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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

RFA Argus is 38 years old at the moment and will serve at least another four years.

HMS Hermes served for 58 years in the Royal Navy and then the Indian Navy.

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by BlueD954 »

Maritime Reserves

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -10/128240

The Maritime Reserves is committed to transforming to best support the Royal Navy on future operations, at home and abroad. The Maritime Reserves training capability will be remodelled and integrated into the Royal Navy's training reform programme which is designed to deliver better trained people more quickly to operations.

The Royal Navy is currently working on a solution which will enable some elements of Reserves training to continue to ensure that there is no lasting impact beyond the end of the financial year.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -10/128046

As a result of significant pressure on the Defence budget, sensible and timely decisions have been taken to reduce the in-year financial challenge and this has resulted in the temporary cessation of some Maritime Reserves activity until the beginning of the next financial year.

This decision is part of a package of broader in-year savings measures across the Ministry of Defence, taken following consultation with each of the services , it forms part of the first and necessary step of Defence reform.

These are short term measures and don't reflect our longer-term plans that continue to place an emphasis upon the Maritime Reserve, and nor will they impact the necessary support that is required of the Navy this winter in support of the nation.

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Here's how a revised schedule for the retirement and replacement of the Type 23 frigates might look.

Prior to 2030 three Type 31 and two Type 26 are due to be commissioned then ...
Retirement of T23.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I wonder if it is by time match (?) that only two of the GP frigates are shown to have a T31 replacement. Where are the other 3 and why does T32 figure so prominently instead?

An interesting factoid is that as the table runs out to 2035, the official OSDs for all six T45s (I don't believe this, but that's neither here or there) are spanning the short years 2035-2038.
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 »

If you go back a couple of posts you will see that I'm suggesting that the first five Type 26 and Type 31 frigates are added to the total number of escorts without any ships being retired to increase the total number of escorts from 19 to 24.

Under the funding in the Spending Review the Royal Navy should be able to increase its personnel by 1,100. That would enable them to retain five Type 23 without any retirements.

The chart is there to answer the point made by Scimitar54.

So from now to 2026 there would be thirteen Type 23 and six Type 45.

By 2029 this would have increased to two Type 26, three Type 31 plus thirteen Type 23 and six Type 45.

By the end of 2035 that would have changed to eight Type 26, five Type 31, five Type 32 and six Type 45.

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

An alternative would be to not have the Type 32 at all.

Instead by 2035 aim for eleven Type 26, five Type 31, six Type 45 plus two new Type 4X.

Or, if that's too expensive then eight Type 26, eight Type 31, six Type 45 plus two Type 4X.

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AndyC wrote:By the end of 2035 that would have changed to eight Type 26, five Type 31, five Type 32 and six Type 45.
That would be v good (regardless of the path, in between, how we will have reached that situation)
- clearly points to the impossibility of then in quick succession dropping all six T45s (although the parliamentary answer to that effect is v recent indeed)
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 »

Last week the MoD published the Defence Equipment Plan for 2020-30.

Details can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2020

Unlike with previous plans this is just data without any text. This plan represents the situation as it was at the end of March 2020, so before the announcements contained in the four-year Spending Review.

At this time, Navy Command had outstanding orders of £3.5 billion committed on equipment procurement for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.

After these orders the Navy Command budget still has £8.7 billion of uncommitted equipment procurement which could be spent as below:

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

£7.38 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
• £500 million for a new multi-role research vessel
• £500 million for a replacement auxiliary oiler
• £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 £8.69 billion.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

All of the above would be good for the Navy, but every penny counts these days so in the second category I would retain only the order for the Harpoon II+ and in the third the possible order for ASROC-VL, though I would want to look at the South Korean weapon system and whether it can be used from the Mk41. The remained would all be nice to have but I would like the money to go elsewhere, in my case personally to the Army.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Repulse »

AndyC wrote:• £500 million for a new research ship
• £500 million for a replacement auxiliary oiler
What are you suggesting? Significant cost for a research ship and RFA Fort Victoria (AOR) will be replaced by one of the FSSs?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Scimitar54 »

Since when did a Solid Stores Ship suddenly become an Auxiliary Oiler? :mrgreen:

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AndyC wrote:• £1.8 billion for three Future Fleet Solid Support ships
• £1.25 billion for five Type 31 frigates – unit cost £250 million
• £500 million for a new research ship
• £500 million for a replacement auxiliary oiler
Working up, from the last item
- the latest aux oiler was on a lease; for some reason the national shipbuilding strategy had a purpose-built one on its list re: how the various build prgrms should be timed
- the first mention of the research ships that emerged had TWO of them; are we going to proceed slowly (and what will they actually be/ look like?)
- is the 1.8 bn now set, or is it just a guesstimate for this thread?
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)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

AndyC wrote:Navy Command Top Level Budget 2020-30 - £8.7 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement

£7.38 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
• £500 million for a new research ship
• £500 million for a replacement auxiliary oiler
• £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 £8.69 billion.
Picking up on some of this

if it is 1.8 b for the FSS will that include the support contract if so then we already know that type 31 will cost 2 billion

As said there was to be two research ships and 500 million will more likely be for both

I don't see we need or have spare build space for a LHD/ LHA until the Albion's go out of service in 2034 and when the FSS are built so if we were to go for a LHD it would more likely come from the 2030- 2040 budget

For me with the US Navy going for NSM in a big way and the cost I would push for 12 sets of NSM out of 200 million and fit them to type 45 and type 31 giving both class an OTH anti-ship / land attack capability

The 8 Merlin MH-1's are gone

The Mk-41 would be nice to have but the money would be better spent on getting CAMM onto type 45 with ExLS or A-50 allowing type 45 to carry 32 Aster and 64 CAMM this along with NSM would see type 45 out

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

The original FFSS competition had a budget of £1.5 billion for three ships but was called off to change the criteria to allow for greater UK participation. Reading between the lines - the only way the bidders could get down to a unit cost of £500 million was to, at least partially if not mostly, build them abroad. This, however, was not politically acceptable.

So, the competition is being re-set to favour UK shipbuilders without a fixed cost. Yes, it's my guesstimate that means an increased cost of up to £600 million each.

The auxiliary oiler is a replacement for the Wave class tankers and the research ship for HMS Scott. Maybe £500 million is a bit steep but the Navy does seem to make a regular habit of significantly overspending. For example the T31s were originally meant to cost £250 million each, so five for £1.25 billion, but the latest budget figure is £2 billion!

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

I believe we need an LHD to replace RFA Argus (see main article for my proposal).

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Scimitar54 »

This could then provide the basis for Albion Bulwark replacements a little later on. :mrgreen:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Caribbean »

£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). Did you mean for two hulls (i.e. to replace the Wave-class).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

AndyC wrote:I believe we need an LHD to replace RFA Argus (see main article for my proposal).
There are two thing here

1) RFA Argus is operated by the RFA and any LHA / LHD would be operated by the RN therefore it would not be a replacement any LHD's would be replacing the LPD's i.e the Albion's
2) the UK dose not have the yard and work force capacity to build FSS and a LHD at the same time

With this being said a build program of 3 x FSS followed by 2 x Karl Doorman (replacing the Wave class and Argus ) followed by one or two LHA / LHD's followed by 3 x Bay class replacements would see the RN and UK ship building in a good place for some time to come

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: 1) RFA Argus is operated by the RFA and any LHA / LHD would be operated by the RN therefore it would not be a replacement any LHD's would be replacing the LPD's i.e the Albion's
2) the UK dose not have the yard and work force capacity to build FSS and a LHD at the same time

With this being said a build program of 3 x FSS followed by 2 x Karl Doorman (replacing the Wave class and Argus ) followed by one or two LHA / LHD's followed by 3 x Bay class replacements
Good points,let me just modify the above: 3 x FSS, 1 KD, and before that one (keep a Wave or two going... they are not selling well ;) ) build two of the FLSSs. And then Bay replacements
- the last two classes will then fit into a fully-formed new RM doctrine
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 »

If you look at the chart below you can clearly see the advantages of replacing the two Albions, RFA Argus and the three Bays with four LHD.
Littoral capability.jpg
In terms of crew the current position is that it would take 700 RN and 260 RFA personnel to fully crew all six ships.

Replacing them with four LHD would cut the required complement to 480 RN (three ships) and 160 RFA (one ship).

The number of boats and landing craft and the total number of Royal Marines are broadly similar.

But, the really big advantage is in the helicopter capacity which would be increased from 13 to 64!!!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

Switching the Fantasy button on I have already named them

HMS Courageous , Glorious , Furious , Triumph all good carrier names

Fantasy button off it will never happen and for me if we are lucky and get one it should be based on JC-1 or HMS Ocean and not Mistral

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I think the crewing line in the comparison table is not quite 'pukka'
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 »

ArmChairCivvy
I think the crewing line in the comparison table is not quite 'pukka'
Oy! That's a bit of a cheek.

Which crew numbers are you objecting too?

If it's the Mistral crew complement please see the shipbuilders own website https://chantiers-atlantique.com/en/shi ... class-lhd/

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

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AndyC wrote: he crewing line in the comparison table is not quite 'pukka'


Oy! That's a bit of a cheek.
:)

The Albions
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)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Navy Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

AndyC wrote:
ArmChairCivvy
I think the crewing line in the comparison table is not quite 'pukka'
Oy! That's a bit of a cheek.

Which crew numbers are you objecting too?

If it's the Mistral crew complement please see the shipbuilders own website https://chantiers-atlantique.com/en/shi ... class-lhd/
You 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

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

Post Reply