Utopia Talk / Politics / Commonwealth Class Frigate - Type 26

Shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 12:33:27 The Royal Canadian Navy, along with the Royal Australian Navy and of course the Royal Navy, have ordered the Type 26 ASW Frigate. A total of 32 of the 8,800 ton warships will be constucted. This is very good news for CANZUK and demonstrates the close cooperation with Anglosphere nations that will follow on from Brexit. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-wins-canadian-frigate-competition/ I am very happy to see this, something a I mentioned was likely two years ago when the Brexit vote took place. Hopefully Australia soon ditches the (still unsigned) sub deal with France and instead orders 12 of the British Astute Class SSN.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 12:49:28 Not at all clear why brexit would make type 26 more likely to win. What's certainly clear is the decline in the pound has hit defence budgets in procurement hard. Australia opposes nuclear power so unlikely they'd go for astures which are nuclear powered. It would require legal changes which are fiercely opposed, and recruitment or training of an entire cadre of experienced nuclear engineers to crew the subs when they have no domestic industry to draw on. A conventional version of the Astute is unlikely here: BAe doesn't do conventional subs and the natural partners are DCNS and HDW (French and German firms) both of which will be highly unlikely partners post brexit.
Shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 13:15:50 Its a strategic alignment now that theres no possibility of a EU Navy incorporating tbe RN. The Type 26 warships in Canadian and Australian fleets integrate and support the Elizabeth Class supercarriers. RN only ordered 8, now there an additional 24 to cover deployment to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. This is a very good outcome for all concerned. Theres no legal impediment to Australia ordering Astute. Its being considered and debated right now. The French sub was deal was very unpopular with many Australians in govt and the RAN. UK can supply engineers initiative and train Australians while new boats are being built.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 13:32:16 Let set aside there's no chance of that, and that the decline in sterling Vs dollars means we've cut the number of ships we intend to procure, making the RN smaller than the French navy and a less interesting partner. Why does the both of us operating the same ship help? All ship to ship interfaces are NATO standard and many of the internal systems of T26 are pan-European JVs e.g. PAAMS, aster, CAAM etc. The total number of ships hasn't increased and as Australia and Canada are doing like for like replacements, there's no more ships than before. Instead of them being whatever model they were before, they will be type 26s. We are understaffed on nuclear engineers, one of the reasons HMT argued it was fine to slash the number of Astute boats as RN wouldn't be able to crew them. I doubt we could supply or train Aussies. Likely we would see it as a staffing threat and they'd poach ours. Higher pay, better standard of living etc.
shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 13:50:52 Australia had eight Anzac class frigates at 3,600 tons. They will build nine Type 26 at 8,800 tons. The Canadian warships to be replaced by Type 26 were 4,800 tons. Thats not like for like. Its a huge step up. 150% increase in tonnage. Why does all three Royal Navies using the same ship design matter? Pretty obvious, lower unit costs for R&D and inoperability. If Australia orders 12 Astute boats, then the necessary staff will be trained. Its a *AUD200+ billion* lifetime cost project. The money is there that wasnt before...and Canada also needs new subs. Its not about poaching, its about expanding capabilities and strategic partnerships. These boats will be around at least 30 years.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 22 14:15:25 8000 tons with 70 missile cells is a frigate now? Which is a sillier classification, this or japans carrier "destroyers".
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 14:16:50 Shannon: Yes, new generation ships are bigger and more capable, but it's not clear at all that has they gone for a US or French offering that the number of shops available would be greater. Or that they are any more interoperable. UK ship systems are already designed to be interpretable with allies (and vice versa) and in any case the key systems are in fact the same as those used by the French. Indeed the French frigates are likely to provide support for our carriers too. So yes, great news on unit costs that BAE won the bid but this is neither a consequence of brexit nor does it mark any greater ability to cooperate with our allies. Australia is never going to order 12 Astute class submarines. The manpower requirements over the barracuda would make that prohibitive. And as we struggle to train and retain nuclear engineers for our own needs, willing it because the money is there is beyond optimistic. The UK mod has been down on this kind of joint training stuff after a bunch of our fast jet pilots decided they'd rather go work for the Australians
shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 14:45:46 Sam, yes they are super frigates or light cruisers. 8,800 tonnes or 9,700 US tons. Big powerful warships. 32 will be built and perhaps 40 if NZ joins in and the planned Type 31e is scrapped and RN goes another five Type 26. Seb there wont be French missiles, VLS will be used. And Camms is British designed and the Italians tagged along. Not pan european project! I like how Canada made the order a few days before Trafalgar Day, it wasnt expected until December lol. With Astutes, the crew required is 98. The Barracuda is 60. Collins is 58. Australia has a population of 25m and NZ 5.5m. Theres no issue finding the crew once a decision is made to recruit and retain crew. Theres plenty of lead time before the first sub enters service. Same as nuclear technicians. Australia can send people to be trained in tne UK. Its not a big deal given the resources that will be directed to the project.
shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 14:58:11 French frigates wont be escorting British supercarriers Seb. That dream of yours has turned into a nightmare! Only Anglosphere warships will be deployed together. The Canadian and Australians have stepped forward and declared their intention to partner strategically with the UK, just like the good old days. Dont be surprised if the RAN ditch the French sub deal, the threat of China is a very real concern and the Australian public expects the best equipment for their defence forces. Asute SSNs fits perfectly for both Australia and the UK.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Oct 22 15:11:59 http://ukd...-canadian-frigate-competition/
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 16:19:45 Sam: To be fair it's about roles. DD = air defence FF = asw and ship to ship Shannon: RN can't afford any more t26s - 31es are a way to try and get around that. Unit costs will go down with sales, but the main cost is in the systems which won't go down much more. It's already billions over spent, and any reduction in t26 costs will merely reduce overspend elsewhere. I guarantee you HMT isn't going to allow MoD to increase its budget. The only thing that would make much difference is a big rise in sterling against the dollar. This might be achieved by cancelling brexit. Sea Ceptor/CAAM is built by MBDA (european JV between BAE, Airbus and Leonardo) based on ASRAM. It ain't British. As for training, I repeat, we aren't able to train our own crews - the RN recently reduced training requirements in order to meet recruitment targets, removing any need to train at sea. Nuclear engineers need a host of civil qualifications before enlistment, there just aren't that many people with degree level quals in nuclear engineering that want to be a submariner (or people who want to be a submariner capable of getting the nuclear engineering quals). Brexit or not, French and UK forces will continue to serve and train together, and this idea that somehow brexit has any impact here ridiculous. The main impact of brexit has been to cut defence procurement spending power by close to 20%, opening up more black holes, which will inevitably result in further capability reduction. Oh, and of course the growing likelihood of a Corbyn government as the Tories descend into fratricidal insanity; so we will likely unilaterally disarm.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 17:36:11 Btw, 60% workforce increase is a huge cost!
shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 18:19:58 “I guarantee” lol oh Seb you can do no such thing. The initial plan was for 20 Type 26. You dont know what can happen over the next 10-20 years. Its entirely possible the Type 31e plan will be scrapped. It was going to be the export focused design. Now that Type 26 is such a success, maybe the RN will decide to pick a few more. And now we dont have the drain of EU contributions theres more money going around. Reducing the absurdly large foreign aid budget is on tne cards too. 14b last year! There doesnt need to be that many nuclear engineers. And you dont seem to understand that they will be Australians being trained ...The people can be trained in batches over the next 20 years. Subs dont pop up all at once immediately! 60% is an extra 40 sailors per boat. Money isnt a limiting factor. Its a 200b project! French ASW destroyers, (much smaller than our new frigates) of which they have only 8, wont be deployed with RN supercarriers Seb, and we dont need them anyway. Not with another 24 Commonwealth Class warships available for duty. The main impact of Brexit is a reduction in defence procurement? I think youll find far more things are going on than that! And who knows where you get 20% reduction from anyway. You are making it up.
shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 18:48:58 https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/~/media/files/cnr-pdfs/nuga%20role%20cp3%20pdf.pdf Its a 3.5 year course and starting salary is a pathetically low 14k pa, rising to 28k No wonder theres a RN recruitment issue! Train drivers earn more. And you dont need any qualifications to start training other than those listed below. Eight years including 3.5 onboard to be an Nuclear engineer officer. Required qualifications Age range: 18-29 on entry GCSEs or equivalent: Five GCSEs at grade C or better including Maths, English Language and at least one science. Level 3 STEM qualifications (BTEC, or A/A2/AS or equivalents) in an engineering discipline or in maths and at least 1 physical science/engineering/computing subject. Either option must achieve 160 UCAS points.
Canadian Member	Mon Oct 22 20:31:14 "If Australia orders 12 Astute boats, then the necessary staff will be trained. Its a *AUD200+ billion* lifetime cost project. The money is there that wasnt before...and Canada also needs new subs." - Though after those diesel-electric lemons the Brits sold us, we'd be expecting a discount on new purchases.
shannon Member	Mon Oct 22 22:40:48 Yes agree with you there. Those diesel subs were junk.
Dukhat Member	Mon Oct 22 23:46:16 British conservatives are just as dumb as American ones in that they chase "facts" to confirm their preconceived biased conclusions.
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 01:05:50 Lol go away dickhat.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 03:07:40 Oh Shannon, I do think it's possible t31e will be scrapped. I just think it won't be replaced and certainly not with T26. If anything it shall go the way of the extra 2 T45s and Astutes which were an "option" for a while. They are talking about early retirement of two T23s which means very likely HMT will force MoD to cut two planned frigates (they always do this): either 26 or 31es Defence is never a govt priority and everyone's running around trying to figure out how to fund all the returning EU functions. New medical regulators, more customs staff... the list goes on. Rather than splurging on ships, it is far more likely that any money going towards foreign and defence would go to replacing embacies we folded into EU external action premises. There is no extra money from brexit. Its a big net cost. Indeed, the combination of decline in pound, increase in borrowing rates and reduced economic activity (UK trend growth is now such that GDP is 2% below pre referendum trajectory) means it's already cost us more than if we had stayed in. "There doesnt need to be that many nuclear engineers. And you dont seem to understand that they will be Australians being trained ..." Again, by who exactly? As I just pointed out, sure to budget restrictions and cuts, there aren't enough Astute voyages a year to ensure that all UK submariners have at-sea training. So what's this training going to be exactly? A 60% staff increase is a 60% staff increase (its more than that actually as for 12 boats you want something like 14-16 crews to keep the hardware at sea rather than waiting around for each crews r&r). Staffing is the biggest source of opex and comes out of revenue delegated expenditure (and of course generates pension costs in year due to PAYG model). Procurement costs come from capital delegated expenditure so in govt accounts tend to be much less tightly controlled. 200bn over 30 years! You can keep saying "not that many", but that's just as true here where we have a civil and military nuclear industry but have critical skills shortages in those areas and three times the population. And again, when you say "more", they aren't more. They are number for number replacements. Not are they available for duty. The Australian and Canadian navies have their own mission requirements and won't be gallivanting of to protect our carriers as a matter of course. The simple truth is the story of brexit has been new budgetary pressures, cuts and declining power. Canada buying T26s is good news for the defence industry, but shouldn't destructive away from the very real story of an accelerating decline in UK defence capability. It's weird you putting that qualification list to me. Entry requirements for the nuclear training (a three year course) are 160 UCAS points. So a three year taught course with entry requirements equivalent to in excess of three As at A level(48 UCAS points each). I.e. a degree level course. As I said. So you need some whacko that has quals to go into a top university to study engineering, physical science or computing (graduates of which are all in high demand), willing to spend 3.5 years studying for a nuclear engineering course, and the pay is below the typical graduate salary. Can you guess what they tend to do as soon as they can get away with it? Yup. They quit and go take their nuclear certification to the private sector and double their money. As for the pay, the reason it's low is because MoD has to fund all this capex. Remember, military pensions are final salary and expensive to fund under PAYG models. And the military struggles with the idea of paying specialists at low ranks at market rates that make them better remunerated than a lieutenant commander or even commander. But even if they got overt the heirarchy bullshit, if they start paying engineers market rates, they'll have to axe staff numbers. That's how budgeting works. And instead of new ships, the RAF wants tempest (lol at the model a few months ago), everyone wants a replacement for Galileo (especially HMT as being cut out of that will gut the UK space industry). Govey needs a fisheries force to protect UK waters. Meanwhile all the Daring class are holed up in Portsmouth because we can't afford to go to sea. Fuel costs are in $, and have risen 25% since brexit. (The 20% decline in purchasing power is because 80% of UK defence contacts by value are priced in USD. 25% * 80% = 20%.) Shannon, you are living in a fantasy world. UK defence is dying on its arse, largely to pay for your brexit fantasy.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 03:14:07 Though I admit, if it's a choice between spending half my life in a tin can under water waiting for Doomsday or being stuck up in Caithness, it is actually hard choice. Thankfully you can get paid a fortune by one of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agencies at the never ending gravy train that's sellafield decommissioning.
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 06:11:03 Seb, just to be clear, your opinions dont hold a lot of water with me or many others on this board. Id not lead with the discussion with just an opinion of yours. Im not saying the UK or Australian or Canadian govts will or wont do something. Its just an educated speculation. Im merely pointing out you guaranteeing something is absurd. When you say HMT you mean unelected bureaucrats that are there to serve ministers. They are there to administer the department to enact govt policy. The govt is there to reflect the peoples instructions and best interests when we choose MPs at elections. HMT do not make decisions. If they think they do they need retiring. You say we cant afford this or that. Its nonsense. Theres a collossal pile of money spent each year by the govt. A ridiculous amount. Money is not the issue, its how its spent and what are the priorities. We both know this so don’t say ‘no money’. The idea of buying type 26 is that all three countries, serving the same Queen i might add, can coordinate operations and doctrine. The supercarriers will be deployed to the Sth China Sea many times. They will be accompanied by RAN frigates. Both govts have stated this publicly. You like to talk down the UK, but you are wrong. Australia and Canada have selected a British warship design and committed to building 24 ships. NZ may wait a few more years but hey will need to replace their two Anzac ships. There will be a lot of work in the UK to supply engines and components. As for the nuke technicians, the start age is 18, according o the MOD site. You dont need prequalified nuclear engineers. Pick up kids out of high school who earned 260 UCAS points want to serve their country, make it a worthwhile career. In eight years you have Nuclear engineer officers. Its not that hard to do, its just been badly managed by the people who were trusted to run tne nations defence.
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 06:24:41 160 points that is. There must be hundreds of thousands each year that can meet that standard. Paying your staff the correct market rate is obvious, and a negligible cost given the govt budget and the importance of the role. Lots of useless public servant positions get funded yet we cant pay nuclear sub technicians and engineers more than peon momey? Its not an argument just a travesty .
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 07:59:02 Shannon: When I say HMT I mean a govt ministry acting on the settled will of the govt of the day. When I say "there's no money", naturally what I mean is it is so far from being a priority it won't happen. There is no chance of any current or near term govt increasing procurement. There's presently a significant unfunded procurement pipeline, and the Chancellor (whoever that may be) isn't going to prioritise extra investment on military. He or she will want more money for reducing impact of austerity. In an SR he or she will instruct HMT to find more cuts. HMT staff will do what they have done for decades to MoD: "well, if you've made do with missing two frigates, then we can reduce the procurement numbers then" and "well your own minister has said these new ships are twice as powerful as the old ones, so you can get by with half the number". This is how it is. I've seen it first hand. Your idea that building more warships is anyone's priority other than the defence secretary is ludicrous. Your obsession with the queen here is comical. The queen doesn't coordinate foreign or defence priorities. This isnt ww1 where Canada provided gift ships to a royal navy serving the whole empire. Canada has its own foreign and defence priorities. Jolly good that Australia and Canada are buying British, but it won't have a meaningful impact on our ability to coordinate and interoperate as we all use NATO standards anyway. The only possible benefit is if we were going to consider merged manpower. Which we aren't. It is not talking Britain down to draw attention to the disastrous cuts to defence capability. However, engaging in fantastical ideas that somehow Canada and Australia buying British designed ships can compensate for the ongoing cuts to UK defence capability necessitated by your insane brexit policy is very much talking Britain down. Yes, people start university at 18. What is so hard for you here? To actively serve as a nuclear engineer you need to first complete a degree level course, with entry qualifications are the same as studying degrees that lead to graduate level jobs with up to twice the salary you'd command on graduation, and after which you will have a qualification that would let you work in the private sector at between 3-4 times better paid in the private sector, putting you on a salary in excess of a junior lieutenant commander. Is it any wonder retention is an issue? The issue isn't finding people who can get 160 UCAS points in STEM subjects. It's finding those that will then be willing to work for a third of the salary, cooped up in a sub for three months a year. There are surprisingly few people who love their country that much as to "donate" in excess of £100k in gross income over the first for years of their career! But even then we can't afford to have the subs at sea enough to offer at sea training. But by all means, indulge in this fantasy! In the mean time, watch us spend billions on IT systems to replace pan European systems over the next five years. Billions that might have paid for a few more t26s.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 08:03:38 "yay, I made the grades to go to Oxbridge, but instead I shall join the navy!" said very few people ever.
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 08:45:18 “It's finding those that will then be willing to work for a third of the salary, cooped up in a sub for three months a year.” So change is needed. We can fund all sorts of stupid crap tne public objects to! But not paying people who put the nations defence before their lives! Money is not the issue it is priority. Stop talking about money and talk about priorities. The people support a proper military, but the globalists dont. Easy solution remove the Globalists from positions of authority. Change priorties from funding third worlders to our defence forces Obsession with the Queen fot stating the fact that all these ships will be prefixed Her Majesty and crewed by people taking an oath of service and allegiance to tne Queen! Where did I say she directs operations? The RAN and RCN frigates will provide carrier escort in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Thats a huge increase in capability! “what I mean is it is so far from being a priority it won't happen.” Your opinion is irrelevent and quite often 100% wrong. Insane brexit policy. Well welcome to crazy town seb. We are out on 29th March 2019. The war is over for you europhiles, but like the mythical japanese soldier in tne jungle you refuse to cope with reality. 160 isnt that high. Across CANZUK there must be a million 18 year olds a year that meet or exceed that level. Maybe 1 in 10,000 is required as trainee nuclear technicians and rise to nuclear engineer officers. You really do make the most feeble of objections to common sense.
McKobb Member	Tue Oct 23 08:48:54 I interject, Fuck the Queen!
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 09:16:41 McKobb Constitutional Monarchy has worked pretty well for a very long time. Did you know that NZ, Canada and Australia have never had a revolution or civil war? And enjoy very high living standards and personal property rights. Not a lot of Republics can make that claim.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 09:52:00 Shannon: Let's talk about priorities then. Place in order you think voters would prioritise: 1. Spend more on nuclear subs 2. Increase number of nurses in NHS 3. Reduce taxes 4. Cut the deficit I think you have this mad idea that you are the first person to realise money is about priorities. From a govt perspective that's exactly what it is: a means of allocating effort to priorities. Absolute supply isn't the issue we can in theory print more of the stuff. The thing is, there isn't this huge pot of money allocated to things that aren't priorities to enough of a constituency that they can be cut. Yeah, loads of people might say they want defence spending increased. But you know what? They won't wear the higher tax or cutting road building or the NHS, or pensions or schools. And while they might be willing to cut benefits, there are more votes lost in cutting benefits than to be won on buying two more Frigates.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 09:53:23 160 is three As plus another subject at A level.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 10:16:17 As for reality, the reality is we are very likely to leave. But the other reality is that the pound is significantly down, investment is significantly down, a chunk of our industrial base is set to move. In short, adjusting to the reality of brexit means accepting we have less resources to play with than before, and more functions to fullfill rather than splitting the costs across the EU. Our economy is already smaller than it would have been, and we are certainly less wealthy. These are simple facts as of now. It strikes me that many of you Brexiteers are still in campaign mode and haven't digested the reality of these facts. I've spent the last two years working in the context of actually trying to deliver brexit. And then I left govt (and ironically immediately wound up back assuring brexit delivery programmes). I think you will find the next five years somewhat disappointing I have to say.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 10:43:23 As for reality, the reality is we are very likely to leave. But the other reality is that the pound is significantly down, investment is significantly down, a chunk of our industrial base is set to move. In short, adjusting to the reality of brexit means accepting we have less resources to play with than before, and more functions to fullfill rather than splitting the costs across the EU. Our economy is already smaller than it would have been, and we are certainly less wealthy. These are simple facts as of now. It strikes me that many of you Brexiteers are still in campaign mode and haven't digested the reality of these facts. I've spent the last two years working in the context of actually trying to deliver brexit. And then I left govt (and ironically immediately wound up back assuring brexit delivery programmes). I think you will find the next five years somewhat disappointing I have to say.
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 10:48:09 You truly think thats the only choices available? Nurses or nuke boats. You know its not so why present it that way. Very dishonest. You acknowledge pay is too low but then say nothing can be done about it. BS. Theres so much money sloshing around its obscene. Money is not the issue and its clear the public want better funding fir service personnel and you know perfectly well its necessary. Cut welfare to non citizens to zero. No housing. No benefits. No access to NHS unless it’s reciprocated. How much is that? No foreign aid. Empty the prisons of non citizens. Send them back to their homelands to serve their sentence. Apply diplomatic pressure to those who refuse to take them. 160 isnt a high score. ‘A’ scores are handed out like lollies at a picnic. The average UCAS points for a new maths student at Oxford is 628 and for Oxford as a whole is 571. Im not buying your views on Brexit. They are wrong. You continually talk down the prospects of an independent UK. And why you think I care about your anecdotal unverifiable work history is a mystery. No one cares Seb, you aren’t important.
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 11:09:07 Id also go after any number of public sector workers and qangos. Plenty of useless eaters to cull there. The UK was run a lot better 50 years ago with far less of these people drawing a salary. This would fund not just better pay and conditions fkr servicemen but more ships. Do you really expect the public to object? Only those who would have to find a proper job or god forbid start a business! The UK public funds are very badly managed. Its needs a huge shakeout.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 13:20:56 Shannon: No. There's a near infinite list of choices. Things like nurses, hospitals, education are near the top, and defence spending is pretty low. To the extent any Chancellor will make money available for expenditure, they will prioritise those things, not defence. That's what it meant by "there's no money". It's not a priority, however much you or I would like. The difference between you and me is that you want to pretend that actually it could be prioritised where as I recognise we will only spend on defence when immediate political concerns are met. We need to get out of austerity mode, but Brexit, far from yielding any dividend, has just yielded a bunch of additional costs, inflation, plus slower growth of the tax base. It's essentially extended austerity and defence will suffer. "Cut welfare to non citizens to zero. No housing. No benefits" Insignificant. You can't have ILR without being no-recourse-to-public-funds, and after that you can claim citizenship. There simply aren't loads of citizens sponging off the benefits system. There might be a few edge cases (families in reciept of limited local authority funding via section 17 of the children's act). You can't actually use the NHS unless save emergency services unless you are legally resident and posses health insurance to recharge to. However, enforcement costs greatly exceed any additional revenue so few NHS trusts bother checking. We could cut foreign aid. However this is a bigger driver of UK foreign influence than defence. Good luck opening trade deals to fast growing developing world if we cut development aid. We've already deport most nonviolent foreign criminals where it's cost effective to do so. Generally we prefer to incarcerate violent offenders or deterrence is lost (emg. Come to Britain, rape someone, they even give you a free ticket home!). Diplomatic pressure in what form? Block them from trade? Yeah, I can really see that happening right now. Cut aid budget? You've done that. It's much more effective when we can fuck up their relationship with the EU. But if you've already made yourself irrelevant... Btw, you are looking at pre-gove reforms of UCAS. I can see the student room thread you've googled and it's from 2015. A* at A level = 56 points on the new scheme. Oxbridge doesn't require ten A* Alevels. You are confusing facts with opinions. Its a simple demonstrable fact: we are 2% smaller economy than pre vote trend, the pound is down more than 25% against the dollar, and the defence procurement pipeline has gone red. We shall see how the next six months pans out. Like I said, I think you are going to be very disappointed at what leaving will look like in practice.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 13:20:57 Shannon: No. There's a near infinite list of choices. Things like nurses, hospitals, education are near the top, and defence spending is pretty low. To the extent any Chancellor will make money available for expenditure, they will prioritise those things, not defence. That's what it meant by "there's no money". It's not a priority, however much you or I would like. The difference between you and me is that you want to pretend that actually it could be prioritised where as I recognise we will only spend on defence when immediate political concerns are met. We need to get out of austerity mode, but Brexit, far from yielding any dividend, has just yielded a bunch of additional costs, inflation, plus slower growth of the tax base. It's essentially extended austerity and defence will suffer. "Cut welfare to non citizens to zero. No housing. No benefits" Insignificant. You can't have ILR without being no-recourse-to-public-funds, and after that you can claim citizenship. There simply aren't loads of citizens sponging off the benefits system. There might be a few edge cases (families in reciept of limited local authority funding via section 17 of the children's act). You can't actually use the NHS unless save emergency services unless you are legally resident and posses health insurance to recharge to. However, enforcement costs greatly exceed any additional revenue so few NHS trusts bother checking. We could cut foreign aid. However this is a bigger driver of UK foreign influence than defence. Good luck opening trade deals to fast growing developing world if we cut development aid. We've already deport most nonviolent foreign criminals where it's cost effective to do so. Generally we prefer to incarcerate violent offenders or deterrence is lost (emg. Come to Britain, rape someone, they even give you a free ticket home!). Diplomatic pressure in what form? Block them from trade? Yeah, I can really see that happening right now. Cut aid budget? You've done that. It's much more effective when we can fuck up their relationship with the EU. But if you've already made yourself irrelevant... Btw, you are looking at pre-gove reforms of UCAS. I can see the student room thread you've googled and it's from 2015. A* at A level = 56 points on the new scheme. Oxbridge doesn't require ten A* Alevels. You are confusing facts with opinions. Its a simple demonstrable fact: we are 2% smaller economy than pre vote trend, the pound is down more than 25% against the dollar, and the defence procurement pipeline has gone red. We shall see how the next six months pans out. Like I said, I think you are going to be very disappointed at what leaving will look like in practice.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 13:24:55 You are right there is a lot of bad management. Mostly procurement and IT delivery projects. A lot of great work bringing capability back in house, and automating stuff that we can't. Basically deliver what we deliver now, but for much less. Brexit killed all the reforms stone cold dead though. So I decided to go private. When the deluge has finished, there will be another window to try reform again. In the mean time, if we are going to be spending a fortune with consultants to do pointless things, I'd rather I got a cut.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 23 13:48:48 "I'd rather I got a cut." Capitalism wins in the end.
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 19:28:53 “Things like nurses, hospitals, education are near the top, and defence spending is pretty low.” Says who? Seb you mistake your opinion as having any weight. It doesnt. The 160 UCAS score isnt that high and you know it. Theres no shortage of 18 yo who could qualify as a nuke boat technician across. CANZUK. Theres a pool of 130m people! Theres no point repeating your opinion as if its facts. And if you make your views and personal standing as a test of relevence, then you can expect personal scrutiny. Is there somewhere we can FOI your work and see just how relevant and important your govt job and experience is? If not STFU about it. My point, which you continually miss, is not whether you agree or not, but whether the proposed solutions would have a positive outcome. Would lifting pay and standards fill the places required to expand the Astute fleet for the Royal Navies of the UK Australia and Canada? Is there any way to reassign spending and where are the obvious places to start? When I say foreign aid can be cut theres GBP20b+ across CANZUK. A collossal amount of money. EACH YEAR. Sending foreign nationals home to serve out their sentence in third world shithole prison would save the UK ~350m a year! “TAXPAYERS faced a bill of more than £140million to keep more than 4,000 foreign criminals from other EU countries locked up in British jails last year, figures revealed today.” https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/944820/eu-criminals-uk-prisons-cost-british-taxpayer Theres 140m a year just for EU nationals. No Excuse for this. They should be in prison in their own country. Not ours. There are 9,700 total foreign nations in UK prisons in 2018. http://res.../documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf Your arguments that theres no money and no public support for improving standards and pay is false. The agenda for many years amongst europhiles in govt is to weaken the UK defence to the point it cannot act without support from EU nations. Building supercarriers with insufficient escorts is a prime example!
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 19:39:47 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5776790/eu-migrants-in-britain-claimed-more-than-4bn-of-handouts-in-a-year/amp/ The UK prioritises EU citizens unemployment expenditure of 4 Billion a year! is this insignificant Seb? How much in housing and medical costs? Insignificant. Lol why do you spout such nonsense?
shannon Member	Tue Oct 23 20:00:06 The Pound is not down 25% against the dollar Seb. Another easily verifiable mistake of fact you have made. Monthly Average 23rd June 2016 1.42 23rd October 2018 1.31 https://www.ofx.com/en-au/forex-news/historical-exchange-rates/yearly-average-rates/ The Chancellor cut interest rates which always lowers the currency exchange rate. As it turned out completely unnecessarily.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 02:09:31 Shannon: I think you are confused about what constitutes an opinion and a fact. There are ample polls showing UK cutter preferences. Hell the figure on the side of the bus said "let's spend it on the NHS" not "let's but another batch of frigates". Why do you think they picked NHS above anything else? You can look up UCAS point tarrifs. It's A*AA. So some subsection of the 13% that get 3As or more. But the question isnt how many get that score. It's how many decide to use that to join the navy rather than get a much better paying job. Evidently, not many, as we have a manpower shortage. http://www...1F7KKHxc6fy5Yt4Bqg_FYI&cf=1 Yes, lifting pay would help. Matching private sector pay for nuclear engineering would see them on salaries in excess of their boats commanding officers. Do you think this is likely to happen? So you think such significant restructuring is likely for Australia? Along with the need to develop an entire new logistical tail? Is it likely that these areas would be investment targets (in the UK) over so many other things such as the NHS creaking at the seams? As you say, priorities. There is no CANZUK. We coordinate defence structure far more with France and the Netherlands. Why is Poland going to lock up a Pole who had committed no crime in Poland? It's not their problem.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 03:07:01 Shannon: The Chancellor cut the rates did he? Are you sure you don't mean the Monday policy committee of the bank of England? It was cut by what, quarter of a percent? And it's raised by twice that account since and is higher than for a long time. Ok, so your using monthly averages ending in the vote date as though the markets didn't price uncertainty in? Use the monthly average six months before the referendum? If you look at the charts, the UK hits a relative low when the EU referendum act goes through parliament of around 1.49. It picks up again for the period of the negotiations, but slumps dramatically from the low 1.5s to mid 1.4s once it is clear Cameron will get no solid renegotiation to campaign on. After the vote, the pound slumps to 1.3, reaching a nadir at 1.25. Right now, we are at around 1.3, from from around 1.53 before the market started to respond to brexit as a possibility. That's after an increase in rates. So yes, we've recovered slightly, it's more like 20% of its value.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 03:16:05 Your sun article is appalling. 3/4 of the figure are in-work benefits, not unemployment as you claim. Anyone filling the jobs those people are filling would therefore be getting those benefits. In work benefits are essentially a subsidy to employers, allowing them to pay wages that would be unsustainably low otherwise. It's also a defacto subdidy for consumers for the same reason. Of the 1bn going to unemployment benefit, those EU citizens either are eligible to have UK citizenship, or alternatively could be deported, as a Brit would be if they resided in Germany over 6 months (I think it is) without health insurance and a job. We could simply enforce EU law as is and resolve this problem.
shannon Member	Wed Oct 24 04:23:23
shannon Member	Wed Oct 24 04:59:40 https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/roles-and-specialisations/services/submarine-service/accelerated-apprentice-scheme-submariner So it appears you can start an apprenticeship at 48 UCAS points. And starting salary of 31k rising to 48k. Lots of other benefits to go along. I cant see what marine engineer ifficers are paid but i suspect its a lot more than apprentices and newly qualified technicians...probably the same as the ships commander or even more. http://www...navypayscales.php#.W9A2xRY_WEc The article you ref is two years old. Changes have been made along the lines of what I suggested. Is there anything up to date to show a current dire shortage of marine nuclear technicians and engineers? If not I think I’ll put this down to another Seb scare story and exaggeration to try to argue a point. On your 25% claim, which you as always when shown facts, are walking back from, even cherry picking data doesn’t help you. On the day polls had Leave behind by 10 points. The surprise was Leave won. Your claim of 25% since Brexit is clearly wrong. GBP was falling years before the referendum was annouced. Assigning all the fall in exchange to one event is fatuous. It was part of an long existing trend. And tbe Chancellor made all sorts of dire post brexit announcements including an emergency budget. He talked down the currency and so did the BoE. As for the remainers fav go to argument for invaliding tbe referendum, one bus with a slogan, You are moving from arguing against the possibility of raising pay and conditions for nuke techs (which has happened!) to building more frigates. Slippery seb as usual. Spending billions on EU nationals or any non citizens is wrong and should stop immediately. Poland or whoever must take back their criminals or we dont issue any work visas.
shannon Member	Wed Oct 24 07:27:58 Anyway congratulations to Canada and Australia for selecting the Type 26 warship, its a great result and underlines the continuing close ties to the UK. 32 super frigates to act as escorts all over the world for the two new RN supercarriers. I would like to see Astute SSNs in the RCN and RAN,rather than diesel boats. Two dozen Astute boats to keep the seas and oceans free, working together with the mighty USN.
shannon Member	Wed Oct 24 07:29:02 Lol make that three dozen!
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 13:55:22 Shannon: That's still a low salary Vs what the NDA engineering folk get, but getting there. The big thing is that most people with that qualification set head off to become quants in the city. Article 2 years Old, changed recent, training time 3.5 years... and not necessarily doing huge amounts for retention. Plus the whole "no more at sea training requirements to earn your dolphins". It's depressing you are so keen to pallet over the obvious cracks emerging in our forces. The fact Canada is buying more T26s than we are (nearly twice as many!) ought to raise alarm bells. Instead you are pretending the RCN is an auxillary force. If everyone was so confident based on polls the day before, can you explain the betting odds narrowing? Just look at the time series. You can see specific falls in line with key brexit events: the reff bill passing, the emergence of Merkel's opposition to the emergency break, the publication of the deal... yes sterling fell years before the ref, because brexit has about 18 months history before the ref. It didn't come from nowhere! You are the one cherry picking, even falsely claiming rates have been cut when they are higher now than before the ref. You are also getting confused around the bus. It doesn't matter what you think of the figure, it's validity etc. My point is why did it say NHS Vs, say, frigates? Because any campaigner knows the public prioritises the NHS above all else. It's not opinion, it's fact. We will throw 20Bn on defence is a hard sell. We will throw 20 Bn on the NHS wins votes. Priorities. As for slipperyness, you did the bait and switch. We were talking about the likelihood of more frigates, the naval engineers are reasons why: 1. Australia unlikely to go nuclear 2. Your idea we would be able to provide capability is unlikely.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 15:42:20 You know we are only building 7 right? To replace the 13 boats we had in service before. Ra Ra Ra, the navy is shrinking, but lets pretend the Canadian and Australians are part of our Navy too, and then we can pretend we are growing to three dozen. You are as bad as the bloody unilateral disarmament types.
shannon Member	Mon Oct 29 05:27:30 Lots of saying no no no but lack of actual evidence. Seb mistaking his opinions for facts, or even being relevant. The GBP is not down by 25% or anything like it. And im not interestied your tortured methods of trying to sustain false claims. Facts are both the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Australian have decided to dramatically increase tonnage (150%!) and capability in selecting the British design. Both countries are far more reliable and natural allies than France. Always have and always will be. Together they are more richer and more powerful too. The superfrigates will be escorting the supercarriers. Deal with it.
shannon Member	Mon Oct 29 05:34:38 The RN is shrinking when we are building supercarriers. Lol right. The era of weakening the RN so it can only function within an EU framework is over. Another great benefit of Brexit. Theres no reason other than outdated green politics that Australia does not have an order in fir Astute right now. The Aussies are very practical and the clamour to throw out the French sub is growing. The Astute is a perfect fit and now the Type 26 decision has been made, it strengthens even more the chances of 12 Astutes being procured for the RAN.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 29 07:41:20 Shannon, opinions like "Canada and Australia will provide UK with a crew carrier support group!!"? There's no evidence for this whatsoever. Measuring on tonnage. Lol. You sound exactly like a treasury nerd now "I see, so they displace more and are more capable? So it stands to reason you need proportionately fewer? Snip snip". Fact of the matter is we have two carriers (not super carriers btw, as the flight compliment is less than the CdG, 24 f35 Vs 28 rafael, though typically it'll go with less f35 than the invincible had harriers, and far from the 100+ airwings on a Nimitz, plus we've decided not to buy the necessary Comms for the f35s to operate as a network enabled force, essentially hobbling their ability to work with missiles and drones). We've not equipped them with 3 ciws, leaving lines of attack uncovered, and no short or medium range defence missiles. We've gone from 12 DDs to 6, many of which are holed up in Portsmouth because we can't afford to put them to sea. We cut their land attack and asw capability. We've gone from 12 subs to a new target of 7. We're now targeting a frigate force of 13. Compared to 20+ a decade ago. We literally cannot field a full carrier support group anymore. And your answer is "because the Aussies and Canadians have bought type 26s, they'll definitely line up to put their ships under our command and a literal physical barrier between enemy missiles and our ship". The navy is dying because you prioritise meaningless gestures like brexit over spending on core national capabilities. And you keep going on about France (a long time and natural ally) as though there was a binary choice. We've long been allies with Australia and Canada and Australia. We haven't gained any alliance with them by leaving the EU. We are unlikely to lose our military alliance with France (however much you insanely advocate for it like a Putin stooge). What we lose though is intelligence, some cyber capability, and space capability. Why is this all a binary choice in your mind?
Seb Member	Mon Oct 29 07:54:10 *we've only equipped then with 3 ciws
jergul large member	Mon Oct 29 09:29:42 Anyway, is not Ghana in this Commonwealth of Shannons? What naval contribution will they be making in service of the Queen?
jergul large member	Mon Oct 29 09:31:36 Not to mention Bangladesh. It has 5 times the population of France.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 29 12:24:48 Jergul, don't mock the UK alliances FRUKToS (Fiji,Rwanda,UK,Tonga,Sierra Leone) is a powerful alliance to be feared.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 29 12:26:25 I think Malawi might buy some Astute subs. They totally fit their needs.
shannon Member	Wed Oct 31 04:26:08 A new warship commisioned *today* in the RAN. An Air Warfare Destroyer. HMAS Brisbane. 8,000 tons of power featuring 48 cell VLS. https://youtu.be/WGX1RiNfEz0 Who’s portrait is that at the end of the vid? You both have perfect timing... But jergul, fair point. Call the new Type 26 the Royal Commonwealth class!
Seb Member	Wed Oct 31 07:05:08 A version of the Arleigh Burke, not our t45, outfitted with Aegis not our PAAMS system. But great for the Aussies. Not what about the RN and the £10bn real term cuts to the armed forces over the last decade?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 31 07:08:26 I stand corrected. The Aussies went for a Spanish design. Oh gosh. I guess that means it won't be able to cooperate with the RN, what with it being an EU designed vessel.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 31 07:10:46 Being built (assembled) by BAE systems. Of course that might not be possible post brexit unless we sign a deep defence pact with the EU.
shannon Member	Wed Oct 31 18:48:07 Why are you inventing quotes and attributing them to me? Again, very dishonest of you Seb. You need to get a grip on reality Seb. Did KFS and Adelaide hack your account? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/21/south-china-sea-uk-could-send-aircraft-carrier-to-back-australian-vessels The RN and defence writers refer to the QE class as supercarriers. Good enough for me. The CO of QE says they can carry 70 F35B’s on surge. The RN has been shrinking but now is expanding capability Perfectly understandable. The aim of the eurotraitors was to make the RN dependant on an EU Navy. That has blown up in their stupid faces and had the opposite effect of bringing the CANZUK nations together!
Seb Member	Thu Nov 01 05:59:28 Shannon: I was actually thinking your tone and cadence was very kfs. Where do you think have I invented a quote from you?. We don't have carrier capable 70 f35s planned, and think you are confusing aircraft (which includes drones and helicopters, with much smaller footprint) with the fighter wing. Or possibly the fact that they got rid of a deck during design leaving a void (so would require a major refit not surge). Capability at the expense of numbers leaves a brittle and hollow force. The truth is we are dependent. You are highlighting the fact here going on about how you expect canada and Australia will provide us the necessary escorts. Your basic idea is that it's more sensible to be dependent only on Canada and Australia but not European countries. This is crazy: any threats to our country and sea lines are likely to be as serious to European countries. Geographically, we are not going to necessarily get Canadian or Australian support. European support is available, and likely. Why reject it? For wars out of our environment, we will be with the US who will provide their escort. The kicker is the Falklands. Nobody provided material support then. Nobody will now. Our choices are to either fund defence adequately, or trust to deeper interdependency with allies. Europe is the only viable candidate there: where a serious threat to them is a serious threat to us sufficient to warrant them supporting us on something peripheral. My preference is to fund defence. But your twin ambitions of shunning Europe, engaging in expensive fripperies like brexit thus leaving defence a lower priority and pretending Australia and Canada will make up the difference: well that's treachery, or useful idiocy at best. Music to Putin's ears.
shannon Member	Sat Nov 03 07:54:44 You invent quotes whenever you put words in quotes and attribute it to me. Clear enough for you? Im not confusing anything. The CO says the QE can carry 70 F35B’s in surge. The QE and PoW are supercarriers, albeit non nuclear. A deck space of 170,000 sqft! You dont get to tell me what my ideas are Seb. I said the RCN and RAN will escort RN carriers in theIndian and Pacific Oceans. The UK and Aus Govts discussed this at the highest level just after announcing the Type 26 order in July this year. The UK Govt in particular is keen to conduct joint ops in the South China Sea. Europe is not a country Seb. It cant be an ally. Putin the boogy man scare is ludicrous. Your preferences are not relevant or important. Why do you think anyone but yourself cares about them? Im certainly not asking about them. I dont want to shun Europe, such a thing is not even possible let alone desirable. I did however work to ensure UK Independence from the EU. Which is what the people of the UK decided at the referendum.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 15:09:43 Shannon: Where exactly does the CO say this? If you are simply saying they will sail alongside the QE, in much the same way we escort Russian ships through the channel, that's a no brainer. But the strong implication regarding systems integration was you expect them to form part of the carrier group. To be part of the ring of vessels that physically put themselves between enemy anti-ship missiles and the carrier, taking the hit of necessary. Joint operations again, different. We will continue to do joint ops with the Europeans too. You haven't endured UK independence from the EU though. We economically deeply entwined, and the economic cost of brexit has cost us much of the capability to field forces without allies. You have succeeded only on making us more dependent and without the political capital to influence the key decisions.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 15:10:32 *ensured
shannon Member	Sat Nov 03 19:02:38 Lol more dependent. Political capital. These tired worn out slogans lost the referendum for the remainers yet you cling to them still. You were panicking in June 2016 claiming DISASTER WITHIN WEEKS! and proven to have that completely wrong, yet you are still bleating about ‘costs’ An independent UK leaves the EU on 29th March 2019. Tick tock. No transition no more danegeld. WTO and GTFO. Yes Seb, how many times must I say this, RAN and RCN Type 26 warships will provide escort to the QE supercarriers. Whats so hard for you to understand? WTF are you talking about physical barriers to missiles? Is that what you think escorts do? Lol you dont know what you are talking about. Type 26 are specialised ASW for a start not AWD. The UK has ordered 138 F35B’s for RN service. Sounds like a lot for ships that can only field a grand total of 48 according to you! But fits well with a surge capability of 70 per ship...Check wiki to see what the CO said. Im not refuting every stupid claim or objection you make. Theres too many and its pointless as you have Adelaide/kfs levels of congnitive dissonance.
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 07:10:20 Shannon: That was based on the initial plan to trigger A50 immediately. That didn't happen thank God. However, the pound has indeed fallen, investment has indeed dropped, growth has indeed slowed, jobs have relocated, and we haven't even left yet. And the best the pm and her brexiteer dexeu ministers have concocted as a deal is to pay tens of billions of Euros to get less trade access than we had before, abiding by the same rules, while having no say in their formulation, while remaining subject to the ECJ rulings in key areas while having no representation on it. The remain argument was always that it would either be a catastrophe or it would be pointless. To the extent it hasn't been a total cataclysm it is because even the Brexiteers charged with delivering brexit have opted in the most part to make it a pointless exercise: out if the EU, but it's effective colony. The humiliation you have inflicted on this country with your delusions will not be judged kindly by history.
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 07:25:37 Shannon: The order is split between the RAF and the RN. So far, only 24 are earmarked for the RN. This means that it's unlikely the pilots of the remainder will be trained for carrier landings. Further, that doesn't mean 148 are available. 148 airframes typically have under optimal surge conditions in a prepared for war, about two thirds availability. Under most circumstances, a third. 1/3 in maintenance, 1/3 undergoing upgrades, 1/3rd available for service. You haven't however provided the quote you mentioned. Repeatedly in design doco, the maximum number of *aircraft* under surge conditions as up to 50. In terms of f-35 the figure often cited is 12 rising to 24 (the capacity is certainly larger than 24, the limiting factor here being pilots and jets). I don't think you understand what escort means. It seems you are saying that they will escort the UK carrier in the sense of sail along side. The group that escorts a carrier provide the defence of the carrier. They sail in close formation, providing the area and point defence against hostiles. The point about being in close formation is that it is impossible for an anti ship missile to hit the carrier without first having sunk some of the escorts. All T26 frigates carry sea ceptors, which are anti sir and anti missile systems. They also carry CIWS guns. Yes, they are our ASW specialists, their function as part of the carrier escort group is to provide the necessary point defence and in extremis, physical barrier, to prevent anti ship missile sinking our carriers.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 04 08:04:32 Shannon Integration is not easy, but not a requirement. A carrier (supercarrier is a misnomer. What should we then call the US carriers?). It is by no means certain frigate missile defences would even target non-threatening missiles automatically (missiles aimed at non-integrated carrier would not be a threat to the frigate group) Norway figures on spending close to a decade integrating the f-35 with various branches to gain full interoperability. Seb f-35s will not have 50% operability. The cited numbers are for aircraft that are supposed to be operational. (Owned airframes - airframes in Arizona)*.67*.55 = number combat ready within 1 hour.
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 08:15:04 Jergul: I'm using broad benchmarks. I'd be careful of using figures to date, the f-35 despite declarations to the contrary is clearly still in shakedown as a programme. I'd expect things to improve somewhat. But I'd be surprised if the UK was ordering 148 airframes we would have greater than 50 ready for combat ops at any time. 24 on whichever carrier is active, 26 for the RAF replacing tornado.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 04 08:45:18 Of 148 airframes, you have what? 6 permanently in Arizona or some other desert hell-hole? 24 on a carrier breaks down to 16, then reduce by another optimistic 1/3. So say 12 and call it a day. Carriers have important command ship functions, but for maximum fire power, you would have to keep missile production lines open and fill up the launch tubes on the surface fleet(I would guess standard load for the Royal navy is 50% empty).
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 09:04:44 Jergul: Not sure it would work like that. AFAIK the idea is to manage the while tranche as a single pool. Do the maths on the 148 to find out how many are available, rather than starting from 24 allocated to rn.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 04 09:29:50 Seb It works like that. On the carrier, 1/3 will be unavailable due to planned maintenance and 1/3 will be unavailable due to unplanned stuff. Ballpark numbers not calibrated to the finicky nature of stealth. Surge numbers are higher. No need to change engines at the start of a deployment. Its the same for everyone. Adversaries have the same limitations to their availability (Russia had high rotation rates in Syria to maintain a surge effect). So I am not suggesting a relative disadvantage (though it does promote missiles factory sealed in frigate missile tubes as viable payload alternatives).
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 10:27:02 https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/defence-security/hms-queen-elizabeth-begins-initial-rotary-wing-aircraft-trials/ Shannon: upper 50s for total aircraft under surge conditions. Jerry Kyd here saying 24 jets here, and: "In 2023, the UK will have 42 F-35 aircraft, with 24 being front-line fighters and the remaining 18 will be used for training (at least 5 on the OCU), be in reserve, or in maintenance." So 24 is your lot for now. Jergul: I don't think it will because you wouldn't keep the third out for long term maintenance on the ship. I don't think our carriers are going to spend that much time at sea outside of a mission.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 04 11:04:57 Seb Block upgrades (long term overhauls) would of course not be done. Scheduled maintenance is just the stuff you do on a checklist according to various criteria. Short deployments would play into a surge effect and give higher numbers (essentially that the timeline for scheduled maintenance starts as close to 0 as possible) as some planned maintenance would be done before and after deployment.
shannon Member	Thu Nov 08 02:52:49 Jergul QE class are conventional supercarriers, the USN operate Nimitz nuclear supercarriers. No Seb you made no mention of Article 50 in your panicked condition. Lol Gibraltar would be lost! Dissembling Seb as usual. The UK is not suffering at all even after the Withdrawal Act passed into Law. Inward investment...https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inward-investment-brings-1500-new-jobs-a-week-to-the-uk The UK order is for all F35B’s. So you can pretend to know what the training or availability will be but its immaterial. There are more than enough for a QE to carry up to 70 F35B’s. “As Kyd says, it also gives the ship greater flexibility, not just in terms of the number of aircraft it can carry - he says it could carry more than 70 F-35Bs - but also the type of operations it supports (helicopters and Royal Marines for example) and potential innovations: "In the future you may see rack-and-stacking of tens, if not hundreds of UAVs," he says.“ https://www.wired.co.uk/article/navy-queen-elizabeth-warship The RAN and RCN Type 26s will be escorting the QE supercarriers Seb. WTF are you having such difficulty accepting this? Lol sailing with? Jergulmaths at work again. I wont even bother. Seb was going on about missile defence. God knows why when the Type 26 are specialist ASW. Obviously there will be other AWD escorts. I noticed you both failed to address the RAN AWD commissioning ceremony with the Governor General and PM. Whos portrait were they holding when standing in front of Her Majesty’s Australian Ship Brisbane? I cant take credit for Brexit, 17.4m people voted for it...and despite epic remoaning from the usual suspects, its going ahead. Whether or not there is any post brexit trade “deal” is yet to be decided. My money is on May failing to get anything like what the EU wants through Parliament due to having been reduced to a minority govt after her 2017 GE failure. The DUP will prevent a sellout. No transition, no payout, GTO and GTFO.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 04:39:18 Shannon Supercarrier is not an official designation in any event. I find it a misnomer. I might agree with you if the carrier did carry 70 aircraft. So I will agree that it could potentially be upgraded to something I might consider a "conventional supercarrier". The argument favours missile carrying ships like the type 26 btw. If we assume sufficient missile stockpiles and production rates. Which would be a dangerous assumption.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 04:50:42 Or would you prefer to call an upgraded variant a "superduper carrier"?
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 04:54:35 Though frigates do have limitations. One of ours is sinking as I type. Sigh.
shannon Member	Thu Nov 08 06:55:24 What matters what you think jergul? The RN and defence writers call the QE class a supercarrier. It has the same deck space and hangar space as a Forrestal class. *They can carry 70+ F35B’s now* according to the CO. They are incredibly large and powerful warships. Prince of Wales will launch at 75,000 US tons fully loaded. In time with additional systems they will top 80,000 tons.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 07:10:46 Shannon The carrier can operate exactly half of what you are suggesting. 36 F35s and 4 helicopters to be exact. It is also only STOVL capable as it lacks arresting wires and catapults. You are fond of hyperbole. Fair enough.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 08 07:15:10 Shannon: Cameron had said he would trigger A50 immediately. I did not say we would lose them. I said we'd be forced to make concessions. Which we clearly are. We do know Spain mar Gibraltar a negotiating point and we don't know precisely what May has agreed for the Gibraltar protocol. We can see Ireland pushing the UK around using Northern Ireland and the border to deliver the UK as a rule taker. And Argentina is blocking our WTO schedules over the Falklands. Thousands of jobs have moved, there's a clear inflection in growth at A50 with deviation from trend costing 2% of GDP. Investment has dropped, we've seen loss in jobs. Your selective quote is poor. "It might seem contradictory to commission such big ships despite them having small crews and operating STOVL aircraft which don't need a big flight deck to launch and land. The size is due to the need to potentially refit for cats and traps if necessary. As Kyd says, it also gives the ship greater flexibility, not just in terms of the number of aircraft it can carry - he says it could carry more than 70 F-35Bs - but also the type of operations it supports (helicopters and Royal Marines for example) and potential innovations: "In the future you may see rack-and-stacking of tens, if not hundreds of UAVs," he says." "It" here refers to the flight deck. What determines the operational capacity of the ship is hanger space. The good news is there is plenty of space for an additional hanger deck as I understand. But only if we refit. So I stand by the repeatedly given capacity of 50 aircraft under surge conditions. If you mean the RCN etc will at some point sail alongside our task force, sure. The French will too and that's got SFA to do with the choice of T26. If you mean "we can field a carrier task group capable of defending the carrier by supplementing our under numbered navy with RCN etc." thats delusuional. Apeing Maybot isn't clever. T26s are modular multi mission ships. Thats the whole point of them. Because instead of 12 T45s to replace the T42s, we only bought 6, which means we won't have enough missiles on the T45 to provide layered defence, and since the army downgraded the land based SAM capability and the RAF cut the number of front line fighters and repurposed some typhoons to do land attack, the T45s also have an additional role of providing air defence for the UK mainland. Yes, the T45 is on some metrics vastly more capable than s t42, magazine depth is an issue. You can rectify it by replacing long range high capability asters with quad packed sea ceptors which are short range, but that costs you. Much better to use the T26s sea ceptors instead.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 07:20:06 "The good news is there is plenty of stability for an additional hanger deck as I understand. But only if we refit." Fixed
shannon Member	Thu Nov 08 07:57:02 “That’s delusional” so is Brexit according to you. But its happening. Cameron said that before the Referendum but then wanted to wait until after a party conference many months away. He was quickly shown the door. “Thousands of jobs have moved, there's a clear inflection in growth at A50 with deviation from trend costing 2% of GDP” lol complete nonsense. And Gibraltar Seb. We had to hand that over too. Too funny. Jergulmaths at work again I see. When the QE CO says 70+ F35B’s that means something else to you two...normal operation will be less of course. But surge capability is also a thing. And yes jergul its a STOVL warship. Thats why the UK exclusively bought the STOVL F35B’s! The French have 8 small frigates which are a long way from tne Pacific and Indian Oceans. The RCN, RAN and RN will have 32 large Type 26 frigates...
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 09:02:50 Shannon Yes, its a STOVL carrier. I have no doubt the ship can ferry 70 F35s. Not a totally useless capability (particulary given that the RN not having any dedicated tanker aircraft), but not to be mistaken with the number of aircraft that can be serviced by the carrier during combat operations.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 08 10:05:37 Shannon: You can call documented reality nonesensex all you like, and you can invent straw men all you like too. Just let me know when you've found that £350m a week for the NHS. Kyd says the flight deck can fit 70 f35s. This is a far cry from how many it can operate. Stop misrepresenting him. It demeans you and insults him. French FREMM is 142m, 6500 tonnes. They have 6 with two more planned. Type 26 is 149n, 6900 tonnes. Basically the same. In armament, the French ASW version of FREMM outgun the t26. It has 4 more AAW cells, and packs 24 strike missile as a mix of land attack and anti ship, plus torps. The entire ASW offensive capability of t26 is on the helicopters and has no real ship to ship capability beyond using sea ceptors and tomahawks which don't cut it. The french also have a standing Pacific patrol which we don't.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 10:42:34 Seb You may want to google "air wing" The US fields a lot of capability (force multipliers) the RN may have trouble duplicating (or could duplicate by reducing its direct offensive capability). Buddy refueling capability should be a major priority for the navalized f35 programme.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 08 12:05:21 Jergul, let me be clear, the RN and indeed much of the UK armed forces, is an incoherent mess. Politicians playing to the likes of Shannon and unwilling to either fund defence or make hard choice on what capabilities to preserve have salami sliced the budget such that the component elements of no longer mesh. Instead of losing some valued capabilities, we've lost most capabilities because we've skimped on less visible enablers and integrations while leaving the visible bits in place but in two few numbers to provide a resilient force. Further, this same Shannonistic tendency plus shallow politics and diplomacy means we've not built the deep and enduring partnerships needed to patch these gaps over. Nowhere is this more evident than the carrier programme. By opting for STVOL and a single combined RAF/RN force we've reduced the range and strike payload of the RN, and limited the carrier force to an oversized and overly expensive ship that has a 300 mile combat range. But by not outfitting the carriers with missile systems and one less than the minimum number of ciws, while cutting the frigate and destroy force, there's no way we could operate that close to a hostile and capable enemy. They also cut back on non helicopter based AWACS, and no decision yet for refueling (but difficult to see where the money would come from). The decision not to invest in the networking and encrypted data links further erode the ability for f35 to provide the force multipliers (use f35 cap with t45 to provide extended air and missile defence that allow the carrier force to make sense). Throw in the CAP requirements, and even with the impressive sortie generation, the punch and range the UK carriers currently offer look very bad bang-for-buck. This means it's basically only useful as and when no base can be found. As a strike capability, it seems a poor choice compared to investing that money into a better purely RAF based capability and leaving the RN to focus on missiles (particularly hypersonics). The carriers now make sense only as a downpayment on having a hull to some day refit when we decide to rebuild our capability. That means drones, catapult, and around 30% increase in the surface combatant fleet plus new anti BM and anti hypersonic capability. If we felt we absolutely need the option up field a carrier force (e.g. Falklands 2) we'd have been better off buying a couple of America class assault ships: dedicated amphibious assault with an option for hosting 20 RAF STVOL f-35s. We could have afforded three for the price of the two QE class ships. The result now is we have downgraded our amphibious assault for a flakey at best, inadequate at worse "strike" capability which could be delivered in almost all circumstances better by the RAF. And to compensate they now talk about using the supposed carrier strike capability for amphibious assault. As if you could put the QE class in sight of a hostile coast given it's poor defensive capability and inability to provide a decent carrier escort group. The whole things daft. So yes, buddy refueling or a refueling done world be a good idea, but it's in a very long shopping list.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 08 12:07:52 Essentially, all branches of the military have decided to preserve bonsai versions of a full spectrum capability that are two brittle and not well integrated enough to really fight independently. In the hope that one day defence budgets will rise and they can scale these bonsai capabilities back to a genuine operational force. This is called "wishful thinking" of the kind epitomised by Shannon's confusion about whether Canadian and Australian ships count to our strength or not.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 08 13:00:09 Heh. Imagine the trouble I would be in if I said that. There is a certain white elephantness about the whole carrier concept, but with sunk cost being what they are... I think the Russians are on to something with their focus on very small blue water capable missile platforms. Suitable to UK needs and funding.
shannon Member	Fri Nov 09 21:31:17 The Type 26 will be 8,000+ tonnes. French ships are smaller fewer and less capable. We will have 32, they will have 8! The old bus slogan never fails for remoaners as their go to claim to invalidate the vote of 17.4m people. May has funded this anyway now but you are euther to dishonest to acknowledge it or dim to have noticed. How about Clegg saying a European Army was a dangerous fantasy? Yet this week Macron is saying exactly that! No the QE did not say deck or ferry that many fighters. You are both again making things up. Theres four acres to deck fighters plus the hangers! He said under surge conditions they could carry that many. Surge means operate! The RAN and RCN will deploy far more Type 26s than the French will with their frigates. Far more of HM ships will be based in the Pacific. Its just simple maths Seb. Theres no confusion Seb on my part, its just your pattern of slippery lying and inability understand basic concepts. The UK and Australian govts are deepeing and widening their defence commitments, as demonstrated by not only operating the same type of ships, but to joint naval operations. You are deluding yourself, Pretending you opinion is at all relevent to me or anyone else. Yet you continue to act as if your opinion actually is an argument in itself, when all I see is dishonesty and factual errors. No wonder you still have such difficulty accepting the UK is leaving the EU, accepting you are wrong is too difficult for you.
shannon Member	Fri Nov 09 21:51:45 Theres not much to add to what I’ve already said, other than you two are both a waste of time with your dishonesty and stupidity, balanced only by your egos. You have both failed to appreciate the changes in the UK not only in abandoning the EU fantasy, but also ridicule the growing CANZUK defence and economic relationship! Your heads explode when FTAs are signed in the next year...followed by RAN cancelling the French sub deal. That leaves eith Jap subs or Astute, and theres only one rational choice in that scenario!
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 22:23:58 Shannon I favour the UK having full operational capabilities and hope Brexit works out as well as possible for the country. I simply feel you are not grasping fundamental dangers and limitations. But no need to get your panties in a bunch. You can have any opinion you like.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 10 04:56:56 Type26 is 6900 tonnes displacement. We will not have 32. We will have 13. France has 23 frigates in total. The RN is now smaller than the French navy. Australia and Canada will buy some. But adding these to our total is like adding all the Italian and Spanish FREMM frigates of the same class to Frances. May has indeed funded the extra money, but not from money to the EU, but from cuts elsewhere which might have been used to, for example, patch the military procurement budget hole. I've posted the whole paragraph. He clearly states the deck is big enough to hold 70. All the technical specifications for the QE class say up to 50 aircraft under surge conditions (many of which will be helicopters). As you ought to know well, the QE was originally going to have deck catapults. As part of the cost cutting measures, they removed a hanger deck and left a void where the catapult would go. They also axed to CIWS, the encrypted high bandwidth data links, and the missile launchers. It will need a major refit to bring it back to the around 70 mark the hull and flight deck was designed for. The European army was a fantasy when we had a veto. Now we don't. A great example of how we are less able to wield influence. I pointed this out during the campaign and you pooh poohed it. You and your ilk have led Britain into a Suez like humiliation. You've traded power for talking points. You are a disgrace to the country.
shannon Member	Wed Nov 14 18:51:09 Fair enough jergul. Seb, yiu still dont grasp the fact that UK Independence won tne referendum. Its not a mistake to fix but an opportunity to grasp. So tbe EU army was not a fantasy at all, but the only thing stopping it was a UK veto? No you n ver saud that. Even the source you sited says high 50s for the F35B. Yet you still cant be honest and have to cut that to at most 50 and many ate helo’s. So the NHS will get the bus money you referenced. Slippery as usual. If course the money hasnt yet come from our EU contributions, until 29th March 2019 we are still members...how can you not get this? There will be 32 Type 26 warships in Her Majesty’s Royal Navies, again, simple fact you deny. They will be available to escort the QE supercarriers. The Type 26 will be 8,800 tonnes...far bigger and more capable than French Frigates, which are only 3,600 and 2,950 tonnes. Their replacements will be 4,250 tonnes. http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/future/ffg
Seb Member	Thu Nov 15 15:51:59 Shannon: 1. I did say we were blocking it and it would not happen while we were members. Go find the convo. 2. It says 50 aircraft. I.e. includes helicopters and others. 3. The bus referred to the 350m we send to the EU. But net we send less, and the cost of replacing some of the functions the EU delivers is more (not surprising as it was split 28 ways before). You don't need to leave the EU to spend 350m a week on the NHS. You must need to borrow or tax more, which is what they are doing. There's no such thing as "her Majesties royal navies". There's the Canadian navy, the Australian navy, and the royal navy. We will be no more and no less integrated if Australia or Canada chooses to become a republic. And if the Falklands were to be invaded, Australia and Canada would send the same number of frigates as they did the last time. 0.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 15 15:54:57 https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/global-combat-ship 6900 tonnes according to bae. Your figure, fully loaded, probably includes fuel, stores, crew, embarked aircraft etc.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 15 15:57:10 The French horizon class are 6700 tonnes displacement.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Nov 22 11:41:28 Frigate design decision challenged in Federal Court, putting $60B program in limbo Winning bid 'incapable of meeting three critical mandatory requirements,' says Alion Canada http://www...-decision-challenged-1.4915501
	show deleted posts