SDSR 2015 General News & Discussion

[shark bait]

Big questions remain MARs solid support ships will they be ordered and where will they be built (aircraft carrier alliance could bid), number of Type 26s, Batch 1 Rivers, man power, number of RN F35B squadrons. Ocean and Argus replacemens (? 2 new LPHs or LPDs or a modifield karl Doreman)

On the topic of argus (and dillegence) I beleive they have been pushed out into the mid 20's, so I expect the review to gloss over that topic and leave it for the 2020 review. Ocean I think has little futue, whilst that is not ideal I do think it is reasonable.

I would like to see the aircraft carrier alliance get the solid support ship contract. They will be big, and potentially complex ships, so it would suite that yard well, although it will pale in comparison to the cariers. As a bonus it would keep things ticking over a rosyth untill we need new LPH's in the mid twentys.

I find it interesting ghow I its generally accepted amoungst our circles that 2 albions and 1 ocean will be replaced by 2 mistral type platforms at some stage. Lets hope leadership has the same oppinion.

[Lugzy]

The ordering of both the type 26 and the f-35b in drawn out batchs is the right course of action in my opinon , more so with the f-35b , everyone wants these assets yesterday but that is a luxury and one full of risks , as production gains momentum , aircraft costs will decrease aircraft capabilities will increase so will its standard block software straight from off the production line , no need for multiple complex upgrades down the road , and let's face it ,we are not in any real rush , like anything you buy being the first to have usually comes at a much higher cost .

Braking down the type 26 builds in to smaller batches does seem a good idea , let's face it the last of the planned vessels to be built will be in the 2030s , ordering 13 straight away could be a disaster or seen as an amazing piece of business in the future who nows it's a gamble of sorts one I doubt the government going for , slicing them into smaller builds does seem a good way to keep an eye on the project and on costs ,
The flip side to this is the fact of no guarantees on numbers , it's open to revision and could mean cuts down the line we just don't know ,

As for ocean and the 2 Albion replacements, my opionon is ocean will be replaced by POW the 2 Albions will be replaced by up to 4 multi roll large Mars SSS , I've brought this up before but I very much doubt the funding will be there to buy anything like 2 Mintral type vessels it's not going to happen ,
multi roll assets is the future when operating on tight budgets , they are not ideal but looking at concept pics they would bring, limited amphibious and helicopter operations capability to any sea borne mission , numbers of these vessels being the balancing act in comparison with the Albions . And I'm sure selling a project to the gov which can fill two plus roles including fleet resupply , disaster relief , plus limited amphibious capability , is easier than trying to get the gov to cough up the money for a dedicated mistral type vessel .
Just a thought ,,,,,,,,,,,,

[shark bait]

Just a thought ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Do you think the solid support ship will be that ambitious? It will undoubtably have an ambhibious support role, but to completely take over would be quite something. Certainly an interesting concept though.

I dont think a coupple of mistral types would be unaffordable. The eqyptians had theirs for around £700m for the pair. Depending on the T26 price of course, but that could be afforded by our budget.

[jonas]

I think F35 and T26 numbers are meaningless. What ever abritary nuimber this government gives in this review, wont be what the next government follows. That is unless they have a dead locked contract which would be stupid!

Well that all depends on which party gains power doesn't it, if the Tory's regain control then I see no reason for drastic changes. If the Corbynistas take over then it will be more than drastic, it will mean the demise of the UK's military as a viable fighting force.

[Lugzy]

Just a thought ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Do you think the solid support ship will be that ambitious? It will undoubtably have an ambhibious support role, but to completely take over would be quite something. Certainly an interesting concept though.

I dont think a coupple of mistral types would be unaffordable. The eqyptians had theirs for around £700m for the pair. Depending on the T26 price of course, but that could be afforded by our budget.

I truly believe it could be seen by the gov as killing 2 birds with one stone , My personnel opinon is by pitching the MARS SSS program as a multi roll asset covering many bases including amphibious operations it stands a much better chance of success , I know it's ideally not the perfect solution but it's higher numbers would make up for any short comings on individual vessel capability , and I'm sure it would be also found to be a lot easier to swallow by the purse keepers than two dedicated vessels .
Up to 4 multi roll Mars SSS ships taking over for 2 Albion's could work , if the first concept pics are anything to go by I can see there is a possibility to expand on them to fill this roll .

I agree we should be able to purchase a couple of mistral type vessels but I don't see any willingness or movement towards that end , that type of decision would probably lead to the standing down or mothballing of one of the carriers to balance the books , added to that the running costs , manpower etc it's just not going to happen unless one carrier goes as in sold , that's the only scenario I can see for a justified argument for two new dedicated mistral type vessels .

[jonas]

multi roll assets is the future when operating on tight budgets , they are not ideal but looking at concept pics they would bring, limited amphibious and helicopter operations capability to any sea borne mission , numbers of these vessels being the balancing act in comparison with the Albions . And I'm sure selling a project to the gov which can fill two plus roles including fleet resupply , disaster relief , plus limited amphibious capability , is easier than trying to get the gov to cough up the money for a dedicated mistral type vessel .
Just a thought ,,,,,,,,,,,,

IMHO multi role vessels such as your suggestion above are fine within limits, but it gets to a stage when it becomes a case of 'too many eggs'. To give them a limited amphibious capability would in my opinion be a mistake. These vessels are going to be a critical part of any CTG and as such should be used primarlily for that.

To give them another role gives the treasury and MOD a ready made reason not to invest in dedicated LPH or LPD, and yes we could afford to build two replacements for Albion and Bulwark in a reasonable time frame.

Start sending you multi roles into the littorals and you are asking for trouble, they are going to be high value targets in any case without putting them in any more danger

Take out your fleet train and you might as well go home, a lesson that one country didn't take advantage of in 82, if they had things may have turned out very differently.

[Pseudo]

Well that all depends on which party gains power doesn't it, if the Tory's regain control then I see no reason for drastic changes. If the Corbynistas take over then it will be more than drastic, it will mean the demise of the UK's military as a viable fighting force.

I don't think that I would worry too much about that.

[jonas]

Well that all depends on which party gains power doesn't it, if the Tory's regain control then I see no reason for drastic changes. If the Corbynistas take over then it will be more than drastic, it will mean the demise of the UK's military as a viable fighting force.

I don't think that I would worry too much about that.

I'm not. Just a thought.

[SKB]

Found 2010's full SDSR for comparison. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... review.pdf

[malcrf]

multi roll asset

Surely not a great attribute for a ship?!

[shark bait]

I truly believe it could be seen by the gov as killing 2 birds with one stone , My personnel opinon is by pitching the MARS SSS program as a multi roll asset covering many bases including amphibious operations it stands a much better chance of success , I know it's ideally not the perfect solution but it's higher numbers would make up for any short comings on individual vessel capability , and I'm sure it would be also found to be a lot easier to swallow by the purse keepers than two dedicated vessels .
Up to 4 multi roll Mars SSS ships taking over for 2 Albion's could work , if the first concept pics are anything to go by I can see there is a possibility to expand on them to fill this roll.

It is any interesting concept, one I have pondered myself. I totally agree vessels should be more and more multi-purpose, and a LHD and and SSS do have some overlapping capabilities. I think if we did go down that route we would end up with something that looked a lot like the karel doorman support ship, but it makes me wonder if that would be a ship of too much compromise.

It has great aviation capabilities compared to an Albion, but not as good as an LHD
Ok amphibious capabilities but not as good as an Albions.
Ok resupply, but not as good as the forts.

I just wonder if there is a little too much compromise in that, when what we really need is something that can keep up with the carriers massive logistical footprint, and do it in the most efficient way possible. That is unless they could come up with an innovative design that could address those concerns.

I think its probably worth watching what the Italians are doing with their future LHD and F35's...

[ArmChairCivvy]

something that looked a lot like the karel doorman support ship, but it makes me wonder if that would be a ship of too much compromise.

Too much of a compromise, yes. We have the "Points" so the army/ the RM are supplied; we have the oilers, so the ships are supplied (even with some rounds & refrigderated goods); What we don't have is to keep a Carrier Group going for a prolonged period.

BTW, Gabby ( I don't read all of the blog) has a very good overview of the options (that presumably have been considered) and it seems, on the balance, that the "at sea" has been an overriding consideration as opposed to the " on the shore" as there are other assets for supplying the latter... but a yawning gap for the former.

[shark bait]

Too much of a compromise, yes. We have the "Points" so the army/ the RM are supplied; we have the oilers, so the ships are supplied (even with some rounds & refrigderated goods); What we don't have is to keep a Carrier Group going for a prolonged period.

I think you are right, these assets are so important for power projection anywhere on the ocean. Compromising on that then compromises your carrier task force.

There is a nice study from BMT discussing various solid support ship designs. They concluded for a big navy (yes ours is still a big navy) a dedicated platform is the most efficient methods. So specialist with no fuel stores.

For me I would like to see a specialist ship, that has some facilities that allow it to excell in the support role, but also have some multirole capabilities. Such as big hanger, RORO, LCVP, and perhaps some mexeflotes straps to the side bay style! All of those come naturally to a support ship but can be used in many other roles.

[ArmChairCivvy]

also have some multirole capabilities. Such as big hanger, RORO, LCVP

- first one: definitely
- RORO, can't easily fit into the design, exc. from a dedicated deck, to the side (small capacity)
- LCVP: definitely; same foot print as with CB90 for interception/ boardings/ recce landing parties (both on davits, but different tasks and also load capacities; either can be loaded up when setting off for the voyage, depending on what is to be done at the other end)

Steel beach & mexeflotes hoisted down by a crane... sounds like a bridge too far

[shark bait]

RORO, can't easily fit into the design, exc. from a dedicated deck, to the side (small capacity)
....................Steel beach & mexeflotes hoisted down by a crane... sounds like a bridge too far

I will continue in the solid support ship thread.

I have to disagree there....




The above image is from the BMT study I spoke about. I don't think A configuration similar to the one above would be too much of a compromise to role of a support ship. It is a large long flat deck which can either be used for vehicles, dry stores or other mission space depending on the role. Since it is just a big space that can be filled with dry store, it can be used in the supply role with little compromise.

From there it would take only a little bit of space to add a steal beach, which opens up a whole bunch of options. Vehicles could be disembarked by loading on the mexeflotes like ocean does. I think that is reasonable, but a well dock is probably a step too far as that would drastically alter the entire design of the ship.
Or the option I prefer is self deploying vehicles that drive straight off the ship into the water.

[Lugzy]

IMHO multi role vessels such as your suggestion above are fine within limits, but it gets to a stage when it becomes a case of 'too many eggs'. To give them a limited amphibious capability would in my opinion be a mistake. These vessels are going to be a critical part of any CTG and as such should be used primarlily for that.

To give them another role gives the treasury and MOD a ready made reason not to invest in dedicated LPH or LPD, and yes we could afford to build two replacements for Albion and Bulwark in a reasonable time frame.

Start sending you multi roles into the littorals and you are asking for trouble, they are going to be high value targets in any case without putting them in any more danger

Take out your fleet train and you might as well go home, a lesson that one country didn't take advantage of in 82, if they had things may have turned out very differently.

I agree it's not ideal and share some of your concerns but Tbh It's down to choices , my argument is there's not enough money or manpower out there for ideal and dedicated solutions to everything , yeah sure 2 purpose built LPH/LPD would be brilliant but that's the solution in a defence friendly gov , who backs its armed forces not only with words but with the funds needed , You will not get that type of commitment from this gov or from any other of the major uk political party's right now , We need to except this .

As I said if the case was put to the gov for two purpose built LPH I'm sure they would ask what's going to be axed to make room for these new vessels , the gov would argue POW or QE would cover oceans retirement , so that leaves 2 Albion's , are they really going to give the RN 2 brand new LPH for the axing of 2 Albion's I'm guessing not a chance , it would probably require the sale of one of the carriers to sweeten the deal , and do you think the navy will go for that ???? Again not a chance ,

So in my opinion this is were Mars SSS comes in and tbh I think it suits the RN just as much as the gov , the replacement of the 2 Albion's and fort class with up to 4 multi purpose ships , which can spend there time supporting fleet operations but if called on can deliver the amphibious support needed to back up a carrier operating as an helicopter assault ship and bay class as part of a amphibious task force.

I believe on the RN list of priorities protecting fleet and carrier operations is higher than protecting amphibious warfare assets , when it comes down to trying to justify everything which it seems our armed forces have to do these days to keep assets/capability from gov cuts , large amphibious operations on our own is seen as unlikely in the foreseeable future and so is harder to argue for dedicated assets , the last operation on a large scale being the Falklands 33 years ago , thinking that way is a gamble but it seems tough choices have to be made .

multi roll asset

Surely not a great attribute for a ship?!

Hahaha your right

[ArmChairCivvy]

yes. let's move on, to that more focussed threat

[The Armchair Soldier]

From the Defence Editor of The Times.

[shark bait]

Great news! Absolutely a no brainer, just as we have been discussing lately.

Let's hope that sticks through till next week!

[rec]

Cant see the Time sarticle it looks blank

[SKB]

From the Defence Editor of The Times.

^ 'Haynes'.
I wonder if she writes the workshop manuals too?!

[Jdam]

Seems like decent (basically not terrible) news for the RAF, any news on the Navy yet?

[shark bait]

Increases in personnel.
Also no increases in personnel.

At least not too long till we know for sure what's true and what's not, including typhoon

[malcrf]

From the Defence Editor of The Times.
Follow the UK Defence Forum on Twitter: @UKDefenceForum

Let's hope so..................

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

If true, one would at least think they would need to recieve some of the electronic and software updates (to Praetorian, CAPTOR etc etc) brought about through the various enhancement upgrades in order to allow them to renew the role, right? Might even get a bit more utility out of them still and all for what would, theoretically, be relatively little additional cost?