Navy Command to 2030

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Post Reply

Which would you prefer for the Royal Navy?

13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships and 5 River 2 OPV's
43
61%
8 Type 26 Global Combat Ships, 7 Type 31 general purpose frigates and 3 River 2 OPV's
27
39%
 
Total votes: 70

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

SDSR15 was a mixed bag for the Royal Navy. On the one hand, the Trident Successor Programme was confirmed, two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are entering service, two additional Offshore Patrol Vessels were ordered and the programme to build three new Future Fleet Solid Support (FFSS) ships was confirmed. Set against this, the entry into service of the F-35B Lightning II was slowed down, the order for Type 26 Global Combat Ships was cut from thirteen to eight and three Mine Counter Measures (MCM) Vessels were laid off.

Since 2015 the MoD has rightly become concerned about the increased numbers of Russian submarines near to UK waters and the threat they pose to shipping and ocean floor cables. This has led to an increased priority being given to improving ASW capabilities and the introduction of the P-8 Poseidon.

Other programmes, however, have been dogged by delays. The Crowsnest radar, the order for FFSS ships and the integration of missiles on to the Wildcat HMA2 have all been put back a couple of years. The first Type 26 and Type 31 frigates will not be entering service until 2027.

The 2020 four-year Spending Review allows for a 5% increase in real spending on day-to-day expenditure, including personnel. For the Royal Navy that means an additional 1,200 full-time personnel which will support increasing the number of escort vessels from 19 to 24. There is also a commitment to designing a new Type 32 frigate.

Nuclear Submarines

The Trident Successor Programme is the UK’s most expensive defence programme ever. In the SDSR the total procurement cost of four Dreadnought SSBN submarines, the modernisation of 48 Trident II D-5 missiles and 120 active out of 180 nuclear warheads was increased from £25 billion to £31 billion. In addition, there is a Nuclear Contingency fund of £1.1 billion and a dedicated contingency reserve of £10 billion held by the Treasury. In the Integrated Review the number of active warheads was increased to 180 out of a total of 260.

The size of this commitment has inevitably impacted other major procurement projects involving the slowing down of the purchase of the F-35B and the decision to find a cheaper way to replace the Type 23 frigate.
Astute SSN.jpg
Seven new world leading SSN will be in service by 2026.

Seven Astute attack submarines are due to be in service by 2026 with the order for the final boat having been placed in May 2018 at a cost of £1.6 billion. They are each armed with 19 TLAM long-range land attack missiles and 19 Spearfish long-range torpedoes.

Continuous Carrier Capability

The entrance into service of two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers marks a huge increase in the capability of Naval Command. At over 70,000 tonnes they are easily the largest military vessels to have been built in the UK.

In peacetime, one QE carrier would be active and embark a Squadron of F-35B Lightning II aircraft specialising in fleet air defence and anti-shipping roles. For fleet air defence they would be armed with six air-to-air missiles (four AMRAAM AIM-120C5 or Meteors A BVRAAM and two ASRAAM Block 6). In their anti-shipping role they would be armed with up to eight SPEAR 3/-EW medium-range precision strike missiles in the internal weapons bay. The carrier would also typically operate fourteen Merlin HMA2 helicopters with nine specialising in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and five in airborne early warning (AEW).

Under normal circumstances Naval Command would operate only one carrier at a time but, with judicious planning of the refit and maintenance cycle, there is the potential to have both ships available at times of heightened tension and any conflict.
QE Carriers.jpg
Two new aircraft carriers have dramatically increased the capability of the Royal Navy.

When both QE carriers are available they would each lead a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) embarking up to three F-35B Squadrons and with four destroyers/frigates as escorts. While aircraft numbers are building up during the 2020s additional F-35Bs of the US Marine Corps or the Italian Air Force/Navy would also be embarked.

Alternatively, one carrier could lead a CSG while the other leads a Carrier Assault Group (CAG), also with four escorting destroyers/frigates. In this situation the assault carrier would be embarked almost exclusively with transport and attack/assault helicopters.

A third Littoral Strike Group (LSG) could be formed around larger amphibious landing ships with four escorting destroyers/frigates. During amphibious operations they would be embarked with transport and attack/assault helicopters and join with the CAG. When not being used in this role, they would embark maritime assault helicopters for ASW and anti-surface warfare (ASuW).

When both QE carriers are active the Royal Navy can embark up to 111 helicopters, which includes all 82 of the Fleet Air Arms’ forward fleet of helicopters, plus one Squadron of Chinook heavy lift helicopters and one of Apache attack helicopters.

However, if only one QE carrier is available there is only room to embark 69 out of the 82 helicopters in the FAA’s forward fleet! To be able to operate the full range of amphibious transport and attack/assault helicopters, including those provided by the RAF and Army Air Corps, would require an unacceptable reduction in either the air cover provided by the F-35B or ASW cover provided by Merlin HMA2.

This could be partly addressed through the replacement of RFA Argus, when it reaches the end of its life, in the middle of this decade with an adapted helicopter landing dock (LHD) based on the French Mistral-class amphibious assault ship.
Mistral amphibious assault ship.jpg
A new LHD based on the French Mistral-class would greatly add to helicopter capacity.

An LHD carrier could have the ability to embark at least sixteen helicopters and 450 Royal Marines. To ensure it could be fully crewed one of the Bay class landing ship docks would have to be retired at the same time. As with the ships it’s replacing its crew would be from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The replacement LHD carrier would fulfil the role of Auxiliary Fleet Support Helicopter (AFSH) ship in the National Shipbuilding Strategy. RFA Argus’ other role as a hospital ship could be assigned to one of the FFSS ships. In this situation, the two QE carriers and the LHD carrier could be rotated and crewed to ensure that at any given time two of them would be available for deployment.

An alternative, that the MoD has been investigating, is to order two Littoral Strike Ships (LSS). These would have the advantage of being inexpensive, as they would be converted from merchant ships. However, they would operate a far more limited number of helicopters compared to an LHD and so not really address the issue of lack of helicopter capacity.

In the 2030s the two Albion LPD and the two remaining Bay LSD should be replaced by a further three LHD carriers. When both QE carriers are active only one LHD needs to be active as well while when only one QE carrier is active three of the LHD carriers could be available for deployment.

The overall change in Littoral capability could be:
Littoral capability.jpg
Escorts and Patrol Vessels

The Royal Navy needs to maximise the flexibility of its destroyers and frigates.

As part of this, all six Type 45 destroyers should be fitted with two sets of eight Mk 41 strike length VLS silos. Six could be allocated to quad packed CAMM short-range SAM, (to complement the 48 longer range Aster area air defence missiles), a further six could be allocated to the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) when it becomes available from 2030 and four to VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles. In addition, four destroyers are currently equipped with eight Harpoon anti-shipping launchers, the remaining two will receive launchers transferred from the Type 23 when they retire. This would supplement the already impressive AAW defences of the Type 45 and give them a powerful long-range ASuW and strike capability.
Type 26 Global Combat Ship.jpg
The Type 26 Global Combat Ship will be a powerful addition to the surface fleet.

The most significant new piece of naval equipment on order are the eight Type 26 Global Combat Ships. They are considerably more capable than the Type 23 ASW frigates they are replacing and are arguably the equivalent of light cruisers rather than frigates! Each will carry 48 CAMM silos and three sets of eight Mk 41 strike length VLS silos - six could be for quad packed CAMM-ER area air defence missiles, twelve for FC/ASW and six for VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles. Equipped with the 2087 towed array Sonar and capable of operating two helicopters these ships have an extremely potent ASW, AAW, ASuW and strike capability.

An order has also been placed for five Type 31 general purpose frigates. This ship is designed to be a cost effective replacement of the Type 23 general purpose frigates. Each should carry twelve ExLS launchers armed with quad packed CAMM and eight Harpoon anti-shipping launchers transferred across from the Type 23 when they retire.
Arrowhead 140.jpg
The Type 31 could effectively provide a cheap like for like replacement for the Type 23.
The oldest Type 23 frigate was due to retire in 2023 with one ship being withdrawn each year until 2035. However, delays in the development of both Type 26 and Type 31 have pushed this back. As a result three of the general purpose Type 23s have had their service life extended but to keep costs under control the other two will be withdrawn earlier than planned.

The first Type 26 is currently due to enter service in 2027 followed by two others at eighteen month intervals and then one a year after 2030. The first Type 31 is also due to enter service in 2027 with the remaining four following at the rate of one a year thereafter.

As a result of these changes the number of escorts will be increased to 24 by 2030. This will consist of 6 Type 45 destroyers, 3 Type 26 Global Combat Ships, 4 Type 31 frigates and 11 Type 23 frigates.

By 2023 the Royal Navy will be operating five River Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessels. In peacetime they will patrol in the Falklands, the Caribbean, Mediterranean and East of Suez in an anti-drug smuggling, anti-people trafficking and anti-piracy role to relieve some of the commitments on the destroyer and frigate fleet. Their capacity to operate a Merlin helicopter could also give them a limited ASW role.

Three older River Batch 1 OPV are operating in home waters on fisheries protection and anti-people smuggling.

Complex Weapons
Sea Ceptor SAM.jpg
Sea Ceptor is a game changer for naval air and anti-missile defence.

The greatest threat to the Royal Navy’s major surface vessels comes from missiles - whether they are launched from aircraft, submarines or other warships. Air and ballistic missile defences would be significantly improved by joining the Franco-Italian project to develop the Sea Viper area air defence system's very long-range capabilities with the Aster 30 Block 1NT very long-range SAM.

The Sea Ceptor surface-to-air missile system based around the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) has been developed to counter this threat and is qualitatively a leap forward compared to the Sea Wolf SAM it is replacing.

A quantitative improvement could also be provided by an additional 24 CAMM-ER area air defence missiles could be installed on the Type 26. This would create a greater layered air defence in depth as well as nearly doubling the total number of SAMs defending the fleet!

From 2030 the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) developed under the SPEAR 5 programme will start to enter service on Type 45 destroyers and Type 26 Global Combat Ships as well as replacing the RAF’s Harpoon II+ and Storm Shadow cruise missiles.

The Royal Navy’s Harpoon 1C anti-shipping missiles are approaching their 2023 out of service date. As the P-8 Poseidon is operating the updated Harpoon II+ it would be preferable to maintain commonality and select this missile as the Interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapon for Type 45 destroyers, Type 31 frigates and remaining Type 23 frigates.

Shorter range ASW defences could be enhanced by ordering the VL-ASROC anti-submarine missile to equip both Type 45 destroyers and Type 26 Global Combat Ships.

National Shipbuilding Strategy
30 Year Shipbuiding Forecast.jpg
In addition to the construction of the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates the 30 year forecast for the national shipbuilding strategy calls for the construction of three FFSS ships to support the CSG and CAG.
MMCM.jpg
The autonomous MMCM programme will transform mine hunting.

In the mid-2020s twelve MCM Vessels are due to be replaced by at least twelve sets of Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MCMM) equipment. Each set comprises a portable operation centre, an autonomous surface vessel, towed sonar and a mine neutralisation system which can operate from either a remote control centre on board ship or ashore.

Development work also needs to proceed at pace in the early 2020s to design the Type 32 frigate, the replacements for the amphibious LPD and LSD to enter service from 2033 and the Type 4X destroyers from 2035.

Conclusion

In total, there are seven proposals to be considered here as part of the Integrated Review, two of which have now been agreed since SDSR15.

Those that are essential include:
• replacing RFA Argus and one of the Bay class LSDs with an adapted LHD
• purchasing 300 Aster 30 Block 1NT very long-range surface-to-air missiles to equip Type 45 destroyers
• placing an initial order for 150 CAMM-ER area air defence missiles for Type 26 Global Combat Ships and
• purchasing 210 Interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapons (contract notification issued August 2019).

Those that are desirable include:
• retaining five Type 23 frigates for longer and so increase the number of escort ships from 19 to 24 by 2030 (announced March 2021)
• equipping Type 45 destroyers with twelve sets of eight Mk 41 strike length VLS silos and
• placing an initial order for 60 VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles for Type 45 destroyers and Type 26 Global Combat Ships.


Naval Command 2030 would operate:
• 4 Trident SSBN
• 2 QE aircraft carriers
• an adapted LHD as a replacement for RFA Argus and one Bay class LSD
• 2 Landing Platform Docks
• 2 Landing Ship Docks
• 7 Astute SSN
• 6 Type 45 destroyers
• 3 Type 26 Global Combat Ships
• 4 Type 31 general purpose frigates
• 11 Type 23 frigates
• 5 River Batch 2 OPV
• 3 River Batch 1 OPV
• 1 icebreaker
• 8 MMCM Vessels
• 4 MCM Vessels
• 2 multi-role ocean research vessels
• 2 hydrographic survey ships
• 4 MARS oil tankers
• 3 Fleet Solid Support ships
• 2 auxiliary oilers
• 4 sealift ships
• 84 F-35B Lightning II in 6 Squadrons
• 38 Merlin HMA2 in 4 Squadrons
• 28 Wildcat HMA2 in 2 Squadrons
• 8 Wildcat AH1 in 1 Squadron
• 25 Merlin HC4 in 2 Squadrons
• 320 Aster 30 Block 1NT
• 160 Aster 15
• 150 CAMM-ER
• 1,330 CAMM
• 130 FC/ASW
• 190 TLAM
• 210 ship-launched and 60 air-launched Harpoon II+
• 360 Sea Venom
• 460 Martlet
• 240 Spearfish long-range torpedoes
• 60 VL-ASROC
• 100 Mk 54 light torpedoes with HAAWC and
• 430 Sting Ray light torpedoes.

See Appendix 2: Maritime Joint Force 2030 below for details of the warships, naval aircraft, helicopters and missiles announced in SDSR15 together with the extra proposals contained here.
Maritime Joint Force 2030 - 2 QE Carriers Deployed.jpg
Maritime Joint Force 2030 - 1 QE Carrier Deployed.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by bobp »

Excellent article, would the Harpoon II fit the existing launchers or would it require new kit. Also agree with need for more Helicopters for the fleet.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Both Denmark and Australia have bought kits to upgrade their Harpoon 1's to Harpoon II capability and didn't have to buy any new launchers.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AndyC wrote:eight Type 23 frigates are due to retire. During this same period it is planned that a new Type 26 will enter service every eighteen months. So a maximum of five will be finished by 2030. This leaves a requirement for three Type 31 frigates to be built during this period.
- parallel build then... err, someone said so, sometime ago

Or, the more common(?) sentiment, with this quote:
AndyC wrote:From 2023-2030 eight Type 23 frigates are due to retire. During this same period it is planned that a new Type 26 will enter service every eighteen months. So a maximum of five will be finished by 2030. This leaves a requirement for three Type 31 frigates to be built during this period.

By 2023 the Royal Navy will be operating five River Class 2 offshore patrol vessels
- 5 global cruisers, to have 3 for any CSG that might sail
- the 3 (other) tails that have already been paid for would go for the token ASW force (of 3 T31s... more coming later; if the submarine threat is still perceived to exist)

And in the meanwhile the OPVs will do the flag waving (and solve the manpower crisis in the same go)

Will read on, and share thoughts on the rest...
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AndyC wrote:The capability of the Royal Marines could be enhanced by replacing their Wildcat AH1 helicopters with a Squadron of eight Osprey V-22 to give them additional range and carrying capability. The Wildcats would then be re-allocated to the Army Air Corps.
I agree with Ospreys, but mainly for SF and CSAR use. Nothing much heard of the light-attack Wildcat order, so not sure if they can be replaced (if they do not exist)
AndyC wrote: installed on both QE carriers and all larger amphibious ships. This, combined with additional Sea Ceptors on Type 45 destroyers, would result in a 65% increase in the total number of SAMs defending the fleet compared with 2015
Just like you, I am concerned about the total SAM load of an individual escort, or even a task force on the whole (the F-35 numbers will not afford doing both strike and CAP for a long time to come)
- I would delete the QE part of the proposal, tough. Many a time the airOps will prevent you from launching?

Harpoon? I think we just received from the Navy some deliberated Harpoon news... lets go and buy something else?
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)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by RetroSicotte »

Generally all agreed, other than feeling that your Type 31 is horrifically under-equipped. 32 CAMM and 8 Harpoon with a gun is very limited. No ASW, no deep strike. Ideally I would be happy to see CAMM go to 24 to instead include 8x Mk41 to get VL-ASROC and FCASW. Add in a Captas-4 Compact and it should be fine.

Ideally, I would see both Type 26 and Type 31 ensured to be equipped with Stingray Torpedoes. This is still considered a standard worldwide.

Harpoon II is a logical standpoint for speed of integration and minimal adaption elsewhere. Much as I'd love to say NSM or LRASM, those would require more time to be ready for Royal Navy ships and would not be ready for 2018 to replace the Harpoon without a gap.

Interesting to see V-22 mentioned for Royal Marines but not mentioned for carrier utility, that is FAR more important a use of them than as Royal Marine transports, when they already have some.

Overall, a very balanced and conceptually sound idea.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Nothing much heard of the light-attack Wildcat order, so not sure if they can be replaced (if they do not exist)
847 NAS is the Royal Marines Wildcat Squadron.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

RetroSicotte wrote:Ideally, I would see both Type 26 and Type 31 ensured to be equipped with Stingray Torpedoes
Surely an enemy submarine would have used its anti-shipping missiles or long-range torpedoes long before it got in range of a Stingray launched from a frigate?

I would have thought a Merlin or Wildcat armed with a Stingray would be far more effective.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by LordJim »

A great piece but with a large dose of realism you end up with;

Those that are essential include:
• ordering at least five Type 31 general purpose frigates: YES.
• upgrading an additional eight Merlin HM1 to HM2 standard: Logical but won't happen.
• equipping QE carriers, larger amphibious ships and Type 45 destroyers with 24 Sea Ceptor SAM each and: Again logical but won't happen.
• ordering 200 ship-launched Harpoon II + ER for all destroyers and frigates: Won't happen.

Those that are desirable include:
• replacing RFA Argus with an adapted LHD: Won't happen.
• equipping Type 45 destroyers with twelve strike length VLS launchers: Possibly
• introducing eight Osprey V-22 VTOL aircraft and: Nope, if we get any it will be half that and allocated to SF.
• ordering 100 VL-ASROC for Type 26 Global Combat Ship: We will probably wait for the successor if at all.

And those that are optional include:
• integrating Sea Venom on to Merlin HMA2: Logical but won't happen.
• Upgrading the Aster 30 to give it an effective ABM capability: Once again good idea but won't happen.

Our Defence budget is going to shrink form now on regardless of any public statements by the Government of the time. The pretence of the 2% GDP minimum will only be maintained by moving further items into defence, whist the budget of new equipment and support will fall. The saying goes, "Talk is cheap", and our politicians know this. In 1015 they announce with great fanfare 8 new super ships but fail to mention in press releases that these will not all be in service for another 17 years. We have 2 new super carriers soon entering service but have a self defence capability equal to a North Sea ferry, well a little bit better. CASD is going to take quite a chunk out of the Navy's equipment budget over the next 2 decades and the other two services are going to make sure that after CVF the Navy and only the Navy is affected.

One possible bright point is that now the F-35B is starting to prove itself in the USMC and the rice level is falling, we might see a speed up in orders to ensure a CVR never deploys with out at least 12 on board and have a further 12 available for deployment either reinforcing the CVF or being land based. Although we may have 8 Merlins plumbed for CROESNEST I strongly doubt we will ever have more than 4 operating as such. As has been pointed out we are short of ASW variants and so we will maximise this.

One area that we are going to see reductions in is reserve assets. Increasingly it will be an all or nothing situation when military operation are undertaken, with nothing held back, a bit like the Falklands. We could even see a River II deployed with the CBG as a plane guard for example. The inherent problem is that if all your eggs are in one basket you are afraid to lose any of them. Fragility has political implications as well as military ones and is self perpetuating so that you can o no longer hold anything back. Total commitment takes a strong back bone and how many politicians do we have that meet that criteria when dealing with military matters?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

LordJim wrote:• equipping QE carriers, larger amphibious ships and Type 45 destroyers with 24 Sea Ceptor SAM each and: Again logical but won't happen.
• ordering 200 ship-launched Harpoon II + ER for all destroyers and frigates: Won't happen.

Those that are desirable include:
• replacing RFA Argus with an adapted LHD: Won't happen.
• equipping Type 45 destroyers with twelve strike length VLS launchers: Possibly
• introducing eight Osprey V-22 VTOL aircraft and: Nope, if we get any it will be half that and allocated to SF.
A "nice" bucket of cold water LJ just poured over our heads; I will just finesse around the rougher corners:
- CAMM can easily happen for the amphibs and , also, to add to the number of missiles available (through quadpacking) to the otherwise already v capable AAW destroyers
- not Harpoon; something else... the Navy is just not telling us (yet)

Strike for T45s; yes, they will now be with the main force (err, we did not have one to be with, before) and you can replace the helipad with those silos... we are short of Merlins, right?

Yes, Ospreys for SF (and as they will only be used once in a blue moon, for CSAR, too)
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)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by LordJim »

Sorry for the cold shower. A lot of issues arise because there is a tendency in the MoD to try to use their Crystal Balls and future proof everything. There are a lot of programmes underway around the world at present to develop replacements for existing hardware and/or new technology. I an see the arguments now saying if we wait X number of years we will be able to purchase and fit Y to our ships so we should by Z now, plus it will free up funds for something else in the meantime. Great in principal but often nothing happens as there is always another great thing around the corner. The US uses the term "Vanilla" for platforms in their basic configuration. It allows them to get new ships, planes and vehicles into service, and then have a development cure that is flexible to incorporate newer and/or additional capabilities. This should be something we should uses as if it were the law especially as we purchases much smaller amounts of any one platform. With ships I am not advocating modular construction like the Danes but more lime the MEKO programme. This would allow far easier and timely improvements when a vessel is undergoing maintenance. If designed right a platform can still be effective throughout its service life without costly refit programmes which can also adversely affect availability. It also means a sound design can be adapted to other roles or have it specialise. This should have been done with the T-26 and must be done with the T-31. With the latter being able to customise would improve any export potential as happened to the MEKO designs.

I suppose I am still arguing against out policy of building high end vessels bespoke for the Royal Navy in ever shrinking numbers. It would be fine if the had both the budget and will to build high numbers. Even the T-31 will probably end up bespoke and too expensive vs it capabilities. If we want to retain ship building in the UK the Government must pay up front. The band aid funding promised to BAe is no where near enough. We need one T-26 annually with a T-31 being build concurrently with the last three as a minimum. TO retain ship building its importance must equal the need for CASD in the spending priorities of the MoD and Government and have the relevant resources.

We got away with Iraq and Afghanistan, but only just! There will probably not enough time to issue UORs in the next conflict, it will be over before most if any can be delivered. We also cannot afford to wait to build super platforms able to do everything against existing and future threats right off the bat. We need vanilla platforms in sufficient numbers supported by a long term programme of improvements keeping them relevant. This goes for all three services and programmes ranging from the Army's MIV, to the RAF's ISTAR plans to the Navy's ships. One of the corner stones of this is stopping the in year focus of the Treasury/Inquisition. May be we should adopt the system where to order and fund smaller number of kit but on a yearly basis like the US and Japan do rather than placing large orders once and a blue moon. This also allows the vanilla baseline to be adapted over time.

We can do this, we did it with the Jaguar going from the GR Mk1A to the GR Mk1 B and sort of to the GR Mk3 although the latter should have been thought through better. The platforms was constantly improved, over a comparative short timeframe and for a relatively small amount, which provided far more capability per buck than the much more complicated Tornado GR4 upgrade programme.

For future platforms and I include the T-26 in this as it has not been set in stone, a viable but affordable baseline needs to be established and orders in say batches of 3 then 3 then 2. If costs fall or additional funding is available additional unis can be orders or funding moved to the T-31. A variant at the end of the programme could be ordered to replace the T-45. If the USN can come to this conclusion with the AB Destroyers, which are still being built then surely we can. A vanilla T-26 would have room for the Mk41 but not fitted with it, room for 48+ Sea Ceptor but only have 24 fitted, have a mission bay but only fitted out for RHIBs initially. In fact the key will be to get all 8 initially planned hulls in the water ASAP in basic/vanilla configuration. They won't have all the bells and whistles everyone seems to wants but should still be very effective platforms. They would be fitted for the TASS and would receive units when they become available. Carrying a Merlin or Wildcat gives them some punch as does the 5" and they will have Sea Ceptor. BUT they will be in service far faster then current plans, and if the final design is adaptable and has room will be effective through out their careers. Please now turn to Psalm 132.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by RetroSicotte »

AndyC wrote:Surely an enemy submarine would have used its anti-shipping missiles or long-range torpedoes long before it got in range of a Stingray launched from a frigate?

I would have thought a Merlin or Wildcat armed with a Stingray would be far more effective.
If that were the case then every single serious navy in the world except the UK wouldn't still be actively developing, integrating, fielding and training with them on top of ASROC like weapons and helos on the same ships. They cover an important niche.

The UK lacking them is not "a different doctrine", it's not "changing times and means."

It's "Lets get rid of these things to spend less because they have a helicopter so we can still say in press releases that they can do ASW."

Checkbox military struck again on the Type 45 to lack them.

It thus far has struck again on the Type 26.

It almost assuredly do so on the Type 31.

So yes, thats why they would need them. Because literally every other big navy in the world cannot all be wrong.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Quoting in pretty much reversed order, hey-ho, that should not matter:
LordJim wrote:stopping the in year focus of the Treasury/Inquisition. May be we should adopt the system where to order and fund smaller number of kit but on a yearly basis like the US and Japan do rather than placing large orders once and a blue moon. This also allows the vanilla baseline to be adapted over time.
- the US and Japan know where they stand in this world; we have a problem
- the messages we are sending are not consistent (over time, and with changes in Gvmnt); they are not even signing (as in Downs syndrome) but rather at the level of tokening
- continuity/ ten-year plans... whats that... to upgrade according to refreshed threat assessments; it has all been said (FFBNW) but is it for real?
LordJim wrote:arguing against out policy of building high end vessels bespoke for the Royal Navy in ever shrinking numbers.
- there is a rationale for that; but then again the prgrm costs tend to make up a third of more of the unit costs... build twice the number and get 15% off? If you only knew, clearly, what will be required
LordJim wrote:the term "Vanilla" for platforms in their basic configuration. It allows them to get new ships, planes and vehicles into service, and then have a development cure that is flexible to incorporate newer and/or additional capabilities. This should be something we should uses as if it were the law especially as we purchases much smaller amounts of any one platform.
- yep. but again, more applicable when the numbers required allow you to keep the "line" running and apply what most industries do these days: Constant Improvement!
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)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by LordJim »

It is the fact that we have PROBLEMS with out Governments ideal on defence that leads me to my glass half full approach to ideas floated on this site. Having worked in house for over a decade I have seen good ideas die a still birth, and up and running programmes that actually were making headway grind to a halt and then quietly moved to long term storage but importantly NOT cancelled. The body bags from the last two wars failed to impact on their thinking and the next war will be over before they can clean themselves up after s#####g themselves.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by bobp »

With defence spending cut to the bone to pay for the four Dreadnought class subs, military pensions, and intelligence it is hardly likely we will ever see an improvement in the current situation. The fact that we shall have a Navy with no ASW missiles is rather frightening to say the least. They will be telling us there are no shells for the guns next. Meanwhile there is no money to fix broken toilets, or provide decent housing for the few left serving members speaks volumes.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

bobp wrote: telling us there are no shells for the guns next
How come you jumped to the Chally2s gun? :lol:
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)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by bobp »

And that is also the truth sadly.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by LordJim »

We are going to end up with soldiers shouting "Bang" whist on exercise and fighter pilots running around arms outstretched making jet engine noises whist AWACS crew call instructions from deck chairs. As for the navy, well they will commandeer the local authority boating lakes for fleet manoeuvres.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by bobp »

Not forgetting the rubber ducks in the bath :lol:

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

bobp wrote:With defence spending cut to the bone to pay for the four Dreadnought class subs, military pensions, and intelligence it is hardly likely we will ever see an improvement in the current situation. The fact that we shall have a Navy with no ASW missiles is rather frightening to say the least. They will be telling us there are no shells for the guns next. Meanwhile there is no money to fix broken toilets, or provide decent housing for the few left serving members speaks volumes.
But are things really as bad as this?

The MoD's defence equipment plan 2015 reveals that the Royal Navy has £7 billion uncommitted in its equipment procurement budget for surface ships to spend before 2025. Now we all know there's a bit of an issue about the cost of the Type 26 but at best we'll only have two of them in service by then so just where is the money going?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AndyC wrote:the Royal Navy has £7 billion uncommitted in its equipment procurement budget for surface ships to spend before 2025. Now we all know there's a bit of an issue about the cost of the Type 26 but at best we'll only have two of them in service by then so just where is the money going?

A good question! at the normal 1 bn each, that leaves 5 bn.
- so, of the budget left we will get 15?
- if that is not for proc , but includes support and induction, make it 7 then?
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)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Harpoon? I think we just received from the Navy some deliberated Harpoon news... lets go and buy something else?
The problem with the replacement of Harpoon 1C missiles reflects the politics of the situation rather than the lack of money and I think is far too typical of why things just don't get done.

The Navy wants LRASM - I remember reading that in a speech delivered by the previous First Sea Lord about 18 months ago.

The RAF persuaded the MoD to buy Poseidon on the basis that costs would be kept to a minimum by buying it "off the shelf". Now it should be more cost effective to integrate Sting Ray torpedoes rather than buying and maintaining a separate stock of Mk 54 torpedoes but that doesn't apply to the aircraft's anti-shipping missiles, so logically that means buying Harpoon II.

The MoD itself has four reasons for not wanting LRASM:

1. the complex weapons industrial strategy/partnership is a rare example of something going right. Missiles are developed broadly on time and broadly within budget and are at the cutting edge globally. Buying LRASM might well undermine SPEAR 5 (the Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon) as they are very much direct competitors;

2. the FCASW is also a joint development with France only agreed in 2015. In a post-Brexit/Trump world do we really want to annoy the French?;

3. even if the Royal Navy were allowed to buy LRASM the RAF is most likely to have Harpoon II which means two stocks of relatively small numbers of missiles to maintain at additional cost and;

4. even if LRASM were bought for the Type 26 what about the remaining Type 23? The last will be in service right up to 2035 and don't have the space for strike length VLS launchers so could potentially be carrying around empty Harpoon missile launchers for seventeen years!

So, now we've got the Navy leaking and embarrassing the Government. To my mind that probably means they're losing the argument for LRASM and the MoD is glacially moving to a decision to buy Harpoon II.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

RetroSicotte wrote:So yes, thats why they would need them. Because literally every other big navy in the world cannot all be wrong.
And yet the Russian submarine launched Club-S anti-shipping missile has a range of 220 kilometres and Type 53-65 torpedo has a range of 22 kilometres. In contrast Sting Ray launched from a frigate has a range of only 8 kilometres. Why on earth would a Russian or Chinese submarine get that close these days? Perhaps naval doctrine is just stuck in the past!

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by bobp »

I got the impression that the Harpoon II is only just entering US service, and that the Harpoon II+ ER is a couple of years away from production. Could it be the Navy are playing wait and see. Also I believe its possible to re-manufacture existing Harpoon I into Harpoon II at a reduced cost.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by RetroSicotte »

AndyC wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:So yes, thats why they would need them. Because literally every other big navy in the world cannot all be wrong.
And yet the Russian submarine launched Club-S anti-shipping missile has a range of 220 kilometres and Type 53-65 torpedo has a range of 22 kilometres. In contrast Sting Ray launched from a frigate has a range of only 8 kilometres. Why on earth would a Russian or Chinese submarine get that close these days? Perhaps naval doctrine is just stuck in the past!
Because real world conflicts don't always happen at statistically perfect numbers and submarines have a long history of lurking close by, as well as there being more than just one type of "best" submarine out there and that these ships often are aiming to close distance to hunt them.

And again, if literally every other major navy in the world are agreeing that they are essential tools, then we cannot dig our heads in the sand and ignore our own issues just because British are magically better at everything somehow. It's just as hurtful an outcome as the government hopes for when they cut things like Harpoon to say "But we still have Sea Venom so it's all right cos we have ASMs!?!!?!"

Post Reply