The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

They have been known to spontaneously withdraw capabilities, make the operators redundant and literally cut up the gear so their decision can't be reversed.

Aw, come on, just that one time with MRA4...and some other stuff <koff>

But on topic, ordering in batches is normal, and while it's good to hear that the second batch is now officially placed, I wasn't too worried about getting 8 Type 26s - I'd have preferred the original 13 and I'd have liked more the sort of spec the Australian and Canadian variants are running to but 8 Type 26 has always seemed reasonably secure. Next, we need to see how well Type 31 goes - it's a very different contracting structure as I understand it, so not much, if any opportunity for changes or design revision.

I think we're safe to count on keeping hull numbers at least at current levels and if type 32 is ordered and delivered, we'd be looking at 24 hulls - admittedly five of them are large, spacious, but not very well armed Type 31.

Defence spending has been confirmed to remain at 2% (thank you Putin, Christmas card on the way)

I dunno, cautiously optimistic about the size of the RN at the moment.

 

[swerve]

Next, we need to see how well Type 31 goes - it's a very different contracting structure as I understand it, so not much, if any opportunity for changes or design revision.

The curse of British military procurement. It's killed a hell of a lot of projects, & ruined many pieces of equipment. Ajax, anyone?

Well, that & civil servants deciding to "save" money by specifying something bespoke & difficult. Chinook . . . .

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Whoever thought up the Type 31 contract was a genius. The lock on changing the specifications meant Babcock could secure a contract that allowed them to construct their frigate factory, in turn offering an efficient build. Babcock can make a profit and the Royal Navy gets five hulls in the water for a reasonable price in good time. The only cost is that the UK government would have to pay for the refit/uparming, and if it doesn't have the money for that it never would have at the construction phase.

Type 31 is a very basic ship, but it has room for growth. And even if it never gets FC-ASW or something similar, it can still do all the boring patrol work high-end frigates get roped into doing.

 

[StobieWan]

The curse of British military procurement. It's killed a hell of a lot of projects, & ruined many pieces of equipment. Ajax, anyone?

Well, that & civil servants deciding to "save" money by specifying something bespoke & difficult. Chinook . . . .

The UK SFOR Chinook screwup was of simply epic proportions. Literally, the US Nightstalkers fly almost identical mission profiles and they have Chinooks adapted for the very task. That should have been "we'll have those, but put RAF roundels on them please".

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The UK SFOR Chinook screwup was of simply epic proportions. Literally, the US Nightstalkers fly almost identical mission profiles and they have Chinooks adapted for the very task. That should have been "we'll have those, but put RAF roundels on them please".

Wasn't the issue that the Mk3s were supposed to be cheaper variants? I.e. that the Treasury wasn't willing to fork out for the MH-47E so a plan was envisaged where costs could be cut and helicopters ordered, albeit of course that in doing so money was wasted.

 

[StobieWan]

Whoever thought up the Type 31 contract was a genius. The lock on changing the specifications meant Babcock could secure a contract that allowed them to construct their frigate factory, in turn offering an efficient build. Babcock can make a profit and the Royal Navy gets five hulls in the water for a reasonable price in good time. The only cost is that the UK government would have to pay for the refit/uparming, and if it doesn't have the money for that it never would have at the construction phase.

Type 31 is a very basic ship, but it has room for growth. And even if it never gets FC-ASW or something similar, it can still do all the boring patrol work high-end frigates get roped into doing.

The contracting process was very different - industry got a budget, a very broad brush spec list and asked what they could do for the money. I recall the specifications were "must have a medium caliber gun in service with allied nations" or something like that.



I'm really interested to see how it turns out. And yes, if 31 arrives in good shape, on time and budget, they have plenty of scope to be made more like a GP spec frigate later on if so desired.

 

[StobieWan]

Wasn't the issue that the Mk3s were supposed to be cheaper variants? I.e. that the Treasury wasn't willing to fork out for the MH-47E so a plan was envisaged where costs could be cut and helicopters ordered, albeit of course that in doing so money was wasted.

From memory, the MOD wanted something that could be used for the SFOR insertion/recovery, liked the look of the 47E but decided to reinvent the wheel and buy the cabs more or less bare, then add the sensors etc locally. They ended up with something that couldn't be certified for IFR in the UK and the cabs sat in storage for years. I actually drove past one on the way to be fitted out much later. Expensive screwup.

 

[StobieWan]

Also, at least, the FSS order:

New ships to support Royal Navy carrier groups

Three new ships are to be built to support Royal Navy carrier operations into the second half of the 21st Century.

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

Final assembly at H&W Belfast, which will be a welcome boost to the local economy, as well as broadening the number of yards in the UK involved in military and RFA construction.

Should have been ordered about ten years ago but meh

 

[swerve]

Wasn't the issue that the Mk3s were supposed to be cheaper variants? I.e. that the Treasury wasn't willing to fork out for the MH-47E so a plan was envisaged where costs could be cut and helicopters ordered, albeit of course that in doing so money was wasted.

IIRC the main problem was that the flight control system specified couldn't be made to work safely, or at least couldn't be verified as working safely, because of elements specified to (in theory) save money. I seem to remember reading about some weird digital/analogue hybrid. So they all sat in hangars for several years, until the offending stuff was ripped out & they were given standard hardware & software.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

swerve, I was responding to the "why not just by what the Yanks had" comment. I.e. if the Mk3s were bought on the basis they would be cheaper, the American option was a non-starter due to lack of funds.

 

[swerve]

Yes, but like many other fiendishly clever ideas for saving money, come up with by non-technical people, it cost a hell of a lot more than the supposedly more expensive option. Fewer such money-saving schemes would have saved us a fortune, but their originators have been stubbornly persistent, & have got their way far too often.

As I said, such penny wise pound foolish stuff has been commonplace.

Perhaps Type 31 is an indication of change. I hope so.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, but like many other fiendishly clever ideas for saving money, come up with by non-technical people, it cost a hell of a lot more than the supposedly more expensive option. Fewer such money-saving schemes would have saved us a fortune, but their originators have been stubbornly persistent, & have got their way far too often.

As I said, such penny wise pound foolish stuff has been commonplace.

Perhaps Type 31 is an indication of change. I hope so.

Such people love simple ideas and simple KPIs. Cut these numbers, remove these systems, stop this program, make these people redundant. "Look how much money I've saved", "pay me my bonus" or "reelect me".

Flash forward a couple of years or even just months and it's all gone to custard because of what was overlooked or ignored.

The same people hate and belittle systems thinking with a passion, hate continuous improvement systems and methodologies, hate and belittle those who follow them.

With adequate planning and controls, even the most complex projects can succeed, unfortunately those looking for "simple" don't do complex, and don't trust those who can do.

 

[StobieWan]

Yes, but like many other fiendishly clever ideas for saving money, come up with by non-technical people, it cost a hell of a lot more than the supposedly more expensive option. Fewer such money-saving schemes would have saved us a fortune, but their originators have been stubbornly persistent, & have got their way far too often.

As I said, such penny wise pound foolish stuff has been commonplace.

Perhaps Type 31 is an indication of change. I hope so.

There are glimmers of hope - P8 and E7 both have been MOTS, maybe we can wean ourselves off the idea that we're so special and unique that we have to re-invent the wheel every time, particularly if said wheel can pad out the economy of a marginal seat.

It does very much depend on if 31 delivers without major incident in my thinking.

 

[swerve]

Hasn't worked for Ajax, unfortunately. Wasn't meant to save money for that, but to customise it to our oh so special unique requirements. And it's been customised so it doesn't work. ;(

If we really, really had to have something beefier & better armoured than almost anyone else, we could have bought Puma. Add BV & British army comms, & maybe, if we're really, really sure it won't fuck it all up, swap the turret. Done! Or buy CV90 & do the same. The Swedes have put a few different guns on it.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we really, really had to have something beefier & better armoured than almost anyone else, we could have bought Puma. Add BV & British army comms, & maybe, if we're really, really sure it won't fuck it all up, swap the turret. Done! Or buy CV90 & do the same. The Swedes have put a few different guns on it.

Ah but that is logical with both politicians and public servants being well known known for their total aversion to anything logical.

 

[Rob c]

Ah but that is logical with both politicians and public servants being well known known for their total aversion to anything logical.

If they went down the logical route then they would not be able to spend months and years going over every detail to make them able to make the wrong decision and don't forget they have to spend time to ensure that the resulting stuff up is blamed on someone else not them. They have to do this to keep being employed. Being logical would cost them jobs and we can't have that can we?

 

[ngatimozart]

If they went down the logical route then they would not be able to spend months and years going over every detail to make them able to make the wrong decision and don't forget they have to spend time to ensure that the resulting stuff up is blamed on someone else not them. They have to do this to keep being employed. Being logical would cost them jobs and we can't have that can we?

Are you sure that you weren't trained by the Kiwi equivalent of Sir Humphrey when you were in D.ENG? I had one close by when I was on the 10th Floor of the Freyberg Building.

 

[the concerned]

Is it true that the RN have selected the NSM to replace the harpoon missile.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Is it true that the RN have selected the NSM to replace the harpoon missile.

Apparently, yes.

Royal Navy to buy the Naval Strike Missile | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

I haven't found a formal announcement from the UK government or traditional media, but Navy Lookout is one of the best independent news sites for Royal Navy news.

On a side note, if enough sets of NSM are purchased to fit 11 ships as the article states that would be excellent, ensuring that important surface groups always have a decent surface-warfare capability.

Personally whilst I was very interested in the RBS 15 mk 4, I accept its higher price tag may have ruled it out. I wasn't expecting enough missiles being purchased to fit 11 vessels, so going with NSM to make that possible was a great move. And whilst the RBS has a larger warhead and longer range, NSM does seem to be the best AShM in its class to slip past ship defences.

 

[JohnJT]

Apparently, yes.

Royal Navy to buy the Naval Strike Missile | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

I haven't found a formal announcement from the UK government or traditional media, but Navy Lookout is one of the best independent news sites for Royal Navy news.

On a side note, if enough sets of NSM are purchased to fit 11 ships as the article states that would be excellent, ensuring that important surface groups always have a decent surface-warfare capability.

Personally whilst I was very interested in the RBS 15 mk 4, I accept its higher price tag may have ruled it out. I wasn't expecting enough missiles being purchased to fit 11 vessels, so going with NSM to make that possible was a great move. And whilst the RBS has a larger warhead and longer range, NSM does seem to be the best AShM in its class to slip past ship defences.

Naval news has the story, too.

Royal Navy selects Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile - Naval News

The Royal Navy will receive the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), outfitted on Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers, to replace the Harpoon missiles.

www.navalnews.com

The story states the first vessel will have the missile integrated in 12 months.
I wonder if this increases the possibility of JSM on the UK F-35s?

Personally whilst I was very interested in the RBS 15 mk 4, I accept its higher price tag may have ruled it out. I wasn't expecting enough missiles being purchased to fit 11 vessels, so going with NSM to make that possible was a great move. And whilst the RBS has a larger warhead and longer range, NSM does seem to be the best AShM in its class to slip past ship defences.

The other advantages over the the RBS 15 mk 4 are size and weight. The ability of NSM to fit well within the weight and size footprint of legacy Harpoon launchers seems to be a plus for navies looking to replace Harpoon.