The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

Further to comments made above, Thales had put an offer before the French Govt. to design & "build" a carrier for the French Navy. According to a press release yesterday, The French Govt. rejected it out of hand, as they have stated that the UK carrier design is more aligned to their needs.

That aside, has ther been an announcement made about any decision on how soon they'll sign the build contract??

I ask the question, as the BAE share price just jumped 10.5p, to over £4.50, which implies they've just got a big contract.

Any ideas ??

 

[Super Nimrod]

I have posted this elsewhere but it is relevant as its direct from the First Sea Lord

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6369655.stm

"Sir Jonathan also said that he had raised the issue privately with the prime minister and the chancellor.

He summarised his position to journalists: "Give me two carriers and just less than a billion and I will be off your back, a happy boy". "

 

[Tasman]

He summarised his position to journalists: "Give me two carriers and just less than a billion and I will be off your back, a happy boy". "

I just love this comment!

Let's hope that it is heard by the decision makers in Treasury.

Cheers

 

[Dave H]

The House of Commons Defence Committee report came out yesterday.

It makes interesting reading. In summary the Govt are demanding much more progress in consolodating UK shipbuilding and progress to less duplication in effort and cost efficiencies (downsizing?) Looks like they want BAE and VT to merge interests ad point out that more progress would eb made but for the fact that the order book is relatively full for he next ten years, hence industry has become complacent. The report says the govt view the order book post ten years to shrink considerably (somewhat arrogant, Labour might not be in 2 yrs from now)

It warns that the main gate might be put off until industry shows more "progress" in overcoming difficulties ie streamlining/mergers. It acknowledges that this may lead to a capability gap.

Looks like the govt is using the Carriers as a big stick to get UK Industry to become more efficient which probably means one manufacturer building ships in fewer yards giving the taxpayer cheaper ships (but less jobs?)

The report does however seem to commit to the ships, as well as Type 45, Astute, future UAV's and talked strongly about sovereignty over products and technology and talks of boosting R and D.

 

[Super Nimrod]

More from today's Daily telegraph. Clearly it was a rather interesting lunch with the first sea Lord

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/17/navy17.xml

Possibility of resignation etc ...

Sadly it would take more than one man to go to focus political minds. If the top 10 people in the RN did so, or at least threatened to, then any government would be in trouble at that point regardless of party. :nutkick

 

[Tasman]

It is pleasing to see that the First Sea Lord is prepared to risk his career by publicly defending the need for a strong RN rather than merely acting as a spokesman for government naval policy.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

It is pleasing to see that the First Sea Lord is prepared to risk his career by publicly defending the need for a strong RN rather than merely acting as a spokesman for government naval policy.

Cheers

The man -
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.1754

 

[Padfoot]

woops!

First Sea Lord responds to reports over "Navy cuts"
16 Feb 07

Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sir Jonathon Band has responded to media reports about the funding of the Royal Navy.

In a statement issued on 16 February 2007 Admiral Band, who is professional head of the Royal Navy, explained:

"I do not think, and have not said, that the Royal Navy needs a £1bn-a-year extra to do its job or to keep ships at sea. Today’s Royal Navy is funded to do what is asked of it – not least thanks to a current investment programme of £14bn, and the delivery of 28 new ships in the last decade alone.


"As the Prime Minister has said, if we as a nation are to extend what our Armed Forces can do, the public needs to feel comfortable with the economic choices needed to make that happen.

"I welcome the way the Prime Minister has started this debate, as I welcome the Government’s commitment to the new aircraft carriers, and my comments today have been aimed at informing this public debate about the long-term funding of our Armed Forces, nothing more.”

In a separate, recent letter to the national press, Rear Admiral ALAN MASSEY, Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, has said:

"No claim that 19 Royal Navy ships have been decommissioned and 11 sold since the Falklands conflict is complete without mention of the awesome power of the ships that have replaced them.

"The Navy is currently benefiting from a Pounds 14 billion investment package - the largest warship building programme in 20 years. In the past decade, 28 ships and one submarine have been put into service, including the new helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, two Albion Class amphibious assault ships, four Bay Class amphibious logistic support ships and three River Class patrol vessels.

"We look forward to the arrival of new Astute Class attack submarines, Daring Class Destroyers and two new aircraft carriers - the largest warships ever constructed in the UK.

"The fleet today is designed to meet the demands we face in 2007, not those of 25 years ago. To claim we could not now prevail in a conflict such as the Falklands is wrong. The Royal Navy has the strength, not least in a greatly enhanced amphibious capability, that sees it well prepared to respond to any emerging threat.

"Anyone who might tangle with today's Royal Navy would come off worse."

Lol @ the Telegraph.

 

[type45]

We must remember that few of the ships have been thought of or orderd on Labours tenure. Ocean, Albion class, Astute, and the Type 45s where all the ideas of the previous government. Ocean and the Type 23s where all put into service by the conservative government during there time in power. If you look all the Labour government has done is took onboard the conservatives ideas and then shrunk the navy but justified this with the promise of 2 new carriers (which i dont personally think will be built and if they are they will be reclassified as through deck cruisers and scaled down). The Labour government also got rid of Britannia, which annoyed me.

 

[mark22w]

The Labour government also got rid of Britannia, which annoyed me.

Britannia occupies much the same role now as it did when in commission - great for tourism...

I agree most of the 28 new ships commissioned in the past decade (are there really 28??) were planned and ordered / in production under the previous government. This government one year into power stated the future for the RN was two new carriers. Nine years on and no orders.

I can't quite bring myself to agree with the statement - "The fleet today is designed to meet the demands we face in 2007, not those of 25 years ago. To claim we could not now prevail in a conflict such as the Falklands is wrong. The Royal Navy has the strength, not least in a greatly enhanced amphibious capability, that sees it well prepared to respond to any emerging threat..."

All being well in 2015 perhaps once the carriers, T45s and Astutes are actually in service. IMHO today's fleet looks closer to 25 years ago than the comments suggest. Amphibious capability aside granted.

 

[mark22w]

It is pleasing to see that the First Sea Lord is prepared to risk his career by publicly defending the need for a strong RN rather than merely acting as a spokesman for government naval policy.

Cheers

Agreed. Sadly resignation of the then First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir David Luce in 1966 as a result of a labour government cancelling the 55,000 ton CVA-01 fixed wing carrier (projected HMS Queen Elizabeth class) and paying off the remaining carriers (five) achieved very little...

I do think times have changed however and the impact would be felt this time around in Westminster.

 

[type45]

Agreed. Sadly resignation of the then First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir David Luce in 1966 as a result of a labour government cancelling the 55,000 ton CVA-01 fixed wing carrier (projected HMS Queen Elizabeth class) and paying off the remaining carriers (five) achieved very little...

I do think times have changed however and the impact would be felt this time around in Westminster.

I agree and with the media world we live in today and tabloids willing to blow it out of all proportion it could be a major embarrasment for Labour. Tabloid newspapers could be on our side for once.

 

[Zzims]

Rather a sad end result of a once Powerful Maritime Power. Power projection its the only asset UK needs, with involvements in far flunged regions.

 

[Tasman]

Rather a sad end result of a once Powerful Maritime Power. Power projection its the only asset UK needs, with involvements in far flunged regions.

All is not lost yet though. Pressure certainly needs to applied to both government and opposition to ensure that the present construction program is implemented, especially the two carriers.

If the RN gets the new carriers to go with its SSNs and a strong amphibious force it will be far more capable of mounting a successful 'Falklands type 'operation than was the case in 1982. It obviously needs more surface combatants as well, but so long as there are enough to support the carrier and amphibious groups the RN should be able to prevail in any conflict it may find itself in where it is on its own.

In any conflict where the protection of trade is a major issue it is likely that the RN would be operating alongside the navies of the EEC and the USA.

Cheers

 

[Dr Phobus]

I certainly see the radical consolidation of UK ship building. The core of the RN is certainly intact, however, the additional need for patrol and warfighting surface units is becoming the issue here. I feel, maybe, the momentum may start to swing the other direction somewhat. we can only wait and see, more efficent ship biulding/design industry maybe able to deliver moe of what the country can afford, however, it is time the government where forthright enough to put the money where its needed verses just stripping everything to pay for the wars... the people, need to pay for the RN and not allow the government to strip it away...

 

[Tasman]

I certainly see the radical consolidation of UK ship building. The core of the RN is certainly intact, however, the additional need for patrol and warfighting surface units is becoming the issue here. I feel, maybe, the momentum may start to swing the other direction somewhat. we can only wait and see, more efficent ship biulding/design industry maybe able to deliver moe of what the country can afford, however, it is time the government where forthright enough to put the money where its needed verses just stripping everything to pay for the wars... the people, need to pay for the RN and not allow the government to strip it away...

I agree with what you say, especially in relation to the need for more efficient shipbuilding and the design of vessels that will do the job but which are as affordable as possible. Sacrificing the future of the defence forces to pay for a war seems to me to be short term political expediency and is very wrong. Hopefully you are right about the momentum swinging.

I also agree with type45 that it seems the media is starting to come out against the cuts (perhaps British pride is at stake) with the result, as Mark 22 suggests, that politicians (especially those backbenchers in marginal seats) will be wary of taking this path. It is essential to keep up this pressure.

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Have the Tories made any clear commitments to naval defence spending if they came back to power after the next elections ? Who is the shadow minister of defence ?
In Italy we've been very surprised by the fact that the centre-right had cut defence spending while the centre-left lifted it back where it was (which remains totally inadequate, though still...).
I'd just make sure at least the Tories make firm commitments on this (specifically the Queen Elisabeths, keeping at least the 6 Type45, developing a successor to the Type23s, reaching 8 Astute orders...)

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Have the Tories made any clear commitments to naval defence spending if they came back to power after the next elections ?

No. How can they? The election is miles off - making promises now would be ridiculous, especially if the economy took a turn for the worse.

However, I believe they would be better able to fund increases in the defence budget, because they're not obsessed by tax cuts anymore, nor do they believe in sinking £ billions into big computer projects, ID cards, etc.

There is also still much hope that CVF will go ahead even under Labour (read recent comments in the Times that said the Treasury has agreed to fund it, just waiting for the BAE/VT merger) and that there will be at least 6 Type-45s. Steel wouldn't have been cut on HMS Duncan (no.6) if the government was planning to cancel the last orders.

As to the Astutes, hopefully we will hear more good news on that in the coming months - work started on no.4 about a week & a half ago, so hopefully a concrete order will be coming up.

Who is the shadow minister of defence ?

Dr Liam Fox.

 

[Dave H]

There have been varying referencs to the carriers made by William Hague in the context of needing flexible responses to future seurity threats. When the 23's were cut the Tories pledged to keep them, only they have gone.

The possible closing of Portsmouth might provoke a more vocal tory response and firm stance on the navy, paricularly if a base in the mainly Tory South (though Pompey is mixed) gets axed over Rosyth by a Scottish Prime Minister.

Lots of tories are old school public school and army types, the loss of a regimental tie gets more anger than a frigate or two im afraid.

 

[Systems Adict]

Although I think I'm about to go slightly off-topic, seeing as it's been mentioned above, I know that it's something that's relevant to the discussion.


I have a question & would be interested the view of others. I've put my thoughts below it.....



"How do you view the state of the UK Shipbuilding industry & do you think that it's valid that the UK Govt. can force two large companies into a merger?"



Personally, I can understand the logic behind it. By creating ONE company to do the work, the Govt. doesn't have to justify choosing one company over another in order to appease / pacify constituants in the South of England / North East / the Fourth & Clyde valley.

However, I feel this exercise is all about cost effectiveness for the MoD / DPA & not entirely advantageous to either BAE Systems or VT Group.

Additionally, these companies are literally being held to ransom, as it appears that no decision on the carriers will be made until the "merger" is resolved.

As stated in other passages above, here we are 10 years on from Labour's latest turn at the helm of "HMS UK". The captain (the PM), has made promises that still seem so far away over the horizion, that they are still pipe dreams. The longer they wait on putting pen to paper, the longer it will be before these "showpiece" / essential vessels will actually be in service.

At present, I'm pretty sure that if they haven't cut steel by mid 2008, there will be no vessel "in-service" by 2015.

Anyone want to comment?

Systems Adict