PhelganSeems that despite some differences there is a remarkable amount of consensus on this one:) I think the previous S2C2 program was a better approach but FSC seems to be a result of struggling with the costs of the sort of vessels originally emerging from that project. As others are saying, the main difficulty is figuring out what C1 and C2 are. The high/low end force structure is valid, makes sense and IMO is the correct path, but it looks like the RN want high high end (T45), low high end (C1, T23 new generation?), high low end (C2, C1 lite or enhanced C3?) and low low end (C3). Four classes, if we take C3 out of the mix and say that is a program to develop a single class to replace the RN collection of OPV, survey, MCMV types with a slightly more war capable design it still leaves three tiers of surface combatant, the AAW optimised T45 (which has ASuW potential later if the RN can pay for it), C1 which appears to be planned ASW optimised and C2 which is meant to be cheap but will it be a cheaper down spec T45, C1, a whole new design, an upgraded C3? A whole new design would probably negate any supposed cost savings, a spartan version of T45 or C1 would still be expensive and a souped up C3 wouldn’t be much of a replacement for Batch 3 T22 and T23 frigates. Far better IMO to have two types (which could include sub groups, ie. T45 without PAAMS but enhanced ASuW and ASW systems) and the idea of common machinery is definitely worth pursuing. If the RN ends up with T45, a FREMM type C1 and some as yet hard to define C2 frigate/corvette I can see them paying just as much money for less capability than just pursuing two well defined and capable designs. The real warship requirements it seems to be if we accept that Policing type duties will be carried out by C3 are AAW, ASuW and ASW, T45 offers state of the art AAW and has room for good ASuW capabilities, and the T23 remains a superb ASW platform with C1 logically being a follow on type ship IMO. I’m with those who see no hurry to replace T23 as it remains an excellent type and a first class ASW vessel, OK it doesn’t have that “new car” smell when other navies are getting new builds but it’s a good’un, but given lead times, the age of the first boats of the class and financial planning requirements the RN do need to be thinking of what will replace them and start moving the folow on design forward.
Some speculation and musings based on the discussion we’ve had-if the RN did buy a DDH for C1 (either the UVX concept or a much enlarged hangar/helideck on a more conventional design)
I think the stretched T45 design would be more beneficial, and have all the warfighting ships on the T45 design. Building another 10 hulls on top of those planned (i.e. +2 AAW and +8 other) would put the building ASW ships in the mid/late 2010’s, hopefully about right for T23 replacement.
would there be a good argument for the companion C2 design to lose helicopter facilities beyond a spot for personnel/stores transfers and emergency landing? That’d free up a lot of space or allow designers to shrink the vessel and cut costs significantly. If the type was going to work with DDH and CVF groups there’d be plenty of other hangar and basing facilities for choppers.
No 🙂
The ability to embark and operate a helicopter offers a lot of flexibility. If you leave it off, then you are restricting the C2’s use outside the CVF/DDH group. I think the C2 and C3 should be common hull if possible, with the basic capability of carrying at least one helo
PhelganHow can not supporting the Iraq war be seen as supporting defence cuts?
The quote was
The Government
should not be cutting the size
of the armed forces while at the
same time asking them to take
on ever more difficult tasks
Fair enough, but that does not rule out they do not consider cuts to be acceptable when not taking on these commitments, which, in at least that case they have been clear they would not have. I am not saying they would automatically cut the armed forces, but their own policies suggest a reduced role, which would make cuts all too tempting, especially at the high end.
As for criticising every procurement, where is the evidence? There is criticism of bad procurement which is something the previous Tory government and todays Labour government have been guilty of, how can that be seen as bad?
Two issues here – criticising bad procurement and criticising the system procured. I have no problem with criticising the criminal waste and negligance that goes on in procurement. I just wish all the shouting (you, me, opposition parties, etc.) had more effect, but it still happens. I just cannot wait for the first cost overruns on the CVF programme to be made public 😡
I’m proud of my party membership and it makes me angry when people throw cheap shots without doing any kind of research beyond what the Torygraph says!
Good, stand by what you believe in, but perhaps it indicates that your party is not doing its PR particularly well.
What do most people know about Lib-Dem policies? – pro-Europe (at least more so than the other two)? tax rises (since replaced by magic savings ala the other two?) to fund social services; an inability to stop backstabbing their leader – as if the Tory party hadn’t shown how that doesn’t work.
Wouldn’t knwo about the Torygraph as a research source – gave up on most printed media a long time ago (at least for non-sport items).
PhelganI can’t find any policy statement from the party saying its going to destroy our armed forces but I can find plenty of official statements criticising defence cuts!
This is an exert from the official Liberal Democrat manifesto on defence for the 2005 election:
Britain’s armed forces protect the
country and are a force for good
in the world. But with increasing
overseas commitments, they are
overstretched. The Government
should not be cutting the size
of the armed forces while at the
same time asking them to take
on ever more difficult tasks.I would think that most people here would agree with that sentiment and I don’t see how it fits in with the idea of the Lib Dems being a disaster for defence!
Are these commitments which the Lib-Dems would have made? Certainly not on Iraq, which then of course means it could be read that cuts are then okay.
The problem with the Lib-Dems is that, aside from criticising every procurement, what do they actually propose to do? The only recent comments I can recall are vague assertions about supporting UN Peace-keeping operations. If that is what the armed forces are going to shaped for, then to most that will be cuts, in equipment at least.
PhelganI have to admit that once or twice the politician thought did cross my mind too but I don’t think Lawrence is at all. You need to ask the right questions and you will soon see what angle he is coming from, Lawrence jump in if I am getting above myself.
As I understand it what he is saying is simple, logical and fair. If we as a nation intend to remain a major world player we must accept that the armed forces need to be funded adequately which at present (IMO) they are not. We cannot maintain a world class military capability on a shoestring. If we insist on shoestring budgets for the armed forces we cannot be a major world player and need to withdraw from the world stage.
So we need to make a decision one way or the other, we cannot remain in limbo. However making blanket statements like ‘we need to spend 3%GDP on defence’ is not going to address the problem either, not accurately at any rate. Accepted, after a decision is made and requirements correctly identified then the 3%GDP figure might be accurate afterall but how do you know what the percentage of GDP will be until you have identified the requirements? If the decision is made to withdraw from the world stage you might find that we require even less than we are spending right now.
However whilst we remain in limbo not daring to jump one way or the other we do not know what the future requirements will be and therefore cannot speculate how much cash we will need to fund it.
Simple really.
I’m not actually disagreeing with some of his sentiments, but it just echoed too much of what you might here both from politicians and pub-chair know-it-alls. Maybe the RAF wouldn’t need those few Typhoons, but what about the next few that inevitable follow?
As to a blanket x% defence spending, I agree this is ludicrous. It is clear that for what the current government want, they are not spending enough and that needs to be addressed. It also appears that more can be done on the “home front”, in terms of counter-terrorism, “hearts and minds” and the care of armed forces personnel (the NHS was purportedly for all), so a rise in current spending seems to be called for, unless….
as suggested we review the whole set-up, right from the heart of what we want to do and be. Do we accept that we do not want to play a role abroad, whether Iraq/Afghanstan type operations, Falklands, Sierra Leone, etc.? – not going to happen is it (the review I mean)?
PhelganOn C1 there are a lot of options and I’m not too worried about that being an effective ship. Like I say, I think continuing the T45 program would be very sensible and save a lot of money on the design and preparation of a new design, it’s a ship BAE and VT have shown themselves capable of building to a high standard and with each subsequent unit costs should come down and generally quality should go up as more and more little niggles are worked out of the design. In some ways it wouldn’t need any changes at all, fit the extra VLS cells for TLAM and the anti-shipping missile cells which are already “fitted for but not with” on the existing T45 design and the RN would have an extremely capable AAW and ASuW type. Although I’d fit NSM rather than Harpoon. The two changes I would make if possible would be to fast track the 155mm gun (and retrofit the first two batches of T45’s) and explore the possibility of fitting a 57mm BAE/Bofors on each beam in place of the CIWS Phalanx and light cannon planned, I’m not sure if that’d be possible but it would offer a much heavier gun still capable of CIWS and also much more capable for fending off light surface threats etc. If the RN could build six more T45’s improved with these enhancements it’d give them a hell of a surface combatant force IMO. That however would still be expensive even after leveraging R&D, manufacturing costs etc. already paid for, so C2 would have to be a much more austere vessel. And this is my worry, I think C1 and C3 will work out fine somehow or other, but I do worry that C2 is where the Treasury will set their sights, either by saying C3 will do the job of a lower tier surface combatant or cutting the budget so much it ends up a glorified C3 anyway. The traditional RN view on austere warships was that rather than build a ship that is jack of all trades and master of none it is better to build a ship with true capability in one area and accept a single role ship of extremely limited use for anything else. On the whole that is a view I’ve always shared, however these days drop in point defence missile systems give a dedicated ASW vessel good self defence from air attack (i.e. T22 & T23) so the vessels would still have some teeth to defend themselves. The other option which I know has a lot of support but which I remain sceptical of is mission specific modules to allow an austere hull to be fitted out for different missions (an approach which already seems to have been decided on for C3 anyway regarding MCM), one of the good things to come out of the LCS program is that a lot of work has been done on this concept and developing a lightweight drop in VLS etc.
A few weeks ago I would not have questioned the need for a land-attack variant of the T45, but with the SSN force and IF Storm Shadow does appear on the F-35, will it really be that necessary – useful yes, but necessary – all its really adding is the gun.
But, if we can take 3 or 4 with PAAMS and land-attack over 6 optimised just for the latter, then I’d go for the 3 or 4 hulls.
I think the RN would be better spending the money on the ASW vessel – the threats are limtied now but we need to keep the skills and have some hulls in the water should it reappear. I guess the T45 hull is not really optimised for this role, so it would need a new design.
I share your sceptisim of mission modules – like “fitted-for-not-with” it relies on suitable warning of need; someone actually spending the money up front to make sure it is available when required; and the ship and module being in the same place at the right time:eek: Fine for a gradual build-up in tensions, but a rapid change in situation?????
PhelganSounds a bit like a Danish Absalon:) Or a beefed up version of the Omani OPV that VT are pitching to the RN for C3, I really think that idea has great potential to provide the hull numbers and muscle for constabulary duties (anit-piracy etc.).
This post was in answer to one that appears to have vanished to explain why it doesn’t add up.
Sorry, but I deleted it when I realised I’d “designed” the Absalon.:o
If this is going to be the primary ASW platform of the RN then I think it is critical it is designed as such first as presumably this places greater constraints on the hull than the “constabulary” version (a useful title). It would need to be able to act with a CVF group but presumably beyond ASW (2 helos rather than 1) and local air defence it can be fairly austere.
The constabulary version will keep the helicopters and air defence and utilise the remaining space for personnel capacity and equipment (support military personnel and diaster relief type ops). The Absalon sounds almost too well armed for the role the RN would require. The helicopters and main gun will be able to provide a limited anti-surface capability for small threats and support of shore operations.
Phelganeh?
Go away for a few days and miss the fun threads 🙁
No, simply shift the responsbility to the department of health or trim the money from elsewhere within the MoD budget. With some reorganisation the MoD could easily fund wounded serviceman better, a few less Typhoons would not kill the RAF.
Either way this is hardly a threat scenario is it?:rolleyes:
“A few less Typhoons” is exactly the problem. Its often a case of a few less this and that, and you find that you’ve loss a significant proportion of you’re capability. DOn’t know about the nationality but are you sure you’re not a politician?
Phelganwhat we’ve got
Guys,
What we are getting is probably fixed, so lets not get too carried away.
Rightly or wrongly the MOD/GOV prediction of the future threats is in line with what Swerve is suggesting and thus they feel the CVF/F35B mix is the way to go. Let us be thankful that they are actually making sure there is some iinsurance policy if this wrong or the threat changes.
I see the advantages to both – given the choice I’d go with the CTOL, but I’m thankful we’re getting a CV capability at all. We could always have something better, but the financial line has to be drawn somewhere – again rightly or wrongly – this is where the government have drawn it. In an ideal world* I expect we’d have people on here bemoaning that we need both CTOl and STOVL types. 😮
* – in a truly ideal world of course we’d all be messing with flowers; making ploughshares and CVF world probably be some nice relaxing drug…. but hey!
PhelganRN and 155mm
From http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1071114103911.html
14 Dec 2007 | Ref. 394/2007
155MM Study Looks To Pack More Punch Into The Royal Navy’s Fleet
Farnborough, United Kingdom. – A team from across BAE Systems has been awarded the second phase of a UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) study programme to examine the possibility of increasing the firepower of the Royal Navy fleet by integrating a 155mm gun on future warships. The study will also assess the possibility of fitting the more powerful system to existing ships.Led by CORDA, BAE Systems’ specialist consultancy arm, and the Company’s Land Systems business, the study will be delivered in conjunction with QinetiQ, Surface Fleet Solutions and Integrated System Technologies. BAE Systems is also exploiting the breadth and depth of experience in wider business units such as Armament Systems in the US and Bofors in Sweden to ensure the UK customer benefits from its global corporate experience.
“This research could provide the Royal Navy with access to a more capable and wider range of munitions and allow them to benefit from land sector investments in 155mm calibre,” says Samir Patel, CORDA’s programme manager. “The conversion will also present opportunities for significant through-life support savings as the Army and Royal Navy could potentially use a common stock.”
John Kelly from BAE Systems’ Land Systems, said “This programme not only has the potential to provide the Royal Navy with a low-cost route to a significant enhancement in capability but will ensure a UK based industrial artillery design and manufacture capability is sustained.”
During the first study phase, valued at £1.5 million, CORDA examined a low risk route to fitting an AS90 self-propelled howitzer ordnance onto the existing 4.5 inch Mk8 Mod 1 gun mounting structure. The second phase, worth around £700 thousand, will build on this research and examine in more detail some of the technology risks of the proposed solution. Should this phase of research prove successful, a further work package will be undertaken in 2008 to perform initial land-based firing trials.
The study is one of eight covered by a three-year Maritime Surface Effects (MSE) research programme, which examines a number of modern naval issues, including offensive and defensive surface warfare, coastal suppression and naval fire support and the role of unmanned surface vehicles.
PhelganIn terms of UCAVs, I don’t see them as a replacement for F-35s at all, but rather as an accompaniment for them. For the UK, they are likely to be the only way the carriers are going to get a full airwing.
Unfortunately I strongly suspect that the MOD are stalling on GR4 replacement in the hope that UCAVs will be the whole answer, not a part answer…
PhelganLads,
The ‘split’ purchase, that was rumoured, was an attempt by an RAF nervous about the future of its Interdiction mission to hang on to that as a manned capability. The story was that an ‘optimised’ A variant with the C variant big wings was being considered and that the RAAF was equally interested.
At no time, under the RAF concept of the split buy, would a UK F-35C purchase see a CATOBAR carrier!.
Assuming that a manned replacement of the GR4 force does happen, what else will the RAF go for? They may rather have a F35A, but the C variant woudl be easier to sell on the grounds of *potential* application to the CVF’s at some stage. Non-F35 airframes might be considered, but I dare say a combination of commonality with the B and industrial concern will strongly sway against a non-F35 choice.
But then again, maybe UCAV’s will be seen as sufficeintly mature and affordable in the time frame and the replacement will be completely unmanned – in the current cautious environment that does not seem likely.
PhelganArguably there is a good case for a split buy of STOVl/CTOL F35, that way you get a Harrier and a GR4 replacement.
I think a F35A or C buy is quite likely given the lack of direction in what was FOAS. I cannot imagine MOD is now going to justify the development of a new manned strike aircraft for the RAF, so its going to have to be off the shelf. A pure UAV solution doesn’t fit the cautious appraoch to technology they are undertaking either.
The last thing we need though is for the existing F35B to be split between the two variants. Better that C is bought (perhaps later) in addition.
PhelganThe determining factor in the STOVL ~ CTOL argument was not cost of the actual vessels or aircraft, something that is worth bearing in mind, in fact most estimates in the public domain are pretty similar on cost for both options, a difference of a couple of hundred million quid either way on a project this big isn’t the deciding factor.
!Pedantic moment!
A difference of £200M was [one of the] excuse[s] used to justify the delays in ordering the damn things – Carrier Alliance wanted £3.9bn, Govt. wanted to pay £3.7bn.
PhelganQuestion would be though SLL what point there would be in retaining Vixens in podded form when GR9 isnt going to be cleared for AIM-120 anytime soon….especially when you consider that ASRAAM clearance has been halted on cost grounds!. Also, even if such a capability was to suddenly be granted, only the remaining FAA FA2 pilots will have any skills for the BVR air-air fight.
Isn’t it remarkable, they retire the vaguely a2a capable version without remidial action on the GR7/9. 🙁
Question is how much remains to do to clear ASRAAM for use? What would be required beyond that for AIM-120. In the event of an emergency, its amazing how quickly some things can be acheived. Training on the other hand though – not something I’d like to learn “on-the-job”.
For my money the sole remaining a2a capability left to the CVS’s revolves around the situational awareness that a Harrier could take from the ASaC7’s and for the opponent to be technically austere!.
That sounds like Ministry [wishful] thinking to me – are you sure you’re not a civil servant, or worse, a minister:diablo:
Phelgan……….I have know doubt that any of the perspect of Contractors would be happy to kiss both cheeks (and I don’t mean face!) to win such a large order. (i.e. 126 fighters) Which, is so perplexing why Russia is following its current course……….
Perhaps they already feel they have shot themselves in the foot with Vikramaditya and now the second batch Talwars? Certainly not the way to win repeat orders….
As to SHARS, they already turned down an earlier offer didn’t they – dispute over the radars?
Sign In
