Saab signs contracts for Corvettes for Sweden

It’s not good is it dave even with Extra money.

Seems certain now numbers in the army will be cut .

Can’t get my head round it.

Its going come back and bite us in the ass at some point I’m sure, its a criminal decision.

Politicians never learn they just make mistake after mistake sadly.

It’s to pay for the £190 billion equipment program. We want world beating equipment and capabilities. The MOD has to balance the books, so for once we might not have to see projects getting cut back as the money runs out. It has to be sustainable, otherwise we just put a sticking plaster on the problems every 5 years.

This may be so Rob ,I know there’s already a black hole in Defence and yes beating equipment is great but to fight you need numbers we are far far too small .Like Dave said it may come back and bite us.

The point is Rob is that we struggled in Helmand when we had over 100,00 size army and had to get help from the US marines ,how are we going to operate any where with 68,000 troops especially in a pier on pier small conflict, the numbers do not add up.

Just to add we can only field 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

I’d suggest if we where in a peer on peer conflict the country would not remain on a peace-time footing like it did in Afghan, nor, one would hope, would the war continue for over a decade. You’d also hope that the troops you did have ready to go where equipped to a standard that would be usefull in a peer-on-peer conflict.
Side question: How many other countries managed to deploy 10,000 troops to Afghanistan?

I think we were the second largest contributor in Afghanistan after the USA and had three times as many troops in the country as the next largest contributor, Germany. France and Germany never had more than 3-4 thousand troops there at any one time.

If cuts to the army are true we would simply need to role back our commitments to such operations to match those of other countries. I fail to see what advantage the UK has gained for disproportionately committing itself in this way other than gaining the good grace of the USA which really only has a 4-8 year shelf life, depending on where they are in their election cycle.

The advantage we have grained is a much lower threat of terrorism!
Afghanistan was once a training camp for terrorists.

Yes, of course, but that is a shared benefit for everyone. Are we three times safer from terrorism compared to France and Germany because we deployed three times as many troops? Are we going to pretend that all this isn’t really just about placating the American to keep them engaged with the defence of Europe?

Yup we where, by a considerable margin. Cost benefit aside the point being that yes while we struggled to maintain 10,000 troops in Afghan, very few other nations even came close to the same ballgame.

Keeping what was, in effect, a small division, deployed overseas constantly for ¬10years is no small feat in todays world.

Yes, an achievement we should recognise and be proud off. Moving forward though I really do think we should be more mercenary in these things. If we’re going to continue to make considerably larger contributions to international operations compared to our peers then we’re going to have to accept that we will have considerably less money to spend on new equipment.

The perennial problem is the lack of depth and reserves. If we go down to 68,000 how many of them will actually be front line units, possibly half, with remainder made up with loggies, police, siggies, engineers etc. Therefore there will be no scope to surge additional forces over and above our NATO commitment. This is doubly troubling as if we did fight a peer vs peer conflict and sustained significant losses who replaces them? Don’t count on the reserves as they are also significantly under strength.

Good point Dave.
How many fighting infantry soldiers will make up the 68,000? I hope it’s more than 10.
Politicians have proved they are not capable of understanding the importance of defence and as such decision making should be put in the hands of a separate body with accountability and proper funding.

What Dern says.

I can only assume that people want or like these because they’re heavily armed rather than any real role that the RN would use them for. Sea keeping properties are much more important in UK home waters, at least for the ‘smaller’ (yeah I know the Rivers are 2000 tons) vessels.

Yup see below for more of these, sigh…
But yeah it is “oh this ship has missiles! the 40mm on a River doesn’t give my ego the boost it needs,” rather than an appreciation of the actual requirements and limitations of the RN and wider MoD.

Many do not understand what the operational requirements of the RN actually are, see something they like the look of and say ‘Why don’t we just get some of those?’ Small, heavily armed patrol/attack craft seem to be a ‘thing’ with these people, including the bunch who think we should go back to motor torpedo boats as they did OK in WW2. Putin and Xi are terrified of them, apparently.

I mean I get the allure, and yeah I get people not thinking through the operational requirements. It’s just sad because the Rivers as they are, make sense for what the RN needs.

Thought Rivers had 20mm on B1 and 30mm on B2 which are fine for home waters activity. 40mm would be more appropriate IMHO for those on long-term international assignments…

At close to 5000km range, with the armament they have, a max speed of 35kt allowing rapid response the Visby concept would be an ideal solution for the gulf and Singapore type basing envisaged freeing up ‘F’ vessels for heavier work.

Even allowing for inflation they come in at @ no more than the same price tag as that paid for B2’s.

We are where we are but its the value for money (or lack thereof in the case if B2) derived from its Procurement activities that leaves the mod budget under pressure elsewhere. Perhaps as B1 get retired they can be replaced by a competitive Vusby type concept?

Looks like a sound Procurement on T31 but let’s see that one delivered.

P

Correct, that is my mistake and a typo. But Why? With the 40mm what can you realistically engage that a 30mm can not, except for the fact that it’s a bigger number so it sounds better. (Been over this many times). If you want to make a River a combatant you need much more than 10mm extra on the gun, and if you want it to be a constabulary vessel you don’t need the extra 10mm.

The Visby is precisely NOT what you need in Singapore. What’s needed in Singapore is a high endurance ship that can deal with open seas, and preform constabulary duties (ie sail out into the South China seas and phyiscally put itself between fishing boats and tugs where a 30mm will scare them. What is not needed is a high maintenance ship that is bristling with armaments but realistically won’t be able to leave the Indonesian islands. That 5,000km range sounds great until you realise that it doesn’t allow for high sea states, doesn’t factor in accomodation and feeding for the crew, doesn’t factor in sea days per year, and that a River has double that range. (Plus note that that 35kn top speed is not sustainable, a Visby normally does 15kn with 35kn sprints, ie great for hiding in the Baltic, running out, sinking something, and then hiding behind an island again, not so great for sailing and patrolling the south china sea).

Value for money is a seperate topic: Had we gotten the Visby’s they’d be even less value for money because we’d still have had to spend the same amount of money on them keeping the work force in Govan employed until the Type 26’s were ready for build, so cost-for-cost comparisons are a non-starter.

*Edit* Not to mention Helicopters, a Visby class does have a Helipad, but it’s not even capable of accomodating a Wildcat, let alone a Merlin, so for the RN to use it they’d have to invest in a new class of light helicopter (maybe 32 sqn can ferry VIP’s to it).
So if the Rivers Batch 1’s get replaced should they be replaced by a Visby Class? No.
Rivers are cheap to run, large, long range, ocean going, constabulary vessels that can preform a range of mission sets anywhere in the world.
Visby’s are fast attack craft that are good for defending calm, enclosed waterways in defensive actions.

The Royal Navy needs the former, and has no requirement for the latter.

Good comments Dern and Robert.

40mm = double the range and option of smart munitions relative to 30mm. Not something to go out and wage war with but something to offer more robust defence when faced real threats that exist in such locations Look at what other navies operating in the SEAsia region specifies as their base level for contemporary OPV’s ( Australia 40mm, Singapore 76mm etc).

My main issue as mentioned before Dem is not the capability per se, its the ukp paid for the capability provided.

Where RN does lead the world it appears, along with quality of crew and training etc which is world class, is the gross latent capacity to add more capability if required sometime in the future !

Just a view

Okay so…. pretty much no answer to everything I posted. You didn’t even manage to answer my opening question so let me repeat that and see if you can answer just that one single point:
What are you needing a 40mm for that you can’t use a 30mm to deal with, but won’t require you to add CIWS, Sea Ceptor, and Artisan as well?

Again saying “double the range” is all well and good, but if the 30mm is already providing you with an overmatch of targets you’re going for then why do you need more “Peeet”?

*Edit* Oh and please let me know what you’d cut to put, crew, and maintain that 40mm on the Rivers.

PS don’t talk about looking at other navies without stopping to consider their own fleet compositions and priorities first.

Dern. The issue is what is the mission and what are the threats. Fishery protection and escorting Russian warships through the channel……and yes, the 30mm is fine.

Locate a ‘P’ vessel to operate somewhere out of Singapore and you really need to consider what it is you expect that patrol vessel to be doing.

I have lived and worked South / SE Asia etc for the past 20+ years. I have contributed to Emergency Response risk assessment and mitigation planning for offshore oil and gas industry Ops in a variety of jurisdictions. I can assure you from first hand experience that there are rogue elements of local navies that have operated as Navy by day and occasionally operate as Pirates by night both in relatively close proximity to Singapore. Those vessels come armed with anything from 20mm to 76mm and they wont allow themselves to be captured. I don’t believe those vessels would ever knowingly attack a RN vessel (or any other naval vessel) operating in the region. The risk comes if the RN vessel intervenes on an incident already underway.

Last major incident my employers were affected by involved a third party ‘Jack-up’ Oil Rig that was being towed at @ 4knts from Singapore NW through Malacca Straits. SOP was for the tow to maintain mid channel and effectively be over the horizon from either the Malaysian Penninsula or Sumatra. Tow Master broke protocol under pressure from crew to pick up local TV stations and sailed closer to land. The rig legs (elevated 100mtrs above sea level during tow) and derrick were lit up like a xmas tree and were highly visible from land. Shortly thereafter a local P vessel turned up and opened up with its 0.5 Cal in an effort to bring the tow to a halt. Ill stop describing what happened thereafter but piracy response procedures kicked in and fortunately everyone was safe.

Such was the capability that was faced that the rig’s American owners mobilised a team of US ‘consultants’ from the Middle East with some pretty heavy capability to remain onboard for the remainder of the tow until the Rig reached our area of Operations where we had host govt naval force protection.

Im not trying to scaremonger….I dont know what the intended mission in SE Asia would be for the RN OPV’s. All I’m doing is sharing a real world experience. In our Industry we aim to manage risks and threats with due consideration to ALARP. Mitigating risks and threats to ‘As Low As Reasonably Practical’. Doesn’t mean you ignore a low probability risk and doesnt mean you mitigate all low consequence risks. You do however ensure you reasonably mitigate low probability, high consequence risks. Many people consider ‘piracy’ risks in such areas to be simply opportunistic fishermen with AK47s etc. I can assure you the risk can be significantly greater than that. Ability to engage at reasonable range and with reasonable effect relative to those you are dealing way could be a strong mitigation. .

Cheers

p

So again, I’m saying you’re either in a situation where a 30mm will do fine, or you need something significantly larger than a 40mm. Probably a Frigate with CIWS, AshM missiles, etc. If only we had something like that…

Or you know what, maybe a patrol boat with a Wildcat flying off it with a load of Martlets would have done the trick if you really needed to sink something. If only the River Batch 2’s had that capability. Oh wait they do.

But fine. You want to mitigate risk, lets play your game. You want a 40mm on an OPV to overmatch supposed 76mms on Pirate boats. Risk mitigation is also about cost in terms of absolute money, and costs in terms of opportunity so I ask again: What would you cut from the Royal Navy to achieve this?

In all fairness the conversation hasn’t been helped by various RN sources talking about up arming the Rivers.

Personally I think up arming the Rivers much apart from maybe some defensive Ceptor, or the like, would be a mistake as politicians then think they are suitable for the heavy stuff.

You simply cannot compare a radar aimed modern naval canon with a manually aimed anti aircraft cannon bolted to the front of a corvette however big.

Suitable for forward basing in Singapore is sounding a lot more like work for a T31 than a River.

Honestly even Ceptor is an issue because you’d still need crew and radars fitted to operate it which would cost £££’s.

The thing that gets me is nobody ever seems to talk about the one thing that would really give the Rivers a leg up on almost any mission set they’d be doing, and that is a telescoping hangar. Putting that on a River would provide a lot more capabiliy than a 40mm, for significantly less cost (both upfront and through life). Rivers can already take a Merlin on their flight deck, but without a hangar it’s limited in how long it can stay there. With a Hangar you could have a helicotper on board long term when that was required.

But it’s not as sexy as a 4 instead of a 3 I guess.

But yeah that’s kind of half my point: If a 30mm won’t do the job, then really you need to upgun to the point where you’re better off sending one of the Frigates.

I agree a drone with a decent camera – half decent radar and a couple of Marlet would be a massive booster – probably the cheapest upgrade you can do.

I suspect a containerised hangar might be used?

Do the 20/30mm have an AAW mode? More thinking anti drone!

I agree that containerised drones on B2 would be a match made in heaven and as Daveyb has already mentioned there is space specifically designed for a single ISO container aft of the RIBs on both the port and starboard sides which are then perfectly positioned for the end doors to open onto the flight deck. Heck, you could even cut a regular crew door into the opposite end of the container and then maintenance crew can easily transit to/from the “hangars” via the ship’s access doors to the RIB areas without needing to go via the flight deck.

To make this dream perfect I would love to see the UK government promote a UK development of something like a next generation Schiebel S-100 Camcopter. From looking at the S-100 specs it looks as if an S-100 has the payload to, while still maintaining decent 6-hour-ish endurance, carry a decent SAR+optical sensor package or twin Martlet but not both (and I assume you’d also want to be carrying a laser designator is carrying Martlet).

One could make arguments that an armed UAV is just another case of unnecessary up-arming in the context of River B2s so I concede the above might be irrelevant in the context only of B2s where S-100 (or equivalent) plus good sensor package might be all that is needed but in the wider context of usage elsewhere, not to mention the export opportunities for a slightly more capable competitor to the S-100 in terms of payload/endurance, it would be a fabulous added bonus if a project to extend the surveillance/patrol reach of the B2s not only did that but also acted as a stimulus for UK industry to deliver a really good VTOL UAV in the “containerisable” size category.

The argument for up-arming a off board system like a VTOL drone or a Helicopter though is much better than for uparming a River:

If you want to operate a drone off of a Frigate, Destroyer, or Carrier is you fly it onto the new ship, transfer the staff, and move the container over. So a UK S-100 with Martlet on it provides every ship in the Royal Navy with a stand off VTOL UAV with a light anti-shipping missile, as opposed to just the Rivers who, yes, might not need it.

Containerised hangar for UAV’s would be great, again the big thing in my thinking here is I don’t believe there is a suitable drone in inventory, and procuring a drone large enough to replicate the surveilance and possibly firepower of a Wildcat is £££’s which we don’t have.
So for now; if we really need to upgrade River B2’s: See how we can embark a wildcat when needed, then get a VTOL drone of some sort when one is aquired for the wider navy.

As much as I’d prefer the Batch 2s (B2) with a hangar. I can’t see it happening purely on price grounds. Plus have we enough Wildcats to spare? Why did we get rid of all the Lynxes?

In this day and age, would a VTOL UAV be more appropriate for the duties that a B2 undertakes? Ok, it wont be able to ferry people about or put a sniper in the air. But for local surveillance and monitoring it is far better than what the ship currently has. There’s space alongside the crane for a standard size ISO, which could act as a hangar. It would also mean that at least 2 UAV can be housed and operated from the ship. If needs be perhaps it could also be armed.

Agree

In terms of price grounds a collapsable hangar like the Bay Class have is certainly more affortable than a 40mm and all the assorted electronics and ammunition that would be required to get the most out of it.
The beauty of a helicopter is of course that it isn’t married to the ship and can be sent elsewhere when not needed for that mission set.

A VTOL UAV would be great, especially if it was martlet qualified (as Wildcat is) but we’d have to procure a large VTOL UAV first…

Great post Dern.

it’s 30mm. ( 20mm batch 1’s ).

I know, if you’d read beyond that you’d have seen I acknowledged that’s a typo.

I saw your “Typo” then I read the rest, then i read your “Typo” correction.

Oh and just to add that I agree with your posts.

Well said mate. ?

Mark Russin ships are Armed to the teeth

Yes they are, your point? Unless you are suggesting the RN plan for a Russian warship going from “peace” to “war” while in the English channel with no warning or intelligence to suggest it then buying these ships for the UK makes no sense.

Rule one never underestimate your Enemy

And the RAF’s Principle Anti- Ship Weapon is……. …………?.

Seen any suspicious car carriers off Iceland recently. If so, you know something’s going to kick off!

Great book. Ironically even in that story that is how the Soviets started, by tucking the Bombers away east of the Kola.