployment.
- It was also lucky that Lusty was on her way back when the Lebanese crisis developed- however without her SHars she would have been in severe difficulties if the situation had escalated- turning the navy from an asset into a liability.
- The NK situation..
However I suspect that its operating costs that are constraining RN ops, not ship numbers- and this is the price of fighting two "medium" sized deployments simultaneously whilst on 2.7% of GDP.
So yes, a little more money for opex would go a long way, but in overall size/ship numbers, the RN is about right- bearing in mind the threat and the fact that all current wars are wars of choice, not neccesity. I'd question the selling of of the three T23's and the Shar decision- which was criminally stupid.
SaN - no need to bow - I'm also a civvy and a former shipbuilder to boot. DIS only makes economic sense if you want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is based on two questionable premises : 1 - that UK will require ever decreasing numbers of DD/FF, because 2 - shipbuilding costs will rise inexorably.
The first (from a commitments point of view) is far from certain, the second occurs precisely because UK industry does not get to exercise design capability on a sufficiently regular basis. This leads to cost explosion as shown by £600M per copy of T45 - which PAAMS aside is a pretty poorly equipped vessel. The procurement model for 45 is very different for that for T23, but it's so expensive because BAeS are having to acquire skills they have not had (feasibility design of small surface combatants). If DIS is implemeted, the next DD/FF design will be 2025 (just in time to forget everything learned for FSC).
The first (from a commitments point of view) is far from certain, the second occurs precisely because UK industry does not get to exercise design capability on a sufficiently regular basis. This leads to cost explosion as shown by £600M per copy of T45 - which PAAMS aside is a pretty poorly equipped vessel. The procurement model for 45 is very different for that for T23, but it's so expensive because BAeS are having to acquire skills they have not had (feasibility design of small surface combatants). If DIS is implemeted, the next DD/FF design will be 2025 (just in time to forget everything learned for FSC).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: EGHH
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decision to retire SHAR (and thereby have an asset gap) rather than upgrade, was surely utter folly.
I just hope to goodness that the future doesn't PROVE it to be.
Cheers,
TS
I just hope to goodness that the future doesn't PROVE it to be.
Cheers,
TS
Last edited by Tequila Sunrise; 15th Nov 2006 at 11:24. Reason: sentence structure