Better times ahead for the Royal Navy?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Rob	Better times ahead for the Royal Navy?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 630 (24-May-2008 09:09:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Okay, here it is, the annual, 2008 edition of the optimists thread! Hurra! So, now that the two CVFs are 99.9% certain, now that 6 MARS fleet tankers look well on their way to approval and build, now that finally the UK shipbuilding industry is consolidated in BVT Surface Shipbuilding Ltd., now that the C-series are moving along to initial gate, is the Royal Navy looking ahead to better times? Let's see what we've got in terms of future procurement: 2 CVFs - check 6 T45s ----> chances for the 7th and 8th T45? The Tories seem to think they aren't cancelled yet and the MoD continues to talk of them as if they were planned? 4 Astutes ---> numbers 5,6,7 rather certain (long lead items ordered iirc), what about an 8th? 3 - 4 Vanguard (R)s ---> 3 or 4? 6 MARS Tankers ---> likely to go ahead fast so that the single hulled tankers can be replaced C1/C2/C3 ---> an article a while ago said that this is going to inital gate in late 2008 The Times has often been talking about a minimum workload for BVT, apparently one major surface warship every year, so: 2008: CVF 1 \| built around the UK 2009: CVF 2 (ordered in 2008 but counted as 2009) & MARS tankers \| built around the UK & MARS built in South Korea \| MARS not part of core workload 2010: T45 7 (if these are ordered in 2008, will production still be pretty seamless or not?) \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2011: T45 8 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2012: C1 1 (replacing the T22s with an ISD around 2017) \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2013: C1 2 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2014: C1 3 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2015: C1 4 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2016: C2 1 (starting to replace the T23s with an ISD of 2020) \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2017: C2 2 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2018: C2 3 \| Not part of the minimum workload 18 x C 3 production starting from 2018 to replace 16 MCMVs, 4 Clydes/Rivers and 2 Echos to be built in Portsmouth 2019: C2 4 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2020: C2 5 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2021: C2 6 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2022: C2 7 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth 2023: C2 8 \| Glasgow and Portsmouth Astut Submarines: 2008: Astute 4 full contract \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2009: - 2010: Astute 5 full contract \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2011: - 2012: Astute 6 full contract \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2013: - 2014: Astute 7 full contract \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2015: - 2016: Astute 8 full contract or Vanguard (R) 1 full contract (ISD 2024) \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2017: - 2018: Vanguard (R) 1 or 2 full contract \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2019: - 2020: Vanguard (R) 2 or 3 full contract \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2021: - 2022: Vanguard (R) 3 or 4 full contract \| built in Barrow-in-Furness 2023: - 2024: - Vanguard (R) 4 or new SSN class (ISD: 2032) \| built in Barrow-in-Furness Okay, rip it apart.
Jim WH		#1	[-]
Posts: 929 (24-May-2008 09:31:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	On the face of it, virtually everything you've said is correct/possible Rob (long lead items for Astute 5-7 haven't been ordered, sorry bro). Logically, I'd also say that you're on the money. Pessimistically (some would say realistically) I'd worry about how much worse Gordy can screw up before the next election... The carrier battle has been fought, and is as good as won (saving some curve-ball we can't predict at present, and probably can't prepare for); the submarine front is fairly well ordered (they seem to have worked out what the minimum sustainable building rate is); and the actual commissioning of a Type 45 next year should massively help with the case for Type 45 7 & 8. Like others, I also feel that the real battle for CVF's airwing can wait until the ships themselves are getting ready to hit the water (one of the very big advantages of picking a JCA that'll be in production for 20+ years). S2C2 making it to initial gate this year will be the next challenge IMHO. Of course, the turd in the ointment is and remains the global economic climate. Britain is now highly reliant upon the global financial sector (one of the disadvantages of being a global economic center), and if the US going into recession (as it looks likely to) results in a global crash (which is possible, if unlikely) then all bets are off. Of course, as the Asian Economic Crisis of '97 showed, it's possible for the market to take a complete hammering and be back on it's feet in a little over 6 months, so who knows.
Rob		#2	[-]
Posts: 631 (24-May-2008 09:40:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	(long lead items for Astute 5-7 haven't been ordered, sorry bro) You sure? I was pretty certain BAE had been given the green light to order reactor components and stuff like that?
Jim WH		#3	[-]
Posts: 931 (24-May-2008 10:38:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	F*ck me. Just read Richard B's description of the program, and yes certain reactor and gear box items for Astute 5-7 have indeed been ordered. Great white hope on that front is that the unit price comes down (which is looking more likely each month that passes) sufficiently for Astute 8 to be back on the cards. And, provided that the current orders keep the suppliers going, Astute 8 could actually be ordered around 2014-2015 for a 2021-2022 commissioning. The trick, and this holds right across the board, is that the manufacturers in question actually need to have confidence that a steady stream of work will in actual fact be forthcoming. Traditionally in the English speaking world this has been done by handing over money (not an unreasonable approach...), but the Dutch have done quite well in the past with Letters of Intent (i.e. we don't have the money right now, but we'll be placing these orders in 2-3 years when we do). In the case of Astute 8, the letter could be words to the effect of "pending the continuing success of the program and decreasing real costs (i.e. inflation adjusted), Astute 8 will be ordered in 2014 ahead of an order for new SSBN in 2016".
Moskit		#4	[-]
Posts: 991 (24-May-2008 11:39:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Out of interest, Initial gate for C1 is looking like early 2009. NDP has a lot of hard work to do between now and then
Rob		#5	[-]
Posts: 632 (24-May-2008 12:47:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As for Astutes BAE has also been taking over some work from suppliers who just didn't want the unreliable MoD world anymore. For example pressure domes are now being pressed in Barrow instead of Scotland. They've also won an export order for pressure domes for the Spanish S80 class. Yeah, unit price has to be reduced, I hope they manage that. So C1 is the first to be designed? Can we safely assume that this is a 4 ship class to replace the T22s?
Jim WH		#6	[-]
Posts: 932 (24-May-2008 13:09:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Rob wrote: So C1 is the first to be designed? Can we safely assume that this is a 4 ship class to replace the T22s? I don't think anyone who isn't intimately involved with the project actually knows. Remember, C1 is to be the future ASW-centric escort, and in capability terms will replace the 8 Type 23 modernised with the Type 2087 sonar. C2 is about global 'presence' and 'choke point escort', and although precisely what this implies is hotly debated by all of us, the reality is that these are the functions currently being performed by the Type 22 Batch 3. IIRC the S2C2 team proposed a total of 10 C1 and 8 C2. To my way of thinking C2 is actually the more pressing priority as providing cost effective global presence frees up the existing ASW escorts to focus on what they were designed for. BTW does anyone have a source for S2C2 reaching initial gate next financial year (2008-2009)? Good news if true, although based on CVF a decision to reach inital gate in then ext 6 months could mean we'll still be waiting for main gate sometime in the middle of next decade.
Rob		#7	[-]
Posts: 634 (24-May-2008 13:42:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thanks for the clarification regarding the C1/C2 thing, I always forget which was which. Here is my source for the Initial Gate thing. Last paragraph or so. Link. http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2008/2nd_quarter/naval_design_partnership.html
perfectgeneral		#8	[-]
Posts: 366 (24-May-2008 15:11:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Boat Date Laid Down A1 31 Jan 2001 A2 22 Oct 2003 (33 months later) A3 11 March 2005 ( 17 months later) A4 ?? May 2008 (38 months later?) This is technically 4 boats in 88 months Astute Batch 2: A5 ?? Mar 2010 (22 months) A6 ?? Jan 2012 (22 months) A7 ?? Nov 2013 (22 months) A8 ?? Sep 2015 (22 months) A 22-month "drumbeat" between boats has been the "official" plan since December 2005. Vanguard Replacement: B1 Jul 2017 B2 May 2019 B3 Mar 2021 B4 Jan 2023 New Attack Boat batch 1: C1 Nov 2024 C2 Sep 2026 C3 Jul 2028 C4 May 2030 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Want10Destroyers/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/4Subs88Months/ Last Edited By: perfectgeneral 24-May-2008 15:29:21. Edited 2 times.
Jim WH		#9	[-]
Posts: 933 (24-May-2008 15:20:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Right you are again Rob... Ah well, here's hoping they stick to the schedule.
Jimlad1		#10	[-]
Posts: 1446 (25-May-2008 11:16:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Don't get your hopes up for A-8 - there is no requirement for an 8th hull anymore - it was deleted a few years ago.
Colin Mc		#11	[-]
Posts: 602 (25-May-2008 12:15:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Don't get your hopes up for FSC either - various studies have been going on for ten years without anything happening. Yet another study - this time for £2m for C1 - no change there then.
Rob		#12	[-]
Posts: 635 (25-May-2008 12:52:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Oh the pessimists are taking control. So, what about a third CVF as an Ocean replacement?
Rob		#13	[-]
Posts: 636 (25-May-2008 12:57:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As for A8, your right of course just recently it was said in the HoC that there was no 8th planned, the guy said it as if that had always been the plan! Made me really angry.
pymes75		#14	[-]
Posts: 1097 (25-May-2008 13:01:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Don't get your hopes up for A-8 - there is no requirement for an 8th hull anymore - it was deleted a few years ago. I appreciate what you're saying, but could you elaborate... In 2004, Admiral West said to the DSC: "Therefore, as they get older, inevitably little things might crop and you say, "Hang on, we want to look at this more carefully." I think the figure from SDR was 10 SSNs. We went from 12 to 10. From that ten, how many of those, on average, am I able to guarantee running? The figure is probably about six. My worry with going down to eight was: how many of those can I guarantee running? As I say, they are getting older and how can I be sure that I will have the numbers I need for the sorts of operations that are laid down in the Defence Planning Guide, and that requires actually six SSNs, five or six, depending on the circumstances, and with eight of these old ageing ones I am concerned. Can I actually provide that? When I have got the Astutes, then, with eight, I will be able to do all the things that I need to do, because they are newer, they have got a different core, all of these sort of benefits." http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdfence/uc45-i/uc4502.htm So unless the strategic situation has changed, then I don't see how there can no longer be a requirement for AT LEAST 8 boats.... that is, unless someone from the Treasury or UK Gov says so!
Jim WH		#15	[-]
Posts: 937 (25-May-2008 13:30:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	On current planning, yes, A7 is it. I suppose the hope for the RN is that the industrial planning for the next decade or so place a fortuitous gap between A7 and SSBN(R)1. If the government of the day in 2014 chooses, then there is the potential that A8 could be slipped in between these two. Doing so would fulfill two distinct but useful tasks: 1). provide stability to Britain's submarine building base, 2). increase the RN attack boat fleet by retaining fleet size at 8 boats (NB: the training facilities should be scalable, it was designed to cater for 8 boats). Not much of a hope, but still nowhere near impossible. Re: S2C2/FSC. You could be right Colin, it could just be more of the same, but then again it might not be. Only time will actually tell one way or the other. Like I said, things will be going well if the schedule is stuck to.
MSR		#16	[-]
Posts: 2668 (25-May-2008 15:01:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	My personal day dream for S2C2 is a UK version of the Danish Flexible Support Ship concept for the C2 category. I see nothing inherent in such a design that would break the bank or pose unrealistic design challenges that require "de-risking". I see no other way of designing a 4 ship class (assuming 1 for 1 replacement of the T22s - which assumes C1 replaces all the T23s) that is more capable of performing the widest possible range of missions, whilst still being at heart a capable and credible surface escort for that increasingly relevant 'choke point and deterrence' mission profile. Just thought I'd mention it. The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
Zen9		#17	[-]
Posts: 3552 (25-May-2008 15:17:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I would be more comfortable with 9, but if the Admiral says 8 will do then we will have to take his word for it I guess.
Jim WH		#18	[-]
Posts: 938 (25-May-2008 15:25:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You're getting your numbers mixed up MSR. S2C2 doesn't seek to replace the capabilities of the current escort fleet in the same proportion. ASW will be downsized from 13 Type 23 to 10 C1 (although, only 8 Type 23 have received Type 2087 towed arrays), and the 'global presence' and 'choke point escort functions" of 4 Type 22 will be taken over by 8 C2 (or 5 non-2087 Type 23 and 4 Type 22). This reflects the needs of the RN going into the next couple of decades to escort two task groups (one built around CVF, one around the 'phibs) and to maintain as much global presence as possible. In honesty, this is why I suspect the ratio may change to 8 C1 and 10 C2.
perfectgeneral		#19	[-]
Posts: 369 (25-May-2008 18:58:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Jimlad1 wrote: Don't get your hopes up for A-8 - there is no requirement for an 8th hull anymore - it was deleted a few years ago. Boat Date Laid Down A1 31 Jan 2001 A2 22 Oct 2003 (33 months later) A3 11 March 2005 ( 17 months later) A4 ?? May 2008 (38 months later?) This is technically 4 boats in 88 months Astute Batch 2: A5 ?? Mar 2010 (22 months) A6 ?? Jan 2012 (22 months) A7 ?? Nov 2013 (22 months) A 22-month "drumbeat" between boats has been the "official" plan since December 2005. Vanguard Replacement: B1 Sep 2015 (22 months) B2 Jul 2017 B3 May 2019 B4 Mar 2021 New Attack Boat batch 1: C1 Jan 2023 C2 Nov 2024 C3 Sep 2026 C4 Jul 2028 It's not the numbers of boats, but the rate of design and build that matters. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Want10Destroyers/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/4Subs88Months/
perfectgeneral	It's not the numbers of boats, but the rate of design and bu	#20	[-]
Posts: 370 (25-May-2008 19:33:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That's what I like about the 'one surface ship every year for 15 years' promise. I'd like to see that become one major surface ship and one C3 every year, all the time. Ships built for a 33 years life: 8x T45 aaw (190 crew) 1520 10x C1 asw (180 crew) 1800 8x C2 cruisers (150 crew + 36 RM) 1200 + 288 3x CVF (1500 crew) 4500 3x LPD (325 crew) 975 32x C3 multi-purpose corvettes (75 crew) 2400 One CVF and LPD should be built every eleven years. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Want10Destroyers/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/4Subs88Months/ Last Edited By: perfectgeneral 25-May-2008 19:36:15. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Better times ahead for the Royal Navy?

Better times ahead for the Royal Navy?

Quick Reply