FlubbaThe C1-3 idea is an extension as far as i am aware before that there were different programs, the best place to check would be Mr Beedalls Navy Matters. Basically what they want is one thing what the Government wants is no doubt slightly different. The Navy needs hulls in my opinion and they need to be flexible especially the C2-3 which have broad mission criteria whereas the C1 has a specified primary role of ASW.
Yes this may be years away but defence projects move at a snails pace the need for the design to be finalised is still a few years off and the start of building further off, yes there will be new technology but it depends if we can afford it. The problem also with waiting for new tech that is just on the Horizon is that you need to jump in at some point.
FlubbaAt the beginning the requirements are good and reasonable but the problem is things get added in or modified and then when things go bad and cost goes up they change the spec again by removing things again causing costs to rocket. The problems are mainly management and politically based but also the inefficient UK industry. Many programs are also designed to simply provide something that is ‘ours’ such as the SA80 which even although the L85A1 was designed and built in the UK it was ****e, we needed the Germans to fix it at great cost resulting in the A2 why didn’t we just buy a rifle already out there and specify that it had to be made in the UK?
You are correct the UK likes to put out specifications that do not exist anywhere else and this is simply due to the politicians most of the time rather than the actual customer. People like the RAF would have i guess been fine with some off the shelf F-15’s and F-16’s we would also have gotten them sooner and cheaper. The chally 2 is slightly different, we already had chally 1 developed for a foreign customer Iran so we further improved it to the chally 2, Abrams would have been ok but uses huge amounts of fuel.
FlubbaI personally think the UK should maintain an expeditionary capability but not a massive one and i feel it should be mainly naval based e.g. Carriers and Amphibs as this is the most flexible way to do it. Although maybe the most expensive vs having expeditionary air groups etc.
The main reason we have punched above our weight is simply due to our past the UK once had an empire and has a long history of involvement overseas for good and ill. There are also thousands of British people living all over the world in all corners of it so at the base level we have interests everywhere, i alone have family in many countries and they are still British citizens. Also we may spend quite a bit on defence when viewed in Dollar values but that is thanks to the relative value of the pound and we like to buy expensive UK equipment in pounds. Furthermore we now spend and are due to spend more money paying interest on debt than on defence of the nation, compared to the NHS and Social Protection the money spent on defence is pretty small.
“accept only the best kit and nothing less”.
There is no such ideal in the MoD or anywhere really we usually end up getting some of the worst equipment that is ever drempt up and the people in power call it the best or ‘world beating’. The desire to buy equipment in the UK is more of a ploy to keep the workers voting for the party in power at that time although the tories are less prone to this and like to please the US. I would prefer to buy off the shelf and have it built here, license built with a ToT slant on it, but that means no expensive UK R&D to reinvent the wheel.
FlubbaI can see your point but what i am saying is that the people who make the decisions will ask the Question why do we need this ship (C1) when we can have this (C2) that looks the same and has identical equipment albeit missing things, but costs less? It might happen and i don’t have much faith in the process if im truly honest so i think there is a higher chance that it will happen.
The way i would like to see things pan out is for the C1 being a Type 45 destroyer hull but fitted with the equipment from the 8 updated Duke class that would be the easy low risk thing to do. I would also say it has a decent chance of happening vs a whole new hull design, the superstructure on the Type 45 is ok and would need little modification. The reason i say this is bacause the C1 is meant to be a specialist ship designed to fight subs so must have some features that cost money e.g. silenced equipment and the T45 already has some of these features built in. It also is meant to be a hot war ship designed with all the expensive military features built in. The C2 is meant to be a cheap jack of all trades and i think a common C1 and C2 hull would be a compromise and would work out pushing up the cost.
Thats just my take on it, we all have our own opinions and i know my own is a bit barmy.
FlubbaOne point i would like to chuck in there, there is no public appetite for defence or spending on defence so things will be bad maybe to the state that we cannot do expeditionary operations. I think the problem is that there is not really much real cash for defence projects due to the size of the swollen public sector most of the taxes have to be spend on feeding the monster. If the conservatives manage to get elected and slay the monster and the next people in after them don’t make the same mistakes as Labour then things might be a bit rosier
FlubbaAhh! Thanks Swerve, i should have went and checked before posting.
FlubbaThe French Mistral class were built to replace the Foudre class which were LPD’s with a decent aviation capability and thats what the first 2 Mistral class were for. The third however is was ordered as part of a stimulus package to keep the shipyards in work bacause the PA2 was pushed back and provide additional capability.
The French need to built another carrier and they need to have 2 of them to be a remotely credible carrier capable naval force, without the carriers the french navy would almost be in the same group as Spain and Italy. Furthermore the French still like to have a say on the world stage whereas Spain and Italy are much quieter so downgrading into the same group might not sit well with some French. Basically if you want to have carriers and use them you need at least 2 of them to allow you to maintain qualified pilots as well as deploy the carriers.
The whole idea of the RN amphib forces came out of the lessons learned from the Falklands it’s basically suitable for similar operations, anything bigger would be pretty tough. Although even in a daft Falklands 2.0 scenario we would fail as we don’t and might not have any decent carrier air power and enough escorts to pull something off. Also we still have HMS Ocean so the CVF will only be used a couple of times to cover for Ocean being elsewhere. Furthermore Argus needs replaced soon and Ocean will in a few years as well, so if someone in power has brains we should get 2 Mistral type vessels. It may be dead for now but it will no doubt come back to life in the next few years.
FlubbaErm! i would love to keep them but remind me who is in power and what they have been doing since they have been in power. The only reason they would keep building them is to keep people voting red simple.
FlubbaLord Jim, You do have a very good point but if the hulls were common i think there would be trouble with getting adequate numbers of C1 when you could get a C2 cheaper. I’m in with the crowd that want to use a modded Type 45 hull for C1 and i think others know my other choices for C2 and C3.
Stevo, I see what your getting at but i don’t like state owned enterprises that much if im honest. Although i do think something along the lines of what you are saying would be a good idea although i would have it in a status like Network Rail, Government owned but run like a private company with full autonomy in most areas. I know the EU would not allow such a thing to exist and i think some international bodies would have a problem with it so it might alienate the country a tad.
Stan, i agree with the point that Type 23’s should have continued witha few more hulls built. I would add that T45 program should have been brought forward and the full 12 built and then once the T45 is done CVF should use the capacity until we have frigate designs ready to go. There is a spanner i must add though, if we continued the Type 23 line where would the capacity have came from for the Bay class, Albion class and Wave class. It is simple to suggest that the shipyards production capacity could have been kept higher but that might not have worked as there is no will to spend money on the armed forces. Ideally i think we need a proper long term build strategy that is agreed across the parliament and with clauses that would cause pain to those trying to cut numbers and capability. Kev is right numbers would be cut no matter what although the older frigates could be sold as new frigates are finished although this would be a bit daft cost wise.
AE90, The papers and the armed forces always have problems with cuts but the problem is the people that vote do not have a problem with military cuts. Let’s face it the people of this nation no longer give a damn about the armed forces if you get them to list what they care about the services won’t make the list, granted it might be slightly different atm because of the stories they hear about the current wars. In general however they just simply are not interested and the same goes with the politicians, there was a video i watched recently and it was the BBC (i think) asking people to place tags into sections on a board about what should be cut and what should not be cut. Care to guess where the Armed Forces ended up 99% of the time and where the NHS ended up 99% of the time.
We have to just face it for 99% of the people the NHS and Social Protection are sacred cows that must never be ‘cut’ no matter how little use they do and how much of a failure they are.
Anyhow on the subject of UAV’s, I think they would be very handy but they are very limited to watch or kill. If they can be easily carried without taking up space that could be used for something else then so fair enough, i would still rather a Lynx was carried for any vessel that is large enough to support it. Im talking about the C3 here btw, UAV’s and a Lynx = Good, UAV’s No lynx =Bad, Lynx No UAV’s = Ok. That’s just my opinion on it, manned aircraft are much more flexible so i would rather have that than something less flexible.
FlubbaPeople we also have to remember that the Wasp/America class are assault ships not carriers, they are designed for carrying large numbers of people. Therefore have huge hospital facilities for all those people as well as bunk space etc. The CVF is not even close to being similar even to the America class, the America class is designed to carry and deploy people via helicopter not provide fast air which is what the CVF is primarlily designed to do.
The CVF is designed as a carrier although it is being forced to do some roles it is not suited for as a flawed plan to try and save money, the design is that of a carrier if it had catapults i don’t think we would be discussing this. There is some thought given to additional roles but as long as it did not impair in anyway it’s primary role as a carrier. I would say that it is 90% a carrier and 10% an assault ship. The ship is simply not designed to carry large numbers of troops and their equipment, it can carry the aviation element eg. helicopters to provide lift for troops on other ships.
FlubbaYou don’t have to defend anything but you did say
If its personnel only, yes. But what if they have a lot of gear, or a small boat? What can you undersling on a SH/UH60? And how’s the detectability of the LCS relative to a low (or not so low) flying helicopter (think all aspects > sound, radar, visually etc)
So i was only replying to that which you im pretty sure said from your own thoughts, i’m aware that you did quote and article that gave what that author thinks is a justification of the high speed requirment of the LCS. I personally think the LCS need for speed is bonkers and unjustified as i hope i have portrayed.
Sorry if i have mislead you or gotten the wrong end of a stick.
FlubbaI don’t think they will be people that will be forced to work although they may be a little reluctant, there should be enough willing people though and if they are grumpy sod’s give them the boot to somewhere else.
The MCM kit will most likely be the stuff taken from current Hunt and Sandown class vessels and placed into containers most of which should be pretty straight forward. Most of the UUV’s used against mines, things like seafox are pretty small and i think will be carried across. You are right though the mine warfare kit might need to be replaced but there is plenty of off the shelf equipment available to buy and use most of which is modular. The Survey kit im pretty sure will just use the minehunting kit, an example of which is the Hugin ROV which is used for survey and minehunting work. Some of the more advanced survey work may be a problem and could incur cost although the way round this is more off the shelf commercial equipment.
I can only guess what else the C3 might be asked to do but minehunting and survey are the main one’s that would need specialist equipment. Things like maritime security etc need RHIB’s and helicopters both of which should be standard capabilities. Maybe working with other nations would help lower the costs further for modules, many other nations are doing similar things. If the LCS modules mature enough then they would be an option although more expensive and complex that what might be needed. I am being pretty simple about this and using some common sense and thinking about how to do it on the cheap something i know the MoD etc are not great at.
FlubbaKev there are plenty of bright people that have applied for the Armed Forces but cannot be taken on due to a lack of money. I know for a fact that there are hundreds of people that joined the RAF and have done basic training but cannot do trade training because of lack of funds the waiting time is currently around 4 months, so what happens is most people get pissed off and leave. There are around 500-600 such people waiting about and that number is to grow due to training funds being reallocated. Many of these people are bright young people that want to do a good job and are very capable of doing it.
It’s maybe not an escort but it’s close to what a 1980’s escort was, C3 is looking like a Type 21 frigate in some respects. I can see that the RN want to downplay them mainly as they need them to be bought in numbers to cover taskings all over the place and i think will be in demand if they are cheap to run and capable enough assets for the majority of taskings. Your hull numbers are very much on the realistic side and what the RN could get by with, while still looking like a force with teeth.
In regards to the C3 i also think they will be far to few in numbers for what they may be tasked with, for example the VT C3 proposal could do most taskings and i think something like that would be in high demand and would be cheaper to send somewhere than a frigate. I don’t think the C3 should be more than £100-120mil if they are BAE are taking us for a ride, the 3 vessels for oman are costing £400mil for the lot. So if we remove the nice combat system, the Smart-S radar as well as other bits and bobs and then build them in a decent number costs should be within £120mil. The VT C3 idea uses a proven hull that costs £120 mil with a decent equipment fit and that’s for 3 of them. Hopefully if we order say 12-18 costs should be lower and if we start nicking kit from older ships such as guns and radar things should be cheaper still.
FlubbaKev I said escorts so they don’t have to be huge big monsters with hundreds of Crew, i was thinking along the lines of the C3 (Global Corvette) idea being the bulk of the numbers with around 100 crew each. Around 12 each of T45, C1 and C2 that’s 36 hulls add to that around the same number in C3’s and im already above the 60 odd hulls. Manpower would be a problem but the RN could always hire more people, last time i checked there were more people applying for the Armed Forces than could be trained and unemployment is still very high so there will be plenty of people. As a side note i would rather employ a few thousand more matelots than keep them on the dole.
I know the Ruskies have gone away but these days numbers are ideal to keep an eye on places all over the world. The Ruskies will be coming back in the long term and more and more of our energy will come from overseas so protecting SLOC’s seem worth it to me. Also with the current and past government’s commiting RN assets to things all over the place the additional numbers would find a use somewhere on new drempt up taskings or could be used to help lower the deployment tempo. I don’t think im that barking but feel free to tell me if i am.
Stevo, are you thinking of something along the lines of a massive PFI setting up shipping company under the guise of military needs. Something like how the Point class RO-RO ships were procured? I suppose it could work clever thinking although i don’t think people elsewhere would be too chuffed and i wouldn’t be suprised if there was some Euro BS in the way.
Stan, Damn your faster on the keyboard:) Well as you can see from the start of this comment that’s what i think would be nice. Your numbers are more realistic i grant you although i would like more C3’s so i could have them all over the place watching for trouble. I can easily think of ways to use them, from pirate bonking to training with developing nations and general gunboat diplomacy. I would like 28-30 odd C3’s but that is a bit bonkers:D
Money side of things Hmmm!, T45 around £600mil, C1 around £400mil, C2 around £250-300 and C3 around £100-120mil. So roughly £10 billion, not that much when you think it would be over quite a few years and how much of it would be spent in the UK on something worth buying. Of course people will have problems with my out of thin air cost estimates but hey im no genius, shows though it aint all bonkers.
EDIT: Oh! and who wouldn’t love that well looks like quite a few people remember were not an island that depends on SLOC’s for trade, well that’s what most people seem to think. The Tories are more an Army orientated bunch and Labour don’t give a f**k about any of the services and would never do it, even although they could buy thousands of working class votes from yard workers, you know the people they used to represent in part. I’ve no idea about the Lib Dems but hey last time they were in power was a long time ago.
FlubbaThe end effectors would be a combo of RHIB’s that can do over 40knots or even faster helicopters so you really don’t need the LCS to do anywhere near those speeds. Wanshan what gear would you like to take? an SH-60 can sling load over 3,000kg but you either board a suspect vessel or sink it if it does not comply. Most littoral work is Visit Board Search and Seizure (VBSS) which can be done by RHIB’s or helicopters so doesn’t need a 3000ton speed boat burning huge amounts of fuel.
In regards to detectability well the LCS has one hell of a noise signature when moving at speed, 2 MT-30 turbines running at high power not to mention the water being moved. Ok a helo aint that quiet but it’s much faster. Radar, Well it depends most people have surface search radars rather than air search radars and the LCS aint that stealthy especially when moving at speed. So just down to the plain fact that not many people your gonna board have air search radars i would say the helo is less detectable. Visual detectablity is one i don’t really have a clue, depends on weather conditions and many other things.
Sign In
