The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

If the RN speculatively said "Khareef you say? Why, splendid, we'll take five, but we'll provide CAMM. Artisan, plus other pulled through components from Type 23 then yes, £250 mill is possible - the last Khareef's came in around that. If, as seems more likely, the RN/MOD decide to add in a pile of changes, including more speed, longer hull etc, then no, no way in hell. That's assuming the price for the Khareef's included sensors etc and they weren't outside of the prices mentioned.


If we did get five Khareef's with light makeovers, on budget and time, they would certainly be useful in several roles and free up the 26's from less-than-war situations. Last time we did that was the Type 21, and they never got sent anywhere near anywhere dangerous (well, a brief excursion to the South Atlantic but overall, hardly ever anywhere really difficult..)

Yes, I'm being ironic...

Systems Adict said:

Here's the original RN / UK PLC Flyer for T31e...

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/medi...-launch-folder-line-diagram-v4-1.pdf?la=en-gb

My concerns are already all over that piece of paper....

#1 - It's currently 2018 & UK PLC NEEDS TO...

a. Agree who is going to build these ships
b. Settle what is going into them
c. Agree a build programme &..
d. Cut steel on the 1st ship by year end 2018

#2 - They want the 1st vessel ready & IN-SERVICE by 2023

#3 - The equipment they want, the open architecture / medium calibre gun & a myriad of other things.

How practical / achievable is it ?

I make the point of putting #1d out there, as that timescale is just 5 years from now.

HOW can the RN pick an alleged 'COTS' design, then modify it to meet THEIR needs & get it all for the mere price of £250m ?

Finally, T26 1st-of-class is due to 'enter service' in 2023, bearing in mind that she is actually under construction, so we really think that EVERYTHING is gonna just fall into place or is it gonna be yet another budget blowing cluster, just like the QEC build in sections & integrate at Rosyth process ??

I'm stumped...

SA

Click to expand...

If it’s built to cots not milspec they could be built pretty quickly and cheaply. For example mil spec lighting on a type 26 was 500 thousand pounds per ship, that was excluding nav lights, helideck landing system and searchlights, whereas cots was around 200 thousand including navigation lanterns and searchlights. It’s things like a dimable mil spec navigation lanterns at £800 or a cots one for €250, milspec costs a bomb and frequently the differences are bigger all, at least in my part of the business.

StobieWan said:

If the RN speculatively said "Khareef you say? Why, splendid, we'll take five, but we'll provide CAMM. Artisan, plus other pulled through components from Type 23 then yes, £250 mill is possible - the last Khareef's came in around that. If, as seems more likely, the RN/MOD decide to add in a pile of changes, including more speed, longer hull etc, then no, no way in hell. That's assuming the price for the Khareef's included sensors etc and they weren't outside of the prices mentioned.


If we did get five Khareef's with light makeovers, on budget and time, they would certainly be useful in several roles and free up the 26's from less-than-war situations. Last time we did that was the Type 21, and they never got sent anywhere near anywhere dangerous (well, a brief excursion to the South Atlantic but overall, hardly ever anywhere really difficult..)

Yes, I'm being ironic...

Click to expand...

The Khareef's are supposed to have cost £400 mn for all three. Has that been mis-reported?

swerve said:

The Khareef's are supposed to have cost £400 mn for all three. Has that been mis-reported?

Click to expand...

According to this, £400 M for x3 ships

Khareef-class corvette - Wikipedia


However, between initial contract signature with VT, the gun incident on ship 01 during sea trials, the BAE 'buy-out' (as VT didn't want to build ships), the monies returned by VT to BAE as part of the take over & the numerous changes that were made at the request of the customer, IMHO the figure would probably be close to £200M / ship...

With Inflation & "a VERY FEW changes", the £250M /ship for T31e looks about right...

KiwiRob said:

If it’s built to cots not milspec they could be built pretty quickly and cheaply. For example mil spec lighting on a type 26 was 500 thousand pounds per ship, that was excluding nav lights, helideck landing system and searchlights, whereas cots was around 200 thousand including navigation lanterns and searchlights. It’s things like a dimable mil spec navigation lanterns at £800 or a cots one for €250, milspec costs a bomb and frequently the differences are bigger all, at least in my part of the business.

Click to expand...

While that is probably true, it would be difficult for a warship designed to operate with its allies to not be fitted with milspec lighting as it needs to be compatible with the operations of a task group. That includes providing NVG compatible external lighting for example. Whether you go full milspec internally is a different issue; that would depend on what shock, flood and fire ratings you wanted for the ship which of course determines the ships potential survivability; but the desired survivability is also reflected in the requirement for items so rated and therefore cost. One of the differences in costs for ships provided to a lot of what I suppose we have to call developing navies as opposed to those supplied to first world navies (if that term is still allowed) is the inbuilt survivability of the platform, or lack of it in some of the cheaper offerings.

StobieWan said:

Put it that way, it's not going to happen - I've not kept up and thought 31 was away in the future a bit.

If they're due to be cutting steel in 2018, or even 2020, that's very ambitious..




I'd sooner they just built lots of 26 in serial production as I suspect things won't run smoothly with two builds but hey ho...

Click to expand...

There is a rumour I picked up that the Batch One River Class may be retained after all and the MOD will throw a small amount to keep them operating. Someone could confirm or deny this.

MrConservative said:

There is a rumour I picked up that the Batch One River Class may be retained after all and the MOD will throw a small amount to keep them operating. Someone could confirm or deny this.

Click to expand...

Severn has already been decommissioned from the RN as of October 2017 and the statement from questions in Hansards appears to indicate the rest will all follow suit.

However (and this is interesting) some money has been allocated from the EU exit fund to preserve all three should they be needed to patrol UK waters in Fisheries protection or similar roles:

Ministry of Defence: Public Expenditure:Written question - 132371

StobieWan said:

Severn has already been decommissioned from the RN as of October 2017 and the statement from questions in Hansards appears to indicate the rest will all follow suit.

However (and this is interesting) some money has been allocated from the EU exit fund to preserve all three should they be needed to patrol UK waters in Fisheries protection or similar roles:

Ministry of Defence: Public Expenditure:Written question - 132371

Click to expand...

Indeed it is interesting. I can see where the rumour or speculation may have come from.

IIRC HMS Tyne with its crane has been used in a littoral support role and MCM of late. So maybe they could bring Severn back (unless they have started stripping her for parts) - to make 3 in the OPV role post Brexit and leave Tyne in place working with its LW crew.

It'll be interesting if she has indeed been preserved - decommissioned usually means "stripped to her bare hull for anything including spare wood shavings and chips of paint", so it's a bit like "extended readiness" but with more blow torches on show.

I'd laugh like a drain if that money is really needed after the wild promises of how much money we're saving by not being part of that filthy group of Europeans etc. It's noticeable that the Civil Service has already risen (after huge cut backs during austerity) to pre-austerity levels,

So this happened today...

HMS Ocean leaves service with a royal farewell | Royal Navy

Systems Adict said:

So this happened today...

HMS Ocean leaves service with a royal farewell | Royal Navy

Click to expand...

It's a pity in hindsight that the RN did not decommission Albion, Bulwark and Ocean and replaced with the Mistrals when they were available, I know man power and money was a problem but would have been the smarter choice I believe.

The question is who would pick A and B?

French ships for the RN, I can imagine the uproar in the Commons if had that been proposed.

John Fedup said:

French ships for the RN, I can imagine the uproar in the Commons if had that been proposed.

Click to expand...

Lots of French ships captured and taken up by the RN because they were better ships (with less well trained crews!) suggests a certain inclination to reality.

oldsig

The asking price for the Mistrals would have had to be rock bottom to keep the unions muted. Using captured ships has no political blowback.

oldsig127 said:

Lots of French ships captured and taken up by the RN because they were better ships (with less well trained crews!) suggests a certain inclination to reality.

oldsig

Click to expand...

Back in the day when prize money was paid

t68 said:

It's a pity in hindsight that the RN did not decommission Albion, Bulwark and Ocean and replaced with the Mistrals when they were available, I know man power and money was a problem but would have been the smarter choice I believe.

The question is who would pick A and B?

Click to expand...

Better idea: don't build Albion & Bulwark. They were commissioned 2003 & 2005. Mistral was commissioned Feb 2006. If we'd built our own equivalents instead of the LPDs we'd not now have the problem of a shortage of floating helicopter hangars & decks.

Ocean was built on the cheap with a limited life expectancy. That was known. We were already planning to replace three Invincibles with two bigger carriers. The one carrier plus one LPH (either Ocean or a CVS in LPH mode) arrangement was obviously time-limited. In the circumstances, the decision to build hangar-less LPDs baffles me.

swerve said:

Better idea: don't build Albion & Bulwark. They were commissioned 2003 & 2005. Mistral was commissioned Feb 2006. If we'd built our own equivalents instead of the LPDs we'd not now have the problem of a shortage of floating helicopter hangars & decks.

Ocean was built on the cheap with a limited life expectancy. That was known. We were already planning to replace three Invincibles with two bigger carriers. The one carrier plus one LPH (either Ocean or a CVS in LPH mode) arrangement was obviously time-limited. In the circumstances, the decision to build hangar-less LPDs baffles me.

Click to expand...

True building the LPD without hangers was baffling, I guess they expected them to be always working with a flattop of some description.
But my comment about the Mistrals was about the ex Russian order ready for pick up in 2015

Both the RCN and RN could have used those Mistrals but Canada's military procurement system would have taken so long the ships could have been sold several times over before Canada ever issued a PO.

swerve said:

Better idea: don't build Albion & Bulwark. They were commissioned 2003 & 2005. Mistral was commissioned Feb 2006. If we'd built our own equivalents instead of the LPDs we'd not now have the problem of a shortage of floating helicopter hangars & decks..

Click to expand...

Wishes, Dreams, If's But's & maybe's...

We need to remember that ;A' & 'B' were conceived back in the early 90's, steel cut in the late 90's (Circa '99 from memory) & the penny pinchers from Whitehall had the extra decks removed. We had x3 small flat tops, with x2 carriers 'promised', x4 LSD(A)'s & all the added bonuses of a fleet of Ro-Ro's, with x12 destroyers on the way & a plethora of follow on ships & vessels (C1 to C3).

Casting up 'mistakes' made by UK PLC Gov't, as we changed sides of the political fence in Parliament, the events of 9/11 that changed the face of the world & war-fighting techniques, capabilities & demands have shaped the last 18 years.

As long as they're not hammered & are well maintained they may last round another 10 to 15 years. They have been capable ships & have filled in well as the top of the line vessels during various joint operations & shouldn't just be dismissed.

All-in all hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we have to play the hand we're dealt & it's doesn't help that the RN & Govt decision makers have not a clue what we need, never mind knowing how to play the game...

I could go on, but I'm depressed enough...

SA

t68 said:

It's a pity in hindsight that the RN did not decommission Albion, Bulwark and Ocean and replaced with the Mistrals when they were available, I know man power and money was a problem but would have been the smarter choice I believe.

The question is who would pick A and B?

Click to expand...

The RN is paying a big price for its super carriers.

It is all very well and good giving the Ocean's role to its new carriers but those ships will have a range of other missions to perform and as big and capable as they may be they can only be in one place at a time.