The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

I'd expect to see a few items shifted into that budget that weren't there before but otherwise, it's good news, as we'd been braced for a cut of some sort.

I don't think we'd see a full 13 orders for Type 26 in this parliament but a solid order of a batch or two with instructions to purchase long lead items for more isn't out of the question.

And yes, I do suspect MPA will be ordered in some format shortly.

 

[RobWilliams]

I'm waiting until the SDSR comes out, then we'll get a clearer idea on how things have actually gone. But on the whole it looks promising (or is that what they WANT us to think?)

Pretty much 100% guaranteed that an MPA of some flavour will be bought.

Last I heard was an intention for a first batch of 8, considering first steel to be cut happens next year I expect we'll see an order. Hopefully with a full official spec.

Also expect to hear more F-35 to be ordered. When people say "we've only committed to 48, that'll be it", that's BS. We are a tier 1 partner and benefit from this project very well economically, LM have already shown with Italy that if their fighter commitment reduces then so does the orders for Italian components. Imagine the scale of reductions that would come from a 138 buy to 48. In my head (I.e nothing to base this on) I'm seeing another commitment for a second batch of 48 with another decision on final numbers in 2020.

 

[Sellers]

Quietly pleased with the announcement, as indicates that the SDSR in the autumn will be led by strategy more than cost savings.

The announcement should allow for some form of MPA to be reintroduced, this has to be a priority.

Hopefully, it will also enable all rivers to be retained, as quietly this would give us a cost effective increase in availability of 'high end' hulls.

As others before have commented, I would expect there to be further orders of F35, I suspect we'll end up with circa 80. Since the SDSR 2010, we have maintained a total fast jet fleet of around 200. I have read the tranche 1 Typhoons are expected to be withdrawn, leaving 125. So to keep to the recent figures, it would be safe to assume a minimum order of 80 ish.

A surprise, though welcome, post election announcement.

Cheers, Sellers

 

[Riga]

I'm waiting until the SDSR comes out, then we'll get a clearer idea on how things have actually gone. But on the whole it looks promising (or is that what they WANT us to think?)

Pretty much 100% guaranteed that an MPA of some flavour will be bought.

Last I heard was an intention for a first batch of 8, considering first steel to be cut happens next year I expect we'll see an order. Hopefully with a full official spec.

Also expect to hear more F-35 to be ordered. When people say "we've only committed to 48, that'll be it", that's BS. We are a tier 1 partner and benefit from this project very well economically, LM have already shown with Italy that if their fighter commitment reduces then so does the orders for Italian components. Imagine the scale of reductions that would come from a 138 buy to 48. In my head (I.e nothing to base this on) I'm seeing another commitment for a second batch of 48 with another decision on final numbers in 2020.

although rumour control suggest Australia are bailing out.

For sure the F35 programme is not n trouble, whether it matures, or is given the time to mature, is a question.

 

[Bonza]

although rumour control suggest Australia are bailing out.

For sure the F35 programme is not n trouble, whether it matures, or is given the time to mature, is a question.

Australia is not bailing out. The rumours concern a potential buy of F-35B for use off the LHDs, which was never going to happen, wasn't budgeted nor planned, etc etc. Australia is still replacing all of the RAAF's Hornets with the F-35A variant.

 

[John Fedup]

The F-35 program progress will be decided in the US. It will progress because there is no alternative. How far it progresses will be a function performance goals being met, cost, and politics.

Here's link about reviewing US numbers required. I doubt if anything revisions will happen at this point in time as it might scare off additional export orders.

Dunford Says F-35 Fleet Size Under Review; Supports F-35 Buy « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

 

[Volkodav]

Hey if the UK is only ordering 48 does that mean Australia with get most of their production share as we have already signed for 72 and will likely order another 28?
David Cameron is such a generous chap.

 

[swerve]

Why do people keep saying "the UK is only ordering 48"? Where has anyone in the government or military ever said that?

They've said we'll order 48 initially. IIRC there's still a production schedule with UK purchases stretching into the late 2020s & adding up to 138, though it's a long time since anyone official here has used that number. It looks as if we'll get somewhere in between. 48 would barely provide enough to fill one of our two carriers, allowing for an OCU, etc.

 

[John Fedup]

Does LM build F-35Bs on the same production line as the "A"s or do they have separate lines?

 

[Volkodav]

Why do people keep saying "the UK is only ordering 48"? Where has anyone in the government or military ever said that?

They've said we'll order 48 initially. IIRC there's still a production schedule with UK purchases stretching into the late 2020s & adding up to 138, though it's a long time since anyone official here has used that number. It looks as if we'll get somewhere in between. 48 would barely provide enough to fill one of our two carriers, allowing for an OCU, etc.

Sorry swerve, I saw the earlier comments ref the 48 being an initial operational batch as well as Italy losing production share due cutting their order and couldn't help myself. Actually, as I understand it Australian industry hasn't actually been able to take full advantage of the work they can currently bid for so my comment was irrelevant anyway.

 

[spsun100001]

What missions are the Rivers for?

......

Hopefully, it will also enable all rivers to be retained, as quietly this would give us a cost effective increase in availability of 'high end' hulls.


Cheers, Sellers

I'm not sure what mission we'd keep all seven Rivers to do?

Any sort of mission outside of coastal waters needs an embarked helicopter; anti- piracy, search and rescue, disaster relief, maritime interdiction - in all of these missions the key component is the helicopter. The lack of a hangar makes these ships next to useless outside of coastal patrol and showing the flag.

I'd have rather we'd just built two new ships but equipped them with a hangar then we would have had vessels that could actually relieve a frigate from second line duties. But the objective of the three new ships was to sustain shipbuilding jobs rather than fulfilling any maritime security need.

I'd put the three older Rivers up for sale when the new ones come into service. Keeping all seven in service is just a waste of manpower and money as we don't need seven vessels to undertake the coastal and Falklands patrol missions which have been done by four ships to date.

 

[kev 99]

I'm not sure what mission we'd keep all seven Rivers to do?

Any sort of mission outside of coastal waters needs an embarked helicopter; anti- piracy, search and rescue, disaster relief, maritime interdiction - in all of these missions the key component is the helicopter. The lack of a hangar makes these ships next to useless outside of coastal patrol and showing the flag.

I'd have rather we'd just built two new ships but equipped them with a hangar then we would have had vessels that could actually relieve a frigate from second line duties. But the objective of the three new ships was to sustain shipbuilding jobs rather than fulfilling any maritime security need.

I'd put the three older Rivers up for sale when the new ones come into service. Keeping all seven in service is just a waste of manpower and money as we don't need seven vessels to undertake the coastal and Falklands patrol missions which have been done by four ships to date.

I think I agree with you there, building the new Rivers without hangers is one of the worst decisions the MOD has made in a long time.

 

[the concerned]

Could a t23 be stripped down and turned into a large patrol ship similar to the Hamilton class that the US coast guard use and would they be expensive

 

[spsun100001]

Using the Type 23 for patrol duties

Could a t23 be stripped down and turned into a large patrol ship similar to the Hamilton class that the US coast guard use and would they be expensive

In theory you could do this I suppose.

I think the issue is that by the time they are planned to leave service in their primary role, the Type 23's will be old ships many of which have led hard lives (e.g. crashing around in the South Atlantic). I just can't see that it would be cost effective to try to keep them in service with ever increasing maintenance costs compared to getting 30+ years out of a new purpose built hull.

 

[RobWilliams]

They're already picking out the hulls with the most life left to be upgraded with Artisan and CAMM, they'll be hanging around until the 2030s.

More places to put the money than into converting Type 23's into CG cutters.

Anyway, the other day all the RAF Merlins finally finished being transferred over to RN service.

UK completes transition of Merlin from RAF to RN - IHS Jane's 360

 

[spsun100001]

Capability gaps - priorities

Hopefully the promise to hold defence spending at 2% of GDP and to increase it by 0.5% annually in real terms will prove to be real rather than clever accounting which lumps other expenditure in with defence. Of course, this is still less than we have historically spent on defence and will not be adequate to address the many capability gaps and compromises that have been forced on the RN in the last couple of decades.

If it does allow some issues to be addressed though, which of the gaps, compromises and uncertainties would members like to see prioritised. Off the top of my head the type of gaps and compromises that I can see are:

Not fitting CEC to the Type 45
The lack of TBMD capability on the Type 45
Only outfitting 8 of the 'planned' 13 Type 26 frigates to carry the 2087 sonar
Routinely deploying only twelve F35's on a CV
Not modifying the entire Merlin inventory to HM2 standard
The lack of an ASM on the Merlin
The lack of any ASW sensors on the Lynx Wildcat
The lack of an ASM on the F35
Uncertainty around the final number of Type 26 frigates
Procuring a land attack missile capability for the Type 26
Procuring a long range anti ship missile capability for the Type 26 & Type 45
Having only basic ASW capability on the Type 45
No MPA capability
No certainty as the the final buy of F35 aircraft

That's just off the top of my head and not an exhaustive list. I'd be interested in members views on where our priorities should lie?

 

[Volkodav]

Just a thought from left field, I have been pushing a personal barrow of the RAN procuring three to five Hyuga type DDHs, either instead of some frigates or possibly in addition to, could the same be a possibility for the RN?

My RAN concept is evolved from the RN suggestion that Australia delay acquisition of their planned missile destroyers as the proposed RN Escort Cruiser seemed a far better fit for the RANs needs than any then available options, MOTS or modified Charles F Adams class DDG, Brook class DEG, MOTs or modified County class DLG. Procurement of three such ships would even permit the retirement of the carrier Melbourne instead of converting her to an ASW helicopter carrier (plan was cancelled and new fixed wing aircraft were acquired instead). Anyway five escort cruisers were very nearly built for the RN in the late 60s. They were to have been in addition to the three CVAs, each leading an ASW or escort group. To help fund them the last pair of DLGs were cancelled, while the Tiger class cruisers were converted to helicopter cruisers to provide an interim capability. In the end the CVAs were cancelled and the RN looked to a class of six larger "Through Deck Cruisers" to fill the gap (with only three actually being ordered).

My thinking is why can't the RN take another look at the Escort Cruiser, or even the Japanese DDH concepts to supplement or augment the new carriers? Something smaller that can easily be adapted to ASW, sea control, LPH, HADR, MCM roles, employed where a single frigate or destroyer, let alone an OPV, would be inadequate, but a carrier and it's escorts inappropriate (because it either overkill or too great a risk).

Build the original eight Type 26 ASW frigates with their TAS etc. but seriously look at three to five new Escort Cruisers instead of the five GP frigates. You could still use Artisan and Sea Ceptor on these ships but instead of a medium calibre gun, harpoon and torpedo tubes, they would have a flat deck and hanger for several Merlin and Wildcat, as well as possibly Crowsnest and maybe being able to cross deck, or even operate a small number of F-35B. Japan operates a MCM version of the EH101, why not a Merlin variant? Deck spots for Chinook, Osprey, why not Apache and UAV/UCAVs as well?

Just a rehash of an old idea, after all steel is cheap and air is free while these ships would make use of existing assets concurrently while relying on just the two QECs (sometimes only one) that may not be possible.

 

[swerve]

Something like a Hyuga class ship would never be deployed alone. It's a high value asset, designed to support & work with smaller ships. Anywhere there might be a significant air threat, it'd be escorted by an air defence sestroyer.

So, thinking of it as an alternative or supplement to frigates, which might be sent where a single destroyer or frigate might be sent, is a mistake IMO. As designed, it's an ASW flotilla leader, & for Australia to have five would necessitate the building of more ships (destroyers at least) to escort them.

LPH? Yes, if you redesign it to have more internal space for troops & their kit, but what do you lose? Or do you make 'em bigger? Sea control? Well, not with fixed-wing aircraft. There's a reason that Cavour & Juan Carlos were built that big: they're sized for F-35B. Ise & Hyuga would be fine with Harriers - just add a ski-jump - but there are no more Harriers, & they'd be marginal with F-35B. So if you're thinking of something smaller, it's limited to helicopters, & won't have much room for troops unless you leave out something else.

I'm not sure I'd want to put such a high-value ship close to a potentially hostile shore unless absolutely unavoidable, & where else would it be needed for MCM? All the likely places I can think of would be better served by specialists, helicopters which could be based on land or smaller ships, or equipment mounted (perhaps in easily removable modules) on much smaller ships, which can be devoted to mine clearing full-time while the big, expensive flat top does something it can do but they can't.

It looks to me like a ship that needs a bigger navy than the RAN.

 

[swerve]

H...
If it does allow some issues to be addressed though, which of the gaps, compromises and uncertainties would members like to see prioritised. Off the top of my head the type of gaps and compromises that I can see are:

Not fitting CEC to the Type 45
The lack of TBMD capability on the Type 45
Only outfitting 8 of the 'planned' 13 Type 26 frigates to carry the 2087 sonar
Routinely deploying only twelve F35's on a CV
Not modifying the entire Merlin inventory to HM2 standard
The lack of an ASM on the Merlin
The lack of any ASW sensors on the Lynx Wildcat
The lack of an ASM on the F35
Uncertainty around the final number of Type 26 frigates
Procuring a land attack missile capability for the Type 26
Procuring a long range anti ship missile capability for the Type 26 & Type 45
Having only basic ASW capability on the Type 45
No MPA capability
No certainty as the the final buy of F35 aircraft

That's just off the top of my head and not an exhaustive list. I'd be interested in members views on where our priorities should lie?

8 Type 26 with 2087 is a straight carry-over from Type 23. Leave it as it is.
Only basic ASW capability on Type 45 is, I think reasonable. If they ever have to do any serious sub-hunting, something has gone very, very wrong.

Anti-ship missiles for F-35 should be easy: ask the Norwegians. They're working with the USA to adapt their NSM for F-35. We should be able to just plug it in.

MPAs = BUY! ASAP!

 

[ASSAIL]

8 Type 26 with 2087 is a straight carry-over from Type 23. Leave it as it is.
Only basic ASW capability on Type 45 is, I think reasonable. If they ever have to do any serious sub-hunting, something has gone very, very wrong.

Anti-ship missiles for F-35 should be easy: ask the Norwegians. They're working with the USA to adapt their NSM for F-35. We should be able to just plug it in.

MPAs = BUY! ASAP!

A minor point, the JSM development (in order to fit into the F-35 internal weapons bay) is being co-developed by Kongsberg with the Australians.