Royal Navy cuts

[Tony Williams]

See this report:

 

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

 

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

 

The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.

 

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.

 

The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.

 

The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m.

 

Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018.

[Ol Paint]

It sounds like they just aren't buying the JSFs to form an air wing for the second carrier? I haven't seen anything since this news came out that says whether the second ship will be equipped with the ski-jump, so it is possible the article is making the situation out to be more dire than it is? Still, I have to wonder about the F-35B unit cost with the reduction from 138 to 50. To be sure, the USN and USAF buys will still be large, but those numbers have been dropping, too.

 

Although I have never been the greatest fan of the JSF, I am continually frustrated by the budget officials that keep making the same stupid mistakes that lead to self-feeding, spiraling costs. For the technical issues many programs have, the procurement game always seems to run something like this:

1. Ooh, our equipment is getting old. Let's buy a new SuperWidget that performs all of the missions currently handled by articles A & B. And while we are at it, the missions performed by articles C through F, but we'll accept a program estimate that places the cost at 80% of the cost of the development/procurement of article A.
   
2. Hmm, the program is progressing well, with a few hiccups, but we really need to fund a study on the consumption of endangered snail darters by sacred spotted owls, so we'll only fund half of the SuperWidget program this year, with the remaining half funded next year. Overhead costs won't change, will they?
   
3. Uh-oh, the program isn't meeting the original budget or schedule, but we can't take away from the vital Snail Owl project to get the SuperWidget back on track. Instead, let's put the program on hold for six months while we hold hearings on acquisition reform.
   
4. (Ten months later) Oh, shoot, the fiscal year is running out, we'd better release the funds before the time runs out! Tell the contractor that the funds expire at the end of the FY. And, since the program is late and over budget, let's cut the planned buy by 10%.
   
5. Gee, whiz. We're three years into the SuperWidget project and six years behind schedule. And, holy cats!, 110% over budget. Well, we'd better make sure the SuperWidget can also perform the missions of articles G through K, since we'll have to reprogram the O&M funds to cover the SuperWidget overrun. And, since we're adding all that, we might as well throw in missions L through Q. If we buy 20% fewer SuperWidgets, we'll cut costs by 20%, yes-no? Great idea!
   
6. Etc. Etc. Etc.
   

Not that there haven't been many programs with technical/production issues that cause spiraling costs, but the procurement systems & programs sure seem to be designed to fail.

 

Douglas

[JN1]

The story does seem to ignore the possibility that the Daves from QE could transfer to PoW, so long as she is equipped to operate them, when QE goes into refit. That would be rather akin to the current situation with the Naval Strike Wing.

Edited October 27, 2009 by JN1

[seahawk]

I wonder, if the RAF will get the remaining Tranche 3( B ) Typhoons now. With the reduced Typhoon buy and the reduced F-35 buy, they would be badly lacking airframes.

Edited October 27, 2009 by seahawk

[philgollin]

This report from a Murdoch-group paper (and even a follow up from the Guardian is garbled and ignores the facts. It has been posted on many forums and has been catigated on as many.

 

As pointed out the basic ships are still intended to be built. What MIGHT (and people "in the know" are doubtful about this) happen is that some minor (and easily corrected) cuts might be made.

 

Some real points ;

 

It MIGHT be that the Lightning II buy will be reduced.

 

It MIGHT be that the HMS Ocean (LPH) replacement is cancelled.

 

What is true, but isn't made clear in the article, is that the UK (and US) economies are going to be in a very sad state for the next five-plus years (thanks to the bankers) and that keeping long-term programmes going over that period is going to be a major acheivement for any government department. By, say 2020, all services are going to have a backlog of items/weapons needing replacement (for the RN it will be "small combattants" e.g. ASW Frigates, minehunters, patrol vessels, etc.... which were going to be next in-line under the C1/C2/C3 programme). IF the QE and POW are actually completed roughly on time then other issues will be more important than present day theoretically arguments.

 

.

[swerve]

The story does seem to ignore the possibility that the Daves from QE could transfer to PoW, so long as she is equipped to operate them, when QE goes into refit. That would be rather akin to the current situation with the Naval Strike Wing.

And is stated policy for the CVFs. Two ships, one air wing, in normal peacetime conditions. When the LPH is in refit, one CVF functions as an LPH. Refits scheduled so that two out of three flat-tops are always in service. i.e. exactly as the current fleet operates.

 

It sounds like they just aren't buying the JSFs to form an air wing for the second carrier? I haven't seen anything since this news came out that says whether the second ship will be equipped with the ski-jump, so it is possible the article is making the situation out to be more dire than it is? Still, I have to wonder about the F-35B unit cost with the reduction from 138 to 50.

This article is definitely putting the most gloomy possible spin on it. It's been said before that the F-35B order is likely to be in stages, running well into the 2020s. To redesign PoW not to have a ski-jump would probably cost as much as building it. We've ordered two identical ships, & everything ordered to date (including weapons handling systems for bombs, missiles etc.) has been in pairs, for both ships. PoW will definitely have a ski-jump.

 

The potentially worrying part is the suggestion that Ocean may not be replaced. But since a replacement doesn't need to be ordered for a while, finances may have improved by then.

Edited October 27, 2009 by swerve

[Argus]

The potentially worrying part is the suggestion that Ocean may not be replaced. But since a replacement doesn't need to be ordered for a while, finances may have improved by then.

 

And lets be honest, it wouldn't be the first time the RN had kept a hull in service long past its official used-by date to cover for a replacement that never arrived, or even the canceled replacement of a canceled replacement. It's almost a tradition in on the Amphib side with Fearless and Intrepid. I know Ocean isn't expected to age well, but needs must as the devil drives.

 

shane

[shep854]

By comparison, how much would the RN save by getting out of the SSBN business?

[Argus]

By comparison, how much would the RN save by getting out of the SSBN business?

 

A lot less than killing off half a dozen Quangos would bring in

 

There's no point dropping the SSBN's as any replacement strategic deterrent is going to cost more than would be saved, or the UK has to drop out of the nuke club, and political consequences of that extend far beyond the RN's operating estimates.

 

shane

[Bearded-Dragon]

Why not go back to using the RAF as the deterrent force? Bombers are much more inherently flexible than missiles. They are also cheaper than missiles and submarines.

[Argus]

Yeah, but they don't HAVE any suitable bombers, and developing/operating them costs more than building SSBN's with borrowed missiles. That's basically why they shifted to submarines in the first place, and that was back when the UK actually had an aircraft industry.

 

Today they'd need to rebuild the industrial base or buy something off Uncle Sam along with the bombs. IIRC the last of the WE177's got pulled some time ago. Ok so lets say they raid the bone yard for B1's, or get the B2 line reopened (!!!!), and scrounge up the ordnance, the RAF would still need to get back a lot of real estate and they'd still only have a very limited and fragile force, that they couldn't really use for anything else for fear of losing airframes - and that is before they start looking for a next generation.

 

shane

[Tony Williams]

Re SSBNs, how much do you think we would save if we developed a WE177 based warhead, mated it to tomahawk, and fitted it to Astute? We could bin the SSBNs when they wear out, and keep a longer production run of SSNs, which would bring costs down. OK, so it wouldnt work against the Soviet union, but times have changed and we ought to cut our cloth accordingly. Just a thought....

Yes, equipping our hunter-killer subs with nuclear-tipped Tomahawks is really the only feasible form of nuclear alternative to the Boomers, and it should be a great deal cheaper. A further upside is that it might release enough money to fund some more hunter-killers, whose numbers are shrinking to derisory levels.

 

However, apart from the lack of range, which would place central continental areas out of reach, the Tomahawk is a lot easier to shoot down than an SLBM and there are (I understand) operational issues with mixing the deterrent and HK roles. Anyway, I know it has been considered and rejected.

[Yama]

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

 

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

 

"...and the flight decks have room for 49 tennis courts..."

[Ol Paint]

And is stated policy for the CVFs. Two ships, one air wing, in normal peacetime conditions. When the LPH is in refit, one CVF functions as an LPH. Refits scheduled so that two out of three flat-tops are always in service. i.e. exactly as the current fleet operates.

This article is definitely putting the most gloomy possible spin on it. It's been said before that the F-35B order is likely to be in stages, running well into the 2020s. To redesign PoW not to have a ski-jump would probably cost as much as building it. We've ordered two identical ships, & everything ordered to date (including weapons handling systems for bombs, missiles etc.) has been in pairs, for both ships. PoW will definitely have a ski-jump.

 

The potentially worrying part is the suggestion that Ocean may not be replaced. But since a replacement doesn't need to be ordered for a while, finances may have improved by then.

The CVF is often quoted as being designed to be fitted "for but not with" catapults to support future CATOBAR operations. Unless they are relying on EMALS to fit a curved catapult track to the ski-jump, I'd have presumed the design features to build the ship without the ski-jump would have already been worked in? Regardless, I think it would be silly* to build the ship without the ski-jump since it would confer the ability to fill in for the QE during availability periods.

 

*Since it's a silly idea, though, I wouldn't bet against it.

 

Douglas

[philgollin]

Yes the basic design is meant to be designed to be "future-proofed". It is meant to be able to operate as a "harrier-carrier" with ski-jump utilising Lightning IIs with dedicated maintenace bays in the hangar. However, it is also meant to be designed to have the space, strength and tonnage available to be converted to an angled deck carriers with catapults and arrestors using either steam or EMALS (obviously if EMALS works the steam option will probably be discarded).

 

RichardB's site has more info than you could possibly want on the saga of these ships.

 

http://frn.beedall.com/index.html

 

The original article is disingenuous as a basic POW hull as LPH would probably be 98+% of a Lightning II operating POW, and it is almost certain that someone would point out between now and then how stupid it would be to have two dissimilar capability ships for the small saving that might be acheived.

 

The real problem is the possible/rumoured loss of an HMS Ocean (LPH) replacement and the aging of the small vessel fleet (frigates, Minehunters and patrol vessels).

 

.

[TonyE]

Is there any analysis done on how much the future RN would save if they were "fitted for, but not with", ships?

[R3MF]

the real answer on whether POW becomes a commando ship, and the true LPH replacement gets canned is dependent on the answer to the question posed by the RUSI report: A Force for Honour.

 

Do we opt for:

1. The Global Guadian Option - Independent theatre operations capable of high intensity conflict

2. The Strategic Raiding Option - Specialised Assualt forces backed up by a global Royal Navy

3. The Contributory Option - Sacrifice Great Power status to provide essential specialist capability to the US/EU

4. Gendarmerie/Little Britain - Sacrifice Great Power status and concentrate on homeland defence + coastguard duties

 

5. The option we are supposed to be following (i.e. both #1 & #2) - A Force For Good, as outlined in the SDR but considered unaffordable

 

I want option #5, but i expect option #1 or #2, as options #3 and #4 and a disgrace which will seriously leave me considering emigrating to Oz or Canada.

And were i to have to choose between #1 and #2, i would pick the Strategic Raiding Option as more fitting with our geographic realities and historic commitments.

Edited October 28, 2009 by R3MF

[Jeff]

Daves? Quangos? What language are you people people speaking?

[Allan W]

Daves? Quangos? What language are you people people speaking?

 

Quango = Quasi-autonomous national government organization. Basically a statutory agency with powers devolved from the Gov't. The FDA would be a US example of a QUANGO.

[AETiglathPZ]

Geeze, why doesn't the MoD just make two supersized LHD's and get it over it. Or just buy WASP class ships for their carrier needs from the US instead of playing budget "musical chairs."

[philgollin]

Quango = Quasi-autonomous national government organization. Basically a statutory agency with powers devolved from the Gov't. The FDA would be a US example of a QUANGO.

 

 

Not quite,

 

QUasi- Autonomous, Non- Governmenta Organisation. I.E. "NON-Governmental" rather than "National-Governmental".

 

The whole point is that these are NOT part of government, but operate under governmnet rules. This means that they are easy to blame but have to operate within a set of rules set-up by Government.

 

They are more remote than something like the FDA. But the government controls their budgets and can IF NECESSARY change the rules very quickly (which is one of the main reasons governments like them.

 

.

[Lampshade111]

Any chance the British will keep full STOVL capability on the carrier and buy more F-35Bs in a later budget? Seems a damn waste.

 

And cutting one of your SSBNs too? Doesn't anyone powerful in your country get pissed off with such cuts?

[swerve]

The MoD has officially denied the story, & confirmed that we're buying two carriers, not a carrier & a big LPH.

[philgollin]

................ Personally Ive my doubts if either of them enter service with the RN. I hope Im wrong, because it means they stripped the RN bare for nothing.

 

 

Ah ! Now that is a slight, but very important difference.

 

Unfortunately, I can see WHICHEVER government gets into power next year seeking desparately for ways of saving money before the next election in 2015. If India had any sense (or even France - HORRORS ! ) they would be sniffing round after the next government has sat down and looked at the books sensibly and started worrying.

 

.

[Gunguy]

I was just reading about the cost of the A-stan ops. The whole cost of Iraq/A-stan last near decade have been tremendous. Both the US and UK are heading for smaller militaries. Cuts are coming as the money we are giving to Iraq and A-stan is just too much. We have run our national credit cards up about as high as we should go......... Cuts are coming.....for both countries.