Royal Navy in the Strategic Defence Review

[uk 75]

I thought it was about time for a bit of bar thumping. Now that we have a new
Government the MOD will be doing a Strategic Review. It seems to me that the
Royal Navy will have an opportunity to shape its escort fleet for the next 20 to 30 years.

Some things seem to be given already. Submarines remain the RN's capital ships. Despite
their problems the Astute class are likely to continue to be ordered in modest quantities
and will probably provide the basis for the Trident replacement subs.

The RN amphibious warfare fleet has just completed a generational renewal. As with their
predecessors these ships can expect to become the focus for savings, probably in delaying
refits and reducing the ready availability. The UK's appetite for wars of choice and overseas
intervention has diminished considerably since the heady days of Kosovo and Sierra Leone.

The aircraft carriers are versatile large platforms and likely to appear in some form. Their fate
may actually be helped by the likely cancellation in the US of the unsuccessful JSF vstol variant.
This will force the RN to re-consider whether it can actually afford F18s or conventional JSF
in small quantities at a time when the RAF has a surplus of brand new fast jets. The need for
a new fast jet programme to replace Tornados and Harriers should merge with this into a new
programme for the next thirty years. I would expect the Invincibles to soldier on to fill the gap
as they are useful RAF Harrier and joint force helo platforms (with Ocean).

This leaves the escort ships. In the absence of an enemy fleet in being (other than perhaps
Argentina), the role of these ships will need careful study. Experience suggests that a large versatile
platform based on the existing Type 45 hull would be a better use of funds than cramped small ships
chasing illusory export markets (Type 21 offers a useful lesson here, none were built for export).

Something to get the RN fans going

UK 75

 

[Vpanoptes]

...
The aircraft carriers are versatile large platforms and likely to appear in some form. Their fate
may actually be helped by the likely cancellation in the US of the unsuccessful JSF vstol variant. (emphasis mine) This will force the RN to re-consider whether it can actually afford F18s or conventional JSF
in small quantities at a time when the RAF has a surplus of brand new fast jets. ...

Hmmm, do you have a reliable source or reference for this information or is it just your opinion?

 

[zen]

The easiest target for Obama is likely to be the F35-C, so its not clear whats going to happen over the whole JSF fleet as is. But F35-B is the one the UK is interested in and we're the only Level 1 partner. I would say its easier to cut the -C because it has no international customer, while the -B has the UK and Italy, with potential for Spain and a number of others.

All that said CVF can switch to CATOBAR with ease, but the increased training and operational costs are not likely to win the UK round unless its forced to.

Nuclear submarines, we require another new design and build, or we loose the abiliy. Either a follow on SSN or the SSBN effort, there is no scope for doing nothing here, and precious little for savings too.

Now strategicaly, the Deterrent and the expiditionary capability are part of return to the UKs traditional stance. Gone is the Euro-centric focus on Cold War enemies and gone too since the increasing realisation the UK does'nt need a prop like the Euro, is the political tunnel vision of EU "ever closer union".

Consider that growth in the EU is low while growth in extra-Europa economies is much higher. The UK to grow higher than the EU will require more, not less involvement in these other regions outside Europe.

Chief development in the surface fleet is now the Type 26 vessel. The culimation of the whole FSC saga. Focus should be on a quiet hull for ASW, and this may exclude the Type 45 hull. But not exclude the Type 45 systems.
What the Type 26 needs however is more than just ARTISAN, a second radar is required to get the best out of CAMM.

 

[uk 75]

Thanks for the comments..

My only source on JSF is leafing through various reports in the press and the
internet which seem to suggest that the vertical version of the JSF is the one
with the technical problems, but that the project generally is plagued with delays
and overruns.
It just seems to me given the Treasury input is likely to be quite high that sliding
fast jet procurement further to the right and ekeing out production of Typhoon
is very attractive to them.

Zen
I am not sure that the policy of Liberal Interventionism (Kosovo, Sierra Leone etc) is
traditional UK policy, it tended to be more guarding our strategic interests East of Suez,
which we no longer have, or in the case of the Gulf, share with the world's only serious
naval power- the US.

Any Strategic Defence Review is going to find it hard to pin down
major nation threats (other than the MOD/Army old chestnut of resurgent Russia).

British Aerospace seem to have their hands full making the Astutes work, I am not sure the
Treasury would look kindly on giving Bae more of the taxpayer's scarce pounds. Equally, I
do not expect Type 26 to be very cutting edge for the same reason. With the Lib Dems in the Coalition
we may even be asked to consider the FREMM or European projects.

Like the RAF, the RN (especiall after the famous Gulf fiasco) has few friends in the Media. I think
the Army will use their high profile in Afghanistan to take down some of the big ticket projects of the
other services (their main battle tanks will not need replacing for another decade if at all, and in any
case Leopard 2 and Abrams can be had off the shelf or on loan/lease. However, the Army will have to come clean and admit that it has difficulty fielding even a single Division with decent kit and manpower. A Brigade Group, with proper manning and kit would be a much better bet. The US is content for us to be along for the ride, they do not need us to be very big I am afraid.

UK 75

 

[zen]

F35-C is the furthest back on development schedules last i heard, I would imagine the -B issues are resolvable at least as far as the RN is concerned. Which where any order is likely to come from, as I suspect the RAF will loose the Harrier replacement and soldier on with Typhoon, hoping for some future UCAV. That cuts orders for the F35, but keeps our foot in the door should we need to expand orders and it pushes the RAF buy further away into the future.

What I do expect is some sort of expanded weapons and external podded systems integration for the Typhoon, which on the face of it looks like increased costs, until you realise its going to eat into the justification for keeping the Tornado fleet. When you see Raptor pods on Typhoon (Raptyph?), we'll know the mighty fins days are numbered.

Strategicaly the UK has played an involved role since Elizibeth I's time, but ramped up and up for the global contests with France, and Germany. I don't see any withdrawl to regional only or worse isolationist stance anytime soon. Our trade is expanding to the Far East, Africa and to South America and the flow of goods each way is essential to our interests, even when it does'nt directly affect us but rather our European trading partners. Factor that in with the trend towards Euroskepticism and our continuing links to the Dominion states and the argument to stay involved is clear.
Astutes are comming right, fortunately the early mistakes where made and corrected. The best way to capitalise on that expense is to turn lessons learned into a new sub and build it.

Army is playing its hand hard, but in the end its success in winning cuts elsewhere will come back to haunt the UK. National interests trump the Army's pride.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Some of the latest fallout from the SDR. Via Naval Technology:

Australian Navy Acquires UK Navy Landing Ship

07 April 2011


The Australian Navy has acquired Largs Bay, the UK's Bay Class amphibious ship, Defence Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Materiel Minister Jason Clare have said.

Largs Bay is a landing ship dock (LSD) which was commissioned into UK Navy service in 2006, but was scrapped under the UK Government's 2010 Defence Strategic Review.

The 176m-long and 16,000t ship can accommodate two large helicopters, around 150 light trucks and 350 troops.

The ship, acquired for £65m ($100m), is expected to be operational in early 2012 and will provide the Australian Navy with amphibious heavy lift capability.

Teekay Shipping Australia has inspected the ship and found it in good condition from a technical point of view with no major defects.

The navy will conduct sea trials to confirm the material state of the ship before acquisition.


http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news115439.html

 

[uk 75]

The Aussies deserve a good deal. They are among the few countries prepared to join in when there's a fight. Shame they don't want Ark Royal as well.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Libya forces David Cameron to rethink defence cuts

David Cameron is reconsidering the Coalition’s defence cuts in the light of the conflict in Libya, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent 9:50PM BST 07 Apr 2011


The Prime Minister is “actively engaged” in a reassessment of Britain’s military capabilities and planned reductions in equipment and manpower, sources have disclosed.

The rethink has raised hopes that some of the cuts to military aircraft and ships in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) could be postponed or even reversed. Insiders said it was not too late for a change of mind on the decision to cut the number of RAF Tornados and scrap surveillance planes. Some Royal Navy frigates could also be spared, or have their retirement delayed.

In the first sign of compromise on defence cuts, Mr Cameron has ordered the Treasury to give the Ministry of Defence a reprieve on its overspent 2011-12 budget. The £800 million climbdown will spare the Armed Forces further cuts this year. Senior government figures admitted that the Libyan conflict has raised questions about the wisdom of cuts that will leave Britain facing a “dip” in its military capabilities for several years.

“The debate is live. The Prime Minister is very much part of it. There’s a lot of objective thinking going on,” said a senior defence source.

Ministers remain adamant that there is no scope for a formal reopening of the defence review. Its fundamental analysis of Britain’s place in the world and the threats the nation faces is not being questioned.

The Government is already facing accusations of a reversal over its flagship health reforms, and ministers are keen to avoid any suggestion of another retreat. Mr Cameron and his team are said to be looking at whether the SDSR’s cuts went too far and left Britain inadequately equipped for today’s international security situation.

The defence source said: “The vision for 2020 is not bad but the question is, can we take the risk of the dip to get there? The uncertain world we envisaged [at the end of the decade] is here now.”

This week Nick Harvey, a defence minister, admitted that operations in Libya and Afghanistan had left the Armed Forces “at full stretch”. Britain would “struggle” to cope with further military emergencies, he said. There remains little chance of HMS Ark Royal, Britain’s last aircraft carrier, being saved. Restoring the Royal Navy’s Harrier jump jets is also ruled out as prohibitively expensive.

Any reassessment of Britain’s defence requirements would be warmly welcomed by Conservative MPs and military campaigners, who have strongly criticised the cuts.

But with the defence budget already overspent, any reprieve for planes or ships could mean bigger cuts elsewhere in defence, with Army numbers potentially vulnerable. Mr Cameron told MPs last month that he was prepared to look again at the SDSR and its conclusions amid the Libyan crisis and turmoil across the Middle East.

“We will look very closely at all the lessons we should learn from what we are engaged in: diplomatically; politically; and in terms of both foreign policy and military equipment,” he said.

“We think that we did anticipate the sorts of things we are doing now, but if there are further lessons to learn, of course we should learn them.”

A senior government source confirmed that the SDSR cuts were the subject of ongoing reassessment. “You don’t just have a review and leave it at that,” he said. “You are always checking you have got what you need.” Mr Cameron has been stung by the political backlash from the SDSR and cuts to the Armed Forces, such as this week’s announcement that thousands of soldiers and seamen will be sacked in September.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has said the defence review was “the most difficult thing” the Coalition has done since taking office. Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has spoken openly of his personal dismay at making cuts to the Armed Forces.

Downing Street worries about public anger have helped the MoD win a Whitehall battle with the Treasury over its budget this year. Officials had identified a shortfall of almost £1 billion, meaning a “gruesome” new round of defence cuts had to be drawn up. But in a significant concession, the MoD will be able to avoid most of those cuts. Under a compromise deal, the MoD can spend more money from the Treasury’s special reserve to fund costs associated with Libya and Afghanistan.

The MoD will also be allowed to spend up to £500 million this year, which it expects to raise by selling Eurofighter jets to Oman. It will also be able to spend money which it has promised to recoup by renegotiating procurement contracts. Whitehall sources said the Treasury’s new “flexibility” would fill up to three-quarters of the shortfall. The remaining gap – around £200  million – will be filled through unprecedented new cost controls imposed on the MoD by the Treasury. Those restrictions could mean new Chinook helicopters promised to the Army are delayed by several years.

Despite the deal on this year’s spending, insiders remain worried that the defence budget could come under strain again later in the current four-year spending round. Mr Cameron has already promised the Armed Forces that they will get real increases in spending in the next round, starting in 2015. But it is understood that military chiefs have told the Prime Minister that they may need more money during the current round if they are avoid even deeper cuts.

One defence industry executive said the Treasury’s ''flexibility’’ meant the MoD was living on the “same old voodoo budgets” that marked Labour’s years in office, where future liabilities were understated and delayed, pushing up eventual costs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8436505/Libya-forces-David-Cameron-to-rethink-defence-cuts.html

 

[Grey Havoc]

Diamond Jubilee: The Queen no longer rules the waves (Daily Telegraph)

 

[robunos]

From the above linked article :-


"And today? Allowing for inflation, Britain’s GDP is four times greater than in 1953 but the country appears incapable of maintaining a viable fleet. Today it comprises two helicopter carriers, 1 active assault ship, six destroyers, 13 frigates, 42 minor vessels and 13 auxiliaries. Take away escorts on operations or in refit and the Navy would, as Lord West says, struggle to field more than a handful for a review. But one thing our increasingly Ruritanian fleet is not short of is admirals. There are 28 full, vice and rear admirals, one per major combat unit, surely the most over-managed structure in the country."


Pitiful...........


cheers,
Robin.

 

[alertken]

Like most Defence journalism nowadays, this is shoddy writing. "Who is there to fight at sea" was PM Attlee's response to Admiralty's budget request, 1946. Q: What are USN's 11 CV Task forces for? Why, with no formed force enemy, is RN building its heaviest, dearest-ever capital ships? We want 8 and we won't wait made some kind of sense when others, too, were building apace. The conventional A is: You never can tell...but if I were PM, no CVF. China's capability, much the same as India's, is littoral, local, and quite legitimate. No other formed force in sight.

But...given that their Lordships have preservesd a Fleet, its cheapest Units are measured in £half-billions, and consume very capital/skills expensive people. One-to-two stars per ship seems not out of kilter with commercial practice in management of scarce resources.

 

[uk 75]

Well, 12 years on we have a shiny new government in Britain promising a new comprehensive Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
As a somewhat jaded pensioner who was in Whitehall during the infamous 1981 Nott Review and the Robertson 1997 SDR which inspired the latest one I am not holding my breath.

Leaving aside the nuclear deterrent which has only been a factor since WW2 the dilemma seems to me very similar to what it has been since the beginning of the last century.

Should the UK focus on the Royal Navy at the expense of maintaining.an Army able to fight in Continental Europe?

In the 30s both major roles suffered because the RAF was seen as cheaper and delivering more impact.

Instead of trying to do everything badly, as we did throughout two World Wars, the Cold War and ever since, does Britain need to admit its limits and play to our strengths.

We are pretty poor at maintaining effective armoured forces compared with our European allies.

The Royal Navy on the other hand has more pure air defence destroyers than France and is the only.European Navy able to work closely with US SSNs. Our two aircraft carriers are valued by the US Marines.

The RAF has an effective mixture of Typhoons and F35s but needs something like Patriot and Iron Dome to defend key targets from Ukraine style raids.

I expect the SDR will continue with the old formula of equal misery.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I expect the SDR will continue with the old formula of equal misery.

Oh, I suspect that it will be much worse than that.