The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

1) Only order 6 Astutes and stretch out the construction programme to keep Barrow in Furness going until we are ready to built SSBN's. This is likely to be a false economy in the long run but politicians are only ever interested in solving today's problems..

The last Astute is due to be in service in 2024, if we say 2021 when she's finished being built.

HMS Astute, from being laid down to being launched, took over 6 years (Ambush was closer to 7). Considering the size of a Vanguard successor (rule of thumb was 2 x SSN size), the first of class current ISD is 2028, I don't think there's going to be much point in reducing the class by 1 and stretch it out.

Not to mention that the MOD have already forked out for long-lead items for boats 6 & 7 as announced by the MOD in Dec last year.

2) Reduce the Type 26 buy, perhaps to the 8 ASW variants with the GP variants either cancelled or replaced by OPV's and Type 23 numbers immediately drawn down to save modernisation and operating costs.

Reduction in the Type 26, perhaps. BUT, bear in mind that the MOD signed a contract with BAE in which they've worked out a deal based on 2 CVF's and 13 Type 26's as part of the TOBA. It's the catch that's prevented the carriers from being cancelled, the payout to BAE would be far more than actually building them. A loss of a couple to get a few OPV's maybe, but no way the whole 5.

I can't emphasise enough that the numbers of the Type 26 have been cut from >20 to 13, don't think that as of yet the Type 26 hasn't been subjected to cuts in hull numbers

Considering that, no way the Type 23's will be drawn down.

3) Commission only one of the carriers as a Commando carrier with the other being mothballed. Cameron's comments during this governments defence review suggested he would have cancelled the carriers if he could. I can well see politicians arguing that having done without this capability for years proves we don't need it. The savings would come from lower crewing and operating costs, cancellation of/reduction in the F35 order and saving the costs of converting Merlin helicopters to take AEW radars.

What comments?

Hammond is 100% behind the carrier program, he has the belief that operating the second carrier represents brilliant value for money and the capability it offers is something this country has never had before. Nowhere near talking about 'we don't need it'. Watch the RUSI video of Hammond talking about Air Power, he's a stout defender of the CVF programme.

Ditching the F35? In FRP it's reported the F35 will be worth £1bn per year to the British economy, a reduction of the purchase (from the 138 originally) is expected, but still expected to be >100.

A commando carrier still needs AEW, Ocean and Illustrious carry Sea King AEW helicopters and they are incredibly valued and very highly in demand, gapping the capability is one thing, outright ditching of them is another thing completely. Not to mention that IIRC the issue about converting the Merlins to AEW platforms isn't the cost, it's the timeframe that's got everyone in a twist.

4) Taking Illustrious/Ocean and a number of RFA's out of service with either no replacement or replacement by fewer hulls.

Illustrious is leaving service in 2014, so that's inevitable. RFA will be drawn down because the fleet is being drawn down, that too is inevitable as much as it annoys me to say it. But the Tide class tankers are fantastic ships and offer a very good capability for the money, another of those wouldn't be a bad thing.

5) Further chipping away at the MCM fleet

Most probably, but the MOD/RN like to brag about their MCM capability and how it's valued, although I doubt their running costs would offer enough of a temptation to axe some for money. But then again this is the government who sold a Bay to save £12mn a year

I don't think any of these things are a good idea but sadly I would expect to see some of them becoming a reality in the 2015 to 2020 time period.

I hate the idea that cuts will happen, Cameron's had to admit that they'll be cut and I doubt the idiot at the helm of Labour will do anything about it either. If the LibDems have their way they'd ditch Trident for a rowing boat sans oars (They're dangerous y'know!) and an illuminous water pistol and the armed forces wouldn't see a penny.

Still, i'm prepared to look like a prize fool when the cuts come in, I did a read back through the thread where it was considered "pessimistic" that the Type 22's would not be replaced and we only get 6 Type 45's, so go figure

 

[1805]

It will be interesting to see how large the next SSBNs are, if they do have 8 missile silos, will they be bigger than the Vs. If not that will also help to manage through life cost, infrastructure etc.

 

[RobWilliams]

My guess would be 12 - 14k, something bigger than Astute as is the plan (but based on Astute), but not the size of the Vanguards at 16k.

It's definitely going to be shorter than the V-boats that's for sure, half the missile load.

 

[deepsixteen]

My guess would be 12 - 14k, something bigger than Astute as is the plan (but based on Astute), but not the size of the Vanguards at 16k.

It's definitely going to be shorter than the V-boats that's for sure, half the missile load.

Hi

I suspect displacement will remain about the same or increase slightly due to increased ring size length may decrease marginally as per Ohio replacement.

Deepsixteen

 

[RobWilliams]

by ring size you mean circumference, right?

I'm not 100% sure where the size increase - or indeed retention - would come from though, you're gunna have a sub with half the SLBM load. So unless PWR3 requires a fatter hull than PWR2 (itself a rather chunky reactor) then I can't really see it in terms of other equipment, smaller complement and therefore smaller auxiliary faclities like the galley and what-not. Care to expand mate? (within reason).

Cheers

 

[overlander]

Sadly british politicians have no limits in cutting military capability, after leave the r.n. During nearly 10 years without carrier strike capability, scrapping the nimrod, cutting the army leaving it with less firepower than spanish or italian armies and the raf with only 200 fighters and the navy with only 19 escorts after all of this everything is possible.

 

[RobWilliams]

You sit there moaning with all this "Ohhhhh we've lost strike capability for a decade" BS completely forgetting the 65,000 aircraft carriers we're building. What's the point in moaning about what we didn't have in the past when you damn well know we're getting something far superior in the future?

Enough of the Army/RAF chatter as this isn't the place, not to mention it's pile of BS too.

Stop being such a numbers person, the people who only focus about the numbers of platforms rather than their capabilities/operational useage/doctrine aren't really getting the point, especially when their only response to increase the operational effectiveness of the armed forces through financing is only to increase the budget rather than understand that's highly unlikely and try to think of more efficient ways of spending the money.

We're not a global empire anymore, we don't have or need hundreds upon hundreds of ships all over the globe. It's about time you realise this and put it in context with the global economic scenario.

 

[deepsixteen]

by ring size you mean circumference, right?

I'm not 100% sure where the size increase - or indeed retention - would come from though, you're gunna have a sub with half the SLBM load. So unless PWR3 requires a fatter hull than PWR2 (itself a rather chunky reactor) then I can't really see it in terms of other equipment, smaller complement and therefore smaller auxiliary faclities like the galley and what-not. Care to expand mate? (within reason).

Cheers

Hi

Yeah 43 rather than 42feet more commonly described as T frames increased volume = increased displacement, hotel services have consistently expanded class to class, also have to accommodate females now. Sensor suite will almost certainly be Astute based derivative, for instance Ohio replacement is around a yard shorter but around 2000ton heavier last I read which was very recently despite being eight tubes light..

Deepsixteen

 

[1805]

Its sounds positive though, no need for new lift/docks at Clyde as well within the current lift.

On decline in numbers, I am a great fan of Type 42 concept and the numbers achieved for the threat at the time; but the Type 45 is just such a step change and more aligned to current threats (ABM etc). Type 42 were designed to defend without carrier (Sea Harriers came later). Type 45 will work with CVF/F35.

 

[deepsixteen]

You sit there moaning with all this "Ohhhhh we've lost strike capability for a decade" BS completely forgetting the 65,000 aircraft carriers we're building. What's the point in moaning about what we didn't have in the past when you damn well know we're getting something far superior in the future?

Enough of the Army/RAF chatter as this isn't the place, not to mention it's pile of BS too.

Stop being such a numbers person, the people who only focus about the numbers of platforms rather than their capabilities/operational useage/doctrine aren't really getting the point, especially when their only response to increase the operational effectiveness of the armed forces through financing is only to increase the budget rather than understand that's highly unlikely and try to think of more efficient ways of spending the money.

We're not a global empire anymore, we don't have or need hundreds upon hundreds of ships all over the globe. It's about time you realise this and put it in context with the global economic scenario.

Hi

Apologies for being off topic but defending a government financial policy that sells a Bay to save twelve million a year when it sends hundreds of millions to a country with a space program is a bit pot kettle over.

If people have an opinion know matter how fruit and nut it may be providing that it is inoffensive they should express it after all that is one of the reasons we have armed forces.

Deepsixteen

 

[RobWilliams]

I'm not defending it, in an earlier post I even remarked that exact situation and used it as an example where the Government does some rather silly things.

Don't even get me started on the Foreign Aid Budget.

What I did say was that rather than having a list of things to buy for the Royal Navy, when quizzed on how to do this the simple answer was "increase defence spending". That's a justification which you could use for just about any purchase. I could sit here talking about how we should buy 6 UXV Combatants by increasing the defence budget & a spatter of MLP's the USNS Monford Point, but it's a worthless point.

What I would do however, if I actually believed such a purchase was worthwhile, was try and find ways to better spend the money we actually have rather than using the most convenient pipe dream available.

By all means, express away. This is what we're all here for after all, but it does rather drive me up the twist sometimes.

For the record, i'd LOVE defence spending to increase. But I accept that the possibility of this happening is highly remote, so when thinking about things to buy, I think of it as a pot of money rather than money on tap.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah 43 rather than 42feet more commonly described as T frames increased volume = increased displacement, hotel services have consistently expanded class to class, also have to accommodate females now. Sensor suite will almost certainly be Astute based derivative, for instance Ohio replacement is around a yard shorter but around 2000ton heavier last I read which was very recently despite being eight tubes light

Ah riiiight, I've found a rather interesting PDF about the SSBN(X) programm (including US/UK cooperation) which verifies that, it also talks about how it's generally expected that the SSBN(X) will roughly be the same displacement as the Ohios.

The United States is assisting the UK with certain aspects of the Successor SSBN program. In addition to the modular Common Missile Compartment (CMC) discussed below (see “Common Missile Compartment (CMC)” in the following
section on the Ohio replacement program), the United States is assisting the UK with the new PWR-3 reactor plant to be used by the Successor SSBN. A December 2011 press report states that “there has been strong [UK] collaboration with the US [on the Successor program], particularly with regard to the CMC, the PWR, and other propulsion technology,” and that the design concept selected for the Successor class employs “a new propulsion plant based on a US design, but using next-generation UK reactor technology (PWR-3) and modern secondary propulsion systems.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

 

[StobieWan]

by ring size you mean circumference, right?

I'm not 100% sure where the size increase - or indeed retention - would come from though, you're gunna have a sub with half the SLBM load. So unless PWR3 requires a fatter hull than PWR2 (itself a rather chunky reactor) then I can't really see it in terms of other equipment, smaller complement and therefore smaller auxiliary faclities like the galley and what-not. Care to expand mate? (within reason).

Cheers

The common missile compartment under development for the Ohio and Vanguard replacements is believed to be intended to include a tube diameter up from 2.2 metres to a bit over 3 to allow for larger missiles or inserts to take other items like prompt global strike (may be moot, as I seem to recall PGS is in trouble or cancelled.

CMC Program to Define Future SSBN Launchers for UK, USA

 

[RobWilliams]

So a contingency plan - if you like - for whatever comes after the D-5? Which, as a side point, is there until the early 2040's I think. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the sonar of the Successor's, although probably it'd be the same standard as the Astute's 2076 sonar, right?

PGS - that's a new one for me. Gunna have to check that out.

 

[deepsixteen]

Hi

Sorry Rob just frustrated by the constant political backsliding by the politicians. I think the whole thing would be better outwith party politics with a fixed percentage of GDP supervised by a cross party defence committee. Five yearly defence reviews underpinning listed capability requirements and allow defence to keep underspends to encourage prudence and allow long term planning for replacement equipment.

Deepsixteen

Yeah I know it will never happen just think it would be better.

 

[StobieWan]

So a contingency plan - if you like - for whatever comes after the D-5? Which, as a side point, is there until the early 2040's I think. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the sonar of the Successor's, although probably it'd be the same standard as the Astute's 2076 sonar, right?

PGS - that's a new one for me. Gunna have to check that out.

Prompt global strike would be the "hand of God" - every president's favourite tool in terms of "right, I want this guy dead" <presses red button>


This probably way more than you want to read but just in case

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf

 

[RobWilliams]

Straight off, it seems a bit iffy. Ballistic missiles with conventional warheads? That'll make any usage of this system potentially be a nuclear strike from the point of view of their adversary. But that's just one potential launch system it seems, interesting.

But an interesting concept however, I like documents from that particular origin as they are incredibly thorough. But there's a line very early on that makes it unlikely to go anywhere - it could be in breach of the most recent START treaty signed by the US & Russia.

Whoops, anyway, in regards to the RN it'll be a non-starter. Just a by-product of US flexbility (as far as CMC goes).

Presumably the current D-5's would require a collar for launch, like sub-TLAM, as the tube diameter is increased?

 

[kev 99]

Allowing MOD to keep underspends would be invaluable in promoting a sensible procurement strategy, shame the Treasury are so keen to take the money back.

 

[deepsixteen]

Straight off, it seems a bit iffy. Ballistic missiles with conventional warheads? That'll make any usage of this system potentially be a nuclear strike from the point of view of their adversary. But that's just one potential launch system it seems, interesting.

But an interesting concept however, I like documents from that particular origin as they are incredibly thorough. But there's a line very early on that makes it unlikely to go anywhere - it could be in breach of the most recent START treaty signed by the US & Russia.

Whoops, anyway, in regards to the RN it'll be a non-starter. Just a by-product of US flexbility (as far as CMC goes).

Presumably the current D-5's would require a collar for launch, like sub-TLAM, as the tube diameter is increased?

Hi

I agree far too much room for error no way to know what’s been launched only that it has been.

The whole tube will get a liner I expect just like Polaris had because the tubes were sized for Posiden.

Deepsixteen

 

[deepsixteen]

Allowing MOD to keep underspends would be invaluable in promoting a sensible procurement strategy, shame the Treasury are so keen to take the money back.

Hi

Pet hate and giant frustration of mine possibly as stupid as paying for more than eight Astute and only getting seven. :frown

Deepsixteen