Doubts About Royal Navy,s Cvf And T 45 Future Ships

[overlander]

of course they are not the word of god the problem is that beaver have published some interesting book on naval matters and richard beedal just 2 years ago he was nearly exact to predict the heavy cuts of the R.N. he only mistake by one escort, he predicted 7 escorts to be cut and finally they were 6, one think is the common sense and other is that biritish politicians they have defence at the botton line and the less important matter in government, if gordon brown the chancellor of the tresor wants to cut 2 blln pounds he will get it and the most obvious candidate in the navy programme is to cancel the cvf program, of course we will see but some people have to recognize that is not normal so many delays in the order of the 2 cvf,s and it maybe that symply they are waiting the best moment to announce the cancellation, of course will not be good news for trade unions as they expected they will create around 10000 jobs with the construction of the 2 carriers but the reality is sometimes sad, by now it,s clear that 2 type 45 will not be ordered leaving the final number to 6 and of course i don,t kow if predictions of beedall will be exact but i am sure that another heavy cuts in the british armed forces will arrive shortly.

[perfectgeneral]

This is the same finance minister (Gordon Brown) who wraps himself in the flag, plans a budget increase for defence for the next three years and wants to build a new nuclear deterant. I know politicians are hypocrites, but they don't usually contradict themselves too quickly as it is hard to win votes that way.

The leaked study explanation seems quite plausable to me. The government have just started a strategic spending revue that will take a year or two to explore all the options. The UK is a very successful state, with a big budget to spend. Any cuts to meet bumps in the economic road won't be as draconian as fringe press speculation seems to fear and won't be directed solely (if at all) at defence.

[rickusn]

Examples and I have many:

Horizon UK left completely.

France and Italy cut their orders in 1/2.

The list is endless from the past.

CVF is far,far from a done deal.

FREMM no one has clue how it will turn out.

JSF no one has a clue how it will turn out.

[swerve]

This is the same finance minister (Gordon Brown) who wraps himself in the flag, plans a budget increase for defence for the next three years and wants to build a new nuclear deterant. I know politicians are hypocrites, but they don't usually contradict themselves too quickly as it is hard to win votes that way.

Especially not when they expect to be Prime Minister in a year or two, & will soon afterwards have to fight an election. And have spent a long, long, time building themselves up as Mr. Integrity & Mr. Prudent, who considers every decision long and hard & always keeps his word. :D

[contedicavour]

Examples and I have many:

Horizon UK left completely.

France and Italy cut their orders in 1/2.

The list is endless from the past.

CVF is far,far from a done deal.

FREMM no one has clue how it will turn out.

JSF no one has a clue how it will turn out.

Horizon and FREMM have 80-90% commonality, one could almost say they are the same programme. UK may have left us, but between the 2 types of ships France and Italy will build 30 over a 10-year lifespan. Greece is very close to ordering some more for its Navy, and there are negotiations with other navies (UAE for example). Without this programme MOD budget cuts would have further cut fleet strengths in both France and Italy.
JSF will exist despite all the cost increases. At least 10 countries will buy it. Again, without JSF commitments most European Air Forces would have cut their strength further. Now they can't or they lose the offsets negotiated when joining the JSF programme.
On CVF, if there hadn't been CVF France wouldn't have found the money to build a second carrier ! And the UK needs partners to share R&D or else the whole programme costs too much.
I could go on for ages : U-212 between Italy and Germany, Tornado back in the '80s (3 air forces, not bad), the Dutch-Spanish alliance on LPDs, the Tiger attack helicopter, NH-90 (6 countries and counting), Eh-101, obviously Eurofighter Typhoon, etc
To summarize : international programmes survive better because they cost less by sharing R&D and because political & industrial commitments are harder to erase.

[Supe]

I'm with Waylander on the dubious reality of 2 x CVF's being procured for the RN. Money will be spent on the next generation of nuke bearing Subs. I don't envisage cuts for the British Army though, not while they are deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan.

[perfectgeneral]

I'm with Waylander on the dubious reality of 2 x CVF's being procured for the RN. Money will be spent on the next generation of nuke bearing Subs. I don't envisage cuts for the British Army though, not while they are deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Are you prepared to say that the RN won't get two CVF? You seem to be saying that the funds will be diverted to procure the next generation of nuclear guided missile submarines. The budget for RN equipment procurement is large and steady enough to do both. Remember that the Trident/Vanguard system isn't decommissioned until 2024.

[contedicavour]

What is needed now is a good deal of public relations from the Royal Navy. The usefulness of the CVF is less obvious than in the past (especially the '80s after the Falklands), though in its role as core of any rapid reaction overseas force, the CVF is indispensable.
I would highlight the areas of the world where the British forces could not operate without support from a CVF-battlegroup : areas of the Middle East or of Africa or of South-East Asia without safe airports and developed harbor facilities.
Without such CVF battlegroups, the British Army would be off limits to wide areas of the world, so even if it did not suffer any further cuts in manpower, its capabilities would be seriously diminuished.

cheers

[swerve]

Are you prepared to say that the RN won't get two CVF? You seem to be saying that the funds will be diverted to procure the next generation of nuclear guided missile submarines. The budget for RN equipment procurement is large and steady enough to do both. Remember that the Trident/Vanguard system isn't decommissioned until 2024.

Exactly. Even with a pessimistic view of further programme slippage, Queen Elizabeth & Prince of Wales should be in service, paid for, by the time big spending on the Vanguard replacement kicks in. Biggest risk of a major funding overlap is if the govt goes for the (supposedly - I have my doubts) cheap option of a Vanguard life extension.

[contedicavour]

Exactly. Even with a pessimistic view of further programme slippage, Queen Elizabeth & Prince of Wales should be in service, paid for, by the time big spending on the Vanguard replacement kicks in. Biggest risk of a major funding overlap is if the govt goes for the (supposedly - I have my doubts) cheap option of a Vanguard life extension.

I fear an overlap could occur with the funding for T22/T23 replacements, which should start being built well before Vanguard replacement, and at the same time as the last of the T45s.
Hence my remarks about slashing R&D costs for new frigates and go for off the shelf FREMMs (although of course built in the UK with some minor changes to suit RN needs).

cheers

[perfectgeneral]

I fear an overlap could occur with the funding for T22/T23 replacements, which should start being built well before Vanguard replacement, and at the same time as the last of the T45s.
Hence my remarks about slashing R&D costs for new frigates and go for off the shelf FREMMs (although of course built in the UK with some minor changes to suit RN needs).

cheers

Only the T22s will need replacing. The T23 SLEP is pretty easy. They have seen a lot less of the north sea than predicted. I expect the T22s to be replaced by more T45 hulls adapted to the T22 roles. A tail end to the production run to add economy of scale. A batch of three perhaps.

[contedicavour]

Only the T22s will need replacing. The T23 SLEP is pretty easy. They have seen a lot less of the north sea than predicted. I expect the T22s to be replaced by more T45 hulls adapted to the T22 roles. A tail end to the production run to add economy of scale. A batch of three perhaps.

I understand the need and the proposal. What I'm less at ease with is that a T22 should be replaced by a big DDG such as the T45.
I know the T22 batch 3 are flagships with significant command facilities for overseas task forces smaller than the ones needing aircraft carriers.
Though why this would require ships equipped with Aster 30 (range : 120km) AAW missiles I'm less confortable with.

cheers

[Padfoot]

The carriers will be built. They say there are 60 billion barrels of oil around the Falkland Islands. Futhermore, it is said that the South Atlantic trench off the Falkland Islands, is believed to contain at least an 1.2 trillion barrels of heavy oil.

[Sea Toby]

Each generation of missiles evolves into smaller size and longer range. I have no problem with the range of both missiles. As the British surface warship fleet has dropped in numbers, and with better technology in the ships, the number of destroyers is bond to drop to.

In the future the British fleet will have new aircraft carriers with better aircraft, increasing the range of the outer air defenses of a task group. The new destroyers will also be better, increasing the missile range of their area defenses. Even with fewer ships these new air defense capabilities should provide better defenses.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Royal Navy of the future will be a better fleet than the current fleet.

[mark22w]

I understand the need and the proposal. What I'm less at ease with is that a T22 should be replaced by a big DDG such as the T45.
I know the T22 batch 3 are flagships with significant command facilities for overseas task forces smaller than the ones needing aircraft carriers.
Though why this would require ships equipped with Aster 30 (range : 120km) AAW missiles I'm less confortable with.

cheers

..an extra 2,500 tons, 5 metres in length and with 60 less personnel - not much of an ask ;)

I think a T45 variant would be an ideal replacement (one for one) and with a mk41 vls rather than SYLVER launcher the mix to include TacTom as well as Aster 15 perhaps and/or possibly Aster 30 AAW missiles? The big question would be the sensor fit and primary purpose of these vessels. With a mix of T45 AAW Destroyers and T45 batch 3 land attack / flag variants a SLEP for the remaining Type 23s seems a sensible approach.

Fully agree with Sea Toby that less is more in terms of the future RN. Two platform types rather than three (T45 rather than FREMM) would also make sense. IMHO of course.

[contedicavour]

..an extra 2,500 tons, 5 metres in length and with 60 less personnel - not much of an ask ;)

I think a T45 variant would be an ideal replacement (one for one) and with a mk41 vls rather than SYLVER launcher the mix to include TacTom as well as Aster 15 perhaps and/or possibly Aster 30 AAW missiles? The big question would be the sensor fit and primary purpose of these vessels. With a mix of T45 AAW Destroyers and T45 batch 3 land attack / flag variants a SLEP for the remaining Type 23s seems a sensible approach.

Fully agree with Sea Toby that less is more in terms of the future RN. Two platform types rather than three (T45 rather than FREMM) would also make sense. IMHO of course.

Makes a lot of sense. Though replacing 1:1 with T45s with Tomahawks and Mk41 would cost up to 1 billion USD for each ship (excl cost of the missiles) and would require - extra - some R&D work for integration of mk41 with the T45 sensor suite. I doubt the RN has sufficient budget available.

cheers

[swerve]

I think a T45 variant would be an ideal replacement (one for one) and with a mk41 vls rather than SYLVER launcher the mix to include TacTom as well as Aster 15 perhaps and/or possibly Aster 30 AAW missiles? The big question would be the sensor fit and primary purpose of these vessels. With a mix of T45 AAW Destroyers and T45 batch 3 land attack / flag variants a SLEP for the remaining Type 23s seems a sensible approach.

Fully agree with Sea Toby that less is more in terms of the future RN. Two platform types rather than three (T45 rather than FREMM) would also make sense. IMHO of course.

Bigger Sylvers (A70) are being built, for Scalp Naval (they'd also allow for the mooted "Aster 45", if it's ever developed). Too late for T45 except as a retrofit, but should be ready for a T22 batch 3 replacement a few years down the line. Nice to have a choice, eh?

Keeping the platform types down does make sense. Leave another hull type out of the equation until the T23s need replacing, & extend their lives so that's some way off.

[contedicavour]

I wonder if Aster 45 will be developed. The Aster 30 already has 120-km range, though it lacks ATBM capability. At the same time, Italy, Germany and the US are working on MEADS ATBMs, so I'm not sure Italy at least would be interested (given budget constraints) to develop the -45 in parallel. That is, unless MEADS is abandoned...

cheers

PS : the A70 Sylver is standard on the Italian FREMMs, giving them the potential to launch Aster 30 and SCALP (if we join the French on this programme)

[McZosch]

I don't think, that any RN frigates will be equipped with Tomahawks.
I would rather bet on Storm Shadows. MBDA is in "advanced study phase" of a sea-launched version capable of VLS starts.

To support a 25-escorter-navy having (optimistically) 8 T45, you have to build 17 ships till 2020. The current policy seems in fact to go down to 20 escorters, if only 6 T45s are built even 18.

For the MSVD I think an "cruiser"-version of the Type 45 will do it.

Instead of slepping T23, I would rather go FREMM (i would also subscribe that for F125-class of the German navy) or a smaller version of T45 (around 5500 tonnes). Higher numbers would mean a significantly lower price per unit. Higher numbers mean higher potential for a emergency programme. Maybe, the parliament forces the RN to buy into the LCS-programme instead.

[swerve]

I wonder if Aster 45 will be developed. The Aster 30 already has 120-km range, though it lacks ATBM capability. At the same time, Italy, Germany and the US are working on MEADS ATBMs, so I'm not sure Italy at least would be interested (given budget constraints) to develop the -45 in parallel. That is, unless MEADS is abandoned...

cheers


IMO, probably not, unless MEADS falls apart, when the Italian & German money from that might become available.

I don't think, that any RN frigates will be equipped with Tomahawks.
I would rather bet on Storm Shadows. MBDA is in "advanced study phase" of a sea-launched version capable of VLS starts.


Are you thinking of Scalp Naval, or are you saying there are two projects for sea-launched VLS-capable missiles based on Storm Shadow/Scalp? If the latter, I'd be interested in the details.

[contedicavour]

I don't think, that any RN frigates will be equipped with Tomahawks.
I would rather bet on Storm Shadows. MBDA is in "advanced study phase" of a sea-launched version capable of VLS starts.

To support a 25-escorter-navy having (optimistically) 8 T45, you have to build 17 ships till 2020. The current policy seems in fact to go down to 20 escorters, if only 6 T45s are built even 18.

For the MSVD I think an "cruiser"-version of the Type 45 will do it.

Instead of slepping T23, I would rather go FREMM (i would also subscribe that for F125-class of the German navy) or a smaller version of T45 (around 5500 tonnes). Higher numbers would mean a significantly lower price per unit. Higher numbers mean higher potential for a emergency programme. Maybe, the parliament forces the RN to buy into the LCS-programme instead.

Fully agree with you. FREMM costs per ship 280 million euro (French version) or 350 million euro (Italian version with enhanced AAW). With an increase in orders from the current 27 to 50 (with RN new FFG and German F125) unitary costs would go down to 200 million each approx. My calculation is an extrapolation from the reduction in costs estimated by the Italian Navy by joining forces with the French (27 ships building instead of 10).

cheers

[Waylander]

I really doubt we would go for FREMM as our new F125 design, even if it would be logical solution.
Too many jobs here in germany which are related to naval yards.

[contedicavour]

I really doubt we would go for FREMM as our new F125 design, even if it would be logical solution.
Too many jobs here in germany which are related to naval yards.

FREMM can be built locally in German shipyards, just like the French build theirs in Lorient and we build ours in Riva Trigoso/genova.
If I'm not wrong, your Bremen FFGs are almost twins of the Dutch Kortenaers, so it wouldn't be the first time an international programme is used as a base for a German FFG programme.

cheers

[typhoons rule]

i wonder how the RN will be able to build and maintain 2 cvf 65000 tonnes, 40 fighters carriers if they are unable to maintain even 2 smals 20000 tonnes carriers with less manpower, 1000 in invincibles compared with 1500 in the new ???? cvf,s, at present the only operational carrier in the RN is illustrious with ark royal in refit and invincible decommisioned. so this because i don,t believe they will build only 1 or they will make like when the cva 01 cancellation in the sisties, they will build 2 small carriers the same size as invincibles, i don,t believe they will buid 2 new 65000 tonnes carriers until i don,t see they are launched.
i dont think you get it in the cold war they didnt need carriers of that extent leave that to america our main job was for anti submarine warfare around the north sea and atlantic not power projection but the falklands changed that they lacked the power projection to realy go to town on the argies half the harriers had to come all the way from england it wasnt a blue water fleet but now they know the way the worlds changing they need powerprojection not asw ( asmuch)

[Musashi_kenshin]

I'll try and come up with a general reply, because I was out of the loop of this discussion for so long. That said I'm quite happy to come back to the forum, given that there are more interesting active discussions than before.

I am quite sure that the Royal Navy will have 2 Queen Elizabeth-class carriers sometime next decade, because the Invincible-class simply cannot fill the power-projection role sufficiently any more. Yes, it might be delayed, but reports seem to indicate that preparatory work is being conducted to ensure Portsmouth will be able to accomodate them. Comments about Brown wanting to axe them are rather unfounded at this stage. And the Conservatives (only credibly opposition) are committed as well, having ditched their obsession with slashing spending to fund tax cuts.

There is a chance that Darings #7 & 8 might not be ordered, but I'm still hopeful they will be. There's enough time for the orders to go through.

As to the future surface combatants. The Type-23s will stay in service after a extension service, as already mentioned. I think that's a good thing, because it allows the Royal Navy to put money aside for CVF, the other 2 Darings, etc. The Type-23s are still good ships, so making them last a bit longer will allow us to get a truly excellent replacement, rather than something that's great now but not necessarily as good some years down the line.

I think we'd probably be looking at a modification of the Type-45 design, obviously removing the Aster-30s and more advanced components. That would help British shipbuilding, as well as benefit from the experience gained by building the Darings. Things like a UK version of FREMM probably won't happen, though I wouldn't autmatically object if it was selected.

[overlander]

read this article of richard beedall www.beedall.com , it,s clear that if finally the cvf,s are built (we will see) it will be with the cost of heavy reductions in the escort force even maybe that in 2020 the escort force could be reduced to only 15 destroyers - frigates, if so Britain would be in the same level of escorts as Spain and Holland and far away from France, Russia and even Italy.

[Musashi_kenshin]

That is NOT what he said. He said that it is unlikely the RN will be able to get the money for the extra two T-45s at this time because of the CVF project going ahead.

What he went on to say was that our frigate replacements will be put off until the latter part of the next decade, and that he doesn't think replacements will be on a 1-to-1 basis. He said 8-10 assuming the new frigates would be produced in exactly the same proportion as the T-45s were. I doubt that will happen, because the T-45s are so much more capable at AAW than their predecessors were. On the other hand, there is no way you can depreciate your number of ASuW/ASW escorts in such a manner.

The RN's absolute minimum was 6 T-45s (8 preferred) - 8-10 frigates would be far too small a number for them, and they would explain that so even the bean-counters understood.

On a side-note, Richard obviously made a bit of a counting error, because 6 T-45s replacing 8 T-42s is a replacement ratio of 0.75:1. Using that against the current 17 frigates would see 13 replacements (rounded up from 12.75).

Now let's move on to the other navies. The French have only ordered TWO Horizon class frigates - maybe they'll get another two. Let's be really generous and assume they will. Still, that's not nearly enough in my opinion. So maybe the French will have more ASW/ASuW ships, but AAW defence will be much less than ours. If anything went wrong with one of their available Horizons when they needed to deploy a carrier group they'd be stuffed. Plus their PA-2 carrier is looking very shaky at the moment, because the Marine Nationale are demanding too many upgrades. If somehow they got them, that would almost certainly mean cuts in the numbers of FREEMs and maybe even Horizons they'd get.

The idea that the Italians will have more escorts than us is laughable. They will get two Horizons and 10 FREEMS if everything goes to plan. Can you explain to me how 12 is less than 19 (6 T-45s + 13 FSCs)?

[contedicavour]

The idea that the Italians will have more escorts than us is laughable. They will get two Horizons and 10 FREEMS if everything goes to plan. Can you explain to me how 12 is less than 19 (6 T-45s + 13 FSCs)?

I doubt the Royal Navy will ever have less escorts than the Italian Navy, though you are underestimating our fleet's total numbers :

Our Navy has 4 DDGs (the 2 Horizon and 2 De la Penne, which will be replaced by AAW versions of the FREMM and probably updated with Asters later on), 12 FFGs being replaced by 10 FREMMs, and the 4 Artigliere FFGs originally built for Iraq. So technically we are and will be at 18 DDG/FFGs.

France is planning to have 24 escorts : 2 Horizons, 17 FREMMs, 5 Lafayette.

cheers

[Musashi_kenshin]

I doubt the Royal Navy will ever have less escorts than the Italian Navy, though you are underestimating our fleet's total numbers

Sorry about that - I confused the Audace and De la Penne classes for some reason. Also I thought the Artigliere class were corvettes, not frigates, so I didn't count them. I realise I was wrong now.

France is planning to have 24 escorts : 2 Horizons, 17 FREMMs, 5 Lafayette.

France is going to have only 2 Horizons?! Are you sure they won't order another 2? If not, they would be inviting something to go wrong so their carrier group would be badly lacking in AAW protection!!!!!!!

[Grand Danois]

France is going to have only 2 Horizons?! Are you sure they won't order another 2? If not, they would be inviting something to go wrong so their carrier group would be badly lacking in AAW protection!!!!!!!

The French are also contemplating making an AAW version of FREMM with Herakles, PAAMS and Aster 30 instead of the two last Horizons.

[Musashi_kenshin]

The French are also contemplating making an AAW version of FREMM with Herakles, PAAMS and Aster 30 instead of the two last Horizons.

Those ships could be in real trouble if missiles slipped past the Aster 30 screen.......

[Grand Danois]

Those ships could be in real trouble if missiles slipped past the Aster 30 screen.......

I guess you're talking about the ships they're escorting.

Btw, I meant EMPAR not Herakles.

[Musashi_kenshin]

I guess you're talking about the ships they're escorting.

Themselves as well - you can't use the Aster 30 for self-defence, and it's not good to just rely on a CIWS for your own protection.

[Grand Danois]

Themselves as well - you can't use the Aster 30 for self-defence, and it's not good to just rely on a CIWS for your own protection.

They will probably still have Aster 15 and 76mm OTO's....

[Musashi_kenshin]

They will probably still have Aster 15 and 76mm OTO's....

Ok.

Anyway, I think the French are playing a dangerous game by not having more Horizons.

[Grand Danois]

Ok.

Anyway, I think the French are playing a dangerous game by not having more Horizons.

That's true. Question is if those two elderly DDG's really are up to the task in a modern threat environment.

[Musashi_kenshin]

That's true. Question is if those two elderly DDG's really are up to the task in a modern threat environment.

I severely doubt it, especially when you look at their AAW equipment. Tartar and Masurca missiles? I wouldn't want to rely upon those things for area-defence!

[harryriedl]

dose this increses the vunrablitility of a CdG battal group with so few horions and a lack of effective AAW being made by other vessels in the group.

dose this put france at disavantage in comparison to other simlar nation as they won't always have a horizion avalible. and haven't got anything eles with a long enough range to cover the carrier they got the old DDG the laffayects and the FREEMMs if the Horizons are unavalible. none of the other ships at the time have a satifactory range.

unlike the MN which have there FREEMMs with aster 30 which allows them to use a BG with out horizons and still have decent air coverage and the spanish who have many F100s giveing them ageis coverage any day of the week it is only the french who don't seem to have though though their plan

[contedicavour]

They will probably still have Aster 15 and 76mm OTO's....

FREMM and probably one day also the Lafayette will have aster 15, yes... with a range of 30km and a speed of mach 4, so that's quite an AAW potential. When you think that yesterday's DDGs had SM-1 with a single launcher and a range of 46km...

The Royal Navy will have the best medium/long range AAW protection of Europe with their 6 darings, but France and Italy should anyway end up having a better AAW than today.

cheers

[harryriedl]

still don't have the range of SM-1 though all though this is made up in many other areas.
conti de cavor how do you think spain and italy navys compare with each other and how could they each be inproved

[contedicavour]

I severely doubt it, especially when you look at their AAW equipment. Tartar and Masurca missiles? I wouldn't want to rely upon those things for area-defence!

Ehm the Masurca were aboard 2 already deleted DDGs, the tartar aboard the 2 Cassard DDGs are in reality good old SM-1 standard missiles, which may be obsolete but can still operate until 2015 provided electronics are updated. Later on the ships will have to be updated with Aster or deleted.

On our De la Penne we added aspide launchers and 3 guided ammo 76/62, and we are updating electronics and radars, but we'll eventually have to put EMPAR and Asters if the ship is to maintain an AAW role.

cheers

[contedicavour]

dose this increses the vunrablitility of a CdG battal group with so few horions and a lack of effective AAW being made by other vessels in the group.

dose this put france at disavantage in comparison to other simlar nation as they won't always have a horizion avalible. and haven't got anything eles with a long enough range to cover the carrier they got the old DDG the laffayects and the FREEMMs if the Horizons are unavalible. none of the other ships at the time have a satifactory range.

unlike the MN which have there FREEMMs with aster 30 which allows them to use a BG with out horizons and still have decent air coverage and the spanish who have many F100s giveing them ageis coverage any day of the week it is only the french who don't seem to have though though their plan

UK will undoubtedly preserve the best AAW assets with 6 darings, ok. Though beyond the UK, Spain will have 5 AAW FFGs (though total n° of escorts is 11 which isn't big), France and Italy will have 4 AAW ships (2 horizons, 2 older DDGs for now, to be replaced by AAW FREMM), Germany 3 F124 AAW FFGs, and Holland 4 AAW FFGs of the De Zeven Provincen class.
We can help each other out in multinational missions, and most big countries have similar assets.

cheers

[contedicavour]

still don't have the range of SM-1 though all though this is made up in many other areas.
conti de cavor how do you think spain and italy navys compare with each other and how could they each be inproved

Spain's fleet is improving very fast because of big budgets. It relies on multi-mission escorts such as the OHPs and Alvaro da Bazan AAW FFGs, while the italian fleet has more escorts with more dedicated configurations (ASW Maestrale, AAW De la Penne and Doria, etc).
Italy has an advantage in the size of the Harrier and helo forces, Spain has more amphibious assets, and we have a draw on SSKs (though if the Scorpene aren't built fast Spain will only have 4 agosta today and 4 scorpene tomorrow vs a minimum 6 Sauro/U212A for Italy).
Last but not least, Italy has a large number of corvettes and big OPVHs more suitable for the Mediterranean.
Spain also needs to confirm what jets will fly off their carrier and the BPE which is building (F35 ?).
Spain's advantage in LPDs should be eroded with the planned 4th LPDH in Italy.

So overall Italy maintains a higher number of ships but Spain is growing mightily fast and, pending FREMM building in Italy, currently has an edge in AAW because of the higher number of modern AAW ships.

cheers

[harryriedl]

thanks for the info so you still think that italy still has the edge despite the larger amount AAW and amphibious assets.

i also think that the nansen class would be perfect for the RN if they wanted a tried and tested desine with top notch capablitys ageis and and advace sonar array or would this option be much to expencive.

[contedicavour]

thanks for the info so you still think that italy still has the edge despite the larger amount AAW and amphibious assets.

i also think that the nansen class would be perfect for the RN if they wanted a tried and tested desine with top notch capablitys ageis and and advace sonar array or would this option be much to expencive.

The Nansen are the only Aegis equipped ships in the world without area defence SAMs, only ESSMs. That makes them pretty expensive ships...

For a navy who prefers specialized ships (Type 23 ASW, Type 45 AAW, etc) such as the RN, the Nansens are too expensive multi-mission escorts.

cheers

[Grand Danois]

The Nansen are the only Aegis equipped ships in the world without area defence SAMs, only ESSMs. That makes them pretty expensive ships...

For a navy who prefers specialized ships (Type 23 ASW, Type 45 AAW, etc) such as the RN, the Nansens are too expensive multi-mission escorts.

cheers

The Nansens are are specialised ASW frigates.

[contedicavour]

The Nansens are are specialised ASW frigates.

The Nansens are very good at ASW, but they happen to be extremely well equipped from a AAW standpoint because of the AEGIS system, and they are also well equipped from an ASUW point of view because of SSMs and missiles embarked on the helos.
That's why I consider the Nansen as multi-mission FFGs, with much stronger AAW and ASUW than British Type 23s for example.
Since the RN has so many more escorts, they tend to specialize functions (with for ex Type 45s which have no ASW and no ASUW)

cheers

[harryriedl]

but they can add SM-2 at any time so is too expencive for the RSC thats is a shame :frown

because i thought it would be perfect good AAW and good ASW.

also how much better than the type 23 with the sonar upgrade

[contedicavour]

but they can add SM-2 at any time so is too expencive for the RSC thats is a shame :frown

because i thought it would be perfect good AAW and good ASW.

also how much better than the type 23 with the sonar upgrade

ASW-wise, honestly, once both ships have towed linear passive arrays capable of very low frequency, plus the usual VDS active/passive and the active hull sonar, plus 2 ASW helos, plus the usual embarked torpedoes, well, it becomes really tough to compare those ships ;)

AAW : the RN is with France and Italy on Aster 15/30, so I don't see them warming to ESSM (inferior to Aster 15 in range) and SM2 (better range than Aster 30 but needs illuminators while Aster doesn't). Too much of a costly duplication.

cheers

[harryriedl]

is that such a problem we have two AAW missiles anyway i know one short range and the other is long range. but wouldn't the MK47 lanchers be usful so the could hold tomakhawks as well as harpoon and the standered loadout of ESSMs and SM-2s. i know it would be new logistical berden but it would add new flexablitiy to the RN fleet.


also new news on the CVF it is comming

Yahoo Babel Fish text translate:26/10/2006

The program of the three Franco-British aircraft carriers, designed in co-
operation between the two countries, seem to want to pass at the higher speed, expiries political oblige. Tomorrow, the Anglo-Saxon industrialists and the ministry for British Defense must cross the "Hand gate", the equivalent of the file of launching and realization (DLR), opening the way with a ordering of the HMS Queen Elisabeth and Prince of semi-2007 Wales. During this time, in France, the second aircraft carrier advances, him too. After the signature, September 25, contract for the detailed studies of definition, that we revealed you later two days, DCN and Thales must present before the end of December an engaging offer to the General Delegation for Armament (DGA). The three months separating these two stakes are devoted to refine the budget necessary to the realization of the new aircraft carrier, whose cost is always estimated at more than 2 billion euros. Since the signature of the cooperation agreement between Paris and London, the Memorandum of Understanding (SOFT), last at the beginning of March, the teams of MOPA2, common company of DCN and Thales in load of the program, received the British plans and studies gradually (1400 documents). These documents, screen, made it possible to confirm that France could use the British design for its own ship, with the help of some adaptations.

The English adopt French dimensions

These last months, an intensive work was undertaken between Paris and Bristol, where are gathered the British industrialists and where about fifteen French work permanently. Tricolour side, one estimates that the discussions profitable, are facilitated by the British interest for the expertise of DCN as regards aircraft carrier, a type of ship that Great Britain did not realize since the Fifties. If, initially, the version on takeoff court of the F 35 is planned for Fleet Air ARM, Royal Navy plans, thereafter, to be able to install catapults on its ships. This question is all the more crucial as the program Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) knows large turbulences and the threats of an abandonment of version ADAC/ADAV are still not completely isolated. However, it seems that initially, the English industrialists did not envisage sufficient place for the catapults and the associated machinery. In September, Aircraft Carrier Alliance thus lined up with the French proposals on dimensions of the flight deck, a factor dimensioning for the catapult-launched planes. On their side, the British launched, in July, 13 consultations relating to subsets. This equipment, not yet selected, relates to the propulsion and the systems of platform (electric elevators, hoists, devices, tackle of dampings, winches, capstans...) Proof that work in co-operation starts to bear its fruits, Bristol accepted, within the framework of the procedure of joint acquisitions, to include, at the request of the French, the suppliers not envisaged in the beginning. The objective of the co-operation remains, obviously, to limit the total cost of the aircraft carriers by preserving, to the maximum, the community of design. The purchase of common equipment and possible similar programs of maintenance will come to amplify this step. This summer, at the time of the review of design with the DGA and the navy, DCN and Thales estimated that the French building (CVF-FR or Pa 2) could be common to a little more than 80% with his/her English cousins (Carrier Vessels Future - CVF). The ministry for Defense wished, nevertheless, that the two groups do better and approach the 90%, which would be E passes to be obtained.

The question of the armament and the propulsion

With the wire of the studies, the future aircraft carrier took weight, passing from 65.000 to 74.000 tons, that is to say 32.000 tons more than the Charles of Gaulle for a higher length of 22 meters. The surface of the flight deck reaches from now on 15.700 m², against 12.000 m² for the CDG and 8000 m² for the ex-Clemenceau. The difference in size is explained mainly by two great factors. The first lies in the importance of the air group, carried from 24 to 32 Rafale Marine, apparatuses twin-jet aircrafts with nonfolding wings whose replacements are relatively cumbersome. The equipment in helicopters and the planes of guet air (5 NH 90 and 3 E2-C Hawkeye) remains unchanged. The other dimensioning factor remains the propulsion which, contrary to the Charles of Gaulle, will not be nuclear but traditional. Having electric motors of propulsion and two gas turbines for the dash speeds (26 n?uds), the ship must have important fuel compartments, absent on its predecessor. The choice of the type of propulsion is not stopped yet. Aker Yards, DCN Propulsion and the ex-APC (Rolls-Royce group) propose to equip the CVF and CVF-FR with two pods and a line of trees. This formula had already been retained for the five steamers of the class Voyageur of the Seas (138.300 barrels), delivered by Aker Finnyards (ex-Kvaerner) between 1999 and 2003. This system offers the advantage of improving the maneuverability of the ships considerably and of reducing the vulnerability of the propelling apparatus. Moreover, one new generation of pods, more economic, is proposed. These nacelles, which have a propeller in conduit, directed towards the back, would offer a better output, about 10%: "the boat can go more quickly with less propelling power and, with the pods, one gains place", explains an engineer. The Masters of?uvres are not, however, very receptive with these arguments "the problem, it is that this system is not qualified", affirms a close relation of the file, while adding: "It is not rejected. If the British go there, one will go can be ". In addition to the propulsion, French and British discuss also much on the armament, whereas Royal Navy leaned for a self-defence of lightest. A few months ago still, only a launcher Sylver (8 missiles Aster 15) was to be embarked and no chaff launcher was considered initially, although spaces are envisaged. Light better from now on is noted with, in particular, two launchers Sylver (16 missiles), which remains always twice less important than the armament of the Charles of Gaulle. Since the cold war, time when this ship was designed, it should be said that the threat has, it also, evolved/moved.

An order before the presidential one of 2007?

The principal asset and the principal threat of this program reside in the political factor. Carried by Jacques Chirac, who put a term at the will of DCN to build a derivative of the Charles of Gaulle while choosing the traditional propulsion in 2004, opening the way with the co-operation, the second aircraft carrier could make the expenses of future budgetary restrictions or a change of governmental course as regards defense. Accordingly, the presidential election of May 2007 will be determining. For Michele Alliot-Marie: "It will be difficult to stop a co-operation full and whole which functions perfectly under the impulse of a will shared by France and the United Kingdom" (*). And the minister of Defense to insert the nail: "the very significant amount of commitment appropriation envisaged in programming of finance law 2007, is 700 M?, illustrate well that the decision of launching the realization of the PA2 is a firm decision, final, on which we invest ". Yesterday, to Euronaval, Michele Alliot-Marie added that it wished to make the program "irreversible" and called the industrialists with "a mobilization with the height of the strategic importance of this file". The majority of the potential candidates to the supreme nomination not seeming to have a taste as pronounced for this project as the current Head of the State, the program enter, gradually, in a phase of "security". In this step, the weight of already committed budgets will be determining. In more of the contracts of studies signed with DCN in December 2004 (16 M?) and December 2005 (19.6 M?), it is necessary from now on to add the invoice of September 25. If the amount of this contract were still not revealed, it would be, according to a source close to the file: "definitely more important than the last contract relay". In same time, pursuant to SLACKNESS, France already poured with British industry 45 million euros in March and 35 million euros this summer (right of access to the studies). Does the cooperation agreement envisage, moreover, a third envelope of 65 M? if the program is notified, which could finally intervene before the presidential one, for example at the time one to summon European in March or April. Lastly, Paris would currently be in negotiation with the United States for the ordering of certain equipment very expensive and long to manufacture, as the catapults. In the event of abandonment of Pa 2, the note will thus be salted for the taxpayer and door of consequences for Europe of Defense. According to the specialists, the British government maintenance him also this program under the shield of the European co-operation. From where this comment of an industrialist: "They will be three aircraft carriers or nothing".
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version Name: CVF-1.jpg Views: 36 Size: 23.7 KB
Reply With Quote


thats a lot of info but the CVF is now at 74.000 tonnes

[harryriedl]

i can't edit my posts and ment the MK41 VLS for the nansen

[stuuu28]

Any one heard anythig about CVF's passing MainGate2? this was meant to be due yesterday.

[contedicavour]

Any one heard anythig about CVF's passing MainGate2? this was meant to be due yesterday.

Today is the last day of Euronaval at the Bourget. It would be a fitting news with which to close the show ;)

cheers

[Musashi_kenshin]

Any one heard anythig about CVF's passing MainGate2? this was meant to be due yesterday.

No, it was rumoured to be happening yesterday. There was an article on the French Navy's site saying main gate would be approved today, but again that is unconfirmed.

[overlander]

read www.beedall.com as you can see in the article of the telegraph a new delay for the main gate aproval, british m.o.d. and builders they don,t agree with the cost of building.

[contedicavour]

read www.beedall.com as you can see in the article of the telegraph a new delay for the main gate aproval, british m.o.d. and builders they don,t agree with the cost of building.

Only comment to that article : :shudder
How on Earth could it be acceptable that the RN ends up with only 6 Type 45 and 10 FSC to replace 17 FFGs of T22B3 and T23 ?
Regarding the Queen Elizabeth CVs, don't worry, they will materialize sooner or later, too much political capital has been staked on them, especially over here in France. The French have 700 million euro earmarked for carrier acquisition in the 2007 budget.

cheers

[Musashi_kenshin]

The cost dispute is only £100 million now, because the builders agreed to accept £3.6 billion if there are no additional savings. What probably happened was that both sides got too proud and wouldn't negotiate any further, expecting the other side to give in. They didn't realise the other would be like that, so they're probably feeling rather sheepish.

If the government quibbles over such a trivial (it is trivial for them) sum of money, it will cost it MORE to reactive the project later on if it now fails. So they should just swallow their pride and make sure it goes through later on in the month. That said the builders had better be careful and accept a reasonable comprimise - otherwise there will be no money for them at all!

[harryriedl]

you know what i think the RN going for a 2 teir force with old t22 and T42 take the showing the flag and anti pirarat dutys because the Last the t42 isn't going till at the earliyst of 2018 and no other immeanet reterment of other classes

and the t45 and the new frigert class for the Anfib and carrier escorts

i alos think beedle no nothing is permnantly pannincing over nothing and has been wrong before. in my opinion he is nothing nore than a doom sayer

[rickusn]

2018?

I believe your mistaken either that or my source the RN is:

"Ship/ Planned decommissioning date
Type 42 Batch 2 destroyers:
HMS Exeter 2009 HMS Southampton 2010 HMS Nottingham 2012 HMS Liverpool 2009
Type 42 Batch 3 destroyers: HMS Manchester 2011 HMS Gloucester 2011 HMS Edinburgh 2013 HMS York 2012 "

[ Admin. text deleted. ]

As for Richard Beedall hes much respected.

Your disparagement of him is way out of line.

[McZosch]

you know what i think the RN going for a 2 teir force with old t22 and T42 take the showing the flag and anti pirarat dutys because the Last the t42 isn't going till at the earliyst of 2018 and no other immeanet reterment of other classes

and the t45 and the new frigert class for the Anfib and carrier escorts

i alos think beedle no nothing is permnantly pannincing over nothing and has been wrong before. in my opinion he is nothing nore than a doom sayer

Some sort of oxford english:confused:

[contedicavour]

Some sort of oxford english:confused:

It must be a Welsh or Scottish variant ;)

Btw I was thinking what effect the new LCS international Lockheed is proposing could have on the T22/T23 replacement. If it starts building around 2018 we could see something much more original than a shortened Type 45 or a customized FREMM.

cheers

[McZosch]

In my opinion, the MoD is waiting for the LCS maturing.

My thoughts are that a force of 20 or so LCS-style-ships (including some changes to make them of "british origin") with modularized mission sets (ASW, AShW, Mine warfare, maybe even AAW) will replace T22B3 and T23.

Regarding CVF:
Hell, 74.000 tonnes! It's totally clear to me, how those ships will cost 300 million pounds more.

[Grand Danois]

A little update.

U.K., Companies Agree on Price for Two Aircraft Carriers: Sources
By ANDREW CHUTER, LONDON

A program to build two aircraft carriers for the British Royal Navy is expected to go before the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Investment Approvals Board (IAB) Nov. 9 after a last-minute deal was agreed over the price of the vessels between government and the industry alliance set to build the warship.

At one stage last week, it looked as though the Defence Procurement Agency’s plan to present the business case for the aircraft carrier development and construction to the IAB when it meets Nov 9 had foundered.
Now, though, sources close to the program say a series of meetings in recent days between senior officials from industry and the MoD has culminated in a compromise agreement on the price the government is willing to pay for the carriers.

At one point, Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson and the chief executives of the top companies involved in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, created to build the vessels, met in an attempt to bridge the gap between the 3.5 billion pounds ($6.6 billion) the government was willing to pay and the 3.8 billion pounds the alliance wanted to charge.

IAB go-ahead is the start of a process which, if things go according to plan, could see the government announce the deal, known here as Main Gate, before Parliament goes into Christmas recess in mid-December.

The two sides have settled on an incentive agreement which reduces the final cost of the two 65,000-metric-ton carriers to about 3.6 billion pounds, sources say.

The Aircraft Carrier Alliance includes BAE Systems, Babcock International, KBR, Thales, the VT Group and the MoD.

The first of the two warships, the largest ever proposed for the Royal Navy, are expected to enter service in 2013.

The MoD was unable to respond to requests for comment late Nov. 8. Alliance leader BAE declined to comment.

Defensenews (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2343251&C=europe)

[contedicavour]

On the French side, the current government is pushing to lock in the acquisition of the carrier in conjunction with the 2 Queen Elizabeth. However the left's candidates are saying they are for investigating any alternative to building the ship, such as better pooling resources with the UK and other unpractical ideas :rolleyes:
Anyway the current government will put 700 million euro in the 2007 budget and if the centre-right wins the presidential elections the programme is fully confirmed.

cheers