Cost of FFBNW?

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by Spinflight »

Also don't forget about the most important cost, the political one.

If the treasury has funded a shore based abm system then a navy would have great difficulty in getting money for sm6. Also a British ship might have difficulty getting funding for lots of mk41s as it is foreign kit.

Take the River batch 2. It has a combat system, lots of excess top weight and power, plenty of space and.. A single 30mm.

It can't possibly be mistaken for a frigate, which is politically advantageous when you are looking for your treasury to fork out for proper frigates.

Also the removal from service of harpoon. Clearly the RN will need a heavyweight SSuM and increasingly the modern ones include a potent precision strike ability. Which the treasury is unlikely to fund when the raf has lots of already bought storm shadows. Once tornado goes oos of course things change a bit.. Being able to offer persistent precision strike rather than having to rebase lots of tiffies with the resultant 5* hotel costs..

Also the threat cost. Upgrading say your tubs aaw ability might merely see a potential enemy investing in a more potent ASuM. There can be a second mover advantage here in areas where technology is advancing rapidly.

Also don't assume that fitting something with is necessarily a solution. Many weapons systems turn out to be crap in actual usage and with the Falklands conflict now many moons ago there is simply a lack of hard data for ship and weapons system designers to go on. There hasn't been a proper naval battle in so long that the architects are guessing. It's much easier to design and fit something to fit than having to rip an existing system out first.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

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

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Spinflight wrote:There can be a second mover advantage here in areas where technology is advancing rapidly.
Great posts, both of the above. Wanted to pick this one thing up, particularly, because it is often forgotten about
- you need some "bleeding edge" as a nation, to stay in the race
- but that risk needs to be balanced by being a second mover, at times (one form of it being: buy off the military shelf, even though if you do much of that the macroeconomics stop to work as the shelf is most often overseas)
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)

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by Pongoglo »

S M H wrote:The navy have done this before patrol boats Leeds Castle fitted for but not equipped. I saw her during construction she was wired for 76 mm gun and the support system. I saw her at Invergordon along side when new they had fitted her with 40 mm gun. When she was sold to Bangladesh she was equipped with 76mm that she was designed for. The problem comes when the treasury mandarins' say *the ship works with what its fitted with. So if you want to fit it with what it was designed for you must pay for it by departmental savings or use equipment from ships in refit. Because there political masters will not fund the commitments they require to be done.
BNS have done a good job with the Castle Class (well actually the work was done on the Tyne by A & P at their Hebburn yard..) and would actually give us some good tips if we ever got round to up gunning the Batch 2 Rivers. 76 mm main gun, 2 x 20mm, and 8 x Chinese SSM of a similar size to NSM, and all whilst leaving the flight deck un-touched. At 1,427 tonnes they are smaller too and in UK service proved they could handle ATP(S) no prob at all.....
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Sir Humphrey, whose writings I have always enjoyed and appreciated, has written an exceptional (apologist) article about why "no Harpoon" when in fact the piece is a defence for "why no ASuW missile at all".

"
It is also worth remembering that the UK concept of operations as laid out in defence reviews going back 20 years is simple – we are not going to fight alone or in isolation now." OK, but I think that is more of a "macro" argument
- all RN ships, now, are not allowed to go out at night, unaccompanied, if serious trouble is brewing?

"in the short term the least palatable – take the Harpoon out of service as planned, but gap the capability. However, note there are quite a lot of very capable ‘dual role’ missiles which can attack both maritime and land targets due to enter service in the medium term (particularly in the US). A buy of this sort of dual role capability would not only enhanced the RN anti-ship capability, but more importantly provide a credible land attack capability that could complement/replace the TLAM in due course."
- so, we need Don Xuijote to attack the windmills first, before we (Sancho Pancha) are ready to choose our weapons... like one from next door Norway, for instance, that could go on big ships (VLS), smaller economy-model frigates - the flavour of the day - in their canister-launched version, on P-8s (I am sure the Norgies will do that on theirs)... even put a shore battery onto Falklands, so that an OPV with a pop-gun can concentrate on doing civil service (medevac and counting the fish :) )

Then comes the moral story:
"an era when the philosophy seems to be ‘minimal casualties’ Ministers approving the launch of an SSGM to sink a ship and possibly kill 300-400 people in one incident. Note Humphrey specifically says ‘Ministers’ – that is intentional too. It is often forgotten that neither the CO of CONQUEROR or Admiral Woodward had approval under their Rules of Engagement to attack the Belgrano – it had to be escalated to the War Cabinet and ultimately the Prime Minister to approve. "
- we continued in the same tradition on land, and let a rag-tag (remotely controlled) militia wrestle the control from British forces in Basra
- is it totally inconceivable that if you take the - serious - decision to go to war, then you will have to hurt somebody; and hurt them bad - and quickly - so that the thing comes to an end quickly, and casualties in total, and on both sides, do not just keep mounting. Not forgetting of achieving the result that you had in mind, when making the decision to go to war in the first place. Let's forget about tactics: how to apply force and material to win a battle. Let's think about strategy: which battles, when and where do "I" need to go to, in order to win the war
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)

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Ron5 wrote:I'm pretty sure the Danes don't use their modular fits very much if at all. Considered to have been a waste of money.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:They (the modules) weren't swapped around that much
I'm curious.....where are you getting this from....what exactly are your sources for these claims ?

Its a claim often made by Americans or Brits, but very conveniently ,never actually from someone with first hand experience or knowledge of the matter .

As a naval engineer in the Royal Danish Navy i can tell you that both of your statements are factually wrong. While standard flex was never used exactly like it was originally intended as part of the quick role change concept( which was quickly discarded), modules are however swapped , perhaps not on a daily basis, but still fairly frequently. It is typically done as part of maintenance procedures or when preparing vessels for deployments, exercises or international missions.

The Absalons and Huitfeldts for instance, will often have a fit-out tailored to the task at hand and can often be seen carrying differing amounts of missiles/containers or fitted with a ELINT or cargo module in place of a missile container.

In short , its been such a spectacular waste of money that its been incorporated into every single vessel >100 tonnes built for the RDN since 1989 !.....and its going to be part of the design of the next ships we build as well. The Standard Flex concept is also about much more than just the modules, but that is a different story.
Time has run past it as the multi-role Flyvefisken class (different batches) are being withdrawn.
4 SF 300 class boats ( Flyvefisken) have been sold to Lithuania and is still in commission.
4 other SF300s serve in the Portuguese Navy . Of the remaining 6 vessels of the class(which was decommissioned in 2010) , one was converted and now serves as a diving tender, and the last 5 are now being evaluated for possible reactivation to bolster fleet numbers.

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

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:They (the modules) weren't swapped around that much, and the direct descendant (as in LCS and its modules) is also having make-overs in yards rather than in the intended roll-on/roll-off way.
Would be great to see 5 of them back; nifty little boats... that pack a punch.

I extended the quote in length to make it clear that om my part I was referring to role changes, not that there hadn't been use of the modules.
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)

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by Spinflight »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:As a naval engineer in the Royal Danish Navy i can tell you that both of your statements are factually wrong. While standard flex was never used exactly like it was originally intended as part of the quick role change concept( which was quickly discarded), modules are however swapped , perhaps not on a daily basis, but still fairly frequently. It is typically done as part of maintenance procedures or when preparing vessels for deployments, exercises or international missions.
Thank you for clearing that up MKP. One wonders where these internet rumours originate. Still seems to be a myth that the supposed grown ups, who should know better, also buy into.

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

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Spinflight wrote:One wonders where these internet rumours originate
Here? :)

What is repeated enough times becomes a "truth".
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)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Cost of FFBNW?

Post by abc123 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Then comes the moral story:
"an era when the philosophy seems to be ‘minimal casualties’ Ministers approving the launch of an SSGM to sink a ship and possibly kill 300-400 people in one incident. Note Humphrey specifically says ‘Ministers’ – that is intentional too. It is often forgotten that neither the CO of CONQUEROR or Admiral Woodward had approval under their Rules of Engagement to attack the Belgrano – it had to be escalated to the War Cabinet and ultimately the Prime Minister to approve. "
- we continued in the same tradition on land, and let a rag-tag (remotely controlled) militia wrestle the control from British forces in Basra
- is it totally inconceivable that if you take the - serious - decision to go to war, then you will have to hurt somebody; and hurt them bad - and quickly - so that the thing comes to an end quickly, and casualties in total, and on both sides, do not just keep mounting. Not forgetting of achieving the result that you had in mind, when making the decision to go to war in the first place. Let's forget about tactics: how to apply force and material to win a battle. Let's think about strategy: which battles, when and where do "I" need to go to, in order to win the war
Yeah, a loss of British "wille zur macht" is too obvious to all of us... :(
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Post Reply