Probably still using the FV432...Scimitar54 wrote:Looking at defence in 7000 years time is always going to be a bit "tounge in cheek" anyway
Navy Command to 2030
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Naval Command to 2030
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
US lawmakers (OK, they have a more active role than our Defence Committee, which is more of a watchdog) were not happy with their Navy's answer that by 2034 they will fix SSN availability
- a new role (responsibility, added to an existing role) was created for direct accountability
- in our case all eyes (as we have the same problem) are fixed on the Submarine Enterprise (about which we hear very little)
"Government Accountability Office report on maintenance delays in the attack sub fleet, said that since "2008, 14 attack submarines have spent a combined 61 months -- 1,891 days -- idling while waiting to enter ship yards for maintenance."
"We need action now to address the backlog that is bad for our national security and the harmful impact on our industrial base," he said. "We have been talking about this maintenance backlog for a year with no clear solution in sight."
As part of a larger, 30-year ship repair/sustainment plan the Navy plans to release this year, Geurts said he intends to make submarines a high priority:
Going forward under the new role this committee provided me to oversee sustainment readiness" taken from DodBuzz
- so, in one year, if you do the conversion to "submarine FTEs" they had almost as many SSNs just queuing for maintenance than we have overall
- and the problem (a planning problem) was spotted in 2008 and actioned in 2018?
- a new role (responsibility, added to an existing role) was created for direct accountability
- in our case all eyes (as we have the same problem) are fixed on the Submarine Enterprise (about which we hear very little)
"Government Accountability Office report on maintenance delays in the attack sub fleet, said that since "2008, 14 attack submarines have spent a combined 61 months -- 1,891 days -- idling while waiting to enter ship yards for maintenance."
"We need action now to address the backlog that is bad for our national security and the harmful impact on our industrial base," he said. "We have been talking about this maintenance backlog for a year with no clear solution in sight."
As part of a larger, 30-year ship repair/sustainment plan the Navy plans to release this year, Geurts said he intends to make submarines a high priority:
Going forward under the new role this committee provided me to oversee sustainment readiness" taken from DodBuzz
- so, in one year, if you do the conversion to "submarine FTEs" they had almost as many SSNs just queuing for maintenance than we have overall
- and the problem (a planning problem) was spotted in 2008 and actioned in 2018?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Navy Command to 2030
The assessment below is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2019 which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2019
Navy Command Top Level Budget 2019-29 - £7.6 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
Consolidating the budgets for Ships, Maritime Helicopters and naval weapons not included in the Complex Weapons Programme.
£6.29 billion committed to in SDSR15, but not under contract by March 2019:
• £2.25 billion out of £5 billion for the fourth to eighth Type 26 Global Combat Ships – unit cost £1 billion
• £1.87 billion out of £2 billion for five Type 31 frigates – £750 million shared and development costs, unit cost £250 million
• £1.8 billion for three Future Fleet Solid Support ships
• £360 million for the first six sets of the MMCM programme and
• £10 million for two patrol boats for the Gibraltar Squadron.
£1.05 billion for essential extras:
• £650 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral – unit cost €720 million; £/€ rate 1.10
• £200 million for ship-launched Harpoon II+ anti-shipping missiles – order of 210 at a unit cost of U$1.25 million; £/U$ rate 1.30 and
• £200 million to upgrade an additional eight Merlin HM1 to HMA2 standard.
£260 million for desirable and optional extras:
• £160 million to install twelve sets of eight Mk 41 VLS cells on Type 45 destroyers – unit cost U$2.2 million based on February 2018 sale to Finland; £/U$ 1.30
• £40 million VL-ASROC – initial order of 60 at a unit cost of U$800k; £/U$ rate 1.30 and
• £60 million to integrate Sea Venom on to Merlin HMA2 – unit cost £1.5 million.
Navy Command TLB is fully committed.
Navy Command Top Level Budget 2019-29 - £7.6 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
Consolidating the budgets for Ships, Maritime Helicopters and naval weapons not included in the Complex Weapons Programme.
£6.29 billion committed to in SDSR15, but not under contract by March 2019:
• £2.25 billion out of £5 billion for the fourth to eighth Type 26 Global Combat Ships – unit cost £1 billion
• £1.87 billion out of £2 billion for five Type 31 frigates – £750 million shared and development costs, unit cost £250 million
• £1.8 billion for three Future Fleet Solid Support ships
• £360 million for the first six sets of the MMCM programme and
• £10 million for two patrol boats for the Gibraltar Squadron.
£1.05 billion for essential extras:
• £650 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral – unit cost €720 million; £/€ rate 1.10
• £200 million for ship-launched Harpoon II+ anti-shipping missiles – order of 210 at a unit cost of U$1.25 million; £/U$ rate 1.30 and
• £200 million to upgrade an additional eight Merlin HM1 to HMA2 standard.
£260 million for desirable and optional extras:
• £160 million to install twelve sets of eight Mk 41 VLS cells on Type 45 destroyers – unit cost U$2.2 million based on February 2018 sale to Finland; £/U$ 1.30
• £40 million VL-ASROC – initial order of 60 at a unit cost of U$800k; £/U$ rate 1.30 and
• £60 million to integrate Sea Venom on to Merlin HMA2 – unit cost £1.5 million.
Navy Command TLB is fully committed.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Not certain what this is, SPEAR 3?
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0
II.2.4)
Description of the procurement:
Tactical precision strike 3: precision guided munition for RN/RM use in the land and maritime environment.
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0
II.2.4)
Description of the procurement:
Tactical precision strike 3: precision guided munition for RN/RM use in the land and maritime environment.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
A bit of a hunt on google reveals it might be tactical precision strike Hero munition https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ed-warriorRe: Naval Command to 2030
Postby BlueD954 » 30 Oct 2020, 11:13
Not certain what this is, SPEAR 3?
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0
II.2.4)
Description of the procurement:
Tactical precision strike 3: precision guided munition for RN/RM use in the land and maritime environment.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/uvisions-her ... ing-colors
Re: Naval Command to 2030
https://questions-statements.parliament ... -02/110070
The Ministry of Defence remains committed to ensuring the United Kingdom has the capabilities required to fulfil Defence requirements both now and in the future. An update to the 30-year Naval Ship Acquisition Plan will be published after the Integrated Review, in line with the 2017 National Shipbuilding Strategy.
The Ministry of Defence remains committed to ensuring the United Kingdom has the capabilities required to fulfil Defence requirements both now and in the future. An update to the 30-year Naval Ship Acquisition Plan will be published after the Integrated Review, in line with the 2017 National Shipbuilding Strategy.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Would be v good as the one in the NShBS doc (NSS acronym is already taken) was labelled 'indicative'.BlueD954 wrote:An update to the 30-year Naval Ship Acquisition Plan will be published after the Integrated Review
As for AndyC's find, the latter link has
"Weighing only 3 Kg, it carries a 0.5 Kg warhead and reaches a range of up to 40 Km" for the smallest HERO that was trialled, so the range for the 120 version that would be OK for e.g. JLTV carry in land environment has the same quoted range...a bit strange, but perhaps the bigger version has a humongous warhead?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Could work really well for lower level conflicts but such a loitering munition would be vulnerable to counter munitions systems such as Iron Dome and those land based CWIS. Still six of them on the back of a 4x4 would give SF a bit more punch.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
+Lord Jim wrote:would be vulnerable to counter munitions systems such as Iron Dome and those land based CWIS
The trialed version clearly indicates that the targets would be swarming boats and FACs... perhaps also ATGW teams/ AFVs racing to the shoreline, to oppose a landing partyArmChairCivvy wrote:Weighing only 3 Kg, it carries a 0.5 Kg warhead
- the numerous fleet of Iran's submersibles could be easily targeted from above, whereas radar-controlled guns might find more difficulty (until such targets are "too" close)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Naval Command to 2030
SPEAR 3 (Selective Precision Effects At Range capability 3) is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEAR_3 being developed by MBDA for F35 and Typhoon https://www.mbda-systems.com/innovation ... ability-3/AndyC wrote:A bit of a hunt on google reveals it might be tactical precision strike Hero munition https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ed-warriorRe: Naval Command to 2030
Postby BlueD954 » 30 Oct 2020, 11:13
Not certain what this is, SPEAR 3?
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0
II.2.4)
Description of the procurement:
Tactical precision strike 3: precision guided munition for RN/RM use in the land and maritime environment.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/uvisions-her ... ing-colors
Re: Naval Command to 2030
https://questions-statements.parliament ... -03/hl9967
The programme to deliver the first of Class of an SSN Replacement for the Astute Class submarines is currently in the Programme Definition and Design Phase, which aims to identify potential capability solution choices. Therefore, it is too early to determine what the capability solution will be.
The programme to deliver the first of Class of an SSN Replacement for the Astute Class submarines is currently in the Programme Definition and Design Phase, which aims to identify potential capability solution choices. Therefore, it is too early to determine what the capability solution will be.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
More than a million $ question:
" whether the replacement for the Astute-class SSN Royal Navy submarines will take the form of another submarine."
With all the bns poured into Dreadnought, the hearsay says (?) that the biggest advance will be in silent propulsion.
If so, can the same be 'transfered' over from a fat boomer to a sleeker hunter-killer?
" whether the replacement for the Astute-class SSN Royal Navy submarines will take the form of another submarine."
With all the bns poured into Dreadnought, the hearsay says (?) that the biggest advance will be in silent propulsion.
If so, can the same be 'transfered' over from a fat boomer to a sleeker hunter-killer?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Will the weapon suite be torpedoes or some futuristic weapons?ArmChairCivvy wrote:More than a million $ question:
" whether the replacement for the Astute-class SSN Royal Navy submarines will take the form of another submarine."
With all the bns poured into Dreadnought, the hearsay says (?) that the biggest advance will be in silent propulsion.
If so, can the same be 'transfered' over from a fat boomer to a sleeker hunter-killer?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
I wouldn't settle for less than the caterpillar pulse of Red October, but this is what the Americans are up to:ArmChairCivvy wrote: hearsay says (?) that the biggest advance will be in silent propulsion.
"In America’s fleet of Ohio class submarines, for instance, the nuclear power plant generates heat, turning water to steam which then turn turbines to produce electricity as well as to provide propulsion through a series of reduction gears. These reduction gears transfer the high-RPMs produced by steam turbines into the appropriate shaft revolutions for the speed set by the bridge — they’re also rather noisy.
In the new Columbia class of submarines, however, this mechanical drive is set to be replaced by electric shaft motors — eliminating the noise produced by metal gearing engaging and disengaging."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Navy Command to 2030
https://questions-statements.parliament ... -20/118587
Under current planning models, the required workforce numbers for the future capability changes fit within the current limits, therefore no increase in personnel will be required.
Work on the new platforms and programmes are still in the early planning phases and the workforce requirements will become clearer as planning matures.
***
So they don't plan to increase personnel numbers? How to increase ship numbers? Unmanned ships?
Under current planning models, the required workforce numbers for the future capability changes fit within the current limits, therefore no increase in personnel will be required.
Work on the new platforms and programmes are still in the early planning phases and the workforce requirements will become clearer as planning matures.
***
So they don't plan to increase personnel numbers? How to increase ship numbers? Unmanned ships?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Navy Command to 2030
What is the cost constraint in the whole-life costing? The ship itself?BlueD954 wrote: the required workforce numbers for the future capability changes fit within the current limits
The sensors? The missiles?
No, it is the crewing.
The finest frigates (T22s) got a 100% chop because of their high manning. The " lessons-learnt-from the Falklands" ships (Albions) got an almost 50% chop for the same reason.
The navy got, I think, 400 billets from transfers from elsewhere and effectively another 200 thru conversion of officer billets into sailors/ engineers to manage their transformation. With the manning-intensive T23s starting to come 'off the line' that transformation is entering a new stage... climbing to the peak and past it was, of late, managed by converting shore-based billets; I wonder if some of that will have to be reversed in the long term.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Navy Command to 2030
Yes, automation will be reducing the need for personnel and saving costs.
The replacement of our twelve remaining minehunters with the MMCM programme could reduce staffing levels by 300 to 400.
See https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uncrewe ... l-vessels/ for the latest.
The replacement of our twelve remaining minehunters with the MMCM programme could reduce staffing levels by 300 to 400.
See https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uncrewe ... l-vessels/ for the latest.
Re: Navy Command to 2030
184 million seems a lot of cash for 3 systems.AndyC wrote:Yes, automation will be reducing the need for personnel and saving costs.
Re: Navy Command to 2030
In comparison three River Batch 2 OPV cost £348 million and that's a simpler vessel than a minehunter.
A well informed article here https://wavellroom.com/2020/04/04/hunt-the-replacement/ concludes that a new Hunt class MCMV would cost £120 million in today's money, so £360 million for three.
Personally, I think the reality is that we'd be lucky to get three MCMV for anything less than £400 million.
So, £184 million seems very reasonable to me, as long as the system does what it claims to do!
A well informed article here https://wavellroom.com/2020/04/04/hunt-the-replacement/ concludes that a new Hunt class MCMV would cost £120 million in today's money, so £360 million for three.
Personally, I think the reality is that we'd be lucky to get three MCMV for anything less than £400 million.
So, £184 million seems very reasonable to me, as long as the system does what it claims to do!
Re: Navy Command to 2030
I guess when you take into account training, spares and setting up production lines its ok.AndyC wrote:So, £184 million seems very reasonable to me, as long as the system does what it claims to do!
Re: Navy Command to 2030
I would hope that in the future the RN will get more...
When the manned minehunters decommission as well then the crew numbers could be transferred to the new T32 + as said newer ships will require less crew, I also think when the Albion replacements come along they will be less crew intense, it's a long game
When the manned minehunters decommission as well then the crew numbers could be transferred to the new T32 + as said newer ships will require less crew, I also think when the Albion replacements come along they will be less crew intense, it's a long game
Re: Navy Command to 2030
Yes, absolutely!
For example. if you look at my main article above I'm proposing the replacement of the two Albions, three Bays and RFA Argus with four LHD similar in style to a Mistral.
This would reduce crew numbers by 300 while maintaining the total number of landing craft and Royal Marines but at the same time increasing helicopter capacity by 51!
For example. if you look at my main article above I'm proposing the replacement of the two Albions, three Bays and RFA Argus with four LHD similar in style to a Mistral.
This would reduce crew numbers by 300 while maintaining the total number of landing craft and Royal Marines but at the same time increasing helicopter capacity by 51!
Re: Navy Command to 2030
The extra 1,100 Royal Navy personnel would be enough to crew five Type 23 frigates. So the first Type 23 to retire would now be in 2030, rather than 2023, after the fifth new Type 26 and Type 31 are commissioned. This would increase the number of escort ships from 19 to 24 and is made possible by HMS Iron Duke and HMS Monmouth undergoing an additional refit.The 2020 Spending Review
Prior to the Spending Review the government was committed to increasing defence spending by inflation + 0.5%. In real terms this amounts to an extra £2 billion over the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.
In the 2020 Spending Review the government announced it would provide an additional £16.5 billion for defence, making a total extra of £18.5 billion in real terms covering the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.
The government also announced commitments to military research & development, the National Cyber Force, Space Command and Artificial Intelligence totalling £3.8 billion.
Restoring the reductions made in the 2019 Equipment Plan budget requires £5.5 billion.
In addition, £2 billion is needed to cover the overspending in the Air Command Top Level Budget as a result of the unfunded purchase of the E-7 Wedgetail.
That leaves a total of £7.2 billion still to be committed.
If this extra funding is divided in the same way as the 2020/21 budget then 55% would be allocated to day-to-day running costs and 45% to the Equipment Plan.
That means an extra £3.95 billion for day-to-day spending, mostly personnel costs. As this represents about 4.5% of existing current spending that would be equal to an additional:
• 3,700 full-time troops
• 1,500 reservists
• 1,100 Royal Navy personnel
• 300 Royal Marines and
• 1,400 RAF personnel.
This leaves an extra £3.25 billion for the Equipment Plan.
So, in 2030 instead of six Type 45, three Type 26, four Type 31 and six Type 23 there would be six Type 45, three Type 26, four Type 31 and eleven Type 23!
This change has been included in a fully updated and revised main article at the start of this post.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Navy Command to 2030
AndyC Wrote:-
Trouble is the “oldest T23” will have been in commission for 32 years in 2023. You are suggesting stretching this to almost 40! Not impossible perhaps, but very costly and almost certainly a stretch too far.So the first Type 23 to retire would now be in 2030