SDSR 2015 General News & Discussion

[marktigger]

its not economical in keeping Govan working till the next contract. One solution is build up the manpower numbers so you aren't doing 1:1 exchange on for 23:26 and so you can keep more 23's in service say until the last 2 type 31's are built.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[marktigger]

or adopting NATO standard accounting techniques

[bobp]

Here we go again more smoke and mirrors and when are they going to spend some of the supposed 180 billion equipment budget.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

It's good that the committee has publically called the government out about this but let's face it, they won't change anything, they don't have the legal clout. It is not as if the government will suddenly abandon these clever accounting practices and make up the difference with real front line spending as they should have done in the first place; let alone will they seriously consider treating the 2% figure as a minimum rather than a target as the committee insists.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[GibMariner]

Posting here due to lack of dedicated thread, RFA Diligence to be sold:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... epair-ship

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[GibMariner]

No info for a replacement....

Perhaps slightly offset by expanded facilities in Bahrain?

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[ArmChairCivvy]

Another black mark against forward deployed capability

In theory, yes. RN resources, realistically, need to be focussed to make any difference. I would concur with the view that Bahrain improvements and not life-extending Diligence constitute a trade-off, especially when the QEs can turn within their chosen Omani harbour better than in their home base (and can, broadly speaking, be focussed on that same, wider region when desired).

I'd be interested to hear about the sub rescue asset(s) aspect, if anyone is in the know. The primary one for the seas around Europe was co-funded together with Norway and France. But unlike the one in the Baltic (co-manned from Sweden and Finland) it is not a specialist vessel, but rather 350 t of kit that takes 17-18 hours to bolt onto a vessel - and that is when starting from the home port,; in theory (again) it could be flown out to another port and brought to action in another ocean.

http://forces.tv/24745502

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[Gabriele]

Diligence does not have the deck space to carry the A frame, the mini-submarine and the other facilities of the Submarine Rescue system, i believe. So her utility in rescuing a sub-sunk is very questionable. For that task, the Royal Navy would call the SD Norhtern River, a civilian ship, operated by Serco under the big support-to-RN contract, which has been modified exactly for that role.

Diligence did however support SSN and their crews. I believe she could also resupply them with weapons. One of her last tasks before ending up berthed and decommissioned was trialing rafting with HMS Ambush to provide support to the new Astute class.

It is a big bit of capability lost without a replacement.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[GibMariner]

Problem is GM, the RN is a "Blue water" navy and is required to operate elsewhere. Another black mark against forward deployed capability.
Also, isn't Diligence a submarine rescue asset?

I agree with you, but perhaps the largest constraint on that would be the low numbers of submarines available for deployment. Would the new Astute-class require the same kind of support provided by Diligence that the Trafalgar-class does?

As to whether Diligence is a submarine rescue ship, I do not think she is fitted with any specialist equipment - and if she is then that info isn't publicly available. I was under the impression that she operated more as a submarine tender, providing maintenance, supplies, etc. There is also SD Northern River which was modified to support submarines, and can carry the submarine rescue system.

Edit: Gabriele beat me to it.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[ArmChairCivvy]

Fast forward from 2003 to 2015/ 16:

The Defence White Paper of December 2003, supports the vision in the Naval Strategic Plan.The main elements of UK MoD’s warship demand over the period 2004-2015 is as follows:

Astute Submarines
Successor' Submarines
Future Aircraft Carrier – two ships costing £3 billion.
MARS (Military Afloat, Reach and Sustainability) Fleet – up to 12 ships costing £2 billion.
Type 45 Destroyers.
Future Surface Combatant Ships.
Maritime Underwater Future Capability (next generation submarines).

In the same order:
- 7 for the cost of 8 (bcz of the need to slow down the build until Successors can be started)
- £10 bn contingency (we have not been told why, missiles and warheads spend in the 2040s on top)
- cost twice (+) that much, plus add the same amount again for the planes (that are the weapon system... we almost came to the FFBBWO situation there, too)
- up to 12 seems to have become 3+ two or three
- 6, not 8 or 12 (round down for availability issues)
- note the plural (for ship classes, not for the ships): 8? plus x??? - back to more than one class, though
- fat Astutes for Successors and then slimming down the design again, for the future capability (nothing heard, but one would not expect details in the public domain, either)

Adding to this (amphibiosity did not warrant a mention; they are not seen as warships?)
- serious culling of capacity
- rotation of main units, to make them last and to help to push the replacement need to the right

[GibMariner]

Fast forward from 2003 to 2015/ 16:

It really is terrible. The carriers and FSC were also envisioned to be in service by now or just entering.

- up to 12 seems to have become 3+ two or three

- It currently stands at 7 (4 x Tide tankers and 3 x SSS). An article last month mentioned the JSBL again, but not sure if that was just a mistake. Originally the plan was for 6 tankers (of which only one or two, IIRC, was meant to be for the carriers) plus the 2 Fleet Solid Stores ships and 3 Joint Sea-Based Logistics vessels, which would make up 11 vessels.

Was this also the white paper that stopped the Merlin fleet at 44, cancelling plans for an extra 24 in favour of upgrading a few Lynx instead, or was that an earlier paper - 1998 SDR? Can't remember now.

[ArmChairCivvy]

7 (4 x Tide tankers and 3 x SSS) and 3 Joint Sea-Based Logistics vessels

Thanks, memory did not serve the right number for Tides; Do we actually know it will 3 SSSs? We do know that the intention is to place the order in 2020. And common sense would say that it can't be less than 3... otherwise we will be looking into the prospect of sailing to the other side of the globe, and then starting the return journey after the first week if an SSS can't be kept on station with the task force
- I think normal replenishment cycle is 7 days, but intense air ops could make it shorter

Ahh, when the Bays were still in design and build, they were actually called Logistics vessels, but that was changed later

[GibMariner]

7 (4 x Tide tankers and 3 x SSS) and 3 Joint Sea-Based Logistics vessels

Thanks, memory did not serve the right number for Tides; Do we actually know it will 3 SSSs?

The SDSR mentioned 3, press releases, articles etc, there should be links to some in the Future Solid Support Ship thread. There was meant to have been an industry day last week, but if any information has been released publicly since then, I haven't come across it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thanks again, the renders released so far look good. I guess there is still some speccing going on as to what degree (and how) they would support troops already ashore... steel beach, and all that

[ArmChairCivvy]

Leaving ships alone for a moment...(!)

This summary was on ukdefencejournal about the SDSR:
"Around four Sentinel R1 will be extended in service “into the next decade”, but will leave service by 2025.

Shadow R1 will remain in service until “at least” 2030 and two more aircraft will be procured.

Sentry AEW1 and Rivet Joint R1 will remain in service until 2035."

By paragraph:
1. around four is exactly four (no expense for converting back the 5th used in maritime trials can be afforded?!)
- anyway, 2022 is the watershed for proving the P8 overland capabilities, so we just go multi-role; sensible, but I would also look at the per hour operating costs

2. clear SF emphasis there (the French are doing the same, for reasons I have commented on elsewhere)

3. both on ancient airframes
- whatever will come next will share the airframe and other key characteristics determining the logistics chain (apart from mission systems)

[LordJim]

Unless we double the planned purchase of the P-8 we really should not be using it over land. we had to use the Nimrod as we had nothing else with the sensors be we now have the Reaper and others. I cannot see it doing the Sentinels job. Additional platforms using the same airframe and utilising the Sentinels sensors or a version the US is developing would be fine as would a E-3 replacement, both in the 2030's

[GibMariner]

Sale of MOD properties continues:

[marktigger]

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/mod-int ... story.html