The Shrunken Royal Navy

[Legend]

1 hour ago, 2750Papyrus said:

I see a type 45 is moored at Greenwich as guardship for the Coronation. 

 

I wonder if we will see a similar deployment to Liverpool for the song contest?

Do they declare an exclusion zone in Central London ? Must cause havoc with Heathrow approach . 

[jjb1970]

It'd be useful for the Army to get a land based area defence surface to air missile system. They already have the basis of a system in the radar and combat system of T45 and the long range version of Aster. Or there is the PATRIOT system as used by some other NATO countries.

[TomE]

2 hours ago, Legend said:

Do they declare an exclusion zone in Central London ? Must cause havoc with Heathrow approach . 

No real need, it's already in controlled airspace. 

The biggest disruption will come from the flypast (the details of which are all publicly available via NATS: https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2023-04-06/html/eAIC/EG-eAIC-2023-024-M-en-GB.html)

Tom. 

[jjb1970]

That went well then.

 

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/royal-navy-ssbn-vanguard-departs-devonport-following-completion-of-refit

[Legend]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

That went well then.

 

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/royal-navy-ssbn-vanguard-departs-devonport-following-completion-of-refit

Was going to say we could have built a new one in that time ………..but no! 

[skipepsi]

39 minutes ago, Legend said:

Was going to say we could have built a new one in that time ………..but no! 

We could have but they didn't want to,  At the beginning of the 20th century, they built a world-changing battleship in a year where has it gone so wrong?

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, skipepsi said:

We could have but they didn't want to,  At the beginning of the 20th century, they built a world-changing battleship in a year where has it gone so wrong?

As technology advances things get more complex and slower and more expensive to build. And with ever fewer numbers more and more specialised.

[jjb1970]

I think numbers is the big one.

 

Things are much more complicated, but we also have much more powerful design and manufacturing tools, but a certain expertise and critical mass in supply chains and skilled workforce is necessary to do it quickly and efficiently. And that needs a steady flow of orders, an analogy might be automotive where immense costs to develop cars like the VW Golf are amortised over vast production numbers which justify huge investment in manufacturing facilities and the supply chain. Warship and ship numbers are never going to match automotive, but the yards in the Republic of Korea and China, and still to a degree in Japan have the sort of mass of orders, expertise, skilled workforce and supply chains to build ships (including complex warships) very quickly and efficiently and to a high standard. 

 

Even with our much smaller build numbers we can mitigate things by maintaining a steady flow of orders for key types (particularly submarines), everyone knows that interrupting orders is disastrous if we want to maintain a manufacturing capability.

 

In this case it was a refit, not a newbuild, but it was a big refit, very complex. That doesn't justify the time it took or the cost but it was a big job.

[Lochgorm]

One reason why refit/fitting out takes so log:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3bbcbb94-f0fa-11ed-bdc8-c06a4e8c18d7?shareToken=6e8d82e01b3fdf3448ea27e2acd42140

 

Charlie

[WessexEclectic]

On 13/05/2023 at 14:23, jjb1970 said:

"... everyone knows that interrupting orders is disastrous if we want to maintain a manufacturing capability."

**cough** UK rolling stock manufacturing / 25kV electrification **cough**

[Grovenor]

HS2 **cough**

[skipepsi]

23 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

HS2 **cough**

What's that it isn't round ere.

[peanuts]

This popped up in my twitter feed lovely film of a grand old lady 

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

On 13/05/2023 at 05:19, jjb1970 said:

That went well then.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/royal-navy-ssbn-vanguard-departs-devonport-following-completion-of-refit

 

What caught my eye?

 

Quote

The shipbuilder said that during the course of the programme ... 38,000 tiles were replaced and around 32,000 litres of paint was applied to the submarine.

 

B&Q Plymouth must have loved them.

[KeithMacdonald]

On 13/05/2023 at 14:23, jjb1970 said:

In this case it was a refit, not a newbuild, but it was a big refit, very complex. That doesn't justify the time it took or the cost but it was a big job.

 

Looks like HM Navy has invented its own "long painful learning curve" version of the RAF Nimrod. On how not to manage complex rebuild projects. I wish I could say I believe they will learn from it, but ...

[Legend]

10 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

What caught my eye?

 

 

B&Q Plymouth must have loved them.

can’t get black paint for miles around! 

[KeithMacdonald]

On 26/05/2023 at 23:39, KeithMacdonald said:

38,000 tiles were replaced and around 32,000 litres of paint was applied to the submarine.

 

On 27/05/2023 at 09:43, Legend said:

can’t get black paint for miles around! 

 

Not for the first time, M'Lady has told me I made a foolish assumption.

 

My assumption was all that paint was for the outside of the sub. Of course, I should have considered that, in our new inclusive and diverse Royal Navy, at least some of the paint was for the inside of the sub. To improve the decore, ambience and harmonic feeling for the new improved crew. 

 

If the interior came from an MoD approved supplier (like Laura Ashley for the interior of some MoD and Gov Depts), that would explain a lot about the late & expensive project. I've been shopping with M'Lady to choose suitable colours. I can bear witness it is a painfully slow process and bloody expensive.

e.g. £28 for a 750ml tin.

https://www.next.co.uk/laura-ashley/style/st140017/649720#649720

[The White Rabbit]

And the award for clickbait headline of the week goes to ...

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-patrol-ship-sinks-massive-red-killer-tomato/ 

[slow8dirty]

8 minutes ago, The White Rabbit said:

And the award for clickbait headline of the week goes to ...

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-patrol-ship-sinks-massive-red-killer-tomato/ 

Au contraire, them actually hitting it is quite newsworthy! I remember a delightful dogwatch many years ago as a Stoker watching our warfare department fail to get the 30mm anywhere near to the tomato defiantly bobbing along on a millpondesque Indian Ocean.

[jjb1970]

Type 83 news:

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-new-warship-a-type-83-destroyer-concept-surfaces/

 

What could possibly go wrong.

[Bon Accord]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

Type 83 news:

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-new-warship-a-type-83-destroyer-concept-surfaces/

 

What could possibly go wrong.

 

If the T45 programme was anything to go by then they'll initially plan to build six to replace the existing T45. Then by the time the contract to build is let it'll be four with an option for two, and by the end of it we'll end up with three.

I wonder why they chose to return to the T8X designation, revived after nearly 60 years rather than T4X. Maybe it just sounds more flash to those in MOD.

[jjb1970]

I find some of the ideas floating around to be either comical or tragic (or maybe both) depending on how you look at things.

 

For example the idea of large air warfare destroyer/cruisers like those being built (in large numbers) for the Chinese PLAN may be the subject of wet dreams for RN officers and armchair admirals but the question might be how do people expect to pay for such ships? The Type 26 Frigate program is stretching funding to the limits with a significant drop in hull numbers to be offset by building the Type 31. The 'fitted for but not with' Type 45 was pretty much unaffordable without reducing hull numbers from 12 to 6 (which in fairness may have let the RN dodge a bigger bullet given all the problems with them). 

 

The idea of a 'simple' air warfare ship (do those talking about a simple air warfare ship realise how bonkers that is if you want a ship capable of doing the job?) might sound excellent if you have all the other assets necessary to make it work. Or as we might alternatively put it, it won't work in the current RN/RAF force structure and it's difficult to see that changing.

 

Budgets are problematic at the best of times, but in the context of an economic crisis and an emergency need to re-capitalize the Army after giving away most of it's operable artillery, a huge chunk of it's ammunition stocks and significant amounts of other material such as anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles (not to mention giving away a lot of the RAF Storm Shadow cruise missiles) it's hard to see a happy outcome for the RN. We can't afford an increase in the defence budget to anything like the level we need to replace the Army armoured vehicle and artillery fleets and replenish weapons stocks as well as fund the Typhoon jet fighter, new cruise missiles etc as well as expensive warships.

[burgundy]

I have always thought that the aircraft carrier programme was an act of hubris. I understand that it was conceived in an era in which "expeditionary warfare" was the order of the day, but, realistically, we could never afford that kind of role, politically, financially or militarily. Arguably, its most significant achievement has been to influence the Scottish independence vote in favour of remaining part of the Union.

Its result has been to bend the rest of the fleet out of shape, as we have tried to resource and man the other maritime capabilities to which we aspire.

At some point, we shall need to adopt a defence posture that more accurately reflects our role and importance on the world stage.

Best wishes

Eric 

 

[jjb1970]

I remember when the CVF program was in its early stages there was a mantra that 'steel is cheap' so it was more sensible to build a large carrier than a small carrier like the Invincible class.

 

The theory is that the increase in cost to go from a 25,000T STOVL carrier to a 65000T carrier is relatively small compared to the major increase in capability. There's some truth in that if looking at the build cost, unfortunately it falls over when considering the through life costs of maintaining an air group of 2-3x what the smaller ship can carry and the bigger tail. The only way we might deploy a full air group for one of the two ships will probably be to deploy all our operable aircraft even as that fleet grows. Which would leave the RAF in the lurch as they also need the aircraft. The second hull will be a commando carrier (LPH in modern speak) but that's a huge and expensive ship to replace HMS Ocean and a sub-optimal design for the role.

 

And the RN will have to surge the fleet and RFA to deploy a true carrier battle group. Doable for a period as long as the RN doesn't have much else to do. And the problem with surge deployment is you are borrowing from the future and at some point you have to repay that loan as most of the fleet needs refit at the same time with no stagger.

 

And there's now a real debate in naval circles over the viability of carriers. China has spent decades developing carrier killer weapons and doctrine (though they're still building their own vanity symbols).

 

I really think if it's about military capabilities we should have directed the money at the submarine and frigate forces.

[Bon Accord]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Budgets are problematic at the best of times, but in the context of an economic crisis and an emergency need to re-capitalize the Army after giving away most of it's operable artillery, a huge chunk of it's ammunition stocks and significant amounts of other material such as anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles (not to mention giving away a lot of the RAF Storm Shadow cruise missiles) it's hard to see a happy outcome for the RN. We can't afford an increase in the defence budget to anything like the level we need to replace the Army armoured vehicle and artillery fleets and replenish weapons stocks as well as fund the Typhoon jet fighter, new cruise missiles etc as well as expensive warships.

 

Not forgetting the enormous elephant in the room regarding personnel; even if significant investment is made, just where are the three services going to get the people to operate all this kit?

The RN in particular is finding it impossible to stand still in manning terms right now - and they've had serious problems in that regard for decades - quite how they're going to man the promised additional cheapo ships is puzzling many observers.

RFA is in an even worse situation.