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

[overlander]

1- concerning to cvf it,s true that british mod will go ahead to spend 300 milion pounds in developing the project but still is not definitive that the ships will be bult, first the delay in the project is evident from original in service dates of 2012 and 2015 we are now in 2015 and later ?? as very optimistic, later the question of the jsf delays project and i think even the mod has not very clear if built a vstol or conventional catapult carrier, they say that will be a adaptable design so in the future they can change to ctol but in my opinion i think they don,t know if they will get the money to build the carriers, from 2,9 biliion pounds budget we are now as a minimum in 4 billion, so maybe still we se the project being cancelled or being optimistic they will built only one vessel.

2- as for the t 45 project in origin they had planned 12 vessels, later they reduced to 8 and now they are only building 6 and by now no further orders are expected so as you can see the royal navy is going bo be a second division navy as italy or spain if things follow this way.

[mark22w]

Now there's a thought :(

CVF

I understand the £300m is to develop the design from assessment to development stage, actually finalising the design to the point of production. With work spread around the UK with multiple parties (10,000 jobs?) this is quite complex. The requirements for robust programme and procurement systems / management IMHO is vital – there are plenty of examples where this has not been applied as rigorously causing delay, cost blow out and systems not meeting expectations.

It is good to see the French involved at this stage and I agree there might be some slippage, however, this stage of the programme should provide realistic in service dates and a transition strategy for running down the invincible class.

With a projected in service life of 50 years the carrier needs to be adaptable assuming the F-35 in VSTOL guise remains the preferred RN option (its life being c 20 years). Should a conventional take off and landing option be required the beauty of this design is it can be accommodated. This again is demonstrated by the French interest. As to only one order I sincerely hope not, as two are required to ensure availability – indeed the reason France is looking to supplement their carrier CDG.

I watch with interest.

Type 45

I share concern that the number of hulls may be capped at 6 and read recently that BAE Systems put a proposal fwd to seek orders 7 & 8 for a reduced fee taking into account experience gained to date. Not sure where this proposal ended up but if nothing happens this year (an order) I think it becomes less likely. Anyone heard anything?

As to RN numbers declining sadly it is not unique to the UK. Of equal concern are certain NATO allies removing entire capabilities from their fleets, for example The Danes and submarines…

Interesting times eh?

[Sea Toby]

I think some the reasons why many navies are cutting surface and subsurface combatants are their high expense, and the lack of a major credible submarine threat against shipping. The Army shines when they are involved in Peacekeeping missions abroad, for some reason the navy doesn't shine as much. Their ships are out of sight and out of mind. It seems as if all of the navies are acquiring logistic/amphibious ships to move the army and ocean patrol vessels to protect EEZs and fisheries while at the same time freeing up warships for naval tasks.

As long as countries such as New Zealand can purchase OPVs without any major combat weapons systems for less than $50 million American dollars, and while frigates with major combat weapons systems costs in the vicinity of $300-400 million American dollars, one can see the light shining on OPVs. Modern AWD destroyers run twice as much as a general purpose frigate, whereas amphibious shipping costs half as much as a general purpose frigate.

[overlander]

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.

[Sea Toby]

The current Invincibles each have a crew of 1171 while the new CVF will have a crew of 1400 including air group and command staff.

The 4 Manchesters each have a crew of 269, the remaining 6 Sheffields have a crew of 253 while the 6-8 new Darings have a crew of 190, with accomodations for 235. Some of the Sheffields have already been paid off.

The four remaining Manchesters will provide more than enough crew members along with the Invincibles to crew the new Queen Elizabeth carriers, while the remaining Sheffields and the three recently discarded Norfolks will easily crew the new Darings.

I don't see the British running out of crew members to man its future fleet. Besides the new carriers, all other ship types in the future will have smaller crews.

[rickusn]

Quick note:

Only four Sheffield class destoyers remain with expected decommission dates:

Liverpool decom 2009
Exeter decom 2009
Southhampton decom 2010
Nottingham decom 2012

From what I understand the RN has serious problems with recruiting enough manpower to fully man all its ships. Apparently many billets are gapped now.

But Im sure they will find enough men to get by irregardless of the force structure.

[overlander]

britain and france signed agreement about joint development of 3 new future carriers 1 for france 2 for britain. we will see. www.mod.uk

[overlander]

the decline of the british royal navy follows promoted by british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts), read this editorial by richard beedall, is interesting. www.beedall.com

[alexsa]

As long as countries such as New Zealand can purchase OPVs without any major combat weapons systems for less than $50 million American dollars, and while frigates with major combat weapons systems costs in the vicinity of $300-400 million American dollars, one can see the light shining on OPVs. Modern AWD destroyers run twice as much as a general purpose frigate, whereas amphibious shipping costs half as much as a general purpose frigate.

What is the problem. An OPV is a patrol vessel, why spend a lot of money making 'half arsed frigate' (excuse the expletive) when it can do it job with a 25mm and HMG and the money can be spent on building capability into the only true surface combatants the RNZN has.

I accept that 2 ANZACs are too few but it keeps capability (tactics and training) alive. Consider this, given the relationship between te RNZN and the RAN and (the fact the RAN is strapped for man power) having our cousins train on the same gear and a very close realtionship allows asset tranfer when common platforms are operated.

Honestly we could do a lot more with sharing cost of manning on common platforms.

[contedicavour]

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 agree that it may make sense to build one or 2 smaller carriers the size of the Ocean and capable of using the JSF for the smaller overseas missions.
In this case one large CVF may be enough for the major overseas missions, provided that conflicts can be expected enough time in advance to adapt the maintenance schedules and have the single CVF ready when it is needed.
In Italy our 240-metre 27,000 ton Cavour carrier can carry up to 20 JSFs plus 4 Eh-101 AEW helos. It costs us 1.5 billion USD approx.

cheers

[overlander]

in the same article in www.beedall.com it,s clear that the type 45 destroyers wich originally planned were 12, later cut to 8 and now finally only 6 will be built, as richard beedall says if things follow this way in 20 years the royal navy will be a coastal force, of 25 escorts available at the moment only 6 replacements are being built, the remaining 4 type 22 frigates have a service life until maximum 2018 and i think the british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) has no plans to replace these 4 ships, so only 20 escorts will be available in 2020, it,s very clear that the french navy will be by far the most powerful in western europe with britain, italy and later spain in the second division of navies in europe but the problem is that as beedall says the royal navy will be a coastal force in medium future unless british politicians change the mind totally.

[contedicavour]

in the same article in www.beedall.com it,s clear that the type 45 destroyers wich originally planned were 12, later cut to 8 and now finally only 6 will be built, as richard beedall says if things follow this way in 20 years the royal navy will be a coastal force, of 25 escorts available at the moment only 6 replacements are being built, the remaining 4 type 22 frigates have a service life until maximum 2018 and i think the british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) has no plans to replace these 4 ships, so only 20 escorts will be available in 2020, it,s very clear that the french navy will be by far the most powerful in western europe with britain, italy and later spain in the second division of navies in europe but the problem is that as beedall says the royal navy will be a coastal force in medium future unless british politicians change the mind totally.

UK military spending often goes from one extreme to another every 20-30 years or so. By the end of the '70s the Royal Navy was losing ships much faster than they could be replaced. The Falkland changed that. 25 years later the RN is in a similar situation, though I would argue that today's ships have a fighting power that is uncomparable vs the old ones.
As already said somewhere else on this site, a Daring is worth 3 or 4 T42s in terms of AAW capability. If by 2020 the RN replaces the remaning T22 and T23 with massively superior frigates, then losing 4 ships won't be a big deal.
In Spain the Alvaro de Bazan FFGs are light years ahead of the Santa Maria or the old Baleares. In Italy the same with FREMM vs Maestrale.
To summarize, a RN with 1 or 2 CVFs (if 1, then let's suppose 1 or 2 smaller carriers exist), 6 Darings, 20 new generation frigates, 8 Astute SSNs, plus the modern amphibious group (Ocean, the 2 Albions, etc) would still be by far Europe's most powerful navy

cheers

[Grand Danois]

UK military spending often goes from one extreme to another every 20-30 years or so. By the end of the '70s the Royal Navy was losing ships much faster than they could be replaced. The Falkland changed that. 25 years later the RN is in a similar situation, though I would argue that today's ships have a fighting power that is uncomparable vs the old ones.
As already said somewhere else on this site, a Daring is worth 3 or 4 T42s in terms of AAW capability. If by 2020 the RN replaces the remaning T22 and T23 with massively superior frigates, then losing 4 ships won't be a big deal.
In Spain the Alvaro de Bazan FFGs are light years ahead of the Santa Maria or the old Baleares. In Italy the same with FREMM vs Maestrale.
To summarize, a RN with 1 or 2 CVFs (if 1, then let's suppose 1 or 2 smaller carriers exist), 6 Darings, 20 new generation frigates, 8 Astute SSNs, plus the modern amphibious group (Ocean, the 2 Albions, etc) would still be by far Europe's most powerful navy

cheers

I would say that RN would be slightly out of balance with only 6 Type 45. That is, if they think one AAW escort is enough for each battlegroup. I don't believe it is. Methinks they're counting on French Horizons to fill the gaps in case of crisis, so it is a matter of loss of independent capability with only 6 Darings.

[rickusn]

Please clue me in on how this would happen:

"Methinks they're counting on French Horizons to fill the gaps in case of crisis"

Seeing as how only two Horizons are being built for France?

[Jtimes2]

Six hulls means that the RN will only be able to have a maximum of two destroyers available for ops (one in long refit, one in short refit, one transiting to station and one transiting back) at any one time. Sad to think that the RN has fallen to that.

[contedicavour]

Please clue me in on how this would happen:

"Methinks they're counting on French Horizons to fill the gaps in case of crisis"

Seeing as how only two Horizons are being built for France?

Well if we keep cutting budgets in Europe, one day we'll have to merge assets for good in order to preserve a decent fighting force :(
Since the Darings are very similar to the Horizons (Sampson radar apart), the ships could operate side by side very easily.

cheers

[contedicavour]

Six hulls means that the RN will only be able to have a maximum of two destroyers available for ops (one in long refit, one in short refit, one transiting to station and one transiting back) at any one time. Sad to think that the RN has fallen to that.

One way for the RN to preserve adequate AAW would be to make sure that the new frigates replacing T22b3 and T23 around 2020 have Aster 15/30, a bit like the Italian FREMMs. A bit of a DDG in themselves, although they would lack long range air search/targeting radar. Still the EMPAR has sufficient range to guide Aster 30s on its own up to at least 100km.
In Europe we'll have to be very smart in getting the maximum out of ever decreasing hull numbers... :rolleyes:

cheers

[rickusn]

GD: "Methinks they're counting on French Horizons to fill the gaps in case of crisis, so it is a matter of loss of independent capability with only 6 Darings."

Rick: "Seeing as how only two Horizons are being built for France?"

CC: "Well if we keep cutting budgets in Europe, one day we'll have to merge assets for good in order to preserve a decent fighting force.
Since the Darings are very similar to the Horizons (Sampson radar apart), the ships could operate side by side very easily."

That doesnt answer the question of how two Horizons can fill any gaps.

And "very easily" is debatable.

LOL The French will have two carriers of their own and only four AAW escorts. Two of which are obsolete now.

But they will fill in gaps for the Royal Navy?

BS

[Grand Danois]

Please clue me in on how this would happen:

"Methinks they're counting on French Horizons to fill the gaps in case of crisis"

Seeing as how only two Horizons are being built for France?

Well, France will also get two AAW FREMM. And they are already working along these lines. France and UK swaps destroyers for their carrier battlegroups. This is an amusing Googletranslation from Mer et Marine.

A second Franco-British air and sea group puts the course on the Indian Ocean
05/04/2006

The French frigate Surcouf installed yesterday for a three months mission in Indian Ocean. The ship is integrated into a British force deployed to fight against the illicit traffics and international terrorism (mission Aquila 06). Surcouf will sail in company of the Ilustrious aircraft carrier, the destroyer Gloucester missile launcher (Standard 42) and of the general-purpose supply craft Fort Victoria. This formation will be reinforced, at the end of May, by the nuclear submarine of Sovereign attack and the supply craft of Diligence platforms. Exercises with the marines Omani (Magic Carpet) and Indian (Konkan 06) are envisaged in May. The deployment of the French frigate “lies within the scope of the Franco-British relations aiming at strengthening the co-operation of the two navy and to improve interworking of it”, underlines the national Navy.
A British frigate, the HMS Lancaster (Standard 23), is currently integrated into the French air and sea group, present in Indian Ocean until June (mission Agapanthe 06).

http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meretmarine.com%2Fart icle.cfm%3Fid%3D1479&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8


But it may be too limited to look at France alone as there are a number of capable AAW ships i Europe.

[overlander]

in 1995 the number of british escorts was 40, now is 25, it,s clear in my opinion that only 6 type 45,s will be built and concerning to new cvf carrier after the anglo-french agreement TO built a british design platform of course brfitain will bluilt the carrier too but i am sure they will built only 1 due to budget pressure, the race in scrapping the british armed forces is continuing, cuts in the army air force and navy will follow and the problem is that the conservative opposition has the same idea as labour, furthermore in 5-8 years they have to think about to develop and built the next generation of ballistic submarines to replace the vanguard class aS the british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) says that they still need a nuclear deterrent, so with the current mentality of british politicians it,s totallly impossible that they built 2 cvf they will built only 1 and thanks.

here is the list of cuts in the planned equipment for naval forces.

from planned 12 type 45 only 6 will be built

from planned 150 jsf fighters only 100 will be ordered as a maximum

plans to develop the replacements for the 4 remaining type 22 and type 23 by now cancelled

withdrawal of sea harriers

reduction in the number of escorts from 32 to 25

from planned 2 new cvf carriiers only one will be built

the only good news for the R.N. has been the improvement of amphibious capability with the 6 new lpd.s. 2 albion class and 4 bay class that together with the lph hms ocean makes britain the most capable amphibious force in western europe but in general numbers the R.N. is declining very fast.

[alexsa]

here is the list of cuts in the planned equipment for naval forces.

from planned 12 type 45 only 6 will be built

from planned 150 jsf fighters only 100 will be ordered as a maximum

plans to develop the replacements for the 4 remaining type 22 and type 23 by now cancelled

withdrawal of sea harriers

reduction in the number of escorts from 32 to 25

from planned 2 new cvf carriiers only one will be built

the only good news for the R.N. has been the improvement of amphibious capability with the 6 new lpd.s. 2 albion class and 4 bay class that together with the lph hms ocean makes britain the most capable amphibious force in western europe but in general numbers the R.N. is declining very fast.

Interesting view and, while I hope it does not come to pass, it may be valid. the wording of your post as "planned cuts" suggests an authoritive source. Is this the case or is it an opinion?

From other posts it has been suggested the cuts are to fund projects like CVF and JSF.

[mark22w]

Reductions in numbers do not equate to reductions in capability, far from it.

The future RN is being planned and built around the two CVF platforms – I really think the term ‘impossible’ is just a little alarmist. The logic of two not three platforms is understandable, but two down to one is simply not viable.

I agree the loss of Sea Harriers is unfortunate and to some degree the result of penny pinching in the past (upgrading the FA2 from the old air frames rather than building on the Harrier II) but I think a calculated risk looking at how aircraft have been used in recent years i.e. ground attack. Don’t get me wrong, the JSF is required and in sufficient numbers, but at say 36 per platform this is well within scope.

Six T45 Destroyers (still hoping for two additional units) is a significant improvement in capability over the older T42’s and this confirms the RN firmly at the top table of European naval forces.

The plans for the replacement T22 and T23’s is under review. There will be replacements, but the numbers and types are to be determined. A real issue is the longer service times required for new vessels (consider the 50 year life for CVF and T45) so the need to get the right platform with sufficient growth potential is key as is understanding the likely requirement for platforms to 2060 and beyond...

The new Astute class SSNs are overdue but coming on stream, and the launch date for the first has now been confirmed for 2007.

A replacement decision for the Vanguard SSBN is approaching and the RN needs to watch the US to decide if extending the Vanguard SSBNs or building new is the better option. I suggest a good time to look at the appropriate mix of SSBN / SSN platforms and the option of combining the two into one type cannot be excluded. A reduced number of smaller diameter ‘strategic’ missiles together with land attack conventional and ssm types would make a future force of Astute batch II’s an interesting proposition. Pure conjecture of course.

I think in summary it has been good news of late for the RN amphibious capability; next comes the air defence destroyers (2009 on); followed by new carriers (2013 on); not forgetting of course new SSNs, support ships, and then future frigates in due course…

Quite an ambitious programme for any navy, and not something that can happen overnight. Smaller yes, more balanced and capable - absolutely :D

[contedicavour]

Reductions in numbers do not equate to reductions in capability, far from it.

The future RN is being planned and built around the two CVF platforms – I really think the term ‘impossible’ is just a little alarmist. The logic of two not three platforms is understandable, but two down to one is simply not viable.

I agree the loss of Sea Harriers is unfortunate and to some degree the result of penny pinching in the past (upgrading the FA2 from the old air frames rather than building on the Harrier II) but I think a calculated risk looking at how aircraft have been used in recent years i.e. ground attack. Don’t get me wrong, the JSF is required and in sufficient numbers, but at say 36 per platform this is well within scope.

Six T45 Destroyers (still hoping for two additional units) is a significant improvement in capability over the older T42’s and this confirms the RN firmly at the top table of European naval forces.

The plans for the replacement T22 and T23’s is under review. There will be replacements, but the numbers and types are to be determined. A real issue is the longer service times required for new vessels (consider the 50 year life for CVF and T45) so the need to get the right platform with sufficient growth potential is key as is understanding the likely requirement for platforms to 2060 and beyond...

The new Astute class SSNs are overdue but coming on stream, and the launch date for the first has now been confirmed for 2007.

A replacement decision for the Vanguard SSBN is approaching and the RN needs to watch the US to decide if extending the Vanguard SSBNs or building new is the better option. I suggest a good time to look at the appropriate mix of SSBN / SSN platforms and the option of combining the two into one type cannot be excluded. A reduced number of smaller diameter ‘strategic’ missiles together with land attack conventional and ssm types would make a future force of Astute batch II’s an interesting proposition. Pure conjecture of course.

I think in summary it has been good news of late for the RN amphibious capability; next comes the air defence destroyers (2009 on); followed by new carriers (2013 on); not forgetting of course new SSNs, support ships, and then future frigates in due course…

Quite an ambitious programme for any navy, and not something that can happen overnight. Smaller yes, more balanced and capable - absolutely :D

Fully agree ! :) The UK is doing a good job leveraging a smaller budget. One could have been tempted to make more radical choices (such as preserving the number of escorts but changing CVFs with smaller carriers), but overall the Royal Navy is there to stay as Europe's biggest.

cheers

[contedicavour]

GD: "Methinks they're counting on French Horizons to fill the gaps in case of crisis, so it is a matter of loss of independent capability with only 6 Darings."

Rick: "Seeing as how only two Horizons are being built for France?"

CC: "Well if we keep cutting budgets in Europe, one day we'll have to merge assets for good in order to preserve a decent fighting force.
Since the Darings are very similar to the Horizons (Sampson radar apart), the ships could operate side by side very easily."

That doesnt answer the question of how two Horizons can fill any gaps.

And "very easily" is debatable.

LOL The French will have two carriers of their own and only four AAW escorts. Two of which are obsolete now.

But they will fill in gaps for the Royal Navy?

BS

Most overseas missions will be Anglo-French or even European. A British CVF may sail with French or Italian Horizons as escorting DDGs.
Regarding the compatibility between Horizon and Darings, I was referring to the fact that both ships have the same missiles. The EMPAR on a Horizon can guide the Asters launched from a Daring for example. Not bad ;)

cheers

[rickusn]

LOL

"The EMPAR on a Horizon can guide the Asters launched from a Daring for example. "

That should make things interesting if the UK and France have a falling out.

Ill believe it when I see it.

And still doesnt answer the question of how two Horizons fill in any Royal Navy gaps.

Again I repeat thats crap.

If anything having having six Darings should mean the RN would fill in French gaps as they will have two Carriers and two LHD's vs the UK two carriers and one LPH.

But once again reality shouldnt intrude on dreams I guess.

LOL

[Grand Danois]

This has been going on routinely since 1999 (Saint Malo Summit was in 1998). I can't see why DDG's should be exempt from this.

- HMS SOMERSET RETURNS FROM ADRIATIC - The crew of HMS SOMERSET will be reunited with their loved ones when the warship returns home to Plymouth on Friday, 30 April after a three-month deployment to the Adriatic. During her time away, SOMERSET was attached to a French task group, which has been playing a full part in Operation Allied Force involving NATO air strikes against Serbia. The Type 23 frigate, one of the most modem warships in the Royal Navy, sailed from Devonport Naval Base on 2 February for what was supposed to be a training mission with the French Navy in the Gulf and Indian Ocean region. The aim of the deployment was to develop the defence relationship between France and the United Kingdom as agreed by Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Jacques Chirac at last December's St Malo summit. HMS SOMERSET was the first Royal Navy ship to be under the command of a French Admiral for 145 years. As the crisis in Kosovo deepened, the task group - which also consisted of the French aircraft carrier FS Foch, the anti-aircraft frigate FS Cassard and the French support vessels FS Jules Verne and FS Meuse - was diverted to the Adriatic. On arrival in the area, HMS SOMERSET undertook an intensive period of training with the French. This included a degree of 'cross pollination', where members of the ship's company changed places with their French counterparts. With the breakdown of the Rambouillet peace talks and the start of NATO air strikes against Serbia, the task group was placed on a new operational footing. On 21 March the crew of HMS SOMERSET went into defence watches -working six hours on and six hours off - and remained so until leaving the theatre on 23 April. This ensured all vital weapons, sensors and communications equipment were manned and capable of responding immediately to any potential threat. During this time, the ship witnessed Tomahawk missiles being launched from nearby US warships and the UK submarine HMS SPLENDID and was able to constantly monitor NATO aircraft. Her primary role was to protect the FS Foch from Serbian attack as the aircraft carrier played a full part in Operation Allied Force.

Despite the significant demands of being on defence watches for days on end without any port visits, morale among the largely young ship's company remained high with every man and woman playing their part in the efficient running of the ship in such a challenging environment. The Commanding Officer of HMS SOMERSET, Commander the Honourable Michael Cochrane, said: "My team have shown enormous flexibility during this deployment. We have gone from expecting to exercise with the French Navy in the Indian Ocean to operating with them in the Adriatic. We have spent long periods at sea but the commitment, determination and dedication of the team has not wavered. I believe their thoroughly professional approach stems from an inherent desire to end the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo."

HMS SOMERSET handed over to her relief ship, the Portsmouth-based frigate HMS GRAFTON, on 23 April before sailing for Plymouth the following day.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3284/changeNav/3533

And also - Warships Home From Circling The Globe -

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3437/changeNav/3533

[rickusn]

Again I say WTF has that have to do with two Horizons filling any gaps for the RN?

Its ludicrous and nonsensical.

[Grand Danois]

Again I say WTF has that have to do with two Horizons filling any gaps for the RN?

Its ludicrous and nonsensical.

Here is the rationale.


The RN will get 6 T45's and it is too few.

The French Navy will get 4 PAAMS equipped Horizons and FREMM. Way too few.

Coordinating availability of the the assets would make them go further for both parties.

There is a consistent and established track of integrating frigates and destroyers into each others sea-air battlegroups. I would expect to see Horizons in RN battlegroups in due course. Found another one, btw. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3871/changeNav/3533

Joint and multinational in the EU context is what is on the tables, eg the UK/Dutch amphib battlegroup should be able to include Dutch AAW frigates.

As an independent capability* 6 are too few, but in the wider EU context there should be enough AAW assets to go around. So RN focus on amphibs and CVF is good IMV.

An (weak?) analogy could be the British realization in the early 20th century that it could not maintain the Two Power Standard with the expansion of the Japanese, US and German fleets leading to the Entente Cordiale... So if security is based in collective security then avoidance of duplication of effort has merit.

Worth a thought?

* [edit: providing adequate cover for several battlegroups]

[rickusn]

You made my point:

"The French Navy will get 4 PAAMS equipped Horizons and FREMM. Way too few."

Especially as how no one knows how the FREMM program is going to turn out.

So the French having two Horizons will do nothing to fill any gaps in the Royal Navy.

That RN/MN units can and have operated together is not the issue.

What effect TWO HORIZONS has on UK shortfalls is.

If the French cant supply enough AAW escorts(and two is far too few) for its HVUs it certainly cant fill any shortages for the UK.

"avoidance of duplication of effort"

There is no such thing going on.

Do you just dismiss Frances two new LHD's?

Do you just dismiss the fact that both navies have plans to maintain two carriers?

The plans for both navies make them look very duplicative too me.

Although the MN will have far fewer AAW ships. So they surely cant fill any RN gap in this regard.

And therefore if such navies cant fulfill its own needs it cant fill any gaps in anothers. Especially if there is a crisis where there is no overlapping concern.
Does Falklands ring a bell?

[Grand Danois]

The consequence of what you say would be that the RN would have max 3 AAW ships for a Falklands II. All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere where their capabilities is probably not in the same demand...

What would be the upper limit of an independent RN operation be in the future with a final number of six Type 45's?

[mark22w]

Six T45s are indeed too few however there is still hope that sense will prevail and two additional units will be ordered. The outgoing 1st Sea Lord was very keen to emphasise the need to maintain eight as a minimum.

The interoperability of RN & MN escorts demonstrates what is possible and is a useful force multiplier however it is not IMHO the solution to insufficient numbers of escorts. It wouldn’t have helped in the Gulf in 2003 and who knows where and when the RN will next sail into harms way but odds on it is with the USN...

[rickusn]

GD: "All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere ..."

Your not getting it.

In fact you keep evading your original contention taht the RN will have to rely on Frances two Horizons..

Furthermore what "eight other European PAAMS ships"?

Only two for France and two for Italy are for sure.

Although the FREMMs should be little inferior however they will be optomised for other warfare taskings ie ASW/LandAttack.

Italy will soon have two small carriers along with its amphibious ships to provide for.

But neither country or the Netherlands which you mentioned also are going to cover RN specific taskings.

These navies(along with others) may act in concert at times but its almost certain that all will retain independence and the UK for sure.

And all I see in the European navies is duplication of effort for that very reason.

As for how many T-45's could be involved in a Falklands type effort. Depends. Could be all under the most optomistic of conditions or could be just a couple under the most pessimistic.

But still doent matter because neithre France, italy ot the Netherlands are going to undertake RN responsibilities anywhere else.

Why?

Because they have their own!!!!!!!And have minimal capability to provide for them.

Your original contention makes no sense and your attempts to widen the agenda doesnt hold water.

If indeed there is to be a European Navy that will provide for all the responsibilities that those nations now undertake independently(albeit with limited platforms) those nations sure are spending alot of money duplicating capabilities.

And one of your contentions is that this is not happening.

In fact if any of them could scrape together more funding they would increase the level of duplication further not less.

Sorry but your contentions just dont hold water.

[Big-E]

Nationalism is too strong to see this as of yet... hence no unified EU force structure.:o

[contedicavour]

GD: "All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere ..."

Your not getting it.

In fact you keep evading your original contention taht the RN will have to rely on Frances two Horizons..

Furthermore what "eight other European PAAMS ships"?

Only two for France and two for Italy are for sure.

Although the FREMMs should be little inferior however they will be optomised for other warfare taskings ie ASW/LandAttack.

Italy will soon have two small carriers along with its amphibious ships to provide for.

But neither country or the Netherlands which you mentioned also are going to cover RN specific taskings.

These navies(along with others) may act in concert at times but its almost certain that all will retain independence and the UK for sure.

And all I see in the European navies is duplication of effort for that very reason.

As for how many T-45's could be involved in a Falklands type effort. Depends. Could be all under the most optomistic of conditions or could be just a couple under the most pessimistic.

But still doent matter because neithre France, italy ot the Netherlands are going to undertake RN responsibilities anywhere else.

Why?

Because they have their own!!!!!!!And have minimal capability to provide for them.

Your original contention makes no sense and your attempts to widen the agenda doesnt hold water.

If indeed there is to be a European Navy that will provide for all the responsibilities that those nations now undertake independently(albeit with limited platforms) those nations sure are spending alot of money duplicating capabilities.

And one of your contentions is that this is not happening.

In fact if any of them could scrape together more funding they would increase the level of duplication further not less.

Sorry but your contentions just dont hold water.

Fine, let's suppose that indeed the Franco-Italian Horizon and FREMMs aren't enough to fill the gap in the RN's DDG force.
Good old Europe will just have to live with this and make sure that we don't end up overstretched in dangerous overseas missions.
Still if it really came to a big crisis we'll put together a patchwork of Horizon, FREMM, Daring, Spanish Bazan, Dutch De Zeven Provincien and German F125. Would have been much better to have NFR90 ships for all, but that's still the 2nd largest DDG force in the world after the USN.
With the newer ships being light years ahead of the old Sea Dart- and SM-1-equipped DDGs.
Honestly I think there are much worse gaps in the EU countries' armed forces than numbers of DDGs ;) starting from sealift and airlift capabilities.

cheers

[Waylander]

Our AAW FFGs (US classify them as DDGs) are the F124 not F125.
F125 is still in the phase of planning and it is not going to be an AAW vessel.

[Grand Danois]

GD: "All the while eight other European PAAMS ships and 15 other AAW vessels serve elsewhere ..."

Your not getting it.

In fact you keep evading your original contention taht the RN will have to rely on Frances two Horizons..

I offered an expanded an clarified response with regard to my premise. If you insist on the original wording - one line - then you will be correct that it in the narrowest interpretation probably will be a rare event to see MN PAAMS ships in the UK dominated battlegroups. But it will happen.

Furthermore what "eight other European PAAMS ships"?

Only two for France and two for Italy are for sure.

Four Horizons are being built so far. The MN plan on building a PAAMS variant of the FREMM as a replacement for their two cancelled Horizons. The Italians haven't deleted their last two (yet?). But... the future will tell.

Although the FREMMs should be little inferior however they will be optomised for other warfare taskings ie ASW/LandAttack.

And a PAAMS variant. ;)

Italy will soon have two small carriers along with its amphibious ships to provide for.

But neither country or the Netherlands which you mentioned also are going to cover RN specific taskings.

These navies(along with others) may act in concert at times but its almost certain that all will retain independence and the UK for sure.

And all I see in the European navies is duplication of effort for that very reason.

As for how many T-45's could be involved in a Falklands type effort. Depends. Could be all under the most optomistic of conditions or could be just a couple under the most pessimistic.

But still doent matter because neithre France, italy ot the Netherlands are going to undertake RN responsibilities anywhere else.

Why?

Because they have their own!!!!!!!And have minimal capability to provide for them.

Your original contention makes no sense and your attempts to widen the agenda doesnt hold water.

If indeed there is to be a European Navy that will provide for all the responsibilities that those nations now undertake independently(albeit with limited platforms) those nations sure are spending alot of money duplicating capabilities.

And one of your contentions is that this is not happening.

In fact if any of them could scrape together more funding they would increase the level of duplication further not less.

Sorry but your contentions just dont hold water.


I am not saying there will be a unified European Navy! Navies will stay independent with national and international tasks. The size of undertakings any individual country in Europe is and will be able to do is not that great. Any sizeable effort will be multilateral by interest and necessity.

As to duplication of effort and specialisation. Carrier and amphib capability is called for in the European context, so no there is no redundancy which is implicit in duplication of effort. Only the larger navies can undertake such jobs. Naturally they are focusing on that.

The smaller navies are purging their FAC and SSK components and building AAW/ASW/multimission frigates. Specialisation. The larger navies will have less escorts or are steady at low numbers. Less duplication.

Another example is the fledgling Estonian Navy which comprises a coast guard and a MCM sqn. They have just bought a few Sandowns from the RN and an additional command/support vessel (a former Danish minelayer). This is with the intention of a commitment to the NRF MCM Group 1. It will be interesting to see how far they will get wrt tempo of ops and sophistication.

Trend is for specialisation and less duplication.

[rickusn]

"Trend is for specialisation and less duplication."

LOL

It is not.

The move away from FACs is because of their limited utility.

Less escorts is the consequence of increased costs/inadequate funding and nothing more.


"As to duplication of effort and specialisation. Carrier and amphib capability is called for in the European context, so no there is no redundancy which is implicit in duplication of effort. Only the larger navies can undertake such jobs. Naturally they are focusing on that."

These navies are updating their platforms across the board:

Carriers
Surface Combatants
Amphibs
Submarines
Logistic Ships

Redundancy and duplication are rampant.

"The larger navies will have less escorts or are steady at low numbers. Less duplication."

Less numbers again are the result of increased costs and inadequate fuding.

Estonia is building a navy with what it can afford.

Sorry but your seeing things that you would like to see but arent actually happening.

[Big-E]

The only time you would see these Carrier taskforces would be under NATO auspices plus you would have USN forces in the mix as well so the EU running these types of force modulation with each other isn't going to occur without US particapation IMO.

[perfectgeneral]

I agree that it may make sense to build one or 2 smaller carriers the size of the Ocean and capable of using the JSF for the smaller overseas missions.
In this case one large CVF may be enough for the major overseas missions, provided that conflicts can be expected enough time in advance to adapt the maintenance schedules and have the single CVF ready when it is needed.
In Italy our 240-metre 27,000 ton Cavour carrier can carry up to 20 JSFs plus 4 Eh-101 AEW helos. It costs us 1.5 billion USD approx.

cheers

I can't help but agree that four to five Cavours would have been a great replacement for the Invincibles ($6.5-7.5bn quoted for two CVF). Maybe we had to concentrate our air arm on two ships to limit the crews required. What is the comlpement (crew) of a Cavour class carrier? Naval technology quotes 451 plus aircrew of 203, that's 654 x 4 = 2616. Compares pretty well with 1500 x 2 = 3000. Wait, the Naval Technology site also states that the Cavour class only hold 8 VTOL aeroplanes or 12 HELOs. So we would need six to get the joint fleet air arm afloat. Where do you get your figures for 20 JSF plus 4 HELOs from?

[mark22w]

The size of the CVFs is dictated by the requirement to carry a useful air group and I recall reading (somewhere) has more to do with interoperability with the USN. An air group of 36 F-35’s would make it possible to supplement US carriers and if necessary provide a ‘comparable’ attack capability to rotate with US carriers. I think it was an interview with the outgoing 1SL.

Please note I said comparable ;)

As to a larger number of smaller platforms my prime concern apart from air group would be the numbers of escorts required to accompany them and their restriction to VSTOL operations.

The CVF, with a planned 50-year service life can be adapted to operate CTOL aircraft – something the smaller platforms are simply not designed for.

[contedicavour]

I can't help but agree that four to five Cavours would have been a great replacement for the Invincibles ($6.5-7.5bn quoted for two CVF). Maybe we had to concentrate our air arm on two ships to limit the crews required. What is the comlpement (crew) of a Cavour class carrier? Naval technology quotes 451 plus aircrew of 203, that's 654 x 4 = 2616. Compares pretty well with 1500 x 2 = 3000. Wait, the Naval Technology site also states that the Cavour class only hold 8 VTOL aeroplanes or 12 HELOs. So we would need six to get the joint fleet air arm afloat. Where do you get your figures for 20 JSF plus 4 HELOs from?

hello, the Cavour and the Garibaldi are supposed to sail with 6-8 Harrier II Plus and 3-4 EH-101s. This is mostly because we only have 18 Harriers and 20 EH-101s, but also because the hangars can hold 10 (Garibaldi) and 14 (Cavour) jets+helos max.
The Marina Militare site and numerous technical publications (Rivista Italiana Difesa of the Monch Publishing Group for ex) show drawings of the Cavour with a max complement of 24 jets+helos, 14 in hangar and 10 parked on the deck. This would clearly be limiting operations a bit since the ship would be really crowded, but Harriers could still take off using the sky jump with air-to-air configuration only (ie no heavy paveways or extra fuel pods).
I posted some pictures of the Cavour as it was Dec 2005. Since then, it has almost been completed and will start sailing this September.

cheers

[contedicavour]

The only time you would see these Carrier taskforces would be under NATO auspices plus you would have USN forces in the mix as well so the EU running these types of force modulation with each other isn't going to occur without US particapation IMO.

Everything depends on the mission. If you are facing a country as Iran or worse you'd better use several carriers and pray the USN is around to help.
However most missions (in the Adriatic at the time of the Kosovo conflict, in the Indian Ocean at the time of the Somalian mess in 1992-93, or at the time of the cleanup in Afghanistan in 2001-02, in Timor, etc) only require 1 or 2 smaller aircraft carriers.

cheers

[perfectgeneral]

hello, the Cavour and the Garibaldi are supposed to sail with 6-8 Harrier II Plus and 3-4 EH-101s. This is mostly because we only have 18 Harriers and 20 EH-101s, but also because the hangars can hold 10 (Garibaldi) and 14 (Cavour) jets+helos max.
The Marina Militare site and numerous technical publications (Rivista Italiana Difesa of the Monch Publishing Group for ex) show drawings of the Cavour with a max complement of 24 jets+helos, 14 in hangar and 10 parked on the deck. This would clearly be limiting operations a bit since the ship would be really crowded, but Harriers could still take off using the sky jump with air-to-air configuration only (ie no heavy paveways or extra fuel pods).
I posted some pictures of the Cavour as it was Dec 2005. Since then, it has almost been completed and will start sailing this September.

cheers

20 Harriers isn't the same as 20 JSF as the harrier is about 80% the spot size of a JSF. 16 JSF would require twice the aircrew 203 x 2 + 451 = 856. Four overloaded Cavours (up to 64 JSF) would require crew of 856 x 4 = 3424. So the CVF crew of 3000 looks better. The two CVF are far from overloaded. They could surge up to 36 JSF or more each (72+).

[contedicavour]

20 Harriers isn't the same as 20 JSF as the harrier is about 80% the spot size of a JSF. 16 JSF would require twice the aircrew 203 x 2 + 451 = 856. Four overloaded Cavours (up to 64 JSF) would require crew of 856 x 4 = 3424. So the CVF crew of 3000 looks better. The two CVF are far from overloaded. They could surge up to 36 JSF or more each (72+).

Yes you are right. Unless you take into account the availability rate of 2 CVF vs 4 smaller CVs... if we say a ship is fully operational 8 months a year, the UK will be able to have 2 CVFs only 4 months a year. With 4 smaller CVs, it would always have minimum 2 CVs, and even 3 during 2/3 of a year.
So at the end of the day... you have 16x3=48 JSFs during 2/3 of the year while the RN will have only 36 during 2/3 of the year.
You would also be able to participate to a lot more missions than with CVFs, although you will have more "punch" (in numbers of JSFs) with the CVF option during those 4 months when the RN will have both CVFs at sea.

cheers

[contedicavour]

Our AAW FFGs (US classify them as DDGs) are the F124 not F125.
F125 is still in the phase of planning and it is not going to be an AAW vessel.

Oops you're right ! F125 are the replacements of the F122 Bremens, and as such multi-purpose FFGs. By the way, if I were in charge I would look closely at the FREMM design for F125... although the German Navy will surely have to fit ESSMs and RAMs aboard instead of the Asters.
The good old dream of resurrecting the NFR90, a FFG class for all of the European navies... :rolleyes:

cheers

[overlander]

as richard beedall says, www.beedall.com funding has not been approved to build the 2 cvf it,s clear that britain has to built at least 1 cvf after the agreement with france to share the design (it would be ridiculous that france built its PA2 with british design and britain will not) but i think that finally only 1 cvf will be built for britain, delays in the main gate investment reveals that it will be a very big effort for the R.N. and british budget EVEN TO ORDER 1 CVF, maybe that 1 smaller carrier - lph or lhd could be ordered to complement the only cvf.

as for the type 45 i think that only optimistic people can think that 2 addittiona units will be ordered it,s clear that only 6 will be built, there are no signals at all that these 2 additional units will be ordered symply because there is not funding for them.

[overlander]

even labour or conservative, after soviet union collapse only britain have suffered more defence cuts than any other western country, so maybe that after so many efforts to build at least one cvf and 6 type 45 maybe in 10 years another defence review (and would be the 10 or 11th time in 30 years ) offer to sale this new cvf and these new type 45,s to india brazil or any other medium country it not would be strange for me, the R.N. has been reduced in only 20 years from 50 to 25 escorts so we will see what happens in the future but the worst enemy that british armed forces have they are symply british politicians that consider defence in the botton and last of the priorities, as richad beedall says www.beedall.com maybe the R.N. could be reduced to a coastal force in the next 10 or 15 years with a new and definitive defence review symply another heavy cut in capabilities

[Supe]

'RN reduced to a few patrol vessels' - not an optimistic view from Beedall. I don't know if he's factoring in the the amphibious component in his bleak assessment of which there has been emphasis on improving in the last few years. I don't believe the British Govt would ever run down the RN as completely as Beedall states.

[contedicavour]

'RN reduced to a few patrol vessels' - not an optimistic view from Beedall. I don't know if he's factoring in the the amphibious component in his bleak assessment of which there has been emphasis on improving in the last few years. I don't believe the British Govt would ever run down the RN as completely as Beedall states.

Let's say the British government is doing to RN no worse than what the other European governments are doing to their navies (with the exception of the Spanish, and may be the Norwegian, governments).

cheers nonetheless ;)

[ren0312]

Let's say the British government is doing to RN no worse than what the other European governments are doing to their navies (with the exception of the Spanish, and may be the Norwegian, governments).

cheers nonetheless ;)

Well the sorry state of your navies will not be made better until you address the root cause of the problem, lack of political will, a lot of those problems will be solved if the EU will simply state that members must commit to spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on the military, or even better yet 3 per cent, similar to the 3 per cent of GDP limit on your fiscal deficit rule, of the NATO countries, it seems that only the US, FRANCE:D , Turkey, and Greece are paying adequate attention to their militaries.

[contedicavour]

Well the sorry state of your navies will not be made better until you address the root cause of the problem, lack of political will, a lot of those problems will be solved if the EU will simply state that members must commit to spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on the military, or even better yet 3 per cent, similar to the 3 per cent of GDP limit on your fiscal deficit rule, of the NATO countries, it seems that only the US, FRANCE:D , Turkey, and Greece are paying adequate attention to their militaries.

Well there's the quantity of budget allocated to the armed forces and there's quality. The UK spends about as much as France but manages to get more out of the same, because it builds less "protoypes" (such as the De Gaulle) and accepts that some material can be bought from the US instead of developing everything locally (Rafale, ASMP, Mica, etc).
One other thing : the budget figures are often misleading. Italy for example spends 1.5% on defense. In theory, because once you take out the budget of the Carabinieri (sort of military police doing the same job as the civilian police) we're talking 1% ... :rolleyes: Take the Gendarmerie budget out of the French defense budget and you'll have some nasty suprises too...

[Grand Danois]

Estonia is building a navy with what it can afford.

Sorry but your seeing things that you would like to see but arent actually happening.

Estonia is undergoing rapid growth and will be able to support a sophisticated navy in a decade.

Well, I might like to see it, but mostly I do expect it to be a fait accompli in a decade or two, with the cuts at hands.

[Grand Danois]

The only time you would see these Carrier taskforces would be under NATO auspices plus you would have USN forces in the mix as well so the EU running these types of force modulation with each other isn't going to occur without US particapation IMO.

The examples of sea-air BGs provided so far are not under the auspices of NATO or US.

But you're right that SNMCMG 1 + 2 and SNMG 1 +2 and Task Force 150 together have 30+ vessels deployed each with a 1-1½ year workup. So a big lump of the European navies are tied up in the NATO structure or US operations.

And add ops like ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR etc. to that list

[perfectgeneral]

Back in the eighties when the US was spending 6% of GDP on defence, the UK spent 4.5%.

If the peace dividend (the end of the cold war) was the only cause for cuts UK spending on defence would currently stand at 3% of GDP (in proportion to the US spend of 4% of GDP).

Clearly we aren't pulling our weight and have forgotten the relative merits of guns and butter. As for allowing our navy to lag behind France's, I would see that as a clear indication that we are underspending. The economy has benefitted from full employment of late. Perhaps that is as a result of transferring defence spending. If so it is a dangerous gamble that must stop.

Defence money must be found as a first priority of government. The next three years see spending rise 1.4% above inflation, but at that rate it will take decades to resume 3% of GDP. I have petitioned my MP and encourage every UK contributer/reader to do likewise. Where else do you expect the voice of protest to come from?

3% of GDP on Defence spending would ensure that the armed forces would increase back up to 1.1% of the working population (from 1% currently) and equip them to do the job well. Body armour, explosion supressant foam in air transport fuel tanks, the list of petty, morale sapping cuts is endless. The big cuts, like 12 to 6 T45s and maybe only one CVF (perish the thought) are the tip of the iceberg. This has to stop.

[contedicavour]

Back in the eighties when the US was spending 6% of GDP on defence, the UK spent 4.5%.

If the peace dividend (the end of the cold war) was the only cause for cuts UK spending on defence would currently stand at 3% of GDP (in proportion to the US spend of 4% of GDP).

Clearly we aren't pulling our weight and have forgotten the relative merits of guns and butter. As for allowing our navy to lag behind France's, I would see that as a clear indication that we are underspending. The economy has benefitted from full employment of late. Perhaps that is as a result of transferring defence spending. If so it is a dangerous gamble that must stop.

Defence money must be found as a first priority of government. The next three years see spending rise 1.4% above inflation, but at that rate it will take decades to resume 3% of GDP. I have petitioned my MP and encourage every UK contributer/reader to do likewise. Where else do you expect the voice of protest to come from?

3% of GDP on Defence spending would ensure that the armed forces would increase back up to 1.1% of the working population (from 1% currently) and equip them to do the job well. Body armour, explosion supressant foam in air transport fuel tanks, the list of petty, morale sapping cuts is endless. The big cuts, like 12 to 6 T45s and maybe only one CVF (perish the thought) are the tip of the iceberg. This has to stop.

Unfortunately British public opinion doesn't seem to care much. I wouldn't even be sure that the Tories would spend more on defense if they came back to government. The economy is slowing down, interest rates are going up, and no party can propose cutting the spiralling social costs (NHS to start with).
The only way out is getting the maximum out of your budget, sharing R&D with a maximum of other countries, buying more off the shelf, etc.
Last but not least, I fear the Army is in even more desperate need of extra resources than the Navy.
Sad times indeed :( some may even be hoping that a new Falklands type conflict arises to prove the usefulness of a strong Royal Navy ! :rolleyes:

cheers

[Big-E]

The examples of sea-air BGs provided so far are not under the auspices of NATO or US.

But you're right that SNMCMG 1 + 2 and SNMG 1 +2 and Task Force 150 together have 30+ vessels deployed each with a 1-1½ year workup. So a big lump of the European navies are tied up in the NATO structure or US operations.

And add ops like ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR etc. to that list

Isn't this picture beautiful...:teary

I can't remember the last time there was a multi-national Carrier Task force.;)

[Grand Danois]

Isn't this picture beautiful...:teary

I can't remember the last time there was a multi-national Carrier Task force.;)

A very beautiful picture indeed. :)

HERAKLES...?

[Big-E]

A very beautiful picture indeed. :)

HERAKLES...?

Yep!:D

[Sea Toby]

One of the problems facing governments worldwide is the increased costs of new weapons which are increasing twice as fast as the inflationary rate, if not faster. The days of US$ 20 million fighters are now USS$ 40 million, with stealth fighters approaching US$ 100 million or more. The price of Nimitz class aircraft carriers are approaching US$ 8 billion, not the US$ 3-4 billion of the first few built in the 1970s. Lesser capability LCS ships for the US Navy cost twice as much more as the FFGs built in the 1980s. One of the items in governments budget which is increasing even higher is health care. Something is gotta give, and it appears health care has a higher priority than defense.

These technological advances cost money. We have come a long way since the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar anti-air missiles. Newer missiles with much more capability have replaced the older first generation inaccurate missiles. With frigates costing in today's world US$ 400 million, destroyers costing US$ 1 billion, and nuclear propelled submarines costing over US$ 2 billion, not even America can replace every ship one to one.

[mark22w]

One of the problems facing governments worldwide is the increased costs of new weapons which are increasing twice as fast as the inflationary rate, if not faster. The days of US$ 20 million fighters are now USS$ 40 million, with stealth fighters approaching US$ 100 million or more. The price of Nimitz class aircraft carriers are approaching US$ 8 billion, not the US$ 3-4 billion of the first few built in the 1970s. Lesser capability LCS ships for the US Navy cost twice as much more as the FFGs built in the 1980s. One of the items in governments budget which is increasing even higher is health care. Something is gotta give, and it appears health care has a higher priority than defense.

These technological advances cost money. We have come a long way since the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar anti-air missiles. Newer missiles with much more capability have replaced the older first generation inaccurate missiles. With frigates costing in today's world US$ 400 million, destroyers costing US$ 1 billion, and nuclear propelled submarines costing over US$ 2 billion, not even America can replace every ship one to one.

Agree fully.

Give me the proposed RN with 2 CVFs and 6 T45s over the Invincible/T42 combination of the 1980's any day of the week. As to the 50 escorts Overlander mentions I'm not sure what the 'Ikara' Leanders or Tribal class frigates would provide other than personnel nightmares... The later T22 and T23 frigates were and indeed are a step change in capability.

Reality check is smaller numbers, increased punch, greater flexibility.

[perfectgeneral]

Agree fully.

Give me the proposed RN with 2 CVFs and 6 T45s over the Invincible/T42 combination of the 1980's any day of the week. As to the 50 escorts Overlander mentions I'm not sure what the 'Ikara' Leanders or Tribal class frigates would provide other than personnel nightmares... The later T22 and T23 frigates were and indeed are a step change in capability.

Reality check is smaller numbers, increased punch, greater flexibility.

Sensor fusion makes each ship more effective, but without a 60 knot capability, there is a drop in presence. It's a big world. Intel may ensure that you are in the right place at the right time on 80-90% of occasions, but no back-up when wrong-footed or beaten is a bad place to be.

personnel need not be an issue since the new ships require less crew. The crews of the eight type 42 and four type 22 ships are enough for sixteen type 45 ships and a spare watch. I also think a few spare/standby basic hulls awaiting transfer/installation of equipment would reduce reinforcement build time substantially.

It isn't an issue of money any more than it is of manning levels, it is a question of priorities.

[overlander]

enter in www.beedall.com and read at the end of the page the article that 1 british newspaper publish, the chancellor of the tresor gordon browns wants to cut an adittional 1 blln. pounds from defence so it seems to be that like in 1966 with the cva 01 the cvf carriers will be only a dream and if only one year later that the british navy reduced its escort force from 32 to 25, withdrawal of sea harriers and cuts in the mine hunter force other heavy cut it.s under way maybe true that finally in a few years the british navy will be reduced to a coastal force as richard beedall says in his editorial, a sad final for this historic navy, really labour government will be the most terrible enemy for the british armed forces.

[harryriedl]

the problem with www.beedall.com is that he is very sinical [sorry can't spell] is that is very gloomy rember how long it took HMs Ocen to be bulit they ask for the capbalitly in 1980s but it wasn't delivered till the late 90s i know im being rough with the dates its just he is being very negative

[Sea Toby]

Having sold a third carrier to France, I doubt seriously whether any of the two British carriers will be cancelled. Downsized 10-15,000 tons maybe, cancelled no. Without the carriers the UK would have to build more submarines and destroyers.

[Whiskyjack]

Having sold a third carrier to France, I doubt seriously whether any of the two British carriers will be cancelled. Downsized 10-15,000 tons maybe, cancelled no. Without the carriers the UK would have to build more submarines and destroyers.

Unfortunately I can! I see the RN losing the carriers and ending up with three enlarged strategic projection ship that will also be an amphibious lift. The RN has been here with the last time they lost the carriers.

That’s not definite, but it is a possibility.

[Big-E]

. Without the carriers the UK would have to build more submarines and destroyers.

They have to build more subs and DDGs with carriers, they have to be protected. If the RN does cancel her carrier program she will be effectively withdrawing herself from the seas with no need of a large escort force... whats the point without anything to escort.:hitwall

[Wild Weasel]

It's quite possible that there are a great deal of people in the UK who fail to see a need for a carrier battle group, or any other type of ocean-going combattants.
Trust me, I have met quite a few.
While I have considered them to be a bit too cynical and/or idealistic for their own good, they usually can't be persuaded otherwise.

As there have been very few instances of naval warfare since the Falklands conflict, ( Aside from the United States frequent usage of her own carrier groups ) I think many in the UK see expeditionary naval power as an extravagance they can live without.

This situation places an even greater burden on the US Navy, which is often bashed by these same people as an unwanted "world police". Unfortunately, this sort of attitude could be difficult and even more costly to rectify in the future. Building and operating carrier task forces is certainly an expensive business- and will only become more so in years to come. Perhaps it has already become cost-prohibitive for the UK?

Hopefully, the NATO, and/or EU partnership can fill in the gaps, should a real international crisis arise, and the UK's lack of flat-tops becomes insufficient to project a credible force of naval power.

[Big-E]

Hopefully, the NATO, and/or EU partnership can fill in the gaps, should a real international crisis arise, and the UK's lack of flat-tops becomes insufficient to project a credible force of naval power.

Basically you would be relying on France to project your diplomacy. Bad idea.:drunk1

[Wild Weasel]

Yes, that would be rather unfortunate. But then, there's not much I could very well do about it, either.

[Big-E]

Yes, that would be rather unfortunate. But then, there's not much I could very well do about it, either.

I would rather see an Anglo/US sphere rather than the UK looking towards Europe for help, we are related after all.;)

[contedicavour]

I've read the last posts on this thread and I've got the impression there is an attack of pessimism here ;)
No way the UK will stop the new carrier programme, it's an essential part of the strategic projection the UK armed forces need for most of tomorrow's overseas missions.
If cuts will come, it will be in other parts of the UK Navy, may be the numbers of SSNs, or by building smaller carriers more in tune with the merchant marine's building standards. :rolleyes:

Cheer up !!

[Whiskyjack]

Until you realise that there are senior UK military (non navy) and political figures that are against the CVF programme. I agree that something will be bought, but what and when remains to be seen.

Of course there is a political element here, if I wanted the contractor to sharpen their pencils I would announce a cut in defence spend and whisper about a major project cut and wait and see.

[Big-E]

I don't know, somethings got to give if they have to fork out 48 billion for 4 SSBN replacements. Navy only gets so much money.

[Grand Danois]

I don't know, somethings got to give if they have to fork out 48 billion for 4 SSBN replacements. Navy only gets so much money.

Perhaps it wont get that dear and it will also be spread over several decades. If the UK doesn't get too ambitious they might be able to keep the cost down...


Brown backs Trident replacement

Trident will be decommissioned by about 2024

Mr Brown's speech
Gordon Brown has signalled that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.

Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5103764.stm

[contedicavour]

I don't know, somethings got to give if they have to fork out 48 billion for 4 SSBN replacements. Navy only gets so much money.

Honestly if it came down to this, choosing between CVs and SSBNs, then my choice is clear : build the new CVs and abandon the replacement programme for the SSBNs. In exchange, put nuclear warheads on the TLAMs on the new Astute SSNs being built, it should be enough as a nuclear deterrent against any potential enemy.

cheers

[Sea Toby]

While I would like to see another 2 more Destroyers built, up to 8, the British still have 16 frigates in their inventory. After the destroyer program, I'm confident a new frigate program will commence, more than likely similar to the new French and Italian program using the Aster 15 surface to air missiles. The new frigates will be networked with the destroyers better than the current Type 23s and Type 22s.

However, I am more worried about the attack submarine force numbers even though the Astute program is in process. The frigates in the British navy today are far better than the old Type 21s and Type 12s, which when you consider their capabilities in today's world were nothing but OPVs. Hhowever, I can see the British copy the French and acquire light frigates or larger OPVs to use as patrol vessels for some of their dependencies. As I have posted on other threads, with the price of frigates going up, and the price of OPVs much cheaper, there is no need in the future to waste frigates in fishery protection or coast guard roles.

The Vanguards cost the British around 1 billion pounds each, or 8 billion pounds. Their replacements which won't have to be paid for yet, a decade or more away long after the carrier program, can't possibly cost twice as much. Since the Trident SSBNs are very accurate, a newer model can't be that much more expensive. While I can see the British reducing in half their number of warheads and/or missiles for the SSBNs, I don't see the British losing their nuclear deterrent. There is a lot of prestige on the line.

[contedicavour]

While I would like to see another 2 more Destroyers built, up to 8, the British still have 16 frigates in their inventory. After the destroyer program, I'm confident a new frigate program will commence, more than likely similar to the new French and Italian program using the Aster 15 surface to air missiles. The new frigates will be networked with the destroyers better than the current Type 23s and Type 22s.

However, I am more worried about the attack submarine force numbers even though the Astute program is in process. The frigates in the British navy today are far better than the old Type 21s and Type 12s, which when you consider their capabilities in today's world were nothing but OPVs.

Fully agree. To develop on your point, frigates start resembling destroyers more and more. When a frigate has AEGIS-type radars, can launch 30-km range AAW missiles and is fitted for but not with 120-km range AAW missiles (the Aster-30), and BTW the ship is 140 metres and 6000 ton, you could start calling this a destroyer...
So once you have 2 dozen mega-FFGs/DDGs, frankly this does the job even for a Navy like the RN which still has business all around the world. ;)
The key point however, as you mention, is that the new FFG programme had better start fast and provide ships close to T45 size & weaponry. A programme already existed to replace the T22s but it was stopped for budget reasons last year. :(
The UK's MOD should start looking closely at FREMM, adapt it to RN needs and start building it without wasting years on R&D ...

cheers

[Big-E]

The Vanguards cost the British around 1 billion pounds each, or 8 billion pounds. Their replacements ... can't possibly cost twice as much. Since the Trident SSBNs are very accurate, a newer model can't be that much more expensive.


Didn't you just read the report??? Anywhere from 10 to 25 billion pounds for 4 subs. Thats 18.3 Billion USD to 45.8 billion USD. Your talking an average price of 8.08 billion USDs per sub if you go with the median price!!!

BTW 1 billion pounds each equals 4 billion for 4 subs, not 8...


Brown backs Trident replacement

Trident will be decommissioned by about 2024

Mr Brown's speech
Gordon Brown has signalled that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.

Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5103764.stm

[Sea Toby]

I was under the impression a PAMs missile silo could be installed where the Seawolf missile silo is on the Type 23s. I would attempt to get at least 25 years of service from the Type 23s. However, the four remaining Type 22s are reaching their pay off dates, and should be replaced with the FREMMs or something similar.

The British don't have to build from scratch and develop new ships every time any longer in today's world. Notice how well the Norwegians have done with a basically a Spanish design. Notice how well Greece, Turkey, Portugal, New Zealand, and Australia have done with similar versions of the MEKO 200.

Its not so much the price of steel or the design of the ship that is expensive. Most of the price of a new warship is the price of its combat data weapons systems and other sensors. The same can be said of submarines, although submarines can have nuclear power plants which cost more up front than a diesel electric plant.

So its not the cost of a new strategic missile or submarine, its the costs of the combat data weapons systems and development of a newer model missile which will be expensive.

[overlander]

apart from the declaration of the chancellor of the tresor rumours indicate that beside the cancellation of the cvf project also the force of typhoons will be cut to only 100, the tornado gr4 force cut to only 115, the challenger tanks to only 250 and the jsf orders will be cut to only 90, the astute class will be built as planned but the modernized trafalgar class will be withdrawal from service bringing the total number of ssn,s to only 6 or even 5 furthermore the service personnal in the 3 services will be reduced in 25000 men, in my opinion this is a real scrapping of the british forces and cuts growing and growing

[swerve]

Didn't you just read the report??? Anywhere from 10 to 25 billion pounds for 4 subs. Thats 18.3 Billion USD to 45.8 billion USD. Your talking an average price of 8.08 billion USDs per sub if you go with the median price!!!

BTW 1 billion pounds each equals 4 billion for 4 subs, not 8...

The quoted figures are for "a nuclear deterrent", not 4 subs. Definitely includes missiles & warheads, & could include lifetime operating costs. And it doesn't mean anything anyway: nobody knows where that journalist got his range of guesses.

[swerve]

apart from the declaration of the chancellor of the tresor rumours indicate that beside the cancellation of the cvf project also the force of typhoons will be cut to only 100, the tornado gr4 force cut to only 115, the challenger tanks to only 250 and the jsf orders will be cut to only 90, the astute class will be built as planned but the modernized trafalgar class will be withdrawal from service bringing the total number of ssn,s to only 6 or even 5 furthermore the service personnal in the 3 services will be reduced in 25000 men, in my opinion this is a real scrapping of the british forces and cuts growing and growing

Where do you get this stuff? What would we do with the other Typhoons we already have on order, & are committed to paying for?

[contedicavour]

Where do you get this stuff? What would we do with the other Typhoons we already have on order, & are committed to paying for?

Agree this sounds bizarre ; it would be the world's biggest bazaar if it really came to selling brand new Typhoons and still recent Challengers :rolleyes:
Not to mention that the Trafalgars are useful for another 15 years and have Tomahawks aboard, so they are unsellable and this would be a colossal waste of money to retire them. :mad

[Big-E]

The quoted figures are for "a nuclear deterrent", not 4 subs. Definitely includes missiles & warheads, & could include lifetime operating costs. And it doesn't mean anything anyway: nobody knows where that journalist got his range of guesses.


If this is the case then that makes the figures going to the far end of the spectrum. SSBNs are much more expensive than silos. Both Blair and Gordon expressed their commitment to retaining the 4 level submarine based deterent. This means the Royal Navy is going to either make some serious sacrifices or ask for more funding. While this reporters figures are by no way set in stone it certainly gives us a picture of how expensive replacing the Vanguards with 4 more subs will be, which would be closer to the 45 billion USD. It's not like the BBC goes around making figures up without checking first. Defense is becoming expensive. Just look at JSF.:(

[mark22w]

Fully agree. To develop on your point, frigates start resembling destroyers more and more. When a frigate has AEGIS-type radars, can launch 30-km range AAW missiles and is fitted for but not with 120-km range AAW missiles (the Aster-30), and BTW the ship is 140 metres and 6000 ton, you could start calling this a destroyer...
So once you have 2 dozen mega-FFGs/DDGs, frankly this does the job even for a Navy like the RN which still has business all around the world. ;)
The key point however, as you mention, is that the new FFG programme had better start fast and provide ships close to T45 size & weaponry. A programme already existed to replace the T22s but it was stopped for budget reasons last year. :(
The UK's MOD should start looking closely at FREMM, adapt it to RN needs and start building it without wasting years on R&D ...

cheers

FREMM is one option however for my money i'd replace the 4 T22's with a land attack - and stretched - variant of the T45 as a first step then upgrade all remaining T23's and extend their in-service life to buy some more time to decide what the RN requires post CVF/T45 programmes.

[contedicavour]

FREMM is one option however for my money i'd replace the 4 T22's with a land attack - and stretched - variant of the T45 as a first step then upgrade all remaining T23's and extend their in-service life to buy some more time to decide what the RN requires post CVF/T45 programmes.

This would really strengthen the RN, I agree.
However replacing the T22 with enlarged and multi-role DDGs would be very expensive and would certainly not be feasible on a 1-to-1 basis.

cheers

[mark22w]

This would really strengthen the RN, I agree.
However replacing the T22 with enlarged and multi-role DDGs would be very expensive and would certainly not be feasible on a 1-to-1 basis.

cheers

Agreed it could be expensive however it would keep the ship builders busy and would be personnel neutral (or even less). I think it important the T22 replacements provide similar 'flag' facilities, and finally this option might offset some of the pain of 'losing' T45 numbers 7 & 8. Naturally I don't want to see the latter two deleted however like others on this forum, I'm not holding my breath. The sensor fit would no doubt change with a view to role and funding... :ohwell

[contedicavour]

Agreed it could be expensive however it would keep the ship builders busy and would be personnel neutral (or even less). I think it important the T22 replacements provide similar 'flag' facilities, and finally this option might offset some of the pain of 'losing' T45 numbers 7 & 8. Naturally I don't want to see the latter two deleted however like others on this forum, I'm not holding my breath. The sensor fit would no doubt change with a view to role and funding... :ohwell

Yep right. When you say "land attack" which missiles do you have in mind ? Tomahawks specifically or would SCALP Naval be enough ? Because in that case FREMMs would be enough (and they have flag facilities).

cheers

PS : cheer up, the UK is winning ;)

[overlander]

i listen all these news to the defence corresponding paul beaver in bbc world tv, he said that he has very confidential information from british defence sources that the escort force will be cut next year from 25 to 20 escorts, 2 from the new built bay clas lsd,s will be sold overseas, 1 albion class will be mothballed, in the raf around 60 fighters will be withdrawal, tornado gr4,s and f 3 and harriers gr 7, in the army the challenger park will be cut to only 250, the total strenght of the 3 services will be cut to only 160000, of course he agree that the cvf project will be cancelled and 2 big lsd ships similar to the american wasp class or maybe similar to the projected replacements for the remaining american tarawa class will be built in place of it, and all of this only 2 years after the last heavy cuts in the british forces, so this way in 15 years the british forces will be a reduced force only for defence totally unable of credible military operations and the worst of all is that as beaver said the conservative opossition has the same ideas as the labour governement so it,s not probable that this heavy cuts reverse if they get the power, as you can read in the article of richard beedall www-beedall.com the chancellor of the tresor needs right now 1 blln ponds for national segurity more another 1 blln in the short term this together with the need to replace the 4 vanguards ssbn,s in around 15-20 years means that the british armed forces will be totally overstretched in the future and they will be not a credible forces to defend uk interest anywhere

[Big-E]

Why do people keep using beedall as a source... is he the oracle of the future RN?

[rickusn]

Hes much respected but no oracle. LOL

[perfectgeneral]

Why do people keep using beedall as a source... is he the oracle of the future RN?

He researches his site quite well and has collected a lot of useful information, but when he speculates about press articles and rumours, he is quite pessamisitic. Expecting the worst has been ingrained in him by government policy. Lets not confuse his sense of doom with the well compiled and factually acurate site as a whole.

[Whiskyjack]

Why do people keep using beedall as a source... is he the oracle of the future RN?

He is not usually wrong. Plus some good info, probably the best I have found.

[mark22w]

He researches his site quite well and has collected a lot of useful information, but when he speculates about press articles and rumours, he is quite pessamisitic. Expecting the worst has been ingrained in him by government policy. Lets not confuse his sense of doom with the well compiled and factually acurate site as a whole.

Agree fully. Useful background data but don't get sucked in too far... This is a site with a personal bias that not everyone shares.

[mark22w]

i listen all these news to the defence corresponding paul beaver in bbc world tv, he said that he has very confidential information from british defence sources that the escort force will be cut next year from 25 to 20 escorts, 2 from the new built bay clas lsd,s will be sold overseas, 1 albion class will be mothballed, in the raf around 60 fighters will be withdrawal, tornado gr4,s and f 3 and harriers gr 7, in the army the challenger park will be cut to only 250, the total strenght of the 3 services will be cut to only 160000, of course he agree that the cvf project will be cancelled and 2 big lsd ships similar to the american wasp class or maybe similar to the projected replacements for the remaining american tarawa class will be built in place of it, and all of this only 2 years after the last heavy cuts in the british forces, so this way in 15 years the british forces will be a reduced force only for defence totally unable of credible military operations and the worst of all is that as beaver said the conservative opossition has the same ideas as the labour governement so it,s not probable that this heavy cuts reverse if they get the power, as you can read in the article of richard beedall www-beedall.com the chancellor of the tresor needs right now 1 blln ponds for national segurity more another 1 blln in the short term this together with the need to replace the 4 vanguards ssbn,s in around 15-20 years means that the british armed forces will be totally overstretched in the future and they will be not a credible forces to defend uk interest anywhere

2 Bay class LSD and 1 Albion LPD to be sold? Then replaced with further amphib vessels albeit with limited air groups rather than CVFs?? I don't think the RN would be so keen with this idea. The Bay class LSD(A)s are excellent value for money and only 60 crew per vessel - teamed with the Albion LPDs and the Ocean LPH they will become some of the most worked RN assets in the near future.

Having recently built up the amphib capacity the RN is close to receiving the first T45 platforms and Astute SSNs. Numbers have been reduced yes, however the plans laid down some years ago are coming through - painfully slow, but real platforms and enhanced capability.

I struggle to see how this translates into a third rate coastal force :rolleyes:

[swerve]

2 Bay class LSD and 1 Albion LPD to be sold? Then replaced with further amphib vessels albeit with limited air groups rather than CVFs?? I don't think the RN would be so keen with this idea. The Bay class LSD(A)s are excellent value for money and only 60 crew per vessel - teamed with the Albion LPDs and the Ocean LPH they will become some of the most worked RN assets in the near future.

Having recently built up the amphib capacity the RN is close to receiving the first T45 platforms and Astute SSNs. Numbers have been reduced yes, however the plans laid down some years ago are coming through - painfully slow, but real platforms and enhanced capability.

I struggle to see how this translates into a third rate coastal force :rolleyes:

Don't you think it sounds like one of the regular blue-sky internal studies? If every internal MoD/Treasury analysis of how to achieve a particular level of spending was leaked, we'd see a story like this - but with different details - every month or so. Sounds really clever to sell brand-new, quite cheap, very economical to run, LSDs, then throw away all the money spent on CVF detailed design & start again with designing new ships (which most definitely wouldn't resemble Wasp-class ships, as they cost a fortune to run), able to operate only F-35B without the "future-proofing" option of CVF, or buying the US LHA-R design, which ain't much cheaper, according to current estimates.

[contedicavour]

Don't you think it sounds like one of the regular blue-sky internal studies? If every internal MoD/Treasury analysis of how to achieve a particular level of spending was leaked, we'd see a story like this - but with different details - every month or so. Sounds really clever to sell brand-new, quite cheap, very economical to run, LSDs, then throw away all the money spent on CVF detailed design & start again with designing new ships (which most definitely wouldn't resemble Wasp-class ships, as they cost a fortune to run), able to operate only F-35B without the "future-proofing" option of CVF, or buying the US LHA-R design, which ain't much cheaper, according to current estimates.

Agree. Besides, didn't the UK MOD commit itself to partnership with the French MOD on the CVF programme ? International programmes can't be erased that easily !

cheers

[rickusn]

" International programmes can't be erased that easily !"

Since when?

Apparently you dont read much history even recent.

[contedicavour]

" International programmes can't be erased that easily !"

Since when?

Apparently you dont read much history even recent.

Revise your statistics and do your own history reading : the % of national programmes cancelled due to budget cuts, compared with the % of international programmes cancelled, is at least 3 times higher in Western Europe.
I have enough examples to fill up a whole thread, here's an example : FREMM, Horizon, Typhoon were saved in Italy because international, while Dardo 2, Ariete 2, AMX upgrade were cut because national.
This is logical : it is much easier for a national MOD to cancel a national programme rather than renegotiate with several other countries and international contractors and lose the offsets.
Even if I am less familiar with what is going on in the US, I do remember several occasions when national programmes were cut (in artillery for example, or for combat helos such as comanche) rather than reducing international programmes (MEADS, JSF, etc).
One could even argue that JSF is resisting mainly because of the number of international partners in the programme.

[mark22w]

Don't you think it sounds like one of the regular blue-sky internal studies? If every internal MoD/Treasury analysis of how to achieve a particular level of spending was leaked, we'd see a story like this - but with different details - every month or so. Sounds really clever to sell brand-new, quite cheap, very economical to run, LSDs, then throw away all the money spent on CVF detailed design & start again with designing new ships (which most definitely wouldn't resemble Wasp-class ships, as they cost a fortune to run), able to operate only F-35B without the "future-proofing" option of CVF, or buying the US LHA-R design, which ain't much cheaper, according to current estimates.

Agreed. The flexibility of the CVF design represents far better value for money and with a 50 year in service life why would the RN want to limit its option to a VSTOL only LHA-R? The RN has the amphib fleet - it now needs carriers with a useful air group...