Navy Command to 2030

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.

Which would you prefer for the Royal Navy?

13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships and 5 River 2 OPV's
43
61%
8 Type 26 Global Combat Ships, 7 Type 31 general purpose frigates and 3 River 2 OPV's
27
39%
 
Total votes: 70

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I'll comment inside the quote (not good practice, but in this case easier:
Tempest414 wrote:Spanish crew is 265
"intervention ship" so whether it is Harriers or helos, all that crewing is not counted
but the Australians have 298 RAN crew but 358 whole ships crew.
- the xtra 60 filling roles akin to our 1 Assault Sqdrn?

HMS Ocean was 285 but she was a older ship
- aircrews (& support) and RM amphibiosity (1 Assaut sqdrn for LCVPs and any boats)assistants on top?

The other thing is we don't crew both Albion's just one the other only has a small working party say 30 or so
- indeed, when we did it with just 14, the ships systems - standing still - went decrepit; and it cost a lot to put right
... and now I , pheww, get to my own comment:
Crew: 325 (plus the 30-40 on the other)
Commissioned: 19 June 2003

None of this is comparable as ' the Falklands lessons learnt' - and @TD there is an in-depth piece about this - meant that the transfer of command during amph. Ops became to be seen as critical. And therefore the Albion class is kitted out (and at times manned) to carry out that HQ function
- I think this is much appreciated during those joint exercises in Norway (the precious USN carriers can stay hundreds of nm out to the sea; and thus be more easily defended)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Tempest414You have to be careful here just because the French say it is 160 others may do different if we look at JC-1 the Spanish crew is 265 but the Australians have 298 RAN crew but 358 whole ships crew. HMS Ocean was 285 but she was a older ship
It is not inconceivable that with more automation and improved technology a modernised HMS Ocean could be developed around a crew total of less than 200.

Remember as long as each LHD has fewer than 240 crew then these changes would reduce crew totals.

I chose the Mistral rather than the Spanish or Australian LHDs precisely because the crew numbers had already been reduced and because the construction costs were lower.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: should be based on JC-1 or HMS Ocean
Does anyone, by any chance, have the specs of the Ocean-replacement that BAES crayon-ed; but the MoD did not 'buy'? - even as an idea (without telling anyone 'why not')

And btw, the Italian carrier myth, being cheap, is partly rerplicated with the Mistrals. Over a third of the funds for the Italian carrier came from outside the defence budget: regional development, and what have you! Also, one Mistral was fully funded from 'cyclical employment support'
AndyC wrote:because the construction costs were lower.
- so c'on Boris :!: You are not shackled by EU state aid rules anymore. Just do a (combined :lol: ) copycat of the two
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

AndyC wrote:
Tempest414You have to be careful here just because the French say it is 160 others may do different if we look at JC-1 the Spanish crew is 265 but the Australians have 298 RAN crew but 358 whole ships crew. HMS Ocean was 285 but she was a older ship
It is not inconceivable that with more automation and improved technology a modernised HMS Ocean could be developed around a crew total of less than 200.

Remember as long as each LHD has fewer than 240 crew then these changes would reduce crew totals.

I chose the Mistral rather than the Spanish or Australian LHDs precisely because the crew numbers had already been reduced and because the construction costs were lower.
For me the way to go would be to replace the three Bay class with a 3 new Enforcer 200 x 30 meter LPD's and Albion with a 230 x 40 meter ( at the flight deck ) Enforcer LHD both types are built on the same hull / dock layout. For me it would be important that any new RN LHD/ LHA could take Chinooks unfolded on the lift with say room for 4 in the hangar with say 8 other helicopters with a war time load out of 25 helicopters including 4 Chinook

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Does anyone, by any chance, have the specs of the Ocean-replacement that BAES crayon-ed; but the MoD did not 'buy'? - even as an idea (without telling anyone 'why not')
BAE's LHD
210 meters by 32 meters
23,000 tons
7000 Nm range
22 knots top speed
crew 300
embarked force 800
6 landing spots
enclosed well dock for 4 LCU's

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Caribbean wrote
£500m for a research ship seems a lot, particularly as RRS SDA cost round £235m in total, I believe (and I see no real reason to re-invent the wheel by going for a completely new design). There again, it could be a bit more secret squirrel than currently rumoured .....

£500m for an Aux. oiler also seems a tad excessive. The Tides cost around £150-175m including UK additional work (say c. £200 - 225m for a UK build). Did you mean an oiler reefer? In which case, I would have thought that HNoMS Maud would be a good base, based on the same Aegir 18 design as the Tides (in this case a stretched Aegir 18R). Maud cost c. $225m in 2013, so possibly £250m today for a UK build).
Having given it some thought I've amended the spending figures to bring them in line with Caribbean's suggestions.

Navy Command Top Level Budget 2020-30 - £8.7 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement.

£7.31 billion committed to in SDSR15, but not under contract by March 2020:
• £2.9 billion out of £5 billion for the fourth to eighth Type 26 Global Combat Ships – unit cost £1 billion
• £1.8 billion for three Future Fleet Solid Support ships
• £1.25 billion for five Type 31 frigates – unit cost £250 million
• £480 million for two new multi-role ocean research vessels
• £450 million for two replacement auxiliary oilers
• £420 million for the first seven sets of the MMCM programme and
• £10 million for two patrol boats for the Gibraltar Squadron.

£1.05 billion for essential extras:
• £650 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral – unit cost €720 million; £/€ rate 1.10
• £200 million for ship-launched Harpoon II+ anti-shipping missiles – order of 210 at a unit cost of U$1.25 million; £/U$ rate 1.30 and
• £200 million to upgrade an additional eight Merlin HM1 to HMA2 standard.

£260 million for desirable and optional extras:
• £160 million to install twelve sets of eight Mk 41 VLS cells on Type 45 destroyers – unit cost U$2.2 million based on February 2018 sale to Finland; £/U$ 1.30
• £40 million VL-ASROC – initial order of 60 at a unit cost of U$800k; £/U$ rate 1.30 and
• £60 million to integrate Sea Venom on to Merlin HMA2 – unit cost £1.5 million.

Navy Command TLB spending totals £8.62 billion.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:BAE's LHD
210 meters by 32 meters
23,000 tons
7000 Nm range
22 knots top speed
crew 300
embarked force 800
6 landing spots
enclosed well dock for 4 LCU's
Basically a sleeker and faster Albion, with greatly expanded aviation facilities:
Length: 176 meters
Beam: 28,9 meters
Displacement: 19560 tons
Speed: 18 knots (33 km/h)
Range: 8000 NM (13000 km)
Complement: 325 (ship) / 405 troops (normal) / up to 710 troops (overload)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

The 2020 Spending Review

Prior to the Spending Review the government was committed to increasing defence spending by inflation + 0.5%. In real terms this amounts to an extra £2 billion over the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

In the 2020 Spending Review the government announced it would provide an additional £16.5 billion for defence, making a total extra of £18.5 billion in real terms covering the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

The government also announced commitments to military research & development, the National Cyber Force, Space Command and Artificial Intelligence totalling £3.8 billion.

Restoring the reductions made in the 2019 Equipment Plan budget requires £5.5 billion.

In addition, £2 billion is needed to cover the overspending in the Air Command Top Level Budget as a result of the unfunded purchase of the E-7 Wedgetail.

That leaves a total of £7.2 billion still to be committed.

If this extra funding is divided in the same way as the 2020/21 budget then 55% would be allocated to day-to-day running costs and 45% to the Equipment Plan.

That means an extra £3.95 billion for day-to-day spending, mostly personnel costs. As this represents about 4.5% of existing current spending that would be equal to an additional:
• 3,700 full-time troops
• 1,500 reservists
• 1,100 Royal Navy personnel
• 300 Royal Marines and
• 1,400 RAF personnel.

This leaves an extra £3.25 billion for the Equipment Plan.

The extra 1,100 Royal Navy personnel would be enough to crew five Type 23 frigates. So the first Type 23 to retire would now be in 2030, rather than 2023, after the fifth new Type 26 and Type 31 are commissioned. This would increase the number of escort ships from 19 to 24 and is made possible by HMS Iron Duke and HMS Monmouth undergoing an additional refit.

So, in 2030 instead of six Type 45, three Type 26, four Type 31 and six Type 23 there would be six Type 45, three Type 26, four Type 31 and eleven Type 23!
As I've argued above the only way to get 24 escorts by 2030 is to retain five additional Type 23s.

I just don't believe either the Type 26 or Type 31 programmes could be speeded up without considerable expense. And as for simultaneously building Type 32s as well - that's pure fantasy fleet stuff.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

The 2020 Spending Review

Prior to the Spending Review the government was committed to increasing defence spending by inflation + 0.5%. In real terms this amounts to an extra £2 billion over the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

In the 2020 Spending Review the government announced it would provide an additional £16.5 billion for defence, making a total extra of £18.5 billion in real terms covering the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

The government also announced commitments to military research & development, the National Cyber Force, Space Command and Artificial Intelligence totalling £3.8 billion.

Restoring the reductions made in the 2019 Equipment Plan budget requires £5.5 billion.

In addition, £2 billion is needed to cover the overspending in the Air Command Top Level Budget as a result of the unfunded purchase of the E-7 Wedgetail.

That leaves a total of £7.2 billion still to be committed.

If this extra funding is divided in the same way as the 2020/21 budget then 55% would be allocated to day-to-day running costs and 45% to the Equipment Plan.

That means an extra £3.95 billion for day-to-day spending, mostly personnel costs. As this represents about 4.5% of existing current spending that would be equal to an additional:
• 3,700 full-time troops
• 1,500 reservists
• 1,100 Royal Navy personnel
• 300 Royal Marines and
• 1,400 RAF personnel.

This leaves an extra £3.25 billion for the Equipment Plan.

The extra 1,100 Royal Navy personnel would be enough to crew five Type 23 frigates. So the first Type 23 to retire would now be in 2030, rather than 2023, after the fifth new Type 26 and Type 31 are commissioned. This would increase the number of escort ships from 19 to 24 and is made possible by HMS Iron Duke and HMS Monmouth undergoing an additional refit.

So, in 2030 instead of 6xT45, 3xT26, 4xT31 and 6xT23 there would be 6xT45, 3xT26, 4xT31 and 11xT23!
As I've argued above the only way to get 24 escorts by 2030 is to retain five additional Type 23s.

I just don't believe either the Type 26 or Type 31 programmes could be speeded up without considerable expense. And as for simultaneously building Type 32s as well - that's pure fantasy fleet stuff.

Post Reply