Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their considered feedback and comments on the Security, Interdiction and Maritime Support System (SIMSS) concept I described recently.
For what is a hair brain scheme by some random chap off the internet for it to have gathered over 400 comments is a sign of just how engaged the Think Defence readers are, I don’t know of any other defence blog that has such a dedicated, diverse and well clever following, hats off chaps.
Since I started Think Defence I have been calling for innovation tinged with a healthy dose of financial reality. I might sometimes go off the reservation with the odd flight of fancy or wistful glance at metal boxes but generally, although I get accused of being too realistic sometimes, feet are firmly on terra firma.
I also try and counter the notion, a notion promulgated by various lobby groups, that it would all be fine if only those bigger boys in the MoD and Treasury would give the defence community just an odd billion or more extra.
This is so far from reality I don’t know they have the brass neck to even suggest it and is simply lazy thinking.
First off, there is no separate MoD and RN/RAF/Army, projects are bought into being by integrated projects team, the clue is in the name. Both service personnel and civil servants are involved. Main Building and Abbey Wood have as many service personnel as they do those famous pens pushing civil servants.
Decisions are made on a joint basis.
It is not the Treasury that determines how the MoD allocates the defence vote, it is clearly the MoD that sets its own priorities so when ex-service chiefs start moaning about a lack of x or y they should look in the mirror first. It is their major projects that suck the life out of the lower echelons of equipment, the enablers, the foundations of a flexible and capable force. So whilst they insist on CVF, Typhoon or FRES but complain about a lack of body armour or training time or spares or almost anything else that actually matters I am never convinced by the protestations of innocence.
I am even less convinced and unlikely to even consider giving them the benefit of the doubt when they join the revolving door club, the easy slide into the weapon manufacturer’s boardrooms and insidious and subtle corruption that goes with it.
Lobbying for more defence spending from within the expense account laden comfort of a directorship is hardly credible.
So whilst I do not excuse politicians or MoD civil servants I absolutely fail to accept that is all their fault either.
Successive limp-wristed Prime Ministers and Secretary’s of State have never found the moral authority to force difficult decisions on the MoD, instead they are dazzled by the gold braid and chest baubles and seduced by the cock stiffening allure of a quick victory over some third rate opponent in far-away places.
Politicians, civil servants and the Service Chiefs need to assume a modicum of backbone and start thinking about the real defence needs of this fine country instead of treating it like some big game of cock measuring or a route to a comfortable retirement.
If the wholly inadequate SDSR did one thing right it was to mark the cards of the defence establishment.
No more wishful thinking, no more voodoo economics, no more punting decisions over the fence to the next post holder.
MoD, you are going to have to live within your means.
Where it all went wrong of course is the hollow promise of an end to salami slicing defence reviews or the matching of strategic objectives to the means of their execution but that is because of moral weakness at all levels, no change there then.
The services have been bought off with a promise of jam tomorrow, what is it called, ah yes, ‘a real term increase post 2015 to enable the vision of Future Force 2020 to be realised’
What a fucking sad joke, still let’s all carry on spending hundreds of millions on Type 26 or billions on CVF whilst cutting back on essential capabilities to save a few million here or there whilst pretending the land of milk and honey, commonly known as Future Force 2020 is.
The same applies for all the services by the way.
If it is possible for anything good to spring forth from the loins of SDSR it is a healthy dose of wake-up guys, time for a spot of reality, but I don’t think many of the service chiefs actually get it.
Anyway, rant over, back to SIMSS.
Eating into the Surface Fleet
I deliberately suggested that we might trade a few Type 26 for a lot of SIMSS vessels to test the water.
Most people thought the design and concept was OK, but no bloody way should we trade proper warships.
In the land of financial fairy tales I would agree, but we do not inhabit such a place and so these hard trade-offs have to be made. It’s not easy for the Navy to accept reality, the global combat ship is a comfort blanket. Those chaps in green can get rid of those famous Cold War relics likes tanks and self-propelled guns, despite them being repeatedly used in all manner of recent conflicts but suggest such an equivalent for the world’s finest naval force and anyone would think I was suggesting clubbing half a million baby seals to death, painting HMS Victory in a nice pastel shade of salmon and calling one of the CVF’s HMS Paris (this will probably happen anyway, but you get the picture)
But the surface fleet is already stretched beyond breaking point, we are at an absolute minimum and beyond the point of no return you hear the cry. We have been hearing that since Suez, it happens every defence review, but I genuinely think we are pretty close to that point of reality, despite the regular trip to the theatre to watch the boy who cried wolf.
One of the reasons the surface fleet is thus stretched is because we insist on using them to cover tasks to which they are wholly unsuited and not available in enough quantities. We have tacitly recognised this by sending RFA vessels to cover some of the less combat oriented standing tasks like APT(N) in the Caribbean.
The notion of keeping a large combat vessel fleet and despatching them, chock to the gunnels with advanced sonars, weapons and their attendant crews is that they can easily step down and carry out these security roles but equally easily, step back up to the major combat roles that they are actually designed for.
In a land of zero financial constraint this is a sensible strategy, but we are not, are we?
It also spreads our jam thinly, whilst a frigates crew is rounding up pirates in £$100 skiffs they are not practising with their hundred million pound anti-submarine sensors, for example. We might not have much notice of the next proper stand up knock down naval conflict, the very last thing I want matelots doing is building schools in Monserat. An extreme example but the point I am trying to make is that combat systems (crew and kit) should be at the top of their combat game, not arsing around being a force for good.
Again, this equally applies to the other services.
This needs continual, high intensity training as a group. When single frigates and destroyers are strung out across the four corners of the globe these training opportunities are reduced.
Of course any sea time is training time, and it’s all good, but the key question for me is this.
With fewer commitments, or where those commitments where a proper warship is not the optimal tool and was therefore replaced with something else, would the decrease in stretch provide for an improvement in warlike training, particularly as task groups rather than singles?
You could argue that not only would the pressure on the training schedule be reduced, providing greater space for more realistic training, but qualitative improvements would also be seen.
It does not mean that the core of combat vessels would spend all their time training off Cornwall, as someone put it, they would still be available for cooperative training exercises with other partner nations, they would still carry out defence diplomacy missions as singles, and they would still be available for any other tasking, but the crucial difference would be, availability to do so properly.
If we want this then something has to give, develop protect a hard core but recognise that one might not need a one for one replacement for Type 23.
This does two things, first, it frees up funding, even in fiscal constraint and second, opens up an opportunity for something else to do those myriad of non-war roles that we press frigates and destroyers onto, the kind of things that characterise the overwhelming vast majority of Royal Navy tasks.
That extra funding might even be pushed onto the combat vessels so they are actually fitted with not for.
People might read interpret this questioning about using some of the funding for conventional surface combatants as somehow being anti-Navy but I get tired of that, it’s not the case at all. In fact, I see it as a means of preserving the combat ability of the Royal Navy and where a situation calls for a conventional warship I am in no way advocating sending SIMSS instead.
Re-read the proposal and look again at the title.
What is Something Else
Most naval forces have reacted to this need for something else by creating slightly modified frigates or corvettes.
The comfort blanket of the anti-ship missile, CIC and 3D radar is difficult to let go and so designs have evolved that still keep these vestiges of being a proper naval ship but throw a bone to the crowd by fitting them with a multi mission deck or other such grandiose bollocks that means a small RHIB hangar and a spot of open deck space with a crane.
The problem with this approach it is still means those costly (in fact, even more expensive now because those small boat handling davits don’t come cheap you know) frigates are still tearing around chasing fifteenth rate opponents waiting for the day when they will actually need their variable depth sonar.
Still, they don’t half look good on the PowerPoint and Navy Days.
Net result, fewer hulls in the water and fitted for but not with.
Cue more complaints from ex 1SL’s now working in the defence industry, sea blindness, Falklands, trade routes, shipping lanes, imports, and we are an island you know.
SIMSS takes a fundamental leap; you don’t need a frigate to carry out the majority of tasks of the Royal Navy. Yes, we need frigates for when we need frigates and I want them to have the full on fighty capabilities, but I see the continual reductions, spreading them too thinly and reduced combat effectiveness as a result of an unwillingness to recognise things have changed.
The second issue with the ‘mission deck’ frigate is they are not that effective at those secondary roles (the ones that generally are primary roles most of the time) because space is limited.
Is SIMSS the right thing for this something else role, should it be slightly more fighty, slightly faster, slightly smaller?
These are all valid discussions to have but something else, whatever it is, has to be from Poundland not Harrods.
Survivability and Fightiness
One of the commenters said that SIMSS should have a major war role, and then we all piled in with suggestions of how we could add this sensor or that weapon system neatly demonstrating how easy it is to be seduced the little hussy named ‘specification creep’
Of course SIMSS would be vulnerable to a high speed anti-ship missile, its massive, but do we not accept the vulnerability of Jackals to Kornet anti-tank missiles or an A400 to an SU-30?
We have to accept differing scales of protection and approach the deployment of SIMSS exactly like we do an A400 or Jackal. The use of Intelligence, intelligent doctrine, appropriate countermeasures and where necessary, a protective big brother, all compensating for a lack of being a fully tooled up combat ship.
Using simple and relatively cheap countermeasures, whilst simultaneously being realistic about deployments is reasonable defence for a SIMSS.
That said, there should be no reason why self-defence capabilities could not be increased with the addition of a modular weapon fit, but we have to resist the urge to specify one from day one, build the space and connectivity yes, but do not allow this to delay or introduce too much additional cost.
With cautious design and deployment, there might even be potential to equip SIMSS with a couple of niche weapons beyond those needed for self-defence.
One commenter attested that all RN vessels should be able to fend of midget submarine launched torpedo attacks.
Sorry, that’s not the case now, that’s never been the case (in a comparative sense) and is just not possible within a fixed cost envelope.
The HMS Cornwall Example
This was bought up as an example of a rapidly escalating situation where a more combat oriented vessel with a shallower draught might and therefore able to be closer to the boarding party. The suggestion was that something like a Khareef would have been far better than either a SIMSS or Type 22.
Arguably this is correct; it’s an excellent point.
However, one could equally argue that the flexibility and space afforded by SIMSS could equally have made a difference. Instead of a poorly armed RHIB, operating with no air cover and unable to notice the arrival of the Iranians, an orbiting UAV like the cheap as chips Scan Eagle would have allowed the boarding party to withdraw in good order. Compliment the inflatables with a CB90 or similar and the Mexican stand-off would have been over very shortly. SIMSS has the space to operate multiple UAV’s, multiple Wildcat’s and multiple powerful craft like CB90’s.
So there are a number of ways to look at this.
Svelte Supermodel or Curvy Fat Lass
Going large has disadvantages and these were highlighted by commenters, operating in shallow littoral environments would be off the menu, and it must be recognised that many of the SIMSS roles require a close to shore capability.
I think this could be compensated by its ability to operate a decent number of small craft. Small craft in the SIMSS world does not be an 8m RHIB either, 20m patrol craft, landing craft, mexeflotes, USV’s and work boats are all within its ability.
The low maximum speed of 15 knots was highlighted by many people with some practical examples of where even a modest increase to 18 or 20 knots would make a big difference.
This is another trade off, installed power costs but perhaps an increase to 18 knots would not create that much of a price increase, it would come down to detailed design calculation but in general, the lack of speed is compensated by the fast craft and helicopters it carries and in some circumstances, increased hull numbers.
A two size class was also raised, the large SIMSS and a smaller type that used most of the subsystems, a mini SIMSS.
I like this idea, where’s that piggy bank?
Ready Made or Off the Peg
If we are proposing a new kind of vessel then surely it should be a custom design?
Yes and no.
The reason for only a modest set of modifications to an existing design is to cut down on cost and leverage the expertise, construction experience and supplier ecosystem that has developed in the offshore market.
A lower cost basic design means more hulls in the water and things to carry on them, simple as that.
The Holy Grail of Modularity
Another commenter made the accusation of SIMSS being in thrall to the notion of modularity, pointing to the LCS and STANFLEX realities.
Fair point, but if you actually look at the issues of STANFLEX and LCS you will see that modularity is not actually the root cause of their problems.
A commenter mentioned the complexity of modular systems, highlighting the need for self testing systems and connectivity issues.
All good stuff but look at the modules in the proposal.
Small Boats and UAV’s, already available from a number of vendors, straight off the shelf and fully mature
Containerised MCM, already available from a number of vendors, straight off the shelf and fully mature
Dive Support Systems, already in service
Storage for dry stores, fuel and ammunition, already available and basic
Data Centres, already available from a number of vendors, straight off the shelf and fully mature
Living accommodation, office space, command space, workshops, kitchens etc, do I really need to go on?
Weapons and Countermeasures, you should note that I deliberately left discussions on weapons quite light. As long as we can fit a selection of automatic weapons and perhaps something like the SIGMA mount with LMM then this should be sufficient. Are we really saying this is a significant engineering challenge?
Countermeasures likewise, there are many systems available off the shelf that provide decent levels of protection. It’s not overly complex
In general, I fail to see the problems with payload modularity on SIMSS because I have cautiously limited the scope, fully aligned with the roles and likely operational context.
Summary
So I hope these words have explained further or addressed some of the doubts.
SIMSS might not be the solution, but neither is the status quo of demanding for more money whilst pissing it up the wall.
If there is one thing I do know, carry on normal jogging should not be the default stance.
ACC x 3
We do not have a national champion we have a national cuckoo that wants fed.
Home build is not an issue
Home pouring money down a drain with little to show for it is.
Our back catalogue of military tech is shameful all the way back to 1955 when the WW2 legacy started to diminish.
If others won’t buy in then neither should the MOD.
BWoS needs tough love not a feather bed.
Finally do you get paid for your geo-political analysis?
The USSR got lucky with oil and spent the windfall on new areas of arms investment.
Oil price goes down and it has one large hangover on it’s hands.
As for RR, he is one of the troika that have destroyed the power and prestige of the USA.
RR and G”W”B = Deficit financing, left the US with nothing to sell but it’s debt.
Walmart = Led the race to the bottom, sold Chinese tripe to the US and boasted about it.
Big number, 30% I think, of the US trade deficit is down to one company – shocking!
China was always going to overtake the US.
China has been the largest economy on Earth for 4K out of the past 5K years so it was a given.
The managed to outlast the Mongols so a bunch of trigger happy cowboys was going to be easy.
However the troika mentioned above halved the time the US was / is going to be top dog.
Some legacy from the right wing mentalist, dog boiling wing of the GOP.
@ Mark and AAC – “Indeed they are. Hopefully Jedi can get a non-copy protected document where that has been projected (as quality of kit, transforming into capabilities. For these ‘outputs’ the delay from inputs is 5-20 years).”
I have lots of documents that dance around the subject, like rates of technology dependent growth, share of IP and creative industries, but nothing specific to that point.
the three projections listed here might help:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/britain-in-the-world-%e2%80%93-a-long-slide-into-oblivion/
Or perhaps some of the links from here:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/britain-in-the-world-just-another-medium-sized-country/
But, but… we have a World Champion, why complain (except that others might get the same idea?)
– turnover a bit old; note on the percentage figure at the end
BAe systems UK
$34.086 Bn 95%
Lockheed Martin US
$42.731 Bn 70%
Boeing US
$60.909 Bn 48%
Northrop Grumman US
$33.877 Bn 77%
General Dynamics US
$29,300 Bn 78%
Raytheon US
$23.174 Bn 91%
EADS West Eur.
$63.346 Bn 28%
Finmeccanica Italy
$25.037 Bn 53%
L-3 communications US
$14.901 Bn 82%
Thales France
$18.543 Bn 58%
Notably, you don’t get to play in this league without a high degree of specialization (only the top2 airliner manufacturers have a lower than 50% share of revenues from just defence).
Poland is trying to get to the top20, and what they think they’ll need to do is to merge about 20 (!) companies – and the best ones have already been snatched by outsiders, like BAE, even if not perhaps through a majority ownership share.
If you wonder about the order, it is by the total turnover times military sales share (%), just left the third number out as tables don’t work here
Oh it gets worse
Apparantly Labours ex navy stooge’s considered opinion about strategic shrinkage, re adjusting to future economic realities, considering alternative equipment and force structurees etc is…. Drum Role…
‘We’re not bloody Denmark’
Nope They’re politer than that for starters.
On an off Topic point about that..
Anyone seen T gruniad today.
Seems Labours new defence policy is… Wait for it wait for it…..
To buy British at all times! And even if it is foriegn to build it under licence in UK.
Seems that they are sorry for all the other acquisiton F*ckups but this new policy will sort it all out….
Wonder what BAE had to pay for that policy?
Hi Mark,
Indeed they are. Hopefully Jedi can get a non-copy protected document where that has been projected (as quality of kit, transforming into capabilities. For these ‘outputs’ the delay from inputs is 5-20 years).
I have made the point myself (with sources) on this blog that one should not look at just the military on-going budgets and procurement as part of it, but include industry R&D and Universities’ such like numbers into the picture
– I think I even pasted in the 20 research and industry segments that are being prioritised for resources over everything else, the criterion being the enabling effect on defence kit
– Just to note: (On this basis Soviet Union was spending well over 20% of GDP and Reagan, a great president, said “step on the gas, boys, and let’s see if they’ve got anything left in the tank).
– the point I was making on this blog was actually about China, and the present day, but historical parallels are always a great help
A recent quote from an analysis in the US (re: whether the system is working, meaning that reasonable inputs would turn out the expected results)
”
Insofar as
government decision makers have thought
about the need
for an overarching
strategy at all,
the predominant
inclination has been
to hope that Adam
Smith’s invisible hand
would somehow
preserve whatever
industrial segments
or capabilities the
[military] Services
might one day need”
I would agree with that acc. However china is coming to the high tech manufacturing game very quick
Hi Mark,
I’ve been over the economics of China as the world’s work house many times, so I’ll just summarize:
Americans concluded that China will rise anyway. So, best to integrate them into the world economy, and that will lessen the chances of an outright WW3 (head-on confrontation of hegemonic empires).
The rest of the world gave America a carte blance to conduct the negotiations on the part of just about everyone else (at least those in the OECD). Only took ten years (that guy Zoellick holds the post that H. Clinton was rumoured to be after, clearly as a “reward” for job well done) to admit them into WTO and China hasn’t been slipping on *all* obligations that were extracted for her to take on as a condition of being let in.
Lots of raw materials in, lots of labour applied with so far relatively low value-add, lots of manufactures exported (at low prices, but only if raw materials prices stay in check as the production is both raw material and energy wasteful).
End result: They need secure SLOCs (and some degree of presence) as much as we do.
Implication: UK should be maritime oriented in its defence policy and posture (to back up the policy)
Danger: India is so paranoid of Chinese encirclement of it that there is a lot of potential for conflict (for no real reason; China’s presence in the *Indian* Ocean is totally legitimate). I won’t even go into the race for S. *China* Sea resources; all the neighbouring states are looking to the US for comfort, even Vietnam. Vietnam is also cosying up to India, militarily, because they think Americans might pull back at a crucial moment and “drop” them into it
Hi FBOT,
I didn’t understand most of what you said, but if this
“This attitude is in their best interest and it will probably pro-long their tenure as the head honcho / primary state but it does make things more interesting for the rest of us”
is your punch line, then we very much agree.
Hi Jedi,
All graphics in the document (that includes title pages!?) are copy protected, so I’ll retype it below. These folks will surely either send it or provide a URL:
http://www.science.mod.uk
Email:science@mod.uk
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
For the demands of the 21st century
There are also some very illustrative technology trees shown for the components of the weapon systems that we discuss here – except that we always go by the name of the Prime Contractor.
– so an other peep into the ecosystem (argument)
FBOT
How does Libya affect US interests?
Gadafi was coming around, but he wasnt friends, and the US had nothing to gain.
When China invades Vietnam, its going to be, well, Vietnam all over again, or Yemen/Afghanistan if they suit you better, or even the French go in Vietnam.
A major power bogged down in a vicious guerilla war with the guerillas armed and supported by another power.
The US might have little love for Vietnam, but it will greatly enjoy a chance to help someone kick three shades of china
ACC @ 12.28
Eight minutes makes a huge difference when it comes to posting on here.
Did you have a change of heart between 10 and 12?
If your friends and not so friends bulk up at the same rate, the global balance does not change between good and bad more a case that the odds on the position of the next flashpoint become that bit more defined.
The world is not divided militarily into East and West.
More a case of the old stager and friends vs the new kids on the block.
Libya 2011 probably saw the end of the uni-polar world.
The US saw a fight affecting it’s interests and walked on by.
This attitude is in their best interest and it will probably pro-long their tenure as the head honcho / primary state but it does make things more interesting for the rest of us.
@ AAC – “Recent analysis has shown that there is a
correlation between the quality of military equipment and the investment by governments in Defence R&D.”
looking at this doc:
http://www.mod.uk/nr/rdonlyres/f530ed6c-f80c-4f24-8438-0b587cc4bf4d/0/def_industrial_strategy_wp_cm6697.pdf
can’t see any graphs on or around page 17………?
help! :)
And how in that context do we explain china or chinese proxy companies buying company’s all over the world or chinas dominance in Africa or indeed south America if you think china isn’t interested in global power projection think again
Hi FBOT, in that tone:
Now, repeat after me ” that they will be busy closer to “home” than…your global dominance”
ACC @ 10.00
I would mug up on the geopolitics angle if I were you, missing a couple of dimensions from my view point.
East Asia will re-arm for East Asian reasons not global dominance.
Ferrets in a sack would be a better description.
Hi Ixion,
I am afraid ( I mean that literally) that they will be busy closer to “home” than ‘the east will be sending fleets to slap whitey not the other way round’.
ACC
‘When you factor in indebtness levels and the need to restrain/ freeze public expenditure in the USA and EU, you get quite a frightening outlook for the shift in global military balance’.
Exactly the situation I have been banging on about for ages. The way things are going economic reality means in about 30- 40 years the east will be sending fleets to slap whitey not the other way round.
Hi FBOT,
*You may* put it like that
“1) US – Beyond reason unless someone is put in jail.
2) Rest of NATO – Profits push to keep the shareholders happy.
3) RoW – Capability inflation as the developing world want their shiny new toys” but from the DIS graph (that I referred to) you can read that regarding your point 3, “capability inflation” will have pushed the average Chinese capability (this is without quantity being taken into account!)to the UK level by 2020 – a magical year in the UK defence discussions.
I give you some numbers about GNP (USD: not Mega, but Giga as in unit of account)
– USA 14582 G
– Euro area 12175 G; EU27 16251 G
– BRICS 11539 G
When you factor in indebtness levels and the need to restrain/ freeze public expenditure in the USA and EU, you get quite a frightening outlook for the shift in global military balance.
The reason I often reference Russian weapon systems and their capabilities is the fact that they produce them more for exports than for themselves (and thereby, we get informed benchmarks for the VFM of our own).
– just to illustrate my points: The latest compilation of world’s airforces puts the number of top line Suhoi planes in India and Russia at the same level. China (in 2010)had 100 more ‘illegal’ copies of the same over the number that either India or Russia hold.
ACC @ 7.56
Military inflation comes in three forms –
1) US – Beyond reason unless someone is put in jail.
2) Rest of NATO – Profits push to keep the shareholders happy.
3) RoW – Capability inflation as the developing world want their shiny new toys.
Finally another price point for the Korean GK saga –
2003 – Dokdo class LPH – Kor 13bill Won per unit – FBU imported.
$15mill approx at the then current exchange rate.
No idea of the true € cost although from memory the € was high at the time vs the $.
This argument “In normal markets things go down in cost over time as people find cheaper ways to do the same job. Military stuff unfortunately is a law unto itself” can be valid if you only want to look at narrow categories
– the cost of Strykers per unit halved when the production moved from the early LRIP to thousands
Had an interesting chat with a chap yesterday; he works for a company that operates 32 x-bows and derivatives, 25 helicopters etc. The ecosystem argument (TD put it forth) shows in that when they ordered their first x-bows they were $200m each. Now that they can be made anywhere, the order for the last four was at $50m a piece (the comparison is perhaps not strictly like with like as I didn’t proceed to the 3rd degree, but proves the broad argument).
Fbot
Well most off its in sensor, communication fusion combat management system reliability and engine improvements signature reduction ECM and counter measure capability most of it not discussed in public. That’s all pretty high tech stuff
Hi FBOT,
You may want to look at p. 17 of the Defence Industrial Strategy document (a pity I can’t put the graph here):
Recent analysis has shown that there is a
correlation between the quality of military equipment and the investment by governments in Defence R&D.
Indeed, the only strong factor affecting equipment quality is absolute R&D spend (not a fraction of defence budget,overall defence budget nor number of equipments bought). The graph at Figure 1
[PLS LOOK IT UP] was published in the DIS,
showing that we now have the ability to predict the future equipment quality that UK might face in combat, as a function of time and national investment level.
Figure 1 – Relative Years Advantage in Equipment
Quality as a Function of R&D Spend per Year
Figure 1 shows, for example, that UK military
equipment in 2001 taken as a whole, was on average
12 years more advanced than that of China’s in the
same year. The estimated position for the UK in 2020 is
based on assuming R&D levels are broadly maintained,whilst that for China assumes a continuation of its growth in R&D investment.
Mark @ 9.54
Where is all this high tech stuff you talk about?
The only global constant in the arms industry is the size and quality of the contractors expense account.
Well by that rate of going FBOT if I buy a house next week it will be cheaper than it was 15years ago. Or maybe not.
In terms of high end engineering almost ever upfront cost has increased a lot over then last 5-10 years your example of the car is false one in this regard as they have the ability to have 10s of thousands of car in a production run. A better example in the car industry would be could I buy an aston martin for less this year than I could 15 years ago.
Also you cant stand still a potential enemy has also improved his capabilities and your replacements are more advanced to maintain your dominance. This is a far more complicated issue than you suggest.
ACC @ 6.45
The current Wiki page for the GK CIWS gun does not offer much in the way of cost information.
However if you look up the aticle’s history you will see that in the last 4-6 months there was cost info in the article.
One source suggested Eur 16mill, another had the system cost as Eur 25mill. I have no info in the time difference in these two costs but 50% would suggest a large timeframe or military inflation has struck again.
From memory there was a link / reference that suggested an even lower price. However my main point stands, in the real world things go down in cost overtime in real terms as experience generates efficiency.
For a real world example about efficiency look at the cost of carscover thevpast 15 years. Real world costs have come down as technology and ability have improved.
The component/labour cost of anything has not increased over the past 10-15 years? Compound interest at 3% would indicate that it should have increased by 34-55%, if nothing else occurred.
South Korea has lower manufacturing costs (lower wages) and want to take a leap ahead in gun manufacture by licensing technology that would otherwise have cost a great deal of R&D.
An earlier comment about the Russian model of economics is probably more accurate than it was intended to be. A single customer with unrealistic demands
Hi FBOT,
This says it all:
“As for …techno-babble I am …interested in zero based estimates, contribution costs and open book pricing.”
You are just recycling phrases, and you have no facts.
As I have given, for you to use, so many component costs, it is not good form to answer a direct question with a “go and have a google”.
What, exactly, is that only concrete thing, the 30mm CIWS, that you hang your argument on?
@ IXION
Well that is the “danger” of secondary sources.
Unless you live next door to say IWM accessing primary sources can be difficult. I do have a copy of “What Britain knew and wanted to know about U-boats” edited by Showell which is very illuminating.
ACC @ 3.50
Your first name must be Tim.
The Koreans took a licence for GK because they could build it cheaper than they could buy from the Dutch.
That is how bad the pricing had got for the gun.
The cost had gone so high that it was worthwhile to buy a licence and start afresh with the local Korean supply base.
Something wrong somewhere in all this.
The contribution / component cost of the GK 30mm CIWS has not gone up significantly in the past 10-15 years.
In normal markets things go down in cost over time as people find cheaper ways to do the same job. Military stuff unfortunately is a law unto itself.
The basic question is why do design / R + D?
Do the same for less money or
Do more with the same amount of money.
That is now the question haunting the T26 programme.
Why are we building new when the upgraded T23 will carry a similar warload?
Regarding the number of 155 mm systems floating about, have a look on the web, everybody is having a go at them.
As a supporter of the Endurance class it will come as no surprise to find I like the ST design.
5″ Naval guns are niche, limited and increasingly dependent on expensive fireworks – part shell, part missile – to do any real damage.
6″ Land stuff is a more mature technology with higher volumes and a larger user base.
The 5″ gun already relies on the industrial infrastructure of the 6″ suppliers so it will always be a follower and not a leader.
As for your business techno-babble I am more interested in zero based estimates, contribution costs and open book pricing.
If the military industrial complex built cars we would still be running around in Morris Oxfords and Cortinas with the numbers falling year on year.
MOD / RN procurement –
Organised theft from the working class?
Make work scheme foe nice chaps with good manners?
Corporate welfare for BWoS?
Take your pick.
The main point is that the needs of the grunt in the firing line are a long way down the list of priorities.
Oh,
“Anything else is organised theft from the working class.” How does that hold together with:
“No wonder the Koreans took out a license agreement”
– they were having proper warships built (surprise:in Korea) and wanted a modern, not ancient gun on them. USN was rejecting the modern one on some technical detail. So would the Koreans sit around and watch this choreography…No – they went ahead; then the Danes and other folks who still have their heads properly attached to the rest (so thinking is followed by action) followed suit
End result: 2 naval gun standards in the West going 10-20 years forward; two in the “East” as the Russians and the Chinese have diverged from their earlier, common view/ design
– 1 x 100; 2 x 127; 1 x 130
– which were/ are your thirteen 155’s?
Tubby / FBOT / Ixion,
I wondering if the RN will phase out the Sandown class first with the arrival of the T26, but keep the Hunts whilst they are proving the technology. There have been recent articles on the MHPC, so I cannot believe it would be killed so quickly (though its possible!).
Hoping for the best, perhaps we are looking at 6 T45s, 12-14 T26s and 10-12 MHPCs. This would replace the T23s, echos, Sandowns, hunts and Rivers: 40 to a max of 32 :(.
FBOT
Next you’ll be telling us gold inflation doesnt exist….
Repulse
A little bird (whose relaibilty is suspect) tells me 12-14 t26, most likely.
FBOT
It wont be a rowing boat it will be
CVF
2 t45
4 t26
2 minesweepers
All tied up in port but ‘world class’
we will have 200 sailors and 400 admirals.
When I mentioned placing the modular payload on a Catamaran (like Trimarans too!) I was thinking of the Flower class sloops from WW1 ; built in commercial yards to provide the Battle fleet with minesweepers. As the war progressed and the fleet stayed in port, they were transfered to convoy duties. I was thinking of a modern version which could carry MCM equipment and have the speed to keep up with the fleet – Horses for courses.
Another option is a purpose built mothership which carries daughter craft for specific missions, like MSO or ASW. A interesting concept is this one:
http://www.nps.edu/academics/gseas/tsse/subPages/2006Project_2.html
Repulse / Tubby
If those statements are correct then it would seem to suggest that the MHPC budget of £1.4bill has been handed over to the T26 project.
Just when you think that the RN / MOD procurement management process could not get any worse they come up with another beauty.
The RN in 2050 will consist of a rowing boat with a rifle, a frequent flyer pass for Easy-Air and a picture of a Trident missile.
If this is true then the RN really have upset the Gods.
ACC @ 11.49
It just gets worse and worse.
You are into project management.
That is you hold the jackets and then announce the winner.
Defence inflation does not exist.
It is a scam to keep the profits flowing at a time of falling orders.
Wikipedia is our friend.
Look at the GK CIWS gun, look at the current price and compare that with the figures in the notes and references over the past 15 years.
The rate of inflation beggars belief, Russian economics to the fore.
The fewer they sell the more they charge, in no other field would this be accepted.
On the specifics, the technology is mature, the electronics are going COTS so the cost should be coming down.
Anything else is organised theft from the working class.
No wonder the Koreans took out a license agreement.
Mark
“DomJ @3.10 are you suggesting using a cb90 in the open ocean 100m from its base ship.”
Yes.
Not necessarily a CB90, I just used that as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaldag_class_fast_patrol_boat
Would be equaly capable no doubt.
Christ, Princess Yachts make an 85ft yacht that can hit 40knts and is designed for transatlantic crossings.
Probably £5mn new.
With marble workstops….
Hi Repulse,
Sounds like they are going mission deck crazy with the T26 as the section you pointed to us also says “The vessels will be among the most versatile ever to sail under the White Ensign, serving as submarine-hunters, general duty warships, survey ships and mother ships for tomorrow’s mine warfare force” – sounds like the will go for containerised mine hunting system, but is really possible to containerise the sonar system for carrying sonar’s and if not, would it not take up a lot of space on the ship to fit the equipment to carry out a survey in addition to its normal equipment to take up the role of GP frigate?
Hi Ixion,
RE: “Thus begins wisdom on the subject of the damage that will be done by Nellie and Dumbo to ANY other function the RN has, other than looking after the occupants of the elephant house.”
Which nicely brings us back to a previous discussion we have had in another thread of how the RN is increasingly building its requirements around CVF and supporting them.
Interesting one in the mix, the “Future Ships” section of the RN site has been updated to include the T26. It states:
“Due to arrive from 2021 onwards, the Type 26 Frigate will be the workhorse of the future Royal Navy. The ships are intended to replace not just existing Type 23 Frigates but also minehunters and survey ships…”
Wow, either a mistake (possibly), someone desperately try to sell the T26’s flexibility (likely) or a complete policy shift by the RN spelling the end of the MHPC concept. If it’s the latter they better be building more than 13!
Interesting one in the mix, the “Future Ships” section of the RN site has been updated to include the T26. It states:
“Due to arrive from 2021 onwards, the Type 26 Frigate will be the workhorse of the future Royal Navy. The ships are intended to replace not just existing Type 23 Frigates but also minehunters and survey ships…”
Wow, either a mistake (possibly), someone desperately try to sell the T26’s flexibility (likely) or a complete policy shift by the RN spelling the end of the MHPC concept. If it’s the latter they better be building more than 13!
P.S. On all mortar sales achieved through this site, Jed and I split the commission 50/50
– an old joke, perhaps you were not reading the blog yet at that time
Hi FBOT,
I applaud you for trying (as the only one) to work the target price for a given functionality bottom-up (using WBS, as we in project management call it).
Your error margin is huge because you only seem to know about the cost of worked steel and installed power.
I try and try to give you examples on the cost of other components (not imaginary, or shall I say ambitious as for the modification/ development needed, but real ones. Real means observable in the real world, ie. documented somewhere, when not kept secret).
As I have said on so many occasions, you need to add 50-100% on top of your estimate (100% is only a 50% error margin!), but this time you got it 100% wrong:
“One thing I seem to have found is the fact that your day job is flogging guns, possibly 5″ naval guns.- Have I got this bit right?”
Anyway, I will try to give you more examples ( I am not a naval engineer, so I can’t easily extrapolate the costs for the other parts, whereas weapon systems are easier as they tend to be countable, and knowing the unit price gives the answer pretty accurately).
X
Sorry if I did not make it clear I hold it and him in high regard. Clay Blairs 2 volumne book is simply THE most schollerly and detailed ever likely to be written on the subject. (It is a bit boring in places and in the 2nd volumne starts to become a list of each Uboats actions and it’s destruction).
However every history book ever written tells you something about the author as well as the subject everybody has an agenda….
Tubby
Re your last post, and not having enough escorts.
Thus begins wisdom on the subject of the damage that will be done by Nellie and Dumbo to ANY other function the RN has, other than looking after the occupants of the elephant house.
We will need other ships to do other stuff.
IXION
All the more reason to give credence to his work.
Still the best works on the subject IMHO.
Jed @ 10.13
You are the one in the middle trying to keep the debate on the straight and narrow.
ACC @ 10.08
As always I am struggling with the flow and content of your comment.
One thing I seem to have found is the fact that your day job is flogging guns, possibly 5″ naval guns.
Have I got this bit right?
155mm is the future for NGS.
The OM 3″ no matter how fast would just annoy them.
155mm provides S-S capability out to 50km.
Cheap and very effective.
Put 2 on a Colonial Sloop and you have got a real warfighter.
I have no issues with using 2nd hand Army stuff if it is cheap enough.
The days of good chap / ex Navy / middle class welfare are now gone.
Questions have to be asked, budgets set –
What sensor suite would £5mill buy?
What fighting / self defence capability would £10mill buy?
What area AAW capability would £25mill buy?
No more cost plus blank cheques.
If you can’t export it then don’t force it on the locals using emotional blackmail.