shark bait wrote:If the force becomes even more concentrated the RN can do fewer tasks, earning less exposure to the world......Smaller packages like the Bay class that can be distributed and applied to a wide range of tasks are much more usable for 90% of its service life, offering greater value for money.
RN doesn't need £1bn Frigates and Destroyers to enhance its worldwide exposure. That's why I maintain RN should introduce 4 to 5 Global Patrol Vessels to fill the gaps around the world as the UK's naval strategy transitions across to Carrier Strike.
These GPV's need to be big and multi-role but also cheap to build, operate and maintain. Something like a 150m Bay would be ideal if the beam was reduced to enable a 21knt top speed. I would also remove the well dock in favour of a steel beach add a triple Merlin hanger and maximise the medical facilities.
Even at a light Frigate length of 120m this enforcer design is still a very capable vessel.
https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... series.pdfimage.jpg
image.jpg
I believe the important thing is to build a balanced fleet that the UK can afford going forward. A fleet that can stay within its budget allocation based on the UK maintaining its 2% of GDP commitment to NATO. The Treasury is unlikely to push for cuts if RN is living within its means. RN needs to work out what this balance is.
Is 2 CVF's sustainable in the longer term?
Do we need to be spending an average of £1bn on a Frigate?
Have we maximised the platforms that are in the water before building more?
Can RN sustain a dedicated 5 ship Amphibious fleet going forward?
My answer to these questions would be in order to sustain the 2 CVF's the Amphibious fleet will have to drop to 3 dedicated vessels, backed up by cheaper logistics and patrol vessels. We shouldn't be spending more than about £500m to £600m on our Frigates and we should upgrade our destroyers to make them as good as they can be.
Once again it's a question of priorities.
shark bait wrote:We can't afford the fleet we have at the moment because it is centred on two huge LPD's with a huge crew requirement. That can be slimmed down into something simpler, for example the French assault platforms go to sea with half the crew of the Brits.
The Albions aren't that big in comparison to a Mistral, Canberra, San Antonio or even a Bay but the crew allocation is very high mainly due to the extensive C&C facilities. It doesn't matter where you put the C&C, that crew allocation will have to go somewhere.
The Mistrals are impressive but also compromised in lots of areas, sometimes paper specs don't match reality. The Canberra is a better balanced all round platform.
shark bait wrote:Doesn't sound feasible for the Brits. That is a 60% scaled down QE, plus a well dock and your expecting it for 30% of the price. Unless their is something fundamentally different, there is nothing that suggests that's achievable.
Sorry, that's too simplistic for me. What would a third QE have cost with all the political interference and costly delays removed? I would suggest a figure closer to £2.5bn. Scale it down from there.
shark bait wrote:Based of British and American carrier/LHD build experience, a UK designed and 1 off built, F35 capable LHD is likely to cost around the 2 billion mark.
60% of QE = 3,000m * 0.6 = £1,800m
Cost of an america class = £2,600m
How much would a QE cost to build in America?
A lot more than in the UK. It's not a realistic comparison. I would suggest we are slightly less efficient than the Italians but if they can build a 33,000t, F35 capable LHD for around £900m then the Aircraft Carrier Alliance should be able to produce a very nice 40,000t LHD for around £1.25 to £1.5bn.