I have looked at the issue of energy, food and water security a few times and as a companion to the previous piece on strategy I thought a follow up would be useful.
This isn’t an exhaustive list but concentrates on resources, energy, food and trade.
The Conservative party, to their credit, highlighted the issue a number of times pre-election, even though they indulged in a spot of scaremongering. In October 2009 the Shadow Energy Minister, Greg Clark MP, delivered a speech on the issue titled Keeping Britain’s Lights on. For maximum showbiz effect, it started with the lights off and raised the spectre of rolling blackouts. There was also a strong inference that we were at the mercy of the Kremlin, all they had to do was turn off the taps and old ladies in bobble hats would be dropping like flies.
In 2009, in the grip of an extremely cold winter, several large industrial users faced restrictions in supply as domestic users were prioritised. These large users had signed up for interruptible tariffs in return for discount pricing so could not really complain, you pays your money and you take your chances. This however, did not stop the bandwagon jumpers (i.e. press and opposition politicians) seizing upon the issue, evoking the famous phrase ‘keeping the lights on’ yet again.
The Conservative Party’s pre election strategy paper, A Resilient Nation, devoted a paragraph to the issue of energy security, stating;
The danger that the country now faces of a real risk of the lights going out – inadequate power to keep the economy going – was entirely predictable even before Tony Blair spoke and yet his government did virtually nothing. Taken together, the lack of resilience in the UK’s stretched power generation, strained energy transmission, insecurity of energy supply and lack of emergency storage is nothing short of alarming. Forming a coherent energy policy, joining domestic with overseas factors, security with long term climate change goals and private sector investment with government policies on resilience of systems will be an urgent Conservative priority on entering office and is an example of an approach that can be applied to other essential sectors
In a supporting Annexe, the paper makes it clear that the armed forces will play a part in addressing the issue of energy security
Reflect energy security concerns in the tasking of the Armed Forces. The MoD should have regard to energy security in the tasking of our Armed Forces, for example the Royal Navy in the security of the sea lanes and the safety of maritime traffic
Beyond this rather bland statement about keeping the sea lanes open how realistically can we shape the armed forces to meet our very real energy and material security issues?
What would their role be, what configuration and equipment would be needed, is it actually the job of the military to contribute to energy security?
Starting with the issues…
Energy
The UK demand for energy is only ever going to go one way, up. Even if a collection of overly restrictive ‘green’ policies succeeds in driving heavy industry offshore, which it seems is increasingly the case, population growth will drive demand for gas and electricity up.
Energy resilience is perhaps one of the most pressing and important issues the UK faces, certainly more important than the threat from Islamic terrorism.
Whatever your feelings on nuclear, global warming, the oil industry or renewable energy, the fact is, today, the UK is a net energy importer and baring some surprise technological development is likely to remain so. With the future of nuclear being made more uncertain in the aftermath of Fukushima this will create a double impact for the UK.
First, it is likely that demand from Japan for Middle East LNG will increase placing our divertable supply contracts under competitive economic pressure.
Secondly, the issue in Japan (and now Germany)will inevitably delay any build out of UK nucelar generation capacity,
Combined with faster than expected reduction in UK oil and gas extraction, wasted investments in renewables such as wind that have hoovered up all the energy investment funds and other factors point to a pressing energy problem for the UK.
Currently, gas for power generation contributes to both base load and peak loads. Gas is currently sourced from dwindling North Sea fields, pipeline delivered gas from continental Europe (Norway and Russia) and ship delivered Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from the USA and Middle East (mostly Qatar)
In 2006 Qatar overtook Indonesia as the world’s largest exporter of LNG and its North Field reserve is the largest in the world with an equivalent capacity of 150 years UK peak demand. The Qatargas II supply chain is a quite staggering project, the South Hook LNG terminal in Milford Haven, 14 new LNG tankers, 30 wells, 2 onshore processing facilities and the supporting infrastructure. It is the largest LNG terminal in Europe and can satisfy 20% of the UK’s demand alone.
The agreement with Qatargas is for a 20 year, non divertable supply. Within the terms of the agreement, supply cannot be diverted elsewhere if they pay more.
Nearby is the Dragon LNG terminal, similar to South Hook although smaller, there are other large terminals on Teesside and the Isle of Grain.
In addition to Qatar, the UK imports LNG from, Kuwait, Algeria and Trinidad.
Major gas pipelines include the Langeled and Vesterled routes from Norway, the IUK pipeline to Belgium and BBL pipeline to the Netherlands. These pipelines link the UK to the wider European gas infrastructure and at the height of the Russian supply crisis even allowed the UK to export gas into Europe.
Unless new and extractable UK reserves are found it is likely that by 2030 the UK will be a total gas importer
Shale gas, underground coal gasification and thorium nuclear generators remain intriguing prospects and may yet reduce our dependence on imported energy but it would seem prudent to base our future medium term plans around imported LNG and pipelines from Europe i.e. Russian/Norwegian gas. In May this year the UK imported more gas in the form og ship delivered LNG than it did via the pipeline(s) from Norway and the extensive investment in terminal capacity means the UK is now a route to Europe.
LNG requires timely distribution because of evaporation, the natural gas is compressed to form a liquid and although modern LNG carriers have onboard boil off regasification plants, a significant volume is still lost (although some of this is used to power the ship, a neat trick)
Transmission, generation and storage capabilities have seen variance in investment but many projects are in the pipeline so to speak and the realisation that renewables are going to have to take a back seat to gas and nuclear generation means that even a government in denial must at some point snap out of their ‘green’ trance and start generating more than hot air and wishful thinking.
The recent outspoken criticism of the Renewable Obligation Certificate and carbon reduction targets from the chairman of Aggreko, the temporary power group, must serve as yet another wakeup call to this delinquent government. Robert Soames went on to say;
“The idea that CCS [carbon capture and storage] is going to be able to contribute significantly to power generation inside of 15 or 20 years is bonkers. People who are not engineers seem to have an unrealistic view of what’s going to be possible”
He also accused politicians of “holding hands and singing Kumbaya to the great green God” but warned the reality is it will be many decades before renewable energy can plug the gap left by traditional sources of power.
Whatever happens with the domestic market it is likely that we will increasingly rely on gas imports, delivered to the UK in LNG tankers or via pipelines from Europe, the security of those supplies must be a high priority for the whole of government.
With three major pipelines and at least 4 large scale LNG terminals in operation it would seem the reception infrastructure is in place. Storage is currently carried out by using mainly natural underground geological features or exhausted gas fields but additional investment in this area should be an obvious means of increasing resilience to supply fluctuation.
Short, medium and long term storage facilities are characterised by the speed of filling and the speed of supply into the grid, a careful blend of all three is needed.
So the UK, with some caveats on storage, has a reasonable gas infrastructure which is actually a testament to those involved, working on despite the attention renewables have obtained recently.
However, just because we have the infrastructure, does not secure supply.
A similar set of complex issues also surrounds oil and refined products, with UK production falling off more rapidly than predicted and the demand for imported products rising.
So it should be clear that the UK faces an uncertain energy future, if current government policies do not address the wishful thinking on renewable energy and start acting in the interests of this country there exists, despite the scaremongering, a real threat to continuity of supply, especially if storage is not addressed and the supplies from the Middle East are disrupted.
Maritime Trade
The UK is most definitely island, a large coastline in excess of 10,000 miles and over 600 ports but despite this, the vast majority of maritime port traffic is concentrated in a very small number, about 50.
The increasing tonnage of UK registered merchant shipping has happened despite a decreasing tonnage of Royal Navy ships and it is because of the Tonnage Tax and Seafarers Earnings Deduction make it tax efficient to register in the UK.
The global shipping insurance industry is largely based in London, Lloyds and many other P&I Clubs contribute a significant amount to the UK economy. Shipping agents and brokers also form a large sector.
We should also not ignore the maritime leisure sector; it is huge and supports many jobs.
Food
The UK was at its highest food self sufficiency since the 19th century in 1980, at the height of industrial food production.
This has steadily declined from 80% to about 60% now.
This increases to nearly 75% for food that can be grown in the UK but this can be misleading because these self sufficiency percentages are calculated as the farm gate value of raw food for production divided by the value of raw food for consumption, it is therefore an economic indicator, not a measure of food security.
The story of our food security is a complex one, whilst we might import over £30 billion per year, in the same period we export just under half that. In terms of diversity, after the UK, the largest suppliers are the Netherlands (6.2%), Spain (5.1%), France (3.5%), Germany (2.7%) and Ireland (2.5%)
The source for individual produce is intriguing; Saudi Arabia supplies a significant quantity of the UK’s tomatoes for example. Africa provides about 14% of the UK’s fruit and vegetables imports, with 47% of that coming from South Africa.
These ratios also fail to take into account the nature of goods imported to actually process the food we grow ourselves, fertiliser, fuel, pesticides, animal feed, food processing equipment and farm machinery for example.
The figures underling all these statistics are also sometimes called into question because they rely on farm surveys and collection techniques that might not always be wholly accurate.
What is obvious though is that as a nation we rely on the global food market, like almost all other industrial countries.
Lots of stats at DEFRA, for those interested and they also publish an excellent summary called the Food Statistics Pocket Book, download here
Threats
The first important thing to recognise is that the world trading system is hugely resilient; it has to be to be commercially viable.
Importers and exporters have a vested interest in making sure they can trade, it is this point that is often completely misunderstood by those seeking to scaremonger and generate a reason for continuing investment in security or military solutions.
Commercial organisations invest in resilience, supply diversity and recovery capabilities because it makes economic sense to do so, in many ways, corporates have a more mature view of strategy issues than governments, which are largely based on the political horizon. The non divertable 20 year contracts with Qatar are a great example, the private sector investing $13billion (including £1billion for South Hook at Milford Haven)
However, there are limits to what business can do and these limits are often exceeded at points of concentration; a port, a distribution point or choke point. The physical movement of gas, oil or food relies on port facilities, ships, airports, aircraft and pipelines.
Looking at the nature of UK trade it is clear that the scaremongering about maritime security if often overstated.
Although the vast majority (95%) of imports and exports by volume travel by ship this is much less by value, also, 65-70% of both imports and exports by volume are between the UK and Europe where it might be argued the greatest threat is accident, bad weather and the odd WWII sea mine.
The security threats to shipping in the North Sea are self evidently different than those in the Gulf of Aden.
If we consider the amount of shipping movements between the UK and North America those percentages rise even higher, again, minimal security threats exist against this traffic.
Food imports are also overwhelmingly from Europe, excepting certain types of produce although as noted above, food production relies on imported products including oil and gas powered electricity production.
The threat to the UK therefore, is to a small percentage of shipping that originates outside Europe and North America, about 20% by volume.
The naval lobby, a group that is obviously seeking funding for the Royal Navy is preference to the other services, often exaggerate both the percentages and threats, seeking to confuse the lame minded politicians who take on face value a load of convincing statistics without any understanding of what lies behind them.
It is a fallacy to think that all the UK’s import of gas comes through the Suez Canal and Straits of Hormuz, this is simply not the case, despite that argument or inference constantly popping up. It is equally untrue to suggest that the UK is any more vulnerable to disruption to the global trading system than France, Germany, Norway or Spain. We are linked to the rest of Europe by a network of sea routes, diverse shipping providers and of course the Channel Tunnel which carried about 15 million tonnes of freight cargo last year, in an emergency, all routes could be significantly increased.
However, LNG supplies from Qatar are a particular concern. LNG ships have to transit the Straits of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandab, and the Suez Canal, all potentially hazardous locations. Because of the volatile nature of LNG extended transits via the Cape will result in higher losses and increased cost so these should concern us all.
Straits of Hormuz; About 15 million barrels of oil per day flow through the Straits of Hormuz, and its 2 mile wide shipping channel, between Iran and Oman. Volume through the Straits has declined in recent years as pipeline build outs continue but it is still the world’s most vital chokepoint. On average 13 tankers per day pass through the straits on their Eastbound route, with a corresponding empty traffic going the other way. It should be noted that more than 75% of export traffic through the Straits is destined for Asian markets. If the Straits were closed the existing pipeline routes would have to cope but these already carry a significant volume. The East West Pipeline pair from the East of Saudi Arabia to Yanbu on the Red Sea is rated at just under 5 million barrels of oil per day and 0.3 million barrels per day of liquid gas. The Habshan-Fujairah pipeline is about to commission and this will transport oil from Abu Dhabi to another of the seven emirates of the UAE, Fujairah, on the East shores of the Strait. At about 1.5 million barrels per day capacity this will provide a greater level of security for the oil trading nations on the South coast of the Persian Gulf. With Iraq returning to some semblance of normality it is quite possible that existing and new pipelines would see greater utilisation, especially through Turkey. As can be seen from the map below a network of gas pipelines also exist in the area although there would need to be significant investment in compression and storage facilities if Qatar LNG were to be transported in this manner.
Bab el-Mandab; The Bab el-Mandab is a chokepoint between the horn of Africa and the Middle East, and a strategic link between the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean. It is located between Yemen, Djibouti, and Eritrea, and connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. Most exports from the Persian Gulf that transit the Suez Canal and SUMED pipeline also pass through the Bab el-Mandab. About 1.8 million barrels per day of oil is moved through the area on its way to Suez and the SUMED pipeline, most destined for the USA and Europe. If it were effectively closed it would place greater pressure on the Saudi East West pipeline. As piracy in the area continues to rise, security is an increasing concern. Because there are currently no effective diversion routes for LNG products close of the Bab el-Mandab would result in LNG tankers having to go around Africa.
Suez Canal; The Suez Canal is accompanied by the SUMED pipeline which runs parallel to it. It connects the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez in the Eastern Mediterranean with a length of nearly 120 miles. LNG represents about 11% of tonnage and 5% of ships but this is growing especially for Belgian, Italian and UK bound traffic. Because the canal cannot handle the very largest tankers they unload their liquid cargo which is then transited by the 2.3 million barrel per day SUMED pipeline and loaded again at the other end. Closure of the Suez canal and/or SUMED pipeline would require a 6,000 mile, 15 day diversion. This extra journey time would reduce throughput by tying up a finite number of tankers and ultimately drive up costs.
When looking at realistic threats to these three vital chokepoints it is important to consider that the UK is not alone in having a strategic interest.
Traffic is two way and concerns not only the consumer countries but also those producing the oil, gas or other products.
If there were a disruption to any one or all three, the UK would not stand alone in efforts to resolve the situation.
There is also a difference between vulnerability to disruption and likelihood of it happening.
If Suez were closed, commercial shipping would simply go around the long way, yes this would add time and cost but in what circumstances would this happen anyway.
Who is going to block the canal and who is going to keep it blocked?
About 1,500 vessels per month pass through the Suez and provide Egypt with in excess of $5 billion foreign currency revenue per year. Along with energy and tourism it is the largest source of income for the country so any political party that decides to deny itself the two largest revenue sources, for tourism would surely follow any any disruption to the Suez, plus the likely suspension of foreign inward development investment is not likely to last long as it finds itself unable to pay its own people.
A more credible scenario is that of terrorism, either attacking the fabric of the canal or ships in transit.
As mentioned above, it is not in Egypt’s interests to allow canal traffic to be reduced and if shipping owners thought there a realistic threats they would carry the additional risk until it became more economic to re-route, at which point Egypt would have to do something. A scuttled or sunk ship at certain points would be a serious impediment to traffic but due to the vast size of the canal it is actually not that vulnerable to sustained denial with such pin prick attacks. Unless multiple attacks succeeded it is not likely that any damage would be enduring. That said, the threat of maritime terrorism remains credible and an attack would cause oil price fluctuations if not the closure of the canal.
The Bab el-Mandab is a different prospect, Yemen remains a fragile state and unlike Egypt, has no skin in the game when it comes to revenues from the area. Although it is a much larger geographic area and therefore harder to deny it would be feasible to create the conditions where commercial shipping owners decide the long way around is the preferred option, although I am sure Egypt, having just lost all its SUMED and Suez Canal revenue might have something to say about the matter. Disruption would not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
The Straits of Hormuz is an intriguing prospect because the most likely suspect, Iran that is, getting up to mischief bymaking threats or actually carrying out real interdiction of shipping would be playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship.
Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia would all be drawn into any conflict, as would the Western nations in support, China might even get its sleeves rolled up because 75% of traffic through the straits is Eastbound and given that much of Iran’s foreign income generation activity also relies on the Straits any action would necessarily have to be short term.
Because of their economic mismanagement Iran has to import food and even petroleum products, they rely on a small number of refineries and in reality, if they attempted to shut the Straits they would suffer a very serious reprisal and any disruption would be over in 2 weeks, move along here, nothing to see, oh, except the Iranian economy in tatters.
It would not be sensible for Iran to carry out its sabre rattling threats because in reality the sabre rattling occurs in front of a mirror.
Logic does not always come into it though so we should never discount the actions of Iran, they remain a threat (hence pipeline building)
A much more likely threat is that to individual Gulf nations and facilities but again, this risks a wider conflagration and ignores the continuing efforts of everyone in the region to negate the strategic importance of the Straits by busily building pipelines. In fact, with sufficient investment in pipelines it is possible that the most vulnerable nation to blocking the Straits of Hormuz would be Iran itself.
Perhaps we should threaten them with closing the Straits!
Non Military Solutions
The sooner the UK government realises that the ‘power projection’ is not necessarily always the best solution for UK security the better.
The problem is that despite the best intentions and fine words of this government, when it comes to budgets its business as usual.
It might come as a surprise to read this on a defence blog and military capabilities are about much more than securing energy supplies and fresh strawberries, but we should also consider the wide angle.
With oil prices so high, oil fields in UK waters that were once considered uneconomic to exploit will now become viable. It is certainly in the national interest to use public funding to increase exploration and technology development because oil should be considered a strategic concern. Perhaps the recent Scottish political climate is clouding the investment issue, if devolution leads to independence then which nation would reap the benefits of ‘British’ investment.
Why are we not investing public money in exploration around the Falkland Islands?
There is little doubt that the UK has not used its North Sea windfall wisely, with what is left and the prospects of more fields, the nation needs to take a longer term view and realise the market is not always the answer.
Greater cooperative investment in infrastructure in the Gulf region should also not be ruled out, especially in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Oman, our traditional and historic allies in the region.
Security around our ports and pipelines should be increased but this is a civil matter, apart from specialist capabilities like mine countermeasures. Our police are now armed and high competent, is there any reason why an armed coastal security force, scaled and equipped for the most likely threats of terrorism and smuggling, is not possible?
The South Hook LNG terminal cost just under a billion pounds, or about the same cost as money wasted on FRES and associated projects (with nothing to show for it) so far, less than half the cost of delaying CVF the first time or one twentieth of the cost of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq so far.
Puts things into perspective doesn’t it.
Military Solutions
Despite my belief that non military spending should be prioritised over military spending or at least food and energy security not used as all encompassing arguments for yet more military expenditure, there is an absolute need for military capabilities to integrate into the resilience and security matrix.
It is in the national interest to do so.
If we accept that sometimes military solutions are the answer to an unpleasant question we need to indulge in a spot of critical thinking, how best to apply our military and diplomatic levers to ensure continuity of supply into the medium and long term of these most essential of resources.
It is at this point that thoughts of matter maritime comes into the picture, it is hard not to think that a naval solution is the answer because, well, we are talking about ships after all but all three services must be considered equally.
Being dispassionate, given a finite budget and some radical joined up thinking/doing, investing in expeditionary military forces does not provide a good return on investment when considering energy and food security.
Investing in these things does not protect shipping against the most likely threats because their high cost means few numbers and only limited effectiveness but we cannot ignore the security aspects of maritime trade and it is here where the all three services have to properly justify themselves.
Personally, I think our greatest contribution to the collective security in the area and thus by definition, a significant contribution to energy security at home, should be in developing local capacity and capabilities, training and working in local security partnerships for example.
This goes against the ‘strong navy’ mindset, where a strong navy is defined by expeditionary strike and amphibious capabilities. An alternative vision of a strong navy might see a different structure, better suited to preventing conflict than applying force after intelligence and diplomacy failures.
Currently we have the forward basing of a number of Royal Navy mines countermeasures vessels, as I have mentioned before, this is a capability area in which the UK excels.
This is exactly what I am talking about, we are already doing it albeit at a small scale, I want a greater priority given to this kind of activity
Given the interests of the producer nations is to make sure that they can continue to make money out of the oil, gas and shipping traffic it is hard to envisage a scenario where host nation support would be anything but forthcoming with open arms.
The justification for an expeditionary force, usually maritime and centred on CVF is more often than not preceded with a collection statistics about imported goods, history, the maritime industry, energy, and food security. These are usually impressive; 95% of our imported good comes by sea, without food imports we would be starving within 90 days, thousands of jobs relaying on the maritime industry and other equally convincing statements that immediately make you think, isn’t it obvious, we need a strong navy.
The deep and fundamental flaw with this argument though is that it fails to make a link between the ‘we are a maritime nation’ position on the left and the strong navy on the right.
There is a void in the middle; advocates just assume that everyone ‘gets it’
There is no doubt in my mind that the UK is a maritime nation, there is no doubt in my mind that an effective and relevant Royal Navy can make a key contribution to UK security and interests but I start from a sceptical position when it comes to making a causal link between this protective role and the expeditionary strike role as personified by CVF.
The other fundamental problem is, no one ever questions the underlying statistics and as we know, statistics can tell you anything.
I know I get a hammering for being anti Navy, as if they are some sort of religion but this could not be further from the truth, just because I don’t agree with the prevailing priorities and aspirations of CVF advocates does not all of a sudden make me anti navy.
The first and obvious source of information for how a Royal Navy can protect the British way of life is of course the Royal Navy website. Some time ago they published a very well written report on the important of maritime trade (click here to read in full)
The campaigning group Save the Royal Navy also looks at this subject in its 2009 article, 10 Reasons Why…
The Phoenix Think Tank looks at the issues here
This is where things get interesting because a strong Royal Navy can be defined in many ways.
On the one hand, we have the Royal Navy’s vision of a force centred on 2 strike carriers, surrounded by a surface combatant force, a number of submarines and associated logistic and secondary capabilities.
But I fail to see how this force as constituted in the real world, not the fantasy world, actually contributes to real world modern security threats.
The Royal Navy suffers particularly from what I call ‘tradition drag’ because of its historic pre-eminence in the world naval rankings but this is 2011 and the UK no longer dominates world trade. This constant reference to the Royal Navy’s position in the world is incredibly damaging and snuffs out any constructive debate of what it should look like.
If we are too concerned with ‘measuring up’ to other powers as some abstract concept we take our eyes off what is actually needed.
There is a lot of talk about being a first rank naval power but frankly, being rank 1 or 7 is irrelevant and shows the level of debate.
What is important is that the Royal Navy and other services are relevant to the needs of UK defence and security, rank has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
We shouldn’t care whether the Royal Navy is ranked 1st or 71st as long as it is relevant to the national need and the same goes equally for the other two services.
Yes, we are an island
Yes, the UK maritime industry is huge
Yes, the vast majority of trade sails rather than fly’s
Yes, the UK must not become ‘sea blind’
Yes, we are an island!
But all three services have to make credible and convincing cases for every last pound note, because if we are talking about real security and resilience, there are many more cost effective means of spending the public’s hard earned cash.
If there were a large scale security threat around those three choke points mentioned above it would be a global issue and the obvious argument is that the UK would have to contribute its fair share to any coalition force involved but by investing a greater relative share of our national budget into developing local security, diplomacy, obtaining timely intelligence and influence in the area we might not get to that point.
There is also a strong argument for investing funds that might have been earmarked for military capabilities in energy and food resilience, given that energy and food are fundamentally important to the prosperity and survival of the United Kingdom.
Do we invest in continual maintenance or foot the repair bill?
I have never ever been convinced of CVF as a strike asset for me its value is as a sea control asset. But I don’t think Their Lordships see it that way. I have said several times here I don’t think the UK will spend the next 50 years chasing Third World tribes around remote mountain ranges. We will be facing crises about resources and we will need first rates assets to match the first rates assets of our “competitors.”
Rather quaintly I think the navy’s job is sinking ships (with a bit of nuclear strategic warfare as a side line.) The UK is one of the few nations with ownership of a competent SSN force. We don’t need them now (just as really we don’t need 3 QRA squadrons now) but it is a capability we need to maintain (as are the 3 QRA squadrons.) We need Astute 8 – 12 as one for one replacements for the S & T boats. And I would go further and say I would rather have 8 long range AIP SSKs than T26.
I think if CVF had been cancelled we would still have had only 6 Darings and 7 Astutes.
TD
That was a rather interesting and thought provoking piece. I am however not sure why you lumped CVF in with it. In my mind CVF is there for a very different conflict than that of protecting trade and shipping lanes. CVF is to allow secure independent oversea expeditionary warfare an almost unique asset in Europe.
What were looking at here is the C3, frigate requirement and I believe the small patrol boats that operate around the UK. Both programs are funded so I fail to see why its an either or. I would through in MPA if we had any!
Its like saying we need to have a garrison in cyprus falklands and uk for security requirements but to pay for it well scrap all the challenger tanks..
My concern with energy security is that of the countries we buy from. Most of our natural allies in the mid east are not the most stable in the world (there people do not like the west as were seen as propping up there dictators) what if something in one of those countries develops that stops that country from producing and refining oil or gas eg regime overthrown or its invaded by a neighbour.
I agree with x; CVF’s most important function is sea control, starting with air defence. It’s considerably cheaper in this than the usual RAF solution of fleets of fighters and tankers based in improbable locations
The cheap escort is a myth and probably isn’t needed anyway. During WW2 what saved shipping was the convoy system because it denuded the ocean of targets. 9 out of 10 convoys never ever saw a U-boat; though that is not belittle the panic or fear felt by sailors because of false contacts. ASW only became effective when a good number of high end frigates/corvettes became available (working in groups) and air cover was increased.
Does this mean that just about everyone is agreed that Type 26 is a waste of cash?
Ah, thought it had been a while before we have another anti CVF rant on Think Defence!
Energy security is a good reason for a strong navy but not CVF, indeed as Mark says ‘CVF is to allow secure independent overseas expeditionary warfare’.
It’s a bit like the argument we shouldn’t have a deterrent because it doesn’t deter terrorists.
I’d add that CVF is also useful in allowing the UK to have a capability that is attractive to potential allies which ties in nicely with a piece you wrote recently.
TD says
‘investing in a so called strong Royal Navy with aircraft carriers, frigates, submarines and destroyers does not provide a good return on investment.’
If you want your Navy to exercise sea control wherever you want it does. What you are in effect doing is wanting to make the Navy a one trick pony when most other nations with large trading economies are looking at ways of enhancing sea control.
Paying BAE £126million to redesign the wheel is a waste. We should just buy the FREMM design and build them here (eek!!) Or my current favourite idea build a variant of Iver Huitfeldt/Absalon hybrid (engines from the former, weapons from the latter) which is simpler and cheaper design (though I doubt that would translate into numbers.) Yes 1 Daring (with SONAR) to 3 A/IH Hybrids seems a good idea. That is if we can have 6 more Darings.. :) ;)
Andy said “If you want your Navy to exercise sea control wherever you want it does. What you are in effect doing is wanting to make the Navy a one trick pony when most other nations with large trading economies are looking at ways of enhancing sea control.”
Say again station. Message garbled. Over.
Sorry x, airwaves are a bit dodgy.
TD was making the point a Navy with CVF, Destroyers, Frigates & Subs was not a good return on taxpayers money.
I was trying to make (badly) the point that if all you wanted was for your navy to protect trade then it wasn’t but if you want it to exercise sea control it most certainly was!
And that is the thinking of all emerging economic powers as well.
@ Andy
Thanks matey.
I’m sticking to my Type 45 guns (fitted for, but not with, firing pins).
Scrap Type 25. Enhance the Type 45 design. Save some money on production efficiency. Magaritas all round.
chris its too late to make production saving on type 45. Its production is effectively over all ships now launched and fitting out people who initially manufactured it are now on other things. Type 26 has the benefit of needing less crew and a long production run with several countries coming on board and promises to be cheaper (i know i know).
X
Fremm costs nearly as much as type 45 its a nice ship but somewhat out of our price range.
@ Mark
It is only out of our price range because “we”,well HMG, choose it to be… (Only jokin’!)
Um. Debatable though whether it would be cheaper to build FREMM or re-engineer T45.
And I said I am rather taken with Danish CODADs at the moment…..
@x
‘I think if CVF had been cancelled we would still have had only 6 Darings and 7 Astutes.’
I think this is the real reason why the Navy is fighting so hard for the carriers. In their minds they have ‘given up’ lots of subs and surface combatants in the hope of jam tomorrow in the form of ‘real carriers’. In reality they would have lost them anyway due to defence kit inflation and budget squezing. The carriers were just a more effective dummy to complaints about cuts because of their size!
In reality all three services are the same – they fight for the ‘sexy’ kit because it is a great recruiting tool. In the RAF it’s fast jets and in the Army fast armour. Recruiting is what perpetuates the organisation and all bureaucracies exist to self-perpetuate in the end. I’m sure similar stuff goes on in other areas of public service – surgery getting more money and attention than cleaning or food in hospitals for example.
I think carriers certainly have their uses, the main one being the ability to manoeuvre an air group in very flexible ways, but it is clear we can’t afford an air group which in anyway justifies the size of carrier we have bought. They don’t do much for energy security, TD is right there and even in areas where we can’t effectively work at building local capability, we need quantity not quality. OPVs and MCMVs will do just as well with the terrorists and pirates as full blown AAW Destroyers. The flexible FPV TD posited in the Navy series would be adaptable to both roles and therefore could be available in enough numbers to regularly patrol trouble spots keeping the situation suppressed rather than responding when everything has already kicked off. I agree with x that we were wrong to completely abandon SSKs particularly given the export opportunities. The Darings are too few and too one dimensional though to give up on T26 altogether, they were an epic cock up IMO as anything that large and expensive should be armed to the teeth not ‘fitted for but not with’.
Um. In all my years involved in sea cadets I never ever knew one to go on to join the navy for the sexy kit. To learn a trade. Yes. Perhaps because they didn’t like the idea of camping with a rifle and digging holes as a job. And perhaps some of them did swallow too many of the tall tales told by ex-matelots. But sexy kit? No.
@x, yes, their Lordships see CVF as a strike asset, they have said so often enough in various select committee evidence sessions, it has nothing whatsoever to do with sea control or protecting trade routes and it is this very plank on which a lot of the justification for it sits, say one thing and do another.
@Mark, I included CVF but then I think I also included the whole expeditionary thing as well, FRES, Typhoon and others, this piece was not against CVF particularly. I am advocating a fundamental shift in the way we see the role of the armed forces, away from striking and towards a greater cooperative role. I know its goes against the grain and challenges a lot of vested interests but there you go
@Andy, did you actually read the post, I do believe it is bigger than CVF but if it suits you to think I am having an anti CVF rant then fair enough. The reason I singled CVF out is because it is the poster child for the stronger Navy, we are an island crowd that use things like overseas trade and energy security, distorting the facts at every step, to scaremonger in a desperate attempt to provide justification for something that will put the RN back in the big league. If you look at the £20bn for Iraq and Afghanistan, what could we have had instead, proper energy security, I look at CVF/JCA/FRES etc etc in the same way.
@ Mark
At least BAE has a very good idea of how to build and put together Type 45’s. The 26 is a drawing on a computer at this stage and like all such projects a lot of money will be spent on the first 2 or 3 ships figuring out what the best way is to put them together. That is money that could be saved, along with a hefty chunk of R&D work that will be needed to bring the 26 into service.
I can see multiple avenues to go with Type 45;
– The current version,
– A version with gun removed to make extra space for a large land attack cruise missile bay,
– A version with same as above,but also with extra luanch tubes in place of the hangar,
– A version minus the missile bay (Huh!!) to make room for maybe a surgery or extra cargo forward. A ship that is essentially tailored for more low intensity work,
– An ASW specific version,
In other words, a Type 45 derived fleet of surface vessels. I hear Type 26 might be offered with a diesel engine choice, so that would probably be worth the investment still, but I fail to see the need to spend billions developing a new class to do jobs that could just as easily be done by Type 45.
Now specialist very low intensity craft I can live with, but not another all new “destroyer/frigate”
TD – excellent piece diving into what are, or should be important constituent elements of the nations “grand strategy” not just military strategy.
It’s a shame you managed to spoil it by coming off as anti-Navy even when your trying to be pro-Maritime ! Although I heartily agree, CVF does not have much to do with sea control, or SLOC protection (or interdiction) that is more to do with the HMG focus on the CVF as a power projection tool. A carrier as simple ship is a highly versatile platform, as to whether it has a role in protecting trade all depends on what we fly off of it.
However we digress, how is it you make “strong Navy” sound like the worst kind of curse you could ever use in front of your mother ?
If we have an extremely expensive long term Army garrison and RAF presence in Oman (not that they want it) how is that a more cost effective solution to securing the Straits of Hormuz than having an RN with effective vessels ?
Don’t forget the RN is at an all time low. 8 x Darings instead of 6, 8 SW focused “C1″ type ships and 8 x General Purpose frigates for a total of 24 ‘ships of the line” would be a “strong Navy” at this moment in time, although when I joined the RN in 83 I would have laughed my tits off at such numbers !
By the way, having spent my entire 10 year RN career in the gulf, we have had excellent relationships with the UAE, Oman, and Kuwait since the early 80’s – so as to partnerships and forward basing, well I hardly think we do it on a small scale. I have spent more time in Dubai on a Pompey based MCMV than I did in Pompey. Likewise I know the Omani naval dockyard of Mina Rahsut as well as I know Rosyth……
So, as you know I am a proponent of carrier air power, but I am not wed to CVF, and would happily seem them go to return to a 28 to 30 major surface vessel fleet, but actually when it comes down to energy security, just invest the entire defence budget for the next five years in developing a mass-manufacturable Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactor (LFTR), patented up the jacksie, and then flog our expertise to the whole world ! We would be doing every one a favor never mind securing our own energy sources :-)
x, Chris B. et al
We seem to discuss fleet structure ad naseum, on every thread possible – not complaining mind you.
However, I know x was around when we published these, but not sure if Chris B or others ever found them and read them:
Sea Power 101:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/01/sea-power-101-the-sdsr-2020-force-structure-and-the-future-of-the-rn/
An Absalon derivative ‘C2′ or “Global Cruiser’ for the RN:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/fdr-maritime-futures-part-2-another-view-on-c2/
TD – a bit of help – I could have sworn that you also published a paper I did on a T45 derivative as the ‘C1’ or ASW focused surface combatant, but searching I can’t find it !
Chris B:
Ref:
“I can see multiple avenues to go with Type 45;”
May I address each of your ideas in turn ……
– A version with gun removed to make extra space for a large land attack cruise missile bay,
No need for this. The design has space (and weight margin) for additional VLS cells (specifically the longer ‘land attack’ version of the Sylver) between the rear most row of the current system, and the front of the superstructure.
– A version with same as above,but also with extra luanch tubes in place of the hangar,
Bah, modern warship with no hanger is hardly a flexible asset. With extra tubes up front, and probably weight and space margin to bung some Harpoon type canisters or CAMM cells elsewere, is this really necessary ? We can’t afford an “arsenal ship” all our vessels must be as flexible as possible.
– A version minus the missile bay (Huh!!) to make room for maybe a surgery or extra cargo forward. A ship that is essentially tailored for more low intensity work,
No need for this either. The T45 is very large inside, with a considerable space margin. There is more accommodation than needed. It may require a ‘redesign’ of that internal space to get your required large sick, operating theatre etc, but is this kind of work not better performed by a different class of vessel ?
– An ASW specific version,
Absolutely with you on this one. Lever the sunk costs and build expertise. Change the fan tail and area under the aft flight deck to fit the 2087 towed array. Widen the after superstructure for a double hanger (for 2 x Merlin) removing the large 3D air surveillance radar. Fit STWS tubes if necessary. Expand boat bays for 2 x additional 11m RHIB based USV with dipping sonar for persistent littoral ASW ops. I am not sure you need to change the front end at all, but to keep the costs down you can go with Artisan as the radar, and CAMM as the SAM.
Ah ha – found it – TD roled my T45 as C1 type ideas into his own post, so I am not showing as the author :-)
However, our joint ideas and my design drawing are in this article:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/11/the-future-of-the-royal-navy-05-%E2%80%93-the-type-23-replacement/
I’ll get reading and get back to you in a bit. But first one request.
Can we please stop calling it the littoral. You mean “Coastal”.
Chris- the “litoral” includes inland waterways, estuary’s, deltas, it is “bigger” than coastal !
However, I will stop using it, if you and x agree that the days of the Battle of the Atlantic are behind us and stop calling RN surface ships “escorts” :-)
A: Energy self sufficiency should be the goal of every country, as such the UK should be looking at moving to a majority nuclear based baseline generation capacity supplemented by all manner of renewables, including, though not limited to, landfill gas/waste to energy/biomass plants, wind, wave/tide (which could be installed within existing offshore windfarms) and hydro-electric (including additional pumped storage for the wind farms). To continue to rely on imported fuels is folly, and leaves us open not only to the whims of the supplier nations, but also the volatile international markets.
B: Food production within the mainland UK should be encouraged to be sufficient to supply all needs. While their will always be food which will need to be imported, these should be considered a luxury. Projects such as Thanet earth should be encouraged. A unilateral ban on dumping dead fish should be introduced (if the EU fail to come up with the goods) and methods should be pursued to reduce the amount of food waste, both at the point of harvest, the point of sale and in the home.
C: The Military should not be needed to keep up fed and warm, protecting imports is spending money to watch money flow out of the country, the Royal Navy should only be required to protect our exports and other maritime trade which occurs under the UK flag, i.e. spending money to make money. To this end the RN will be required to have a role policing the sea lanes, and while the CVF is not the ideal vessel for this (a 2 helicopter escort, deployed in pairs would be better) it does afford us a big stick which can be waved in the direction of a possible threat to our interests should the need arise.
D: Submarines have no role in high seas merchant security, SSNs and SSKs byt their very nature are a purely offensive tool, used to deter or destroy the vessels of other navies or to enforce blockades against maritime shipping, they cannot be used to prevent attacks on UK flagged shipping, except those being conducted by large surface vessels or other submarines, to attempt to utilise an SSN to deter say pirates in a RHIB of small converted fishing boats is not an effective use of military equipment.
Right, all done.
@ Jed (sort of)
— Gunless LAM platform. The Type-45 does indeed have room built in for these, but only 16 or so. I’m thinking of a version without the gun that can then double or maybe triple that number.
Also, I was led to believe (have to stop saying that) that the extra VLS cells for any LAM would go between the current lot and the gun. This was mentioned somewhere, buggered if I can find it now, in a report about the 155mm gun.
— The Arsenal ship. As you said, this kind of ship wouldn’t be particularly flexible, but then it isn’t supposed to be. I would only imagine two, maybe 3 of these being built. They would come in bloody handy for a situation like Libya. Imagine that first day strike capability?
But I might trade away the arsenal ship if you’ll let me have plenty of the gunless LAM vessels.
— The ASW vessel. Yep, towed array, with you. Not sure about the double hangar. Any change to the super structure costs cash and the hangar-bridge is all one section so I’m led to believe (bugger it).
— The one with the Surgery. No, not an episode of “Friends”. I’m just thinking that at some point we have to roll up our sleeves and build a more numerous vessel for less strenuous/high intensity tasks. I’m thinking it could be Type 45 based.
So axe the Sampson and the VLS, find some other cost savings, keep the gun, and then deck the thing out for a mixture of low level security/mercy/disaster response style missions.
All of the above fitted with CIWIS, and all but the last cheap one fitted with 2x quad Harpoons they should already have.
@ Jed.
They escort Carriers, thus escorts! ;)
“the “litoral” includes inland waterways, estuary’s, deltas,” – rivers in other words. So coastal ships and river boats/brown water navy ;)
@ Grey
Feeling Blue?
Anyway, “protecting imports is spending money to watch money flow out of the country”. Not necessarily. Those imports can be anything from steel and wood used to make things, to consumer electronics that help fuel our economy (TV’s in pubs for example)
Also, exports and imports are often linked, the whole “we’ll give you this, you give us that” type thing.
Imports are more than just money going out. If we didn’t need those things, we wouldn’t be importing them.
Like, the LNG that TD was talking about. Oh, and oil.
Imagine what would happen if all that was cut off.
Another gross misunderstanding of Seapower and maritime security alongside the flexibility of a firm use of defence assets on food ad energy
Head over to the Phoenix thinktank readers!
With recent events in North Africa, I wondering if the straights of Gibraltar and the straights around Malta could become new choke points…
Completely on board with the ‘high end core’ argument for RN. Scrap the T26 and build a second batch of ASW T45, and upgrade the whole lot to have the bells and whistles you would expect from GP vessels. T26 will be built in too few numbers to make any impact on what we are discussing here. We need a larger number of light (cheap) patrol frigates and JSS ships.
A pertinent and well constructed analysis.
What has history to say about this? The Roman Empire in its latest years invested a lot in hiring “allied” tribes and training them to fight to defend the empire’s borders and strategic areas. The Roman army was filled up with generals and officers from German tribes and other populations. The Empire’s legions were expensive, and they were scaled down. Allies and “federatus” tribes had to make up for the shortfall.
The result was that thousands of men, once trained by the romans, fled back to their countries and taught their populations in the roman way of fighting war, that for centuries had made Rome invincible. And then they turned against Rome.
Arminio, officer of Rome but german of birth, is most known for betraying Rome (after years of sterling service that made him trusted and appreciated)and defeating the empire’s army in Teutoburgo, slaughtering 55.000 roman soldiers.
Adrianopoli saw the destruction of 8 legions. Whole. And the death of the Emperor himself, i believe it was Valeriano, but the name might be wrong.
The romans had long been outnumbered. Now they had lost their edge in tactics, strategy and kit.
In the end, the Empire fell.
Today we train the afghans (not that we could do otherwise at this point, but…) and lots of them defect (most certainly to the talibans) and some others fire on their trainers. Some britons did made it back in body bags for this kind of event, and at least an italian soldier, my compatriot, also met that end.
We talk about the Gulf. I believe that, if we take a look at the countries of the Middle East, we’ll see that they are actually growing stronger and stronger, economically and militarily, both more trained and more equipped with every year that passes. They buy fighters, stealth missile boats, submarines, even C17 cargo planes, Patriot missile batteries, etc. With western help and supplies.
Does this REALLY improve OUR security? Or is it the building phase of tomorrow’s really nasty crisis? Are we training the tribes that tomorrow will give us trouble, like Rome once did?
If the US tomorrow morning were to listen to some and retreat their “not needed” aircraft carriers from the Gulf, we’d live in a very different world in no time.
The UK is the next country after the US in the security job. The impact of a reduction in presence would be very significant.
I’m sorry, but i continue to fail seeing the benefits and great successes of help, training, aid money and everything. It sure isn’t working with Pakistan. Bahrain is also an embarrassing case, with the repression of the civilians protesting in the streets and everything.
Somalia is the top example. If we could “build” Somalia into a nation and “help it so they do not need to go pirates anymore”, wouldn’t it be nice…?
Unfortunately, that is the red-glowing example of soft power failure that no one admits.
Does the World Food Programme and all the other UN initiatives change anything in Somalia?
Is there any chance to send them liasoning teams to train “government forces” (if they exist at all) into controlling their own damn country, without having the “trainers” captured, kidnapped or killed? Doubt it.
When i’ll see Aid money and a small force of trainers and support personnel enter Somalia and fix it and put an end to piracy, i’ll believe into the possibilities of this.
Because let’s be crystal clear: forward basing the Army in places such as Kenya has only ended up in incidents with the locals and legal calls on Britain to pay money to them, like the 4.5 millions the UK had to pay in 2002 for the issue of unexploded training ordnance and related incidents.
For now i only see Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Bahrain, and it shrieks of FAILURE so loud to make me deaf.
As to the Air Force, good luck building stability in the world with a training exercise of two weeks in India.
We can close our eyes all we want, but it is the navy that lives its life, in peace and war, forward deployed.
Can Britain survive a Gulf crisis without carriers? Yes, so long as the US fix that themselves.
Can Britain be the nation it used and wishes to be without carrier? No.
Should Britain invest in it?
At 7 billions for the ships and 10 billions for 150 F35s? YES. Hell, yes. It still is at least 3 billions short of the ridiculous amount of money that went into Typhoon, that much as i love it, is simply and inexorably strategically 10000 times harder to justify that the aircraft carriers, with all what a proper flat top makes possible.
I’m cynical, i know. But certain strategies just kind of remind me of Homer Simpson’s slogan “Can’t someone else do it for me?”, and i fear they’d work just as well as that slogan did for him.
RE: “the “litoral” includes inland waterways, estuary’s, deltas, it is “bigger” than coastal !”
– it also includes the immediate coastal land area, up to 100 km (depending on the topography)
– so take the 127 mm OTO with Volcano rounds and you can reach out and touch all of it (from a stand-off distance re: normal land artillery or ATGWs)
– rivers and large estuaries need special solutions (USN is expanding their Riverine Command)
@PTT fan, bore off!!
Paul, that should be PTT fan(s) because there are multiple of them, the funny thing is I publish all their comments without editing or moderation but when they publish stuff on their website that makes multiple accusations about this place they don’t allow commenting at all.
Of course, as PTT fan has said, they don’t comment on other web sites which is patently nonsense, much like the vast majority of their dribbling.
Its good for a laugh though isn’t it
PS, PTT fan, where have I used any PTT content, apart from links and quotes, can you please point it out to me
@ Jed
I use the term “escort” as a catch all term for frigates, destroyers, large corvettes, and sloops.
Naval classifications have changed over the years. And change today from navy to navy.
Take the term cruiser. Today that means a very large conventional (one with guns, missiles) ship. In the days of the old sailing navy any ship detached from the fleet, irrespective of size, was called a cruiser.
We have to use terms every body recognises.
TD
For what it’s worth we clearly see the defence environment the same way by and large.
Without picking on Nelly and Dumbo, AGAIN.
(But it’s such an easy target… I can give it up any time I like…. No it’s allright I’m clean now doc.. Oh alright I did have a bit of rant yesterday. but only for 5 minutes, in the privacy of my own room.)
More seriously I am a big believer in a ‘Strong navy’.
I think the problem is the definition of ‘strength’.
As this is about strategy, we should be asking what is it we want the navy to do?
In this day and age my answer; (and I am not so egotisticle as to believe it is the only valid one), Is that it exists to promote and protect the UK’s economic interrests and where possible it’s citizens accros the world, and play it’s part in protecting the borders and soveriengty of the uk from likely threats.
There really is on this site;(and this is going to stirr up a storm) a huge thick seam of post colonial imperialistic almost subconciously racist, bullshit about Uk’s status and the rest of the world!
If I may expand on TD’s point (and if it’s not his point then it should be)!
If real trouble kicks off in the streights of Hormuz or the Horn of africa or even in south east Asia. Modern Global economic reality means Vital supplies will be rerouted, the worlds navies,(including the real big boys)which are a lot closer than us, US India, China, Japan, South Korea etc will step In because the boot will be on their necks as much as ours. They have ships, capable crews, and kit to do the job, as good as ours in many cases. And I suspect would be a lot less bothered about rules of engagement.
What won’t under any realistic circmstance happen, will be the cry of “Save us oh great Royal Navy with your mighty ships of the great white queen accross the seas” Whereapon we will despatch our Mighty carrier (with it’s 12 aircraft, (oh god don’t get me started), to ‘sort out Johny Foreigner’ Like it was 1900 all over again.
I know I exagerate for the sake of making the point (can’t spell hyperbolie), but many of the comments on this site and the arguments about maritime power seem stuck in a time warp. And are obsessed about restoring the RN staus to some point in the past without ever asking if that is necessary for the UK defence, or even if it were, is it possible.
That is without dealing with the potential fighting power of our potential enemies.
The old
‘Whatever happens
we have got
the Maxim Gun
and they have not’
Apogie of Imperial power is long gone. Some of the people we might be trying to strong arm can now shoot back.
A recognition we are a trading powere and that we shoudl concentrate on that and have a Navy that does the same, would go along way to help defend this country.
Tin hat on climbing into fox hole “INCOMING”!!
@ Jed re fantasy fleets
One apologises for this too. My personality type means I find it difficult to come settled judgements. In extremis this even means at times I ignore new information because I can’t cope.
Comment
Perhaps the money spent on Nellie and Dumbo could have been better spent on Nuclear reactors to give us a measure of imported Fossil fuel free energy independance?
It is interesting to drill into what the circumstances of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf infer for military operations.
If your concern is terrorism then really there isn’t a military solution. If a terrorist intends sinking a ship or crashing an air craft in a sensitive place, then once such an operation is underway there isn’t really anything that would prevent it. Fighting terrorism is better done at the conceptual stage by the intelligence services.
Obviously there is extensive piracy out of Somalia already, but I haven’t noticed Britain or anywhere else being deprived of essential imports or trade because of it. Therefore, on the evidence it would seem that foreign piracy, while unwelcome, is not a strategic concern and wouldn’t rate too high on the list of the MoDs priorities.
That is not to say you wouldn’t want to do something about it if you could, but the pirates success so far isn’t because they have better resources. Rather it is because the western navies involved (RN included) are not designed for that sort of task. Having a highend warship with a highend ASW helicopter chasing up and down the coast of Somalia on the off chance of seeing a pirate raid in action is just consuming the expensive operating hours on the ship and helicopter without a great deal to show for it. If the MoD wants to get into playing beat cop it should look at smaller/faster but more numerous boats for the navy and use land based aircraft for ISTAR and air support.
However, if Iran or any other nation decides to exert control of the region then it is an act of war that would prove the Admirals right – the carrier with the shiny aircraft and T45s would become very useful until land based alternatives could be put in place.
@ IXION
The Germans have just pulled the plug on their nuclear programme…..
X
And many commentators believe that represents an opportunity for UK PLC
A lot of heavy industry uses huge ammounts of power. If we can offer lots of RELITIVLY cheap nuclear power we might find industry investent flowing our way. German Nuclear technologists may flow to UK in serch of gainfull employment
The politics in Germany are so anti nuclear, it is purely a political move.
IXION, you say
‘I know I exagerate for the sake of making the point (can’t spell hyperbolie), but many of the comments on this site and the arguments about maritime power seem stuck in a time warp. And are obsessed about restoring the RN staus to some point in the past without ever asking if that is necessary for the UK defence, or even if it were, is it possible.’
Rather condescending. Also suggests the majority of world powers with interests in sea control are out of touch too.
TD,
‘If we listen to the usual suspects, unless we have 12 carriers and 200 frigates the nation, when three Iranians fart, will starve within 2 days and freeze to death within 3’
More condescending rubbish TD. If we can’t debate CVF or more pertinently some form of air power at sea without labelling every one in favour of it as some kind of bathtub admiral playing with his toy boats then I give up.
“a significant contribution to energy security at home, should be in developing local capacity and capabilities, training and working in local security partnerships for example. This goes against the ‘strong navy’ mindset, based around CVF”
No logical connection between the two statements.
You can do all of the wonderful things described to boost resource security by the non-military means suggested………….. but doing so is by no means going against maritime/raiding expeditionary setup.
All it argues against is ANY kind of military response to resource security, which is to say land sea or air rather than any at all.
Naval-raiding is damned marvellous because it is an excellent method for projecting expeditionary military force, not because it has a sideline in protecting the import of sun-ripened tomatoes from the ME.
If you want to argue that resource-security would be better served by a placing a greater emphasis on non-military measures then fine, but please explain to me how this justifies axing carriers/phibs rather than brigades, because the parallel sounds faintly absurd from here!
It is accepted that Britain will remain an interventionist power, regardless of method.
It is accepted that we must maintain resource-security, and that non-military means rock.
The two are largely divorced except where there might be some complementarity.
However, the fact that there might be less complementarity than some lunatics claim between naval assets and resource-security does not negate that some does indeed exist, nor that naval-raiding is a very useful expeditionary posture.
This of course requires acceptance that limited funds mean we can no longer be a broad-spectrum Great Power, and thus a choice is necessary, but that is not something the capability-plus ‘doctrine’ has really accepted……..
IMO it is all about the submarines.
The carriers will be very vulnerable against the best opponents, worried about against medium opponents, and most people will know roughly where they are.
Our subs are about as good as it gets, and very hard to find. Would Argentina risk an invasion fleet against our subs, would they risk their mainland infrastructure against TLAM?
Serious research cash should be put into sub launched remote vehicles- a disposable recce TLAM could be a useful emergency asset (and show of potential force), how about mission bays for remote small subs/RIBs that could take on patrol boats (and launch SAMs against MPA aircraft looking for the subs)??
@ Chris M
Yes submarines are one of our strengths. We need to preserve the capability.
@ All
I don’t mind high end ESCORTS chasing pirates or drug runners; it is on the job training. Try to think of T23 or T45 in the India Ocean chasing pirates as being forward deployed. Ships have a utility factor lets use that to our advantage. Better than sat in Pompey or Guzz. We can’t afford two navies.
Why is it whenever I make the odd joke in a largely serious article I get picked up for being hysterical, for fcuks sake fellas, the bit about Iranians farting was just a joke
I am not anti Navy and for the umpteenth time, I want a strong navy it’s just that my vision of what a strong navy is different from others, doesn’t make me right or wrong, just different. What really gets on my tits though is the lengths by which those in favour of a strong navy as defined by carriers and frigates etc i.e. a particular force composition, use the most ridiculous arguments on, for example, energy and food resilience, to justify their position. Look at the link I provided to the Save the Royal Navy site on their 10 reasons why the state of the RN should matter article, NUMBER 1 was energy, food and trade but whilst they quote freely the hoary old 95% of trade and 50% of energy stats they fail to mention that over 75% of that trade is with Europe and if we include the US it is even higher. No that would make a justification for a better Coastguard buts that’s a bit inconvenient isn’t it so instead they justify CVF, Type 26 etc etc on the premise that without them, our very existence and way of life is in danger, which is complete and utter cock.
It is this that I rail against and it is this that I will continue to expose.
At what point did I advocate cutting CVF and NOT army brigades, at what point did I advocate garrisoning Oman, at what point did I say that a 2 week aviation exercise in India was going to have major effect, not once that’s when, please read the articles and not what what you think I wrote. You lot have yet to see my take on land forces but I can tell you it will have the same threads running through it as my views on air and maritime. That is, a reduction in the top end, less expeditionary and more sustained forward presence to assist others to help themselves. Not because of any ideological zeal or phobia of anything dark blue, but because I think it is the best use of a finite resource.
We all bemoan a lack of strategy but a logical strategy dictates there are better returns on investment for true security, energy, food, trade etc that the armed forces. It’s a sad fact but a reality nonetheless.
The reason I pick on CVF and JCA is because despite the sunk costs, it is still within our reach to snap out of and change direction, the same for FRES. If you actually read the post I make several references to Typhoon and FRES, decidely non dark blue stuff
@Repulse, I was going to look at Gibraltar and the Straits of Malacca but I wanted to publish it and ran out of time but you make a good point, there are a number of other chokepoints worthy of attention.
@Gabrielle, if you want to look at history, have a look at the greatest empire the world has ever seen, the British Empire, then look up thinks like air policing and political officers, these are interesting parallels. Your comment about training the ANA and body bags is fair enough but miniscule in the grand order. You are right that the Gulf states are getting stronger militarily but what’s wrong with that, they are taking responsibility for their own security and we are helping them, if we didn’t sell them the kit the Russians or the Chinese would. Given it is in their economic interest to keep those oil tankers moving it only seems fair that they do it for themselves.
@Ixion, spot on
@Richard W, if Iran gets a bit punchy in the Straits of Hormuz they will be the worse off because structurally, their economy depends on that 2 mile stretch of waterway more than the other Gulf states so it would be completely illogical for them to do so. Of course logic doesn’t always prevail and this is why for the last couple of decades all the countries in the region have been building a huge network of pipelines that will lessen, in the long term, the important of the Straits. If we are really serious about limiting the influence of Iran we should be realistic about their economy, the state of their military capabilities and stop shitting ourselves every time they stage a demonstration with a speedboat and RPG. If things did kick off in the area trust me, there would be airfields galore, we would be spoiled for choice.
@Jedi, no, they are linked inexorably because there is a finite amount of public money available but as I have said before, we may be closer in thinking than you realise
Finally, PTT fan, you will note that despite your multiple IP’s addresses and emails I continue to publish your comments unmoderated but instead of just sniping and telling us all how much better PTT is why don’t you actually engage in the debate like Andy, X, Jed or Gabrielle do, these people have a differing view to mine and that’s great because as I said above, mine is just one view amongst many. You say that the PTT does not comment on other web sites but I note the article
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=875
Attacks this site, accuses it of having vested interests behind it and complains that the article on naval aviation misses the point. I have no means of commenting on that or Sharkey’s World, in fact that’s not actually true, I did comment on Sharkey’s World but it was deleted.
The whole point of what I am doing here is to energise the debate, get people talking and raise the profile of defence but it seems the PTT just want to shout to an empty room about how much better they are than anyone with a different view of things
The door is always open for debate
TD – here here ! Well said sir – we dont agree on everything (anything ?) but we engage in debate.
Sharky’s “article” was copied from his personal blog to the PTT site – the PTT site does not allow commenting and Sharky (or his minions) have deleted my comments on the posting, not once, but twice !!
So bottom line, PTT I accuse you of being a troll, feck off !
TD – you did indeed not suggest garrisoning Oman – I was extrapolating from your comments about “forward presence” or “forward basing” to make a point; obviously I did not do it very well.
So I will try again: for my entire full time RN career I was “forward based” mostly in Dubai, sometimes in Oman, occasionally in Fujairah (UAE)- it’s not new.
x – because you SHOUTED the word ESCORTS I will take the bait …… :-)
A modern warship, and the RN has evolved the classifications to the point were Destroyer = AAW focused and Frigate = ASW focused, and you flippin’ well know this, can act independently, can provide protection to a high value unit as part of a task group (which might fit a very loose definition of ‘escorting it’ ) or can provide a ‘close escort’ as a Sea Wolf armed ship acting as “goal keeper” for a CVS for example. The term ‘escort’ as applied to surface vessels was originated in WWII by the USN to describe small, cheap, and not very fast vessels which could escort convoys (the British Destroyer Escort or BFE of lend lease, which became the DDE in USN use).
I have escorted tankers through the Straits of Hormuz on a Leander and a T42 – it does not make the use the of the term ‘escort’ a suitable one to classify modern warships – so Yah boo sucks to you matey :-)
Perhaps we should come up with a new word that we can all agree on!
I’ve been wondering… what if we take the idea of the leviathan and sysadmin and divide them amongst us and the US? Should we configure our forces for the protection and enforcement of International law, rules, freedom of movement etc., while the US gets to unleash a can of whoop ass when needed? For example the Royal Navy focuses on sea-control, asw escort, forward security presence, etc., leaving the large scale power projection to the USN/USMC? We may retain a mini-leviathan force to give our admin some teeth but essentially we and the US adopt mutually supportive strategies?
How about an abbreviation instead?
TOPIPS. – Temporary Or Permanent Protection/Influence Ship.
(i was going to add my tuppence worth, but it’s been preempted, wish i could type faster)
TD,
Iraq and Iran did shoot at each other tankers loaded with fuel already once. Yet it was in their interest not to. They also were dumb enough to drop mines and shoot on tankers with other flags other than theirs, and they had to be stopped and bombed by the US, losing men and ships in the process.
Was it stupid on their part? endlessly.
Did they do it all the same? Yes.
Other than optimism in the wisdom of men, which often ends up proving misplaced, what kind of guarantee do we have about that not happening again, maybe between different players, but certainly with more modern weaponry and with much more firepower than back then, since they have all beefed their force up?
If we have had a proof of something in the latest months, is that shit happens. Fast and unexpected.
We might also argue that the point in which the gulf states “take care of their interests” has long been passed. They are engaged in an arms race, mainly the block Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE against Iran.
I’m also all in favor of exporting weapons to our “allies”, especially since yes, either we make money from it, or Russia and China do in our place. (And their anti-ship missiles and mines are scarier than ours by far, besides…) What i totally am not going to agree with is that we should do so while making our very own armed forces incapable to play the same game, because that is self-destruction.
If we train people abroad and sell them Patriots and simultaneously we re-role on Tucano with machine guns for air support and cheap, happy merchant ships with a 30 mm gun, we build the basis of the next disaster.
And with “we” i mean the whole of Europe, beware. It is not just a UK problem… even though in the UK it is getting very bad, very fast, at least looking from the outside.
There seems to be a crusade to chop capabilities off the armed forces in there.
As to “The reason I pick on CVF and JCA is because despite the sunk costs, it is still within our reach to snap out of and change direction” i can only comment that a strategic error does not fix another one, it just makes it worse. And leaving the fleet without expeditionary air power or without amphibs are simply the two worst strategic error than can be possibly made. Other than being a line of thought that clashes with what the rest of the world thinks.
Maybe they are all wrong… but generally, when on the street you see all other cars going the other direction and honking at you, you are the one going down the wrong lane.
Everyone wants REACH and expedionary capability, as generally during a trouble you need to bring capacity in from all three services, to hit from the air, from the sea, from under the sea and on land.
A navy of cheap sloops is great for presence and to hamper pirates and drug-smugglers, but can do little to none for all the other scenarios. And without carrier air power and amphibs, chances are that troops won’t go in either, and planes neither.
Remember the Falklands? Army said “without air cover, there’s no going”.
RAF said “we can’t do it”
Navy said “carriers sold, but still in the UK. We can still do it.”
That’s where the whole point is.
Well said Gab.
TD, it isn’t the different opinion that rankles it is the constant sniping at people who believe in reach and expeditionary capability for the RN as though they have two heads and trying to turn the map pink again!
Gabriele
How much real real ‘reach’ do you think we have/ can afford.
I have posted (and been lambasted for doing so) the coment before that even if we got Nellie and Dumbo with 36 F35’s each with 2 t45 and 3 or 4 t26 then when we got east of suez: –
How long could we keep them there?
How many sorte’s could we do?
How many missiles could they launch?
How long could the machinery stand the deployment?
To what strategic end would we be sending them?
We simply do not have the clout anymore to throw our weight arround in some areas of the world. The logistics alone would defeat us it would equal at least the effort involved in the Falklands.
I’ve been called condecending in another post, maybe I am; but some of the posters on this site REALY need to wake up and ‘smell the capital technological and educational flows’, as well as the coffee. We are not a world power anymore, and it does not matter how many times you say it to yourself, how many of your mates down the pub or on other blogs tell stories and slap one another on the back; The British Empire is over, no one gives a flying F*ck what we think.
We are not strong enough militarily; (nor are we likely to be for decades if not centuries) to be able travel the world playing gunboat diplomat to anyone with a real armed forces, wealth and mates at the UN.
So Iraq/Iran decide to have another crack at a war; (after all they have only been in a state of near constant warfare for 6000 years and I don’t suppose they will get over it any time soon). Or some other state there kicks off.
SO WHAT?
There are countries there stuffed with lots of the best kit money can buy, and people willing to die using it, and crucialy it’s their back yard.
If the ballon really goes up with a hot shooting war between the major player in the gulf we emphatically will not be able to deploy enough assets of any kind, Naval, Air or land, to be a major player and precisely what would we do when we got there? I suppose we could bomb all that lovely oil infrastructure we want protected…
Andy
Had not read you post when I posted mine.
I am all for ‘reach and capability’ but remember this is the blog where someone came up with ‘Colonial Sloop’ as the serious name for a particular type of proposed warship….
Maybe does not apply to all but there are plenty out there with pink watercolours at the ready, dreaming of wearing snappy uniforms and sipping pink gin in the Raffles hotel…
And on a much more serious note failing to reallise the genuine weaknesses in our own strategic, and some tactical postions, and the lack of available cash to truly support our headline programs.
We got caught out in Iraq and in Afghan writing checks with our mouths we could not cash. That only cost us: –
A few hundred dead soldiers
At least 2 humiliating retreats.
The good millitary opinon of our most important Ally
Our world wide military reputaion for competency in anti insurgent warfare.
The good will of a big chunk of the UN (with some of whom we trade and it was in our direct interrests to stay on the right side of).
Sooner or later we are really going to get our arses handed to us.
@ Jed
:-)
I will let you off only because you had to endure sea time in a 42. ;-)
Out of interest if we sunk £6 billion into Type 26 instead of carriers, and had ended up with 20 frigates (which would obviously resulted in us selling off existing frigates), how much would the 54% increase in frigate numbers really help British defence needs? This may sound like a stupid question, but it is more about what value is the alternatives to CVF when the choices are 2 carriers and 6 T45 and 13 T26 or no carriers but a fleet of 6 T45 and 20 T26’s (because we know that if we turned the CVF’s into frigates there would be no future frigate purchase)? Also bear in mind that we will still spend at least another £6 billion on fast jets regardless of having the CVF’s as the RAF want a Tornado replacement. It seems to me that despite the piss poor planning by the MoD and the political interference the carriers are a reasonable capability for us to possess.
Personally not especially pro-carrier, and had we gone with a STOL carrier then the RAF’s desire for a new fighter in the shape of the F-35B would have worked for the betterment of the RN and our defence interests, with the change to Cat and Trap IMO a big mistake. Saying that I am not sure that funnelling the work into frigates would have paid off for the RN either (especially as at the point in the SDSR where they could have cancelled one or both carriers and then worked with carrier alliance for new frigates to fill their work books as per the “unbreakable” contract, all that they had worked up was something along the lines of the Omani corvette’s).
Crikey, not on the site for a couple of days while doing an assignment & look at all these posts.
TD, Good article on food/energy security ruined by anti CVF rant. I know you deny it, but have you read your own article?
Methane recovery from cattle farms/composting schemes/sewage works, could easily supply 15% of our gas needs. Even the coalition knows that. Whether they will turn words into action though…..
Fukushima was a 1970 nuclear station that should have been shut years ago. All the newer Japanese nuclear stations survived. So a couple of advanced PWRs for now , followed by High Temp Gas Reactors(mixed Uranium/Thorium fuel) & ALMR fast reactors to “eat” nuclear waste while generating electricity. Shame we are not going back to the Moon, as Helium 3 mined from there might make fusion reactors viable.
Based on a set up with a sugar beet processing plant, I wonder if a clean coal power station, could have its CO2 & waste warm water piped into huge industrial greenhouses. Plants thrive on CO2 & turn it back into oxygen. No need to import fruit & salad crops.
Oh & a little bit of aid for Britain i.e. the cheap scheme to bring water from Kielder reservoir South by using existing rivers & canals. Could be used to irrigate crops in Lincolnshire.
IXION
the world still listen a lot to the british even if the “empire is over”.
But soon enough no one will listen to the UK for real if you continue to drive them away and cry over the lost empire and your inability to do anything.
Italy never had a real empire, nor it is as internationally active and respected and engaged as the UK, yet it pursues the capability to act at long range, investing in amphibs and the aircraft carrier Cavour, if only to hang from the tail of the top league of international powers and to have a voice in NATO.
As to more technical demands, exercises such as Cougar, and regular deployments east of suez, in the gulf, and all the way down to the Falklands speak by themselves about the reach the UK stills has. As to the carrier, a CVF fully loaded will deliver 396 strike sorties, each with employment of ordnance (at least two bombs per plane) before needing to take on board aviation fuel and weapons. Which is more than the strikes delivered so far over Libya since Ellamy started. (a lot of mission flown, but we are still south of 300 weapons effectively fired)
Even now, the reach of the UK is such that, was it necessary, it could land the Royal Marines into Libya tomorrow morning even if the landing was opposed. And could do it further away. The reach is there, and is unmatched by any, other than the US, at the moment.
I hate this “we are doomed” and “the empire is long gone” mentality. Crying does not conclude anything.
Either the UK drops out of international affairs, and then the armed forces cease to matter at all, or does things.
And since i see people horrified of the idea of “European Army”, claiming indipendence while crying that the Uk can only do something as part of a coalition and should just stop caring, the option that remains at that point is:
Ask the US to become the 51th state.
Or stop crying out meaningless moans about lost empires. Arguing the need for armed forces properly kitten for today’s needs has nothing at all to share with the empire.
If anything, carriers were somehow less indispensable back when the empire existed and the RAF had planes and airbases everywhere from Aden to Palestine to Japan.
‘Give a military man a problem and he will give you a military solution’, or words to that effect.
I think Grey made a very valid point in his point on energy security, the main priority is self sufficiency or at least an EU joint effort. If we spend our billions in tax on alternative fuel production, rather than on advanced weaponry then that in itself forces a reduction in the risk for conflict as it takes the oil producing nation out of the equation. Excuse me a moment while I hug a tree. The US Navy has recently flown an F-18 on 50/50 bio-fuel and fuels from algae looks promising, although I’m sure someone will post a comment of the down sides of this.
All this criticism if the T45 being a AAW “one trick pony” really winds mr up. At the start if the T45 the various websites and articles that were around at the time were full of talk that they were designed to be multirole! There was much talk about a wide range of weapons including land attack weapons. What the fcuk happened?
Why did they end up with only 48 silos and in one location? Surely they should have had two sets of 64 or even 96 silos that could be used for paams or tlam/scalp-n, not to mention anti-ship missiles and ciws and inner-layer defence missiles. Surely the existing 48 silos could be increased to 64/96 and what about the gap between the two radar masts! Loads of room for extra missiles there. I would like ti see a 30mm ciws (goalkeeper) in front if the bridge and on the helicopter hanger, in addition to the
Two on the sides. All four fitted with at least 7LMMs. I would swap the aster 15s for quad CAMM when available.
That would give the Navy one hell if a ship. And more than 6 should be built to realise the full investment of the type. Even if that means a lower spec (nonSampson) version!
For some reason, the silos fitted were the smaller type and unable to fit SS/Scalp N.
Gabs
There is a positive element to this.
We can deploy our forces and our cash to a lot more use FOR OUR DEFENCE.
Forward based Forward presence opperations – patrol ships/ squadrons/millitary assistance, coupled with good intelligence gathering.
Ships designed to deal with everything from: –
Eratically crewed coasters
through piracy
drug smuggling
and on up to mumbai style attacks,
as well as Mine warfare,
Able to supply deployment for groups of underwater knife fighter,
lebanon /Libya style get our people home opperations
Support UK trade and deplomacy
All done by ships we can afford to put up in enough numbers to have a permanant presence in these areas.
To ask a stalinist question how many battalions of armour and large scale naval task groups can Italy deploy outside the Med? When is it getting it’s big fixed wing carrier?
It also does not mea that we do not keep a high end fleet for some real fighting. But it does come with a recognition that our existence better be on the line before we start.
Ixion – I don’t think all of us who comment here long for a return to empire ! I have constantly tried to lay the strategic “blame” at the door of successive HMG’s of all parties who can’t give up the “world power” crap. I would be happy with no seat on UNSC, a well equipped coast guard, a big TA just in case, and enough Typhoon for QRA – but apparently non of our politicians would be happy with this, and to the point of TD’s article, such reduced (realistic ?) armed forces would be able to accomplish very little in the way of energy, food or other security.
The world is what the world is, and withdrawing within our island is not an optimal solution.
x – ROFL’d at the one ! 3D mess on a 42 is way, way preferable to the JR’s mess on an Hunt class :-)
Gabby said “i can only comment that a strategic error does not fix another one, it just makes it worse. And leaving the fleet without expeditionary air power or without amphibs are simply the two worst strategic error than can be possibly made. Other than being a line of thought that clashes with what the rest of the world thinks. ”
Well said that man. I was a bit naughty recently when I said here the RAF with two wars on the go only had 30 planes dropping ordnance. (10 Tornadoes in A-stan, 10 Tornadoes above Libya, and 10 Eurofighter too.) I was being deliberately provocative because I was getting a bit tired of all the “fantasy carrier air group of 36 JSF” talk I was seeing about the web. Even if CVF did go to see with just 12 F35 it would be as third as much offensive air power as a whole RAF is deploying now. Gabby is right. Mistakes in the past are no excuse for not making correct decisions now. TD is right in that the international arena is complex with many diverse actors with many agendas. And he is right in that many relationships between these actors are ones of either co-operation or inter-dependency. Any mechanism that allows a state some independence of action is worth having.
Look at the situation in Libya; I am not interested in the rights or wrongs of intervention. For our experiment we will believe that HMG is sincere in its intervention.
If France wasn’t leading the charge where would leave that UK? We couldn’t do much at all.
What if Italy wasn’t onboard? What about the costs flying from Southern France? Remember the Italians (apart from Genghis Gabby!) weren’t too keen at the start of play. Remember the restrictions placed on ops’ during the Balkans operations….
Don’t forget that Cyprus don’t want offensive operations launched from the SBAs. Don’t want to upset their neighbours to the north.
What if the Italians got a bit touchy about UN1973? The French have really been pushing the interpretation of UN1973, but they aren’t hindered by host nation difficulties are they? Why? Because they are flying from their carrier.
JED
I am not sure as envisaged our current future set up buys any more capability over and above Td’s proposals which offer many things the current set up does not.
If the Italians hadn’t been on board we wouldn’t even be attempting it and I think the french wouldn’t have bothered either. They seemed pretty keen to get us onboard.
I don’t think the Cyprus gov in itself is much of an issue, the protest was noted and duely ignored.
Topman said “For some reason, the silos fitted were the smaller type and unable to fit SS/Scalp N.”
Don’t go there! :)
I am collecting theories on this one,
1) It is because Their Lordships wanted to save as much as they can for CVF.
2) The bod responsible for deep strike at the MoD wears a light blue suit; they have lots of StormShadows don’t you know.
3) BAE designed the ship, so a major cock-up is to be expected.
4) Any combination of the above. :)
@ IXION
Think about it this way how many crises do we have on the go at any time. Normally about one. So if all we have is one well equipped mini-CBG to go does it matter? Even if there were two we could only do one……
As for replenishment well again this is matter of choices made by HMG. The FSTA cost per annum would buy 2 fleet tankers each year, cover the cost of operating them for a year, and would go a good way to filling them with fuel.
Topman unless things have changed the UK only use the Cyprus fields for support flights not offensive ops.
As I said I was using it as an example. I didn’t want to discuss the particulars of the situation.
You’ve missed one, err we forgot to ask for the right one ;)
I’m thinking chinook type contracts here.
@ x
Fair enough.
@ Topman
Super!!!!
@john hartley, mate if you’ve got a clean driving licence, might be a job going for you in westminister!!!
It is getting a bit like Monty Python’s Spanish Inquisition sketch: Amongst the many reasons why T45 doesn’t have SCALP…….
Paul G
thanks, I probably made sense as I was not ranting about defence for once. Won’t let it happen again.
Ixion
Sorry, I don’t understand. At 5.51 your posting that the empire is over no one gives a flying …., you also asking if the gulf melts down “so what ?”.
The at 7.05pm you state:
“Forward based Forward presence opperations – patrol ships/ squadrons/millitary assistance, coupled with good intelligence gathering.”
But if no one gives frak for the empire, and you (we) don’t care what happens in the gulf (for example) then why do we need forward based presence ?
As to your last comment: “I am not sure as envisaged our current future set up buys any more capability over and above Td’s proposals which offer many things the current set up does not.”
Which proposals ? The 4000 tonne C3 based on a civvy OSV ?? I totally agree with it, but it no more needs to be ‘forward based’ than any other ship, if we fund the RFA properly.
I am confused – sorry….. :-(
Type 45 has space to got up from 48 to 64 cells, and fit either Sylver A70 or MK41 Strike Lenght cells.
Currently it is fitted with the A50 (5 meters deep) while Sylver A70 and Mk41 Strike Lenght is 7 meters.
Please note that A70 came late and was not available when decisions were made. The Royal Navy did indeed want to put Tomahawk into the destroyers, but they were on the Sylver/Aster boat.
Either trying to integrate Aster into MK41 launch cells (COST, both economical and political), or fit two different type of cells (Sylver + MK41) (COST and commonality/logistics issues).
Later Sylver A70 came online, and now is proven and available.
But either we add a whole new, more expensive and less capable cruise missile (Scalp Navale, 950 million euro for 300 missiles, the french are MAD) or we finance integration of Tomahawk into the Sylver A70.
All these options require bloody money. And that simply isn’t there.
@IXION
There might be advantages, perhaps. But only if: :
A – the government scraps the carriers, kills the UK’s shipbuilding once and for all, makes Scotland angry enough to start a “war” for breaking away from the Uk for real, loses billions for nothing like with Nimrod AND THEN buys ships for the navy, busting other money. Can you see it happening?
I’d laugh if it wasn’t an apocalypse scenario.
B – Forward Basing, training and aid money begin to work. Because so far, it does not, no matter how good the concept sounds.
C – there is no such thing as “good intelligence”, but there’s intelligence effort. At times it gets things right, at times it screws epically, and it will always do, no matter how much funding it gets, because as someone very effectively put it:
“the intelligence personnel tries to understand what’s going on in people’s minds, and that very same people themselves often do not know what they are thinking and planning.”
D – wonder what the intelligence alone will do, without military might to intervene where the intelligence calls for it. Underwater knifefighters, the say it the funny way, are awesome but they are no gods, and can’t do things alone.
That’s in the movies.
As to the cheap, merry everything-doing ship, that is the planned MCM, Hydrographic Patrol Capability for replacing Hunt and Sandown. The old C3, as many still call it.
But a navy of sole C3s won’t go so far.
And ultimately, the main question: would the navy pay to put in the water all these ships (how many?) and crews, and foot the bill?
Jed
Probably my fault trying to work and pontificate at the same time.
I am not against the application of force to achieve UK aims provided we are clear about what we are doing/trying to do.
The real threats against UK are currently by and large, non state actors external terror and failed and rouge states that have weak millitaries internal terror, and organised crime.
Many of these have strong connections/ interests abroad etc.
The more intellegence we can get from abroad the better. Likewise If we can ve seen as positive force offering non interventionist help to friendly peoples with Coast guard security, disaster relief, etc we will strike at the roots of the problems.
Likewise these bases would be just that bases from which outfits like the british council can openly push british interest / Oxfam etc can operate safely and bee seen to do so. Libya stile rescue missions can be based etc.
Forward basing is about building for the future economic cooperations of equals rather than trying to push people arround on the basis we are world power and have the right to stick our nose in where we choose.
@ Gabby
Yes. Like I said Their Lordships didn’t want to spend money; I was going the other way though Aster into Mk41.
Amongst the many weapons T45 cannot fire….. :)
Gabby do you know who Monty Python are?
@X
In November 2004, the then First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West told a Parliamentary Defence Select Committee hearing that he would still have liked to see the Type 45’s fitted with a cruise missile capability but conceded there was no money available in the equipment budget for a Tactical Tomahawk type of weapon. “There is no money; it will have to fight its way and see where it gets.” He said.
Not so much they didn’t want, but they could not. Where would they pull the money out of…? Note that CVF was ordered only in 2008. Even wanting to, back then they could not “bite” into CVF money or make delays to pay for something else. Trying to say that CVF killed the cruise missile capability of the Type 45 is absurd.
And I fear i don’t know Monty Python, X, sorry. I’ll make a search. Google is everyone’s friend, after all.
Phew! As soon as I read these comments I find myself four or five comments behind so I’ll hold my nose and just jump in.
On the subject of escorts could we not just call them, you know, escorts? Like most of us do anyway?
If not then I suggest;
Fully
Unilateral
Command
Klippers for
Presence,
Training &
T’intervention
??
Anyway. On the subject of Navies and command of the sea and empires and all that;
— Carriers do whatever the aircraft on them do. If they’re loaded with strike aircraft then they offer you strike capability. If loaded with helicopters then they launch assaults and hunt subs. If loaded with fighters that can carry ASuW missiles then they can effect sea control.
The carrier itself does nothing. It’s a ship with a hangar and a flight deck. It’s what you put on it that defines its role.
— Ahh the colonial days! Remember Napoleon? Yes we beat him (twice), but largely because he was fighting on two fronts (twice). Even in those days we used allies to our advantage.
In fact our history is repleat with examples of partnerships, sometimes with single nations and sometimes with groups. It’s generally referred to as “the way the world works”.
The question becomes then;
a) who brings the most to the party and thus gets to make the decisions?
b) What you bring to the table decides who you can make alliances with.
We ally with the US, as does almost anybody, because they bring lots to the table. To lead/form an alliance, you have to have something to offer the other side, therefore the mere concept of “fleets in being”, be they fleets of ships, planes or tanks have a value.
— The people that say we can’t influence world events need a kick up the arse. We and the French are doing just that in Libya. Not particularly well I’ll grant you, but we are currently exercising the power to alter the future course of a nations history, its government etc.
We intervened in Sierra Leone. It’s not a major thing, but we did it none the less. People must remember that there is a difference between having the ability to influence events and taking a cack handed approach to it.
Just because you did something badly once doesn’t mean you lack the capability to ever do it.
— Aid money, forward deployment of forces, all that touchy, feely influence stuff does indeed work.
Without it, can you imagine countries like Saudi Arabia allowing the US to use its soil to launch air attacks on a fellow muslim nation?
Would other nations in the region have let us use their airfields as bases for Gulf 1 and 2?
Would Pakistan otherwise allow us overflight rights to get into Afghan?
Soft power works and has proven itself. You just have to do it properly.
Gabs
Dont recognise the apocolyptic scenario.
For one thing of wwe think of CS as supersized Rig supply vessel, well about the only thing we still build commercially is ig supply vessels.
We can build as many as we can afford….
Ixion said:”Forward based Forward presence opperations – patrol ships/ squadrons/millitary assistance, coupled with good intelligence gathering.
Ships designed to deal with everything from: –
Eratically crewed coasters
through piracy
drug smuggling
and on up to mumbai style attacks,
as well as Mine warfare,
Able to supply deployment for groups of underwater knife fighter,
lebanon /Libya style get our people home opperations
Support UK trade and deplomacy
All done by ships we can afford to put up in enough numbers to have a permanant presence in these areas.”
I was reminded of an idea I had for a true sea control RN; take the tonnage from the CVF’s and combine with the command and control of the proposed C1, and you get 9-12 CVS similar to the Italian Garibaldi class. 4-6 could be enhanced to be Task group command ships, 4-6 could carry ASAC and full Harrier AV-8B squadrons for air-defence, etc. Individually each ship is not as potentially powerful as a CVF but you get up to six for one meaning they can up to six places rather than one and they can be grouped together for mutual support. Combine with the 6 T-45’s and you have the nucleus of six very flexible Task groups.
Unfortunately Cavour costed 1.5 billion euro, and got just a fraction of her Command and Control suite fitted, is only fitted-for-but-not-with 76 mm guns, and was the F35B to fail there will be nothing to fly off her.
And it takes 451 men to run it (sole-ship crew, without air group and without anything else, which gives you a scale of CVF’s good design as it only takes 690 men despite being so much bigger), so believe me you can’t build a fleet out of that.
@ Gabby
Glad somebody has got a hold on the time line.
@ Chris B said “The carrier itself does nothing.”
Remember what I said about the relationship between the frigate and the helicopter? Well the same goes for the carrier and her air group. Without the carrier the air-group can’t go anywhere. Using the sea (a global common) avoids inconvenient problems like host nation problems, closed air space etc. It is ops on the carrier that controls the “air war.” etc. etc.
The carrier is shaped by her airgroup of course, but the ship in turn shapes what can and cannot fly from it, and particularly in terms of jets, it is decisive, as what you can do will depend on:
-Catapults or STOVL/STOBAR
-deck design, parking space, provvision of lifts to move aircrafts and stores up and down. A wrong deck design ruins a carrier performance.
-internal arrangements. How much fuel does it carry? How many weapons? How is the workshop space? How tall/big is the hangar? you need to fold helicopters to bring them down and fit them in, can you keep them open…?
In CVF’s hangar, to give an idea, you can park Chinooks (notoriously do not have folding blades) and even UNFOLDED MV-22 Ospreys. The hangar is high and wide enough that the F35 can be stored and serviced in all parts of the hangar.
And the lift is big enough to move two F35s at a time, or a chinook.
On Ocean/Invincibles etc, Chinook must stay on deck, unless you want to remove the rotor blades each time you have to put it on the elevator.
On CVF this will not be the case.
And so along.
I don’t think I was being clear enough.
What I meant was when people say “Carriers are a sea control asset” etc, the Carrier doesn’t intrinsicly do anything other than sail around.
A carrier with nothing but 30 Chinooks on board is not a sea control asset. It’s a very large LPH.
Perhaps a better explanation would be that the aircraft carried determine the role of the Carrier.
Folding blades
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/Folded_Blades/Folded_Blades.html
@ Gabriele – I was suggesting something like a modern Garibaldi, not a Cavour.
@ Chris B re sail round
But, but manoeuvre is the primary weapon of all military formations. :)
RN mantra: float, move, fight.
@ x
You’re arguments grow weak old man! Soon you will feel the power of the Super Strategic Regional Bomber!
Mwhahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Oh dear! The B in Chris B really does stand for Biggles. :) ;)
@ Admin – “Why is it whenever I make the odd joke in a largely serious article I get picked up for being hysterical, for fcuks sake fellas, the bit about Iranians farting was just a joke”
Apologies admin, i am sometimes accused of lacking a sense of humour, with good cause it would appear.
right you miserable lot, have toned the piece down, enjoy!
I liked the bit about the Iranians farting.
I see where TD is coming from in that regard. There is a tendency for people to over inflate various weaknesses in order to justify certain strengths.
What makes that all the more odd is that often they’re trying to promote something that would promote itself if they just left it alone and put the Hyperbole back in the box, like Carriers for example.
@Gareth, thats an interesting concept, worth serious consideration I think
@Michael (civ), TOPIPS, like it
@ Gabriele, we have no guarantee of the tanker wars not happening again but then I don’t have the same for aliens invading either, just a different opinion of the most likely threats and the most sensible means of addressing them given a finite budget and dose of realism.
Where did I suggest selling Patriots and re roling with Tucano’s, you are putting words in my mouth
Not a crusade because wouldn’t it be great if defence spending was 4 or 6% of GDP but then something would have to give elsewhere because there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and as soon as the MoD and defence chiefs realised this the better
You say that leaving the fleet without without expeditionary air power and amphibs would be the worst strategic decision ever, sorry, thats just nonsense my friend, strategy is about much more than whether we have a capability that has proved essential once in 50 years. You need to demonstrate some of your claims about amphibious operations being impossible without carrier based fast air because you are sounding a bit romantic and dare I say it, PTT like
Ixion is spot on, we might have a carrier, but we can’t afford a decent air wing or the frigates/destroyers to allow it to operate in a high threat environment or the RFA capability to sustain it for more than a very short duration. Its fantasy to think otherwise so when we kid ourselves how great we are and get dealt a lesson in reality by someone who doesn’t buy into the dream because a dose or reality will break out.
As for driving down the road the wrong way, thats something you continentals do but seriously, the point about innovation is that everyone thinks you are a nutter until they realise you are right. Look at the evolution of the tank for example, massive resistance, plenty of horn tooting from the cavalry for decades
@John Hartley, et tu John, have re read and changed :)
@Richard, bio fuels might be OK as a niche but come on, seriously, for the UK, is it an option to ‘keep the lights on’
You try going against an enemy with an air force, even one with nothing special, just like Argentina’s own was back in 1982. Do it without air cover, and then tell me how it ends.
Then you’ll have seen why you need carrier air.
You need to tell me how you will go anywhere without sea mobility. Are you going to start deploying soldiers and vehicles 3 years before the start of an operation in order to move them in by air with 22 A400M, chartered flights and 7 C17?
About carrier wing. The carrier wing will be available if it is made available. It probably won’t because you don’t want it to be available, but giving the planes to the RAF so it can make them land-based assets and remember about the flat top only at the next Libya event. Stupidity is not a justification.
As to the RFA being unable to sustain CVF in a mission, sorry, but i don’t see it this way. Fort Victoria and Wave Ruler would be enough to keep the carrier and its stike wing going for at least two cycles. At sail, the carrier is equipped for one cycle, which is a full amount of 396 strike sorties, which can be flown in 5 days (don’t think it’ll ever happen, it is a very, very extreme war scenario if you need all those strikes in so little time, it is a Korea-style sortie rate), or over a month or more.
There’s at least 1200 strike sorties you can sustain.
As to escorts, again, i don’t see the problem. How many escorts do you think you want to give the carrier? 300?
If the carrier is heading into a high threat environment, inexorably that will mean we are talking about the nations’s “big thing” of the moment, and most of the armed forces will be involved.
2 Type 45 and a couple of frigates plus an Astute SSN scouting ahead are more than enough escort. Does this mean that the standing tasks of the navy won’t be met? Yes, it does, but this is normal when there’s a war going on.
I might ask you if the UK is able to sustain the same kind of operation from foreign land bases in “high-risk” scenario. As it, a scenario in which the enemy fires back, attempts to destroy the base, and chases the convoys of trucks driving from Marham across Europe down to Gioia del Colle, for example.
I suspect the answer is no. With Rapier having a ceiling of 5000 meters, unless someone provides a decent SAM coverage, there’s no way it can work.
And i’m not asking for 10% of GDP to go on defence, as 2.5% would be more than enough to met Force 2020, and we can’t be fooled into believing this can’t be done. It could be done right now if there was the will to. The UK has lived for years with a 3% + of GDP going on defence, without any catastrophic failure of any of the other government departments.
@ Gabrielle.
To be fair to TD he didn’t talk about not moving things by sea (sea mobility), rather questioned how essential carrier based airpower is to that movement.
Take the Iraq war (both). Most of our kit was moved by sea, but it had no need for carrier based air escort.
Where did I say that we should not have some carrier air cover?
Look at the logistical effort to sustain Op Corporate, look at the combined strengths of the RAF, RFA and civilian ships taken up from trade.
Now look at what we have now
But if you look at the strategic assumptions, based on real world not fantasy scenarios, the need for outer layer organic air defence is much less. CVF is actually predicated on the strike role against mediocre opposition in conjunction with allies i.e. the USA
I want the forces to actually contribute to the UK’s real world security
Type 45, allies and political realism trumps fantasy scenarios and harking back to the glory days, sorry
This “Strike Role” thingy is a ridiculous argument, men. The aircraft like F35 can strike with a hand and defend with the other, depending on what mission is at hand and what weapon they are carrying. The “STRIKE” was added to the carrier by the Navy, as it was the only way to make the government happy, and because the universal truth is that in any war, there will be far more surface targets to STRIKE than air targets to DOWN.
May i remind everyone that the Navy had Sea Harriers which made for a wonderful Sea Control and Fleet Defence asset at sea, but that it was killed because the thing of the moment were strike missions?
Let’s not fool ourselves. Had the Navy said “we want jet fighters to protect ships at sea” their request would have been ignored.
This does not mean that CVF cannot control the sea. Words do not a carrier make.
As to operation Corporate, numbers do not answer to all needs.
Fearless and Intrepid can hold a candle to Albion and Bulwark. And the hold Sir ships are boats with a ramp compared with the Bay class LSD(A), and STUFT vessels could still be called in. There’s still many ships in the merchant navy. The only thing i can agree upon is that RFA needs ships. Soon. It has withered away too much. But this is not a reason to cry and throw away all the rest too.
“Type 45, allies and political realism trumps fantasy scenarios and harking back to the glory days, sorry”
This just does not feel right. Especially when you then talk about “medium bombers” and missions abroad. You are trying to argue for a Britain that acts as a world power and is present everywhere while going to war without the most essential toolkits.
It just can’t work, TD. It might have sense if you begin your reviews with:
“Ok, we are not interested in being a world player anymore. We will focus on our isolationism.”
And at that point, though, you will perhaps realize that you’ll still end up wanting ships, and not soldiers. A big army on an island is kind of useless.
I dont want the UK to be a player on the world stage and other ridiculous notions, I want my interests served by the armed forces, I want energy security, increasing GDP, food on the table, beer behind the counter and a smile on my face.
Being a fur coat and no knickers, grandstanding, top table, big league, punching above our weight tinpot bully is not serving my interests, no matter how alluring BAe’s toy catalogue is.
On the medium bomber thing, it was a thought exercise by the way.
Sorry Gabrielle, you are stuck in the past, you need to move on
If Gabs living in the past TD, you might want to contact the MoD & NSC and get them to change the SDSR so the UK no longer requires the tools for expeditionary warfare.
Interestingly (also moving away from potential fisticuffs) oxfam has said food prices will rise by 20% in the next few years, watch the man on the street stop shruging his/her shoulders and get vocal when eating becomes an expensive hobby. electric cars will charging somehow (good luck on that germany).
basically no matter who is saying what on here it’s gonna get messy real soon!!!
Where did I say we no longer needed the tools for expeditionary warfare, yet again, you assume that just because I want a change of emphasis and a re adjustment of budgets I want to scrap everything and become the armed revolutionary wing of OXFAM.
So what kind of carrier air cover do you think the UK needs TD?
you assume that just because I want a change of emphasis and a re adjustment of budgets I want to scrap everything and become the armed revolutionary wing of OXFAM.
An Oxfam-driven foreign policy would be incredibly expeditionary – you can’t fight famine by just sitting at home, after all. I’d imagine lots and lots of RFAs, LHDs, LHAs, C-17s, C-130s, that kind of thing; you’d want the ability to turn up quickly offshore anywhere in the world and start unloading kilotonnes of food and medical supplies. In containers, naturally…
TD, i might be stuck in the past, but you are stuck in a depressing future. It might not appear like that, but now the world is largely shaped by what the US and the UK say and do.
There is definitely no guarantee that a world shaped by someone else would be better and more welcoming. Quite the opposite, i fear.
But at least now i know we talk about two very different Britains, and this explains a lot of our differences. Not all, but a good part.
Gabriel
‘the world is largely shaped by what the US and the UK say and do’.
Not the world I live in, The US maybe, just, in certain areas, But UK no, not since Suez.
a
Exactly why, My (and I suppose) TD’s, future is far from non intervention driven. But on a more as an invited guest rather than as a trespasser.
It makes no sense. Who the hell would “invite” as guest troops from another country?
And when/if they ever did, you’d go with civilian ships and use a port, not storm a beach. That IS NOT power projection, nor is it a work for the armed forces.
I do not think you have very clear ideas.
TD & Ixions world seems to revolve around a lot of soft power, which of course it should. But soft power is no power if not backed by hard power.
I’d also refute the allegation anyone promoting ‘strategic raiding’ is an imperial wannabe interventionist.
“I’d also refute the allegation anyone promoting ‘strategic raiding’ is an imperial wannabe interventionist.”
I should think not too!
Andy
Where I part company from TD (perhaps) Is I still see a need for that but you have to be very carefull about what you mean by ‘strategic raiding’
We wiull stoill need to be ‘Hard’ where we can, and shoudl be hard as nails. What we have to do is stoip trying to look hard when we aint.
When all we are is a ‘Fur coat and no knickers bully’ wannabe.
Gabs
We got invited to save Kuwait,
we got invited (and much Kudoss), from saving Siera leon.
We got invited to do the Armila patrol.
We are currently invited to take part in anti priracy operations in western Indian Ocean.
We are invited to take part in anti drug smugling in Caribean.
We are invited into Bruni.
All succesfull opperations
We weren’t invited to gulf too or Afgahn ……
Ixion, 3 of those tasks are Standing Navy Tasks, one is a British Garrison in Brunei that acts as Far East Ready Infantry Battalion reserve and only Kuwait was a (big) coalition ops that involved lots of hard military power, both on land and in the air and on the sea. Ships were sunk, missiles were shot at the UK ships, and Gloucester downed them.
Armilla patrol is not done on “invitation”, nor is anti-piracy patrols. They are done because it is interest of the UK. Armilla patrol births from that very one 1980 tanker war between Iraq and Iran that i mentioned earlier and that was played down, indeed.
Sierra Leone was a quite sizeable intervention with lots of ships involved, Harriers and Sea harriers, the SAS and 1 PARA, RFA Fort George, Chatham, Argyll, Ocean, Illustrious and all that, but there was no “invite”. It began as a non-combatant but definitely military extraction of british civilians from a country in chaos and culminated in a very military special operation that cost the life of a british soldier (Barrass).
Kuwait, according to the earlier assumptions that have been made here, is a mission in which “the UK did not made any difference” and that “the US could have done on their own” and all that.
Now you bring it out as example? You end up in contradiction with your own points.
If these are the examples of what you plan to do, you’ll need frigates, soldiers, amphibs, carrier air, fighter jets and tanks.
The same things that you’ve been playing down all the time.
See now why i say that certain strategic thinking is deeply flawed?
Sorry Gabriele, but you’re wrong; Sierra Leone was done with the consent of the SL government, therefore it counts as an “invited” operation.
The idea of the fwd presence ships/troops only works if you have something to call in as back up when something goes wrong. If you dont have the back up your only window dressing and putting people in situations of increased risk under equipped and very like no one will pay any attention to what you want. That the real world reality of the situation. Our troop capture in Sierra Leone and the Iranian sailor incident both show the risks. Would either have tried it will american personnel? Or are we supposed to pick up the hot line to Washington and say mr president were in over our heads again can can you come and rescue us please.
If that is the limit of our ambition then we dont need a nuclear deterrent which will cost 24b we just hand that responsibility over to the yanks too.
As for corporate dont really think thats a gd representation of what a CVF or amphib group today would be required to do. After all it was a not just 2 carrier group that were supported entirely from the sea but a entire divisional land force as well and that was thousands of miles from the nearest port.
The best analogy of what would be required today would be the naval force deployed to the second gulf war or the similar to the current french group in libya or indeed our own amphib group. That is well within even the future RN structure we have almost double the number of logistics ships the french do and they get by why cant we?.
The trouble with forward presence is it requires a “combative sailor” and I don’t think many fit that mould in today’s navy.
@Andy, you should go back and read though the numerous posts I have done on CVF and naval air but I flip flop between two positions. In a radical moment I think we should have the balls to scrap CVF, call BAe’s bluff, renegotiate the shipbuilding alliance and do what we should have done all along, that is create a pair of Invincible replacements or something very similar, switch back to F35B or even initiate a small Harrier new build. In my more pragmatic moments, keep CVF but do not replace Ocean, redesign them to be more amphibious multi-purpose focused (like a USS America without the well deck) and again, switch back to F35B. Small scale that is appropriate for the UK, rather than the cock waving mini me wannabe USA that CVF has morphed into
@Gabrielle, it might be a depressing reality to you but it is reality nevertheless. The world is very far from being shaped by what the US and UK do, maybe 50 years ago but not today and certainly not tomorrow. Who would invite guest troops from another country, seriously, do you want a list. Sierra Leone, did you read the naval fast air post, it gives dates etc and was in fact quite complex but we were definitely there by invitation, even if this was a diplomatic nicety. If you want to engage in another major operation like Kuwait you go with what you can, you do not need a full spectrum or large scale, its a coalition.
@Mark, yes, the forward presence strategy needs a stick, no denying that. Your point about the Iranian and Sierra Leone incident is unusual because in another time, did not a ragged arse warlord in Somalia hand a US force its arse, did the Taleban stick two fingers up to the US post 9/11, not sure I see where you are going with that one.
Gabs
‘3 of those tasks are Standing Navy Tasks’
So what?
‘one is a British Garrison in Brunei that acts as Far East Ready Infantry Battalion reserve’
Forward presence squadron writ large then.
‘Kuwait was a (big) coalition ops that involved lots of hard military power, both on land and in the air and on the sea. Ships were sunk, missiles were shot at the UK ships, and Gloucester downed them’.
Clue is ”big coalition opp’ It was a coalition we go in for big opps as a coalition bringing a particualr set of skills and kit.
(If Gloucester was shootng down missiles perhaps we don’t need T45.. (Just joking)).
Armilla was a coalion, as yanks dealt with heavyer threats further in the gulf. War an ‘invite’ by gulf contries who cooperated in its support.
SL was an invite.
Kuwait nope we did not need to go but seeing as we did though it worth mentioning.
No contradiction at all.
We will need some high end kit TD’s vision does need a single fleet of such for deployment to fight a high end battle.
Amphips yes please If I have a criticism of TD’s idea it is only one of suitable ships I want amphips like Bay class with hangers-
ideal for the job. Big cheap long range high endurance.
How is this for a revolutionary Idea If we need High end carrier air tanks etc etc.
lets not bother, we can join the poor, benighted, bullied, broke, failed countries like, Norway Sweden, denmark, holland, Germany, Canada Australia (Bunch of 2nd rate loosers the lot of em).
Brunei is actually paid for by the Sultan as well I think, nothing like that for an invite!
Why do we need Frigates and Destroyers for standing naval tasks like anti piracy or smuggling interdiction around Barbados?
This is what I am talking about
So what have I missed…. cor, bloody hell!
“…and become the armed revolutionary wing of OXFAM,”
I hear they already have one. Balls. Electrodes. That’s all I’m saying. You haven’t seen me alright?
You sit higher than Germany because of military might. Germany sits high because it is Europe’s top economy.
Has the UK any realistic chance of matching Germany’s economy? Especially after killing its defence industry, perhaps its last big industry sector.
Oh, and are we talking of the same Germany which has been expanding its once Baltic-bound navy to send units in the gulf, the same germany with the second biggest european army after France?
The same Australia building AAW destroyers, big LHDs, buying Largs Bay and planning 36 billion dollars of submarines plus a huge fleet of F35s?
The same Norway planning to buy more F35s than the UK and the same one flying missions and striking Libya right now?
The same Canada which has been expanding its military and which returned into the heavy tank club recently, the same one that is aiming strong for the economic wonders promised by the de-icing of the north pole resources and routes? The one which is ambitiously trying to cut its share between those of Russia and the US?
Now those are good examples of not ambitious countries which are NOT investing in defence, are those?
Armilla patrol is a navy standing task with a frigate in position at all times, from 1980 onwards. If you mean that the ship works with other assets as part of a Combined Task Force, then yes, but that is quite a large boundary for the definition of a “coalition op”, since the frigate simply does its job.
Brunei garrison, yes it is forward presence. And then? Where do you think you can reply that? In somalia? You think there are many countries ready to pay 40 millions a year to get a battalion of british infantry?
If they were, the MOD would not be in trouble.
As to “invites”, i might be naughty and say that ISAF is invited in Afghanistan by the local government too, if that’s just it.
F35B: less performance, more expense. Are we calling for it so we can later accuse the MOD of getting screwed and waste money once more?
@TD
Ocean is NOT getting a dedicated replacement as it is, no need to propose it. LPH(R) is a programme “on hold” by 2006 and cancelled as part of cuts. That’s part of the reason why both CVFs are necessary, as they’ll be the only flat tops around for some time.
As to US and UK not shaping the world… Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the same Sierra leone… must have been Bangladesh doing all that.
So the international diplomacy is not shaped by what the US and UK say?
All those men, blood, effort, money… did it do nothing?
TD, you might not know it, but the UK still has such a part in shaping the world’s views in almost every field and certainly in the military one, i’ll let you know that, just as Invincible was copied worldwide after appearing, as soon as the change of CVF back to catapults was announced, debates have started about how the age of the STOVL might be over, and that, coupled with the risk of the F35B being cancelled have lead to studies into converting Cavour to take some sort of catapult.
Little and dumb example, but it gives an idea.
@ Gabby re cats
I am currently STOBAR happy. I thought it was a second rate system. But for CVF (and CAVOUR) possibly the best way to go. Better a set of wires for both CVFs than cats and traps just for one.
I’m sorry but i have to point this out. Where is the money going to come from for all this stuff that some people seem to think we need?
TD has at least tried to be realistic and pragmatic about the money thing. At every point he is suggesting cutting numbers or scraping something else to pay for what he wants and explains in detail why he wants it.
As i see it, you have to cost what you want to do for it to be credible before even getting to the question of whether it’s actually desirable or necessary.
Realisticly, the only budgets you have to work with for any hairbrained schemes are the Type 26 & the Carrier capable aircraft, bearing in mind that with the aircraft budget, you still have to find something to do the job and with the Type 26 you still need something to replace the Type 23.
The budget for the Carriers themselves is set, they will be built, so you can’t play with that.
You could however suggest we sell it or something, if you want money for more ships or whatever else you want. (though i think you’ll be shouted at for suggesting it)
I haven’t seen any figures for a C3 ship, do we know how much money they are thinking about?
Is that budget up for grabs yet? Or are people wanting to raid the FRES budget (see what i did there?)!
@Chris.B.
“If not then I suggest;
Fully
Unilateral
Command
Klippers for
Presence,
Training &
T’intervention
??”
Man, i laughed. Much better than mine ! Have another one for you.
Colonial Or Protection Ship.
COPS!
I hope the Miami Dade or Fort Worth Police Departments don’t take offence! We might get sued by the producers of the show though, copyright see?
Gabs
Thought you might bite at that that.
NONE
Of the above mentioned countries have plans for carriers etc, all have plans for limited Amphib deployment Joint support ships, etc.
Oh yeah, i admit, i am as guilty about the budget and money thing as anyone else.
In only two of my many stupid ideas did i suggest where we could get the money to pay for it.
Look we just have to recognise that the defence budget will fall to 2% or lower of GDP….GPD could fall quite a lot in the near future (which will mean more cuts), unless someone in Gov. has a crafty plan up their sleeves.
Michael
It is indeed all about cutting bits and keeping others some may just like to see significant army reductions which we haven’t come on to yet it also must be balanced across what we wish to do independently or can offer to a coalition.
What tasking currently undertaken do we give up or man differently? Maybe a gd starting point.
The C3 requirement it has a long name now which escapes me is a 1.5b pound program.
@Ixion
But they are keen to get aircraft capable amphibs. And Australia was considering bidding for Ark Royal too.
Don’t think they wouldn’t join the carrier club if they could.
@TD
“Why do we need Frigates and Destroyers for standing naval tasks like anti piracy or smuggling interdiction around Barbados?”
Mainly because the Treasury won’t make available enough money to dream about a fleet of cheap sloops AND another fleet of even just decent frigates, but just one of the two.
Frigates can do the work of sloops, but sloops cannot do the work of frigates. Hence the drive for frigates, and the Navy scrambling for 13 Type 26 (8 high end ASW/Strike and 5 “General Purpose”), for partners to collaborate with and for a genuinely cheap design.
The idea of being able to build and design two fleets of vessel was absurd from the start, and starting from Type 45 is not judged to be a good starting point for a cheap ship, and by now it is too late anyway to try and exploit the advantage of workers and shipbuilders already expert and “hot” in the job, as there is quite a gap before any funding (and thus work) will begin being available.
We always call for realism, and well, this is it.
Then, in time, there will be C3. But those will be financed only because they will replace the Hunt and Sandown. Working budget is (for now) set at 1.4 billion for the ex-C3, now MCM, Hydrographic Patrol Capability MHPC.
Incidentally, France is working to develop a nearly identical concept to replace their own minesweepers, and thus collaboration has been launched.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/05/royal-navys-future-latest-updates-and.html
@x
I’m with you on STOBAR. Sure we might need to tweak the FSTA contract to allow buddy refuelling (as I understand it the PFI blocks the operation of any other refuelling aircraft). Problem is the RAF needs a Tornado replacement, they have 60% of the budget, and assuming that the whole not economical to operate 60 Harrier’s argument was not hype then by the time you by a Tornado replacement in decent numbers you are going to struggle to buy a STOBAR fighter, and certainly not in the numbers needed to be economical to sustain three fast jet types.
Finally which STOBAR jet would we go with, basically there is one in production and one nearing production – Mig-29K and LCA (N), politically Mig-29K is no-good (though I would love to read the Daily Telegraph and the Mail should BAE buy a licence for the Mig-29K, and while the Mig-29K is not as sexy as the Su-33 it is still damned pretty) and the LCA (N) is apparently having problems (if only I could find the link again saying that it was failing to hit KPI). Any other STOBAR jet needs either development money or is simply using a CATOBAR design to less than its full potential.
TD asked “Why do we need Frigates and Destroyers for standing naval tasks like anti piracy or smuggling interdiction around Barbados?”
We can only afford one navy. A high end ship can do everything a low end ship can, but the reverse isn’t true. Better that expensive assets are employed than sitting next to the harbour wall between exercises. (Than waiting for an axe to fall on an under utilised asset.) Even doing these secondary duties the ship’s company is learning to work as a team. The lads and lasses in ops are tracking contacts. The team on the bridge is learning to drive the ship. By having a high end asset in the area HMG is demonstrating support for the Commonwealth countries. “Drug busting” really needs a helicopter. We don’t have many of them either. And as I have said to Chris B the ESCORT and her helicopter are team so…
WIGS/APT(N) makes more sense than 3 squadrons of Typhoon on QRA waiting to answer a negligible (at best) air threat. Cheaper, much, much cheaper too.
I thought you’d like the value for money angle? :)
@ Tubby
Only if the contract says RAF! Probably doesn’t. HMG would have done us like a kipper. Again. Prats.
Can you imagine the penalty clause on a contract for £489million or so for is it 25 years? What a f*ck up.
I bet the terms of the contract are lot looser on the PFI provider.
I can see the appeal of STOBAR, until the subject of AWACS comes up. And then there is an uncertain pause…
Absolutely need the helicopters for the Drug busting/counter-piracy. Not going to cover all that ground and chase down a drug boat without one.
@TD “bio fuels might be OK as a niche but come on, seriously, for the UK, is it an option to ‘keep the lights on’”
Lights on, probably not as we’d be talking gargantuan quantities, but for keeping warplanes aloft its a possibility. Given our coal reserves, some form of petroleum derivative is viable, but it is also an unsustainable fuel source. A number of our universities are currently working on algae derived fuels, but I think the jury’s still out at the moment, or at least will be until the oil price goes up a few notches!
@Gab, perhaps a reason that we don’t match Germany in the economy stakes is because we spunk £20billion up the wall on dubious expeditionary operations so we can kid ourselves about be a player on the world scene whilst they concentrate on building a sustainable economy. I watched a news report today about a draught in SE England that might lead to a widespread crop failure, now in terms on national well being I would have thought food was pretty fundamental, how many reservoirs, pipelines and irrigation systems would that £20b have bought, now tell me which would have been the better investment for me and my kids?
Do you not see the irony in what you have said?
You have fallen into the classic trap of being dazzled by the performance figures and slight reduction in capital cost of F35C yet completely ignoring the massive through life cost penalty of maintaining cats and traps skills, a larger overall force size needed to maintain a given capability and the delay/cost of modifying the two CVF, which incidentally, now means only 1 is likely to be converted, resulting in a part time capability that will reduce actual real world capability, what an outstanding result for us all.
Influence and shaping the world is for fools unless it actually is converted into something useful, so frankly, I don’t care if the world and its dog copied Invincible
Why are you telling us stuff that we have covered endlessly by the way, we are going over old ground here, dip into the archives my friend, lots of discussion and ideas, particularly in the Future of the Royal Navy Series
@X, I fundamentally disagree with your position about frigates doing the low end stuff but you already know that!
Is it time to move on chaps?
TD, thanks for the clarification. So you aren’ t totally anti-naval air just anti-CVF.
I’d actually agree with your suggestions, would anyone starting from scratch now suggest building a couple of what could turn out £3.2bn each ships? Of course not.
However, renegotiating contracts is a real long shot and isn’t going to happen so imo we make the best we can out of CVF. I’d not be averse to selling one and getting a cheap Ocean replacement.
Andy, have a look back for a post called how do you solve a problem like maria and/or CVF
It covers a range of pragmatic options making the assumption that they are here to stay
@Gab
“Frigates can do the work of sloops, but sloops cannot do the work of frigates.”
+
@x
“A high end ship can do everything a low end ship can, but the reverse isn’t true.”
Don’t want to get into the same pattern of discussion as elsewhere… you do know the high end ships can only be at one point at once.
What do frigates do? They have a very quiet propulsion and are acting as a VDS-tug, the rest is done by the helos.
Two sloops, one with helos and one with VDS, and both with quiet propulsion can do the task of one frigate. Or, let’s make it easier: two LCS will cost $920m = £560m, the T26 will cost maybe £500m. So, you are really convinced that the T26 outperforms two LCS in 2020? Especially the LCS-2 with two helos each? I’m not.
The thing is, everyone wants the frigates to be Tomahawk-equipped-land attack vessels, better having a 155mm gun. Those ships will still not be able to drive into contested waters. So you have to send a T45 with them, or they also have to be high-end AAW assets. Bottom line is: the whole concept is flawed. This is the reason the USN gave up the idea of an arsenal ship.
@ TD
You asked, I didn’t.
@ McZ
I don’t think TD wants any further discussion on ships. And in these situations as always I defer to the site owner.
Gabs
We aint going agree.
You somewhat incredibly still see Britania as ruling the waves.
I on the other hand,recognise economic reality, and that sooner or later someone is; (Like the Japs in WW2) going to call our bluff. And that went well ask the crew of; (was it Renown or Repulse that went down with the and Prince of wales).
I assume in you drive a Ferrari, as your everyday transport, after all it can do 70mph a Fiat Panda can’t to 200mph.
We cant afford 2 fleets if we want to keep x number of T26 I really don’t see why we need X number of t26.
And If T45(As it’s fans claim), can shoot the B*lls of a seagull doing 1200mph 60 miles away what do we need carriers for…
“I watched a news report today about a draught in SE England that might lead to a widespread crop failure,”
Indeed, we get terrible draughts down this end of the country. I blame the Scots for leaving the back door open.
*Droughts,
I can see the idea of purpose built, low cost vessls for Costal patrols, drug interception etc, but I question just how cheap they will really be. The requirement to carry a helicopter in a hangar adds a lot to the ship costs from day one.
I just think we have the Type 45 (and its descendents? Fingers crossed?), we might as well use the damn things for something.
@ Gab – “Has the UK any realistic chance of matching Germany’s economy? Especially after killing its defence industry, perhaps its last big industry sector.”
Yes. :)
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/britain-in-the-world-%e2%80%93-a-long-slide-into-oblivion/
One note: target price for Type 26 now is 250 to 350 millions, not 500. The navy has scaled down the ship to 5500 tons, and is thinking about a cheaper all-diesel propulsion. Everything that is possible is being done to keep the cost down.
Yes, the frigate can be in only one place.
So can the “sloop”.
Even if you have more “sloops”, availability isn’t going to double, as the cheap merry sloop will need to be at least 3000 tons to be truly ocean-capable, and bigger still if it has to carry an hangar and enough fuel to have the reach and endurance at sea it needs.
In the end, you’d build a 4500 tons, underarmed and undercapable Oceanic Patrol Vessel which risks improving presence only marginally.
@Ixion
Sure, britain is broke, britain is doomed, all that stuff. The 6th economy of the world is incapable to do what the 8th and 9th do…? Something is wrong.
I know we’ll never agree, it is inexorable. But you might realize that if Prince of Wales and Repulse had had an accompanying carrier giving air cover, they wouldn’t have been sunk.
Look to the battle of Crete, too, to see what happens when you try doing operations without air cover against an enemy with an air force.
TD – I guess I sleep-walked into your rebuttal of my mild warming to carrier borne air power. I accept your point that in many situations there are alternatives to a carrier, but there are still some where there isn’t. No other piece of kit is applicable or necessary for every battle, so why are we worked up that carriers are not any different?
Granted, the way we have gone about planning and procuring CVF means we will pay for two to get one, which means that a lot of money that could have been spent on other things has gone down the toilet.
@gab
“One note: target price for Type 26 now is 250 to 350 millions, not 500. The navy has scaled down the ship to 5500 tons, and is thinking about a cheaper all-diesel propulsion. Everything that is possible is being done to keep the cost down.”
Show me countries who can build 5500ts warships for 250-350 million. The only you will find are China, Korea and Denmark; all countries who are building their warships below naval spec and on highly productive civil yards. Neither the RN will accept below naval spec, nor the UK as a country has such productive yards anymore. So, I guess the numbers are a bit too optimistic.
Add to this the fact, that T26 is not designed with a large VLS. As most folks here want such a thing to bump Tomahawks into, this will drive up cost.
If we scratch the high-speed machinery from the LCS-type sloop, we would save money too. Both LCS-designs are required to be operational up to SeaState 8. Whoever was on a frigate even on Seastate 5 knows what that means.
Gab
Crete is also an example of whta happens when you try and deploy forces that aren’t up to the job, on the assumption you can get away with it.
@”Add to this the fact, that T26 is not designed with a large VLS.”
Blatantly wrong. Type 26 armament is still up in the air for now. Only CAMM is a secure choice, BUT, mainly in order to pursue export orders, the ship has missile silos space for taking US weaponry in MK41 VLS cells.
And the navy wants Tomahawk as much as us if not more.
It’ll all come down to money, but at worst the Type 26 will come armed with CAMM and with space for Tomahawk.
CAMM being awesome because it is radar-agnostic and cold-launched, meaning that it does not need a dedicated radar for tracking and targeting and does not even need a VLS system. No sylver, no MK41. It launches from its own sealed canister, and that’s it.
As to the cost, it is undoubtedly ambitious a target price, but it is not impossible on its own, especially if you consider that it is quite likely that the Type 26 will inherit missiles, ARTISAN radar, gun mounts and torpedoes and towed sonar (the 8 that get it) from the Type 23s as they are retired.
250 millions is certainly overly ambitious, but a good price is a possible achievement, all things considered.
As to the RN not accepting ships below specs, i don’t think so. In order to get the ships, they are accepting lots of compromises.
My fear is that they might actually be made desperate enough to accept a compromise too much. The opposite is not a really likely scenario.
@Crete is also an example of whta happens when you try and deploy forces that aren’t up to the job, on the assumption you can get away with it.
@Ixion
Crete was the evacuation of a garrison that the Navy had already had to evacuate shortly before from Greece.
And most certainly it wasn’t a scenario that could be avoided, unless Crete was to be abandoned to the enemy without even trying to resist, and even less acceptable would have been not to try and evacuate the 35.000 soldiers from the island, leaving them to die or become prisoners.
The point being that at times you have no real choices.
Gents.
I think that the Type 26/GCS has been redesigned slightly with a bigger weapons deck similar to the Absalon class.
Older pic, minimal weapons area before the second mast.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/03/splash-the-cash/
Newer pic with what looks like a larger weapons deck.
http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/SurfaceShips/PlatformsandProgrammes/GlobalCombatShip/index.htm
Now the deck on the Absalon can already take Tomahawks, i think! So does the increased area allow them to add Tomahawks to the Type 26/GCS?
Or do you think it’s still too small?
Gabbs (poss last go at this)
Given that RN carriers in WW2 (whilst armoured, Please not lets start up about the armoured v non armoured deck discussion); were very weak in fighter numbers compared to US and IJN.
We paid the price for weak airgroups on many occasions. Big criticism of Nellie and dumbo is their air group will be so weak as to make them very vulnerable to counter strikes by some of the worlds 2nd rank airforces.
If the T45 is it’s saviour then why bother with them in the first place??? AS T45 clearly enough to deal with most airforces. RN generaly talking about carrier as strike weapon, not aircover.
Briton is broke, It’s far from doomed, I was not aware that the 8th 9th etc countries in the world were planning for major heavy forign millitary intervention.
Like I said Lets start defending ourselves V threats to our interrests, rather than trying to sort other peoples sh*t out.
^^^ What the Fcuk is that? Everyone gets smiley, happy faces, I get the stars in their eyes village idiot
Crete is just about the worst example you could give to compare with modern warfare. Other than the fact that one side was sailing and the other was flying, there are very few paralells between then and now.
Also, technically speaking, even soft launch weapons need a VLS, just not the hot cells that we use currently. I believe the plan (on Royal Navy ships at least) is to seat the weapon on a piston and use that to drive it up and out.
Right here, right now, a whole £1 says that they don’t think to use adjustable pressures that would accommodate future types of ordinance.
@Gab
“And the navy wants Tomahawk as much as us if not more.”
What the RN wants and what makes sense may be two different things.
The idea of a surface vessel firing cruise missiles on a shore or inland target in a contested environment is ridiculous. You have to be an Burke-class destroyer with Aegis to accomplish that, and by 2020 this task will be impossible to cover, due to hypersonic AShM.
This way, Tomahawk-capability, which is the key driver for 5500 ts, is the point where the RN begins to gold-plate the design and the treasury begins – rightly – to enquestion the gold plates.
Interesting is the fact, that estimated numbers in 2009 where 10+8, now 8+5. This means simply: 19 destroyers and frigates forever. That BAE proposes an AAW-version is good news, but it’s development will certainly mean efforts to be paid for by the customers.
Bottom line is, the cheap price will not be achieved, because we are set to procure from BAE Systems. And BAE Systems has a business plan requiring maximization of profits. So – as usual – we will sign a very basic contract, and every bell and every whistle will be worth it’s weight in Gold.
The only chance is to make this a true Commonwealth program. With Canada abstaining, the prospects are dim.
A moment we talk about cheap sloops and non-existant threats to counter with Type 45, then we talk about Hypersonic anti-ship missiles making it impossible to deploy advanced ships close to shore.
Good luck doing things with sloops then!
So far, the only occasions in which RN ships were targeted after the Falklands saw HMS Gloucester shoot down the missiles fired at her and HMS Liverpool silencing the battery or rockets which engaged her.
There is no realistic reason to think that it will be “impossible” to fire tomahawks from a surface vessel in 2020.
The rationale behind the desire of having surface vessels capable to fire the missile is that:
– You get more platforms capable to significantly influence events ashore, which is what mostly every campaign is meant to achieve.
– You can get missiles delivered at a lower cost using a surface ship than an Astute. Stealthness and nuclear-endurance come at a price.
– With 7 SSNs, most of which committed to the most diverse tasks around the world (not publicized, but the RN keeps at least one SSN in south atlantic as continuously as possible, and another one is always east of suez etc), having the “Fleet Ready Escort” in UK waters fitted with Tomahawk means being more reassured of being able to strike quickly, in all situations.
– Lastly, it allows you to use SSNs more freely: HMS Sceptre was the first UK’s submarine firing Tomahawks, and did so during the balkans ops. It has been later disclosed that the submarine-delivered TLAMs were deemed so essential that the SSN was confined for all the time inside a rather-small “Launch Box” area of sea, ready at all times to fire its missiles.
Again, with 7 SSNs, and with how precious they are, you do not want that to happen each and every time.
“BAE Systems has a business plan requiring maximization of profits” What are you saying? That the other companies work for free?
Anyway, BAE did not exactly propose an AAW variant of the Type 26, but it ensures the ship is modular enough that can be readily fitted with the missile system, radar, main gun the client wants. Artisan 3D, SMART, 127 mm Oto Melara, 127 mm US, 76 mm, Mk8 MOd1… what you ask, you get.
@
“even soft launch weapons need a VLS”
Attention: it needs a silo, in which you put the missile canister, which is, incidentally, the container the missile is sealed in for storage, too.
A “true” VLS system (MK41 or Sylver) is a complex and expensive vertical silo, wired to interact with missiles, and built to handle the shock of a rocket igniting inside and firing the missile out, which also means managing flames and lots of exhausts.
CAMM needs none of those things. There is no exhaust, no flames to manage.
You take the CAMM canister, put it in the ship silo, and you are done.
On Type 45, which already has Sylver, you use Sylver, putting four CAMM tubes into a single Sylver cell.
But you DO NOT need the Sylver cell, but only the space.
They are very different things.
@Ixion
RN carriers carried fewer planes, but some wartime classes had comparable airwings. Even without considering that, they did serve well and did their job always. FAA planes got the honor of both the First and Last UK’s air victories in the IIWW, with opening shot coming from a Sea Skua embarked on Ark Royal, and the last from a Seafire patrol in the pacific shooting down japanese Zeros.
The problem was that there was no carrier around Crete.
As to your other point, the Nimitz carriers are loaded with planes. Yet they have Ticonderoga cruisers loaded with SAMs accompanying them.
Not the fighters, not the SAMs, can do all the work on their own.
The fighters engage targets at range, shoot down planes, bomb launchers and enemy ships, trying to avoid that missiles are even fired at the carrier.
The escorting destroyer is meant to shoot down the leakers.
Expect a destroyer to detect and shoot down everything on its own, without aerial early warning, besides, is not just optimistic, but irresponsible.
It’s a launch silo.
The missile is launched vertically from it.
Thus it is a Vertical Launch Silo.
It is like saying that if i throw a pebble upwards vertically with my hand and by my side an Aster missile is fired via Sylver VLS cell it is the same thing.
It is not. If you want to understand it, fine. Otherwise keep thinking what you want.
Just know that while you could bolt a CAMM canister on the deck and fire the missile (or on the flatbed of a truck, as the Army is doing to replace Rapier), if you try launching a SM2 or Aster or Seawolf in that fashion, you melt the truck like it was made of butter.
Does this give an idea?
Gaby
I frankly doubt some of the capabilites ascribed to the T45 and it’s sisters. however whenever I have questioned it I am assured by others of it’s destructive ability and lethality.
I am not going to get bogged down in Create You can pick any battle you want to proove anything in war eg (IJN had lots of planes and carriers at Midway- still lost). I don’t really care who had first and last shot of WW2. FACT Fleet air arm lacked both numbers and capable modern aircraft throughout WW2. Can’t be bothered now but look at the standard numbers of aircraft carried by our fleet carriers and the US Essex class.
The force we sent to far east in 45 between it had about the capacity of 1-2 Essex class.
The seafire was (whatever its combat capabilities) simply not up to the job structurally and too short ranged to be good naval fighter, a classic British half assed job.
But enough history please.
We are talking about the future of the defence of the Uk.
You obviously see that as lying in small numbers of expensive high end units cutting all secoundry capabilities to maintain ‘a broad spectrum’.
That is a valid viewpiont but not one I share.
My point is that the price (financially) of maintaining a (say) division sized force that could be deployed and supported in meaningful way World wide and capabale of defeating even 2nd rank oposition is rising all the time, as are the numbers required.
I and other just do not see the need, the ability to deploy to save uk citzens lives world wide is one thing, deploying division sized heavy armour with aircover, and large scale maritme support quite another.
WE DO NOT have it at the moment, (maybe on paper but not in reallity;) we will not have it when (if) Nellie and Dumbo happen.
I am not sure about these medium brigades being talked about on this and other threads. They play too many tricks being all things to all men for my liking. Sending one to the far east and supporting it in ahot war still unsustainable. infact they sound a bit like and organisational FRES program.
There was a good piece about food security in today’s Times. The thrust is we have been panicking about food shortages and population growth since the early 70s and nothing has happened. The writer also trotted out the well worn stats about how grain prices have in real terms fallen.
He also trots out that other well worn stat that 10% of grain now goes to produce biofuel. This is a slight dig at the Americans the world’s largest cereals producers. This gets trotted out in uni’ GPE tutes a lot; nothing gets the academic juices going like a bit of Yank bashing.
Up to a point they are right. But it isn’t the US diverting grain to fuel production that is the problem. More that per acre US farms produce less grain than European (read UK and German) farms.
All good clean fun.
Shame the writer didn’t do his home w
@ Gabrielle
“It is like saying that if i throw a pebble upwards vertically with my hand and by my side an Aster missile is fired via Sylver VLS cell it is the same thing. ”
Not really. You’re just being silly.
“It is not. If you want to understand it, fine. Otherwise keep thinking what you want.”
The irony of this condescending statement is amazing.
“Just know that while you could bolt a CAMM canister on the deck and fire the missile (or on the flatbed of a truck, as the Army is doing to replace Rapier), if you try launching a SM2 or Aster or Seawolf in that fashion, you melt the truck like it was made of butter.”
You seem to be ignoring all the missiles thus far fired from warships that weren’t launched vertically.
There is a difference between cold launches and hot launches, which is what you seem to be describing and getting hung up on.
But when you put a missile in a silo and launch it vertically, then it’s a vertical launch silo.
I’m sorry if this all sounds a little pedantic but I just get sick and tired of listening to you at times Gabrielle.
Debates are fine. People have different opinions.
What I resent is when you consistently mistake and twist a fact or two that you picked up from somewhere and then treat everyone else like they have no idea what they’re talking about, like you’re the sole possesser of all knowledge.
Like the Crete example. Ok, you really, really, really, like Carriers. We get that.
But trying to compare the ships, planes and technologies that were in operation at Crete with modern warfare, and then bashing and trying to talk down someone on that basis is clearly ludicrous.
I fear you are the one who believes he’s got all knowledge, ignoring the evident difference between firing a missile vertically 100 feet into the air with cold, compressed air BEFORE the rocket ignites, and fire a missile with the rocket igniting and firing all its thrust, flames and exhaust into the silo.
Words are still “Vertical Launch System”, of course. The differences, quite massive, are in the method of launch, in the system’s structure, complexity, cost and in their relative possibilities of being installed anywhere.
CAMM can go pretty much anywhere. You could bolt the canisters on top of the hangar roof if you wanted.
Sylver and MK41 cannot.
The point about missiles not fired vertically, then, makes absolutely no sense in the context, as we are talking of two completely different Vertical Launch systems and methods, and it does make even less sense because it is notorious that the main SAM systems on ships now are preferably Vertical Launch because of their faster reaction-times and better 360° coverage.
But no matter the facts that are explained and brought to you, since you consistently ignore everything anyway.
“But trying to compare the ships, planes and technologies that were in operation at Crete with modern warfare, and then bashing and trying to talk down someone on that basis is clearly ludicrous.”
Yes. Instead saying that the CVF is vulnerable because Prince of Wales was sunk in IIWW makes perfect sense? Because my point was a provocative answer to this kind of claims, if you did not notice.
You seem to be the one who picks up only what you like.
@ Gabrielle
“I fear you are the one who believes he’s got all knowledge, ignoring the evident difference between firing a missile vertically 100 feet into the air with cold, compressed air BEFORE the rocket ignites, and fire a missile with the rocket igniting and firing all its thrust, flames and exhaust into the silo.
But no matter the facts that are explained and brought to you, since you consistently ignore everything anyway.”
What facts?
I said this to you earlier; “There is a difference between cold launches and hot launches, which is what you seem to be describing and getting hung up on”
And yet you then accuse me of not knowing the difference? More to the point, nobody is contesting hot launches and cold launches except you.
The simple point that I made which you seem to have lost under your mountain of rhetoric is that whether a missile is launched by its own engine, gas pressure, a piston, a fucking elastic band or even a kick up the arse, from a cell/canister/silo/pot/kettle or any other form of container, if it’s launched vertically or near vertically upward, then it counts as a Vertical Launch System!
Oh no, wait, what is this that you said;
“Words are still “Vertical Launch System”, of course”
!!!! In the course of writing a fuc… flippin’ condescending diatribe against my position, you then actually admitted the very bloody point I was making!
Heaven help me.
@Gab
“What are you saying? That the other companies work for free?”
You are deliberately ripping my comment out of context.
I said, we are bound to buy (the T26) from BAE, and that BAE will try to get the greatest possible amout of profit from each product.
No competition, bad prices. Got it?
“Good luck doing things with sloops then!”
What “things”?
I talk about ASW and GP, you about land-attack. The latter I object as being not required and rather dangerous to follow.
Against a peer adversary, there is no option acting with surface-launched cruise missiles (as I wrote: you have to have stellar AD like a Burke-class). Even if it worked, I contest the effectiveness of mounting an attack this way. There is zero chance of a saturation with either one, or two or four frigates, even if you send all 13 ships, there is no difference.
The PRC has nearly 3,000 missiles and cruise missiles at the strait of Taiwan and there is no indication that they can overwhelm Taiwanese defenses.
Against sub-peers, it gives HMG a “cheap” option which is dangerous.
Shooting at each and every next-best resource-rich nation is not the route to follow. In the real world it produces terrorists by “collateral damage” and pulls us deep into the muds of the next best civil war, as happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The message of the next decade of UK strategy should be:
– to admit the high value of british cultural output, which is indeed “shaping” this world
– to have foreign policy targets neither costing a fortune and which are well within our grasp, such as providing a leading example for those arabian states, which are monarchies and seeking a working parlamentary paradigm
– to send a strong signal to anyone who has an eye on one of our overseas possessions or our Commonwealth/EU/NATO-friend, that there will always be an imminent and strong PROaction (which is the thingy CVF and SSNs come into play)
– apart from that => TD’s goals: energy, food, water, trade, good life
Too bad, a discussion on strategic goals once again went into a discussion over equipment options.
@TD
I cannot disagree more on energy supply. Renewables are the only way out. May not be cheap, but when have good solutions been cheap?
Back in 2000, the Germans made their law to push renewables. The UK followed suit, but deliberately not chooses the very market oriented german path.
We choose not to follow, because of various advisors from different, now french-owned comapnies following their own agenda (ever heard of a company which welcomes a host of new small and medium competitors?).
Had we done, we could have 17% renewables by now for just £0.03 higher cost per KWh. In 2020, even the pessimists declare that Germany will have 35%, not to mention about 50% in 2030. All in all, the german consumer has paid for the renewable revolution, all in all paying €43b including taxes. For the government, this is a nil-sum game, but one that raises €9 of private investment for each government euro spent.
We also do no housing refurbishment schemes, and we have no comprehensive initiative on energy efficiency The cheapest renewable – biogas – get’s blatantly ignored.
What is worse is the fact, that jobs in those sectors – in Germany there is talk about 300-340 thousand – will due to our usual sluggishness definitely not be formed on british soil. The last chance is still there: energy efficiency technology is the future.
The nuclear outlook is doom, with or without Japan and Germany. Current estimates are £8b per plant, makes £64b for the whole package of eight. There will be a cry for government guarantees, a bailout for energy companies transferring their profits to Paris.
Also compare €43b for 17% and €64b for which what poses a mere 9% of the german energy market.
Someone back wrote, “relatively cheap” nuclear power would bring the heavy industry back to the UK. If the world would work like that, they would definitely go to France, where most plants are written off and the workforce has lower wages. The fact that german companies are not doing this despite relatively high energy costs is a sign, that the world is not that easy.
If you want a large industry, you need more engineers. The universities are still producing more bankers and asset managers for managing other nations assets.
Where you are quite right is LPG. And nothing can help us out of this.
One last thing. The carbon reduction schemes have to be criticised as unefficient, because they are blindedly focused on emissions. It would be most efficient to stop importing palm-oil and other resources driving deforestration, which in itself is the lone and most irrevertible driver of the greenhouse effect.
@TD
“The Royal Navy suffers particularly from what I call ‘tradition drag’ because of its historic pre-eminence in the world naval rankings but this is 2011 and the UK no longer dominates world trade. This constant reference to the Royal Navy’s position in the world is incredibly damaging and snuffs out any constructive debate of what it should look like.”
The “strong RN”-route would at least follow a strategy, which has turned Britain from an impoverished country at the european periphery into still one of the most prosperous nations.
Nothing is known about the prospects of strategy change.
Indeed, the fact that each and every other G20-power is extending their naval forces – even such countries which are not as dependend on seaborne trade and supply – should make us think.
When HMG follows a different path and scratches one naval asset – being it ships or MPAs – after another, this difference IMHO has to be backed with evidence. As long as this is not provided, I propose not to change horses.
“Indeed, the fact that each and every other G20-power is extending their naval forces – even such countries which are not as dependend on seaborne trade and supply – should make us think.”
quite so, and especially odd when no nation has so much to gain from preserving naval capability, and so much to lose from its loss.
I might have understood incorrectly, but isn’t Great Britain about to build the biggest offshore complex of wind-farms in the world for the production of energy, and hasn’t it got a plan to get 40% of its electricity by windfarms and nuclear plants and maybe clean coal by 2020 or something like that…?
Clean Coal is somewhat more troublesome and less attractive than other sources, but for the UK it would quite an investment: with the proven, massive reserves of coal in Britain’s ground depths, there is potential (so say experts, at least) to have energy for the next 200 years through underground gasyfying of coal. Now, if that’s true, that is one sector i’d want more research work done.
wind is a bit of a joke because when it is coldest i.e. when everyone is staying in, watching the TV, putting lights on because it is dark in the winter, making cups of tea and using electrical heaters, wind is generally the lowest.
It is hugely subsidised and incredibly inneficient
McZ “The nuclear outlook is doom, with or without Japan and Germany. Current estimates are £8b per plant, makes £64b for the whole package of eight.”
Nuclear = doom is only correct if we remain blinkered into solid fuel, high pressure fast breeder reactors first designed in the 50’s to create raw material for nuclear bombs. Thorium is the future of nuclear fission, be it in solid fuel “pebble bed” reactors (less than optimum) or Liquid Fuel “LFTR” reactors (more optimum). We already have low level R & D skin in this game, and we need to back it up with a national strategy and development cash.
As for wind, well if you come from Hull you would realize there is always a bloody wind blowing off the north sea, non-windy days seem to be odd ones not the norm. However I agree, unless there is some new technological break through in electrical energy storage, wind will never be efficient enough to provide base load power.
Back from a weeks bashing around dartmoor with an LSW; and to read this is quite interesting since it touches on a degree I have.
With climate change occuring – coincide with more people and more things using up resouces; food and energy security problems will increase, along with several other problems.
TD; you have focused on those sea lanes, but during the summer it is Highly likely the Arctic will open up – a shorter route from the far east to ‘the west’ and one that is hotly contested between much larger and powerful powers than the usual ‘dodgey sealanes’ of today.
It would be interesting to see your – and TD’s readerships’ – view on that, since sea ice there is at record lows and set to continue.
For Food; the UK can still be produce the quantity (not of all food-stuffs of course) but distribution probs and greed often changes things…always the case, do some of you remember the ‘butter and bread mountains’ and ‘lakes of milk’ laying to waste in the 70’s and 80s? Just as Live-Aid came into being – perhaps overseas Aid should be more in the form of useful stuff like food and energy, rather than just money… I digress!
Its a shame the ‘green’ and Gas energy industries are at such logger heads – together they could take up current demand (Gas taking up the slack like a ‘switch’ when the wind doesnt blow – unlike nuclear which has to be constantly producing), but nuclear is definatly part of the picture for the future – ‘clean’ coal is a joke; the seams we have are large, but narrow, and the immission numbers the industry proposes needs far more study; unless carbon capture – a, currently, immensily expensive project atm – comes into fruitition and economic viability.
– also I mean green as in all sustainable energy; everyone thinks of ruddy wind-turbines; they arent ‘useless’ but are only part of a big picture; the UK has huge potential for wave and sea current generated power – ‘we are an island’ and often we think we are a sea fareing people, shame we dont feel its neccessary to harness the very thing that surrounds our country anymore, its plentiful and constant…at the moment theres only one ruddy sea-turbine, in N. Ireland…Sea-Gen, also the famous ‘duck’ – all methods that can contribute to the big picture of our energy demands.
Then again, we may take a page from Prof. Lovelock; in that its a waste of time tyring to solve it now; the balls rolling, we’ve come to the first ‘feedback loop’ of decreasing sea-ice albedo in the Arctic…
ANYWAY! lol enjoyable article and reading through the comments a very varied opinion; but I think we can all agree that this will bring a heightened need for our defence, to fight for resource/resource safety and that when it comes, it will be at a distance and the other problems enhanced climatic change, population-energy-resource increase will bring… its crazy that our expeditionary forces, RAF and RN+FAA, that would be the quickest responce have been cut badly with the promise of ‘jam tomorrow’.
And there’s another round of ‘reviews’ coming soon :/
@Jed
Thorium doesn’t change much on the cost. There is no working fuel cycle, means: you have to throw even more money at the problem. Development money is not available as all money is sunk into the existing uranium technology.
Base load is not a problem with renewables. You need an intelligent grid and a back-up capacity using biomass.
New nuclear plants are delivering an MWh for £80-105, to this we have to add government susidies of £18, uncovered nuclear obligations are still not priced in. The planned cost of £2b per new plant in those numbers is pure fantasy. The Finns are paying €8b++.
Onshore wind power comes in at £80-110, with economies of scale bringing the price in the US and Germany down to £60 and below, which in medium term is only a few pounds above coal.
Tidal and offshore wind power are relatively costly, because there are no large working plants. Biomass is competitive to LNG, with £60-120 (All numbers for “safe” MWh, which includes the load factor, so no “joke”).
RenewableUK states the MWh of wind generation to be £24 (30% load factor, 100% equals the £80 stated above), energy efficiency measures comi in at £13.
CCS technology adds cost to coal generation, which alone will by 2020 be equalled by biomass and wind power.
Bottom line: nuclear power is struggling to be competitive. The earlier we accept the fact, that the nuclear fission renaissance leads to nowhere, the better.
McZ
Thorium, particularly LFTR changes the economics massively,and actually the investment required is that necessary to ‘productionize’ it, a working liquid fuel reactor was built as long ago as the sixties. Just as the air force has its fixation on ‘fast jets’ the nuclear industry, full of engineers brought up within the current ‘system has a fixation with solid fuel reactors.
McZ
Have you read the Guardian article on the German drive for solar panels on roofs? Even the Guardian thought it was the poor subsidising the middle classes, while providing minimal electricity for Germanys needs. Even at £8 billion a plant, which I doubt, you could have got 4 nuclear stations which would have produced at least ten times more power than the heavily subsidised photo voltaics.
I favour the high temperatue gas reactor that can run on a Uranium/Thorium mix. Japan built a demonstrator recently. Can also produce Hydrogen as a byproduct. So hydrogen powered cars,vans, lorries, busses, short haul airliners become viable.
@John Hartley
The same argument is used by the nuclear companies. They always make their economic case against the worst alternative. This alone should make you think.
Even the Germans think that subsidizing photovoltaics is a poor exchange of investment. Exactly this will be changed until the end of 2011.
The cost per nuclear plant are not exactly predictable, so we have to use the only current example, Olkiluoto in Finland.
But, as I stated, even at £2b per plant, nuclear power is not really competitive if you factor all costs in, not mentioning those to be paid for by the public and following generations.
In 2007, the US administration offered $20b of government grants. Not a single nuclear power station has been funded since then. In 2010, Obama tried again, this time $54b. Not a single nuclear power station has been funded since then. On Wall Street, there is not a single venture capital manager who would move into nuclear power.
In the whole history of nuclear power, never had a company taken the whole financial risk building a reactor. So, the nuclear renaissance on british soil using private venture capital which the current and the former HMG built on are pure and utter fantasy.
I think, no gov in the next 20 years will be able to shut down the existing reactors. By then, they will be 40 years old at minimum.
@Jed
“Thorium, particularly LFTR changes the economics massively,and actually the investment required is that necessary to ‘productionize’ it, a working liquid fuel reactor was built as long ago as the sixties.”
I’m sure you have evidence for this statement not to be backed only by Throrium-lobbyists numbers? Then, may I ask you to enlighten us?
As it is, there is neither government money nor private venture capital for development of a Thorium-fuel chain being made available. There are only two demonstrators, one in Japan, one in India.
And the problem will be: each an every power station will at least take 8-10 years to complete. The UK needs to replace the last current nuclear plant by 2023 (Btw, only then we will see if the nuclear liabilities fund cracks or not). So how exactly can we built up a capability within just two years?
The rest are economics. How much does a Throrium-plant cost? How exactly does it compare to Uranium-plants to “change economics massively”?
Maybe I can answer (according to energyfromthorium.com), just my favorites:
“Our target cost for energy cheaper than from coal is $0.03/kWh at a capital cost of $2/watt of generating capacity.” (which is still not competitive to energy efficiency measures and only slightly favourable of current tech wind generation; also, those are numbers calculating only minor security systems in, which is interesting as I read, that one of those LFTRs will produce more poisoned gass than all nuclear weapons tests in the world combined)
“Developing LFTRs will require advances in high temperature materials for the reactor vessel, heat exchangers, and piping.” (which cannot be done in two years time)
“One significant drawback of the MSR technology is the corrosive effect of the molten salts on the structural materials used in the reactor vessel and heat exchangers; this issue results in the need to develop advanced corrosion-resistant structural materials and enhanced reactor coolant chemistry control systems” (again, not in just two years; adds to the cost, makes it uncertain to predict the lifetime costs of a LFTR and as such makes the first statement a simple guess)
“From a non-proliferation standpoint, thorium-fueled reactors present a unique set of challenges because they convert thorium-232 into uranium-233 which is nearly as efficient as plutonium-239 as a weapons material.” (so no exports, I fear)
There are more than economics at play here;
– energy security,
– consistent production,
There are other options to the traditional large power station such as local generation. Smaller power stations distributed through out a metropolitan area to spread load (and improve grid resilience.) This is akin to the old town gas system. Then there is the modern innovation of using DC for transmission over traditional AC.
McZ
The old CEGB could plan future need against future power stations. Privitisation mucked that up. No private company will spend £2 billion plus on a nuclear power station if there is no guarantee it will be used. Recreate CEGB planning & then watch nuclear plants being built.
Some stuff to read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK8ccWSZkic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Power_Generation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sstar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
What amazes me is that most of the general public who are ignorant about science are so against nuclear power.
But I bet given a choice between no Coronation Street and nuclear power I know which would win.
Of course the choice is a bit more fundamental than that. More like nuclear power or reduced heating, lighting, and food.
@Chris.B
“There are more than economics at play here;
– energy security,
– consistent production”
– peoples behavior on a free energy market, I may add
Energy safety is calculated in by a load factor to each system, to make prices comparable.
The most techs have not even a demonstrator built yet, there is not a single working plant. Most of them even don’t know for sure if their tech is actually working, some are even struggling on basic assumptions. Hell, the TWR guys even designed no real TWR in the Teller-sense but a conventional breeder, their publications use the words “believe” and “guess” quite often.
Nothing or few is being said about the downside, and you can be damn sure there is one, in each and every case.
@John Hartley
“No private company will spend £2 billion plus on a nuclear power station if there is no guarantee it will be used.”
They even didn’t spend when they knew, the government always came to their help (exactly like in a planned economy). Private investors are quite aware of their competitiveness using new-built plants.
Above all, why should any government give such a guarantee? This would completely kill competition in the energy market, with it any research and advancement in other energy technologies, and opens the door for widespread misuse.
@x
“What amazes me is that most of the general public who are ignorant about science are so against nuclear power.”
Are you sure? Most pro-nuclear people I know are simple “cheap-energy” guys, not knowing the basic economics behind energy.
For public opinion, just take one of those possible explanations:
– “Science” in this case is delivered by companies who have given evidence they cannot be trusted
– People are mistrusting scientists, who are predicting security using statistical propability which is constantly defeated by reality in ever decreasing cycles, instead of getting real-world numbers thru game theory
– The simple fact, that there is still no recipe to handle nuclear waste in a safe manner
– Peoples guts are smelling ponzi schemes way ahead of any scientist or banker
“Of course the choice is a bit more fundamental than that. More like nuclear power or reduced heating, lighting, and food.”
What amazes me the most is the fact, that the single industry complaining the most about fear-mongering green hippies is mongering the most fear into people. The famous teacup.
The “choice” – if there is any in the thought models of pro-nuke guys – is to be done on a free energy market. Means: the consumer will decide, what energy mix gets instated. I’m pretty sure, that the upcoming green(washing) economy will outrule any nuclear power.
Lighting is currently seeing a big revolution thru LEDs and OLEDs (once again without major UK industry involvement).
Heating in existing housing can be reduced down to 30% energy input without any discomfort. New housing can be heated completely passively. The former solution is costing £0.013 per kWh, the latter is increasing construction cost by roughly 10% (which means £10k for a £100k house, with ROI being made within the first 12 years including captital cost).
Coronation Street may be best viewed on a TV which is taxed down to a top runner approach.