The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
And will probably drive the last nail in the chest of what was once the greatest shipbuilding industry "British" in the world.
It would be Political suicide no? To export all those jobs to S/E Asia?
Self sufficiency in the production of military equipment is one of the things that separate countries that can operate independently from countries that are dependent on others. In many ways industry can be regarded as the fourth arm of defence. Whilst it may make sense to acquire some items of specialist equipment from offshore as much as possible should be manufactured in the UK, even at greater cost if necessary. I think Britain should be aiming to improve its naval shipbuilding capacity, not export it! If this industry is allowed to die it will be very hard to resurrect it in the future.
Cheers
Cheers
While I understand the way you've thought about this, I've got to say that you're way off base.
Q. Will make BAE etc work harder - How many shipbuilding companies are the in the UK that COULD build the likes of T-45 / CVF at this present time ?
A. BAE &/or VT - That's about it ! Although we have other yards in the UK, how many of them are operational ?
Swan Hunter - Closed - Ran into the ground by it's Senior management team, after attempting to "milk the UK Govt for more cash"(Allegedly)
Site now being "raped", with all equipment being offered for sale to either India or another asian nation, at a fraction of what they were actually offered for it in the late 90's by A.N. other company, mentioned elsewhere in this post.
Cammel Laird - Closed - Tried some ship repair work in the 90's. Facilities pretty much flattened & turned into Condo's. (AFAIK)
Appledore - Closed - Was a small yard which needed a constant work load/propping up from UK Govt to keep it going, as the commercial world is sewn up by the the large companies in Asia.
Ferguson's - Still open (only just), comparable with Appledore & was once affiliated to them in the 1980's.
Harland & Wolf (Northern Ireland) - Depends whom you speak to. Production facilities are mothballed - Design facilities are manned but not in any great way.
Babcock (Rosyth) - Open - Heavily reliant on ship repairs from the MoD, but has he facilities to undertake the task.
Other than 2 or 3 very small commercial yards which can survive on repair work, this leaves just BAE & VT -
BAE - x3 Facilities (1 in Barrow in Furness, 2 on the Clyde), employs approx 10 - 15,000 people directly through these facilities.
VT - Employs approx. 2,500 employees. Its main board has indicated to its shareholders that it would like to get out of the "Shipbuilding Industry", to concentrate on other things.
So, do we have enough internal competition within the UK to warrant this?
Answer = NO !
Again, this in theory sounds great, cheaper hulls, smaller margins = more cash to build more hulls.
Reality - on CVF, through the early years of this century, after the initial contract announcement, the UK govt has held onto "a figure" for each ship. As time has progressed, even though the cost of parts & raw materials have increased, the govt has still held onto the figure.
Through the greater part of last year, even though the build consortium has laid the books "open" in front of the Govt, to explain where the costs have increased, & where they can trim the fat (what little there is) to help limit any increase, the UK govt has been "haggling" over approx. £30M - £50M, on a £3.2 Billion contract.
Finally, going back to my initial post on this particular topic within this thread, the fact that there are "discussions" about the possibility of outsourcing hull manufacture to the far east, this point alone would kill not only the UK shipbuilding fraternity, but approx. 5 jobs for every one that is in the yards that would be affected/closed. This action would, seriously undermine the GDP of the UK, as well as the engineering experience that would be lost. Something that the UK Govt is only too aware of !
(see the link below for various comments on Type 45 project. There are other monographs, even one on the build strategey for CVF !)
www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1486
Such a move could be compared to the US outsourcing it's DDX & LCS programs to the far east. - Completely Farcical !!
Added to the destruction of the Industry would be the fact that the hull design could be in theory, "commercially available" & this would allow other nations to utilise the design to have "identical" hulls. This could allow them to work out key design characteristics, possibly to the disadvantage of the RN.
Note : The majority of what I've laid out above is from my memory, so is liable to the odd factual inaccuracy. If anyone wishes to correct them, or add futher comment, I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Systems Adict
I think the RN should be aiming to have self sufficent ship building capability. Because once its gone its nearly impossible to get back.
That means good planing, good scheduling, and good operations. You have to find your niche. And price isnt' going to fly when spain and asia can slap you silly.
Either build bigger or smaller units than the US and pitch them at military expanding countries. While the T-45 is nice, 6 is barely enough. You would want atleast 2 or 3 escorting a CVF. Build more. Or build a huge one, licence it to the americans and build 3 for yourself. What about partnering with Australia with its collins replacement, and building say 4 in the UK and reestablishing the SSK's.
That means good planing, good scheduling, and good operations. You have to find your niche. And price isnt' going to fly when spain and asia can slap you silly.
Either build bigger or smaller units than the US and pitch them at military expanding countries. While the T-45 is nice, 6 is barely enough. You would want atleast 2 or 3 escorting a CVF. Build more. Or build a huge one, licence it to the americans and build 3 for yourself. What about partnering with Australia with its collins replacement, and building say 4 in the UK and reestablishing the SSK's.
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
Not closed. It builds the hulls for superyachts that then get outfitted at DMLs facilities. These range in size and some are 1700 tonnes and about 82 metres, but one iirc was already over 3000 tonnes.
About 3500 in the submarines business and about 4000 in the shipbuilding business.
contedicavour
New Member
Well one thing is sure, all European shipyards run collaborative multinational programmes... except for the UK.
Even the nationalistic French focus on international programmes for everything except SSN-SSBN (for strategic reasons) and LPHs (basically a civilian programme).
The UK is the only one left running on its own almost all its programmes, and this despite the fact that numbers of ships ordered aren't sufficient enough to support a 100% national building plan anymore.
cheers (nonetheless
)
Even the nationalistic French focus on international programmes for everything except SSN-SSBN (for strategic reasons) and LPHs (basically a civilian programme).
The UK is the only one left running on its own almost all its programmes, and this despite the fact that numbers of ships ordered aren't sufficient enough to support a 100% national building plan anymore.
cheers (nonetheless
)whats the latest news on the CVF program. sorry but ive been having problems with my internet so havnt been up to date recently. cheers guys.
as for the british shipping industry, its going down big time. the government are just asses and wont fund them or keep them going. if we were in america or france for that matter the gov' would probably give them a helping hand.
as for the british shipping industry, its going down big time. the government are just asses and wont fund them or keep them going. if we were in america or france for that matter the gov' would probably give them a helping hand.
Super Nimrod
New Member
The latest re the CVF is in today's Telegraph and is not unrelated to what you guys have been discussing re shipyards
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/05/29/cncarriers29.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/05/29/cncarriers29.xml
I guess the discussions with the French are one reason for the delays in awarding contracts. The thing that intrigues me is that MOD is still talking about delivery of the carriers in 2012 and 2015. I will be absolutely amazed if the first CVF is delivered to the RN in 2012!
Cheers
contedicavour
New Member
Agree, 2012 is impossible. It takes 4-5 years to put the ship in the water, another 2 to fit it out completely with electronics and weaponry, and another year to finalize operations with aircrafts. Even if the first of class is laid down before the end of 2007, it won't be fully operational before late 2014.
Anyway, the F35Bs shouldn't be ready before, so the only thing we should regret is the absence of Sea Harriers with BVR missiles until then...
cheers
Taken from the same article:
"The MoD said last week that Lord Drayson would only sanction any joint production with the French if it made sense for UK shipbuilding and did not delay delivery of the Navy's carriers, due in 2012 and 2015."
If this is true, end of story, because there is no-way shared manufacturing with the French will meet this time-frame. Personally I think he failed to 'engage brain before mouth'. After the Horizon debacle, there is no-way BAE / VT want to get involved in a shared construction project with the French, simply too much grief and infighting over construction share, delivery priorities etc!
Drayson is a savvy operator, respected across UK industry for his business acumen, not your typical bureaucrat.
"The MoD said last week that Lord Drayson would only sanction any joint production with the French if it made sense for UK shipbuilding and did not delay delivery of the Navy's carriers, due in 2012 and 2015."
If this is true, end of story, because there is no-way shared manufacturing with the French will meet this time-frame. Personally I think he failed to 'engage brain before mouth'. After the Horizon debacle, there is no-way BAE / VT want to get involved in a shared construction project with the French, simply too much grief and infighting over construction share, delivery priorities etc!
Drayson is a savvy operator, respected across UK industry for his business acumen, not your typical bureaucrat.
contedicavour
New Member
Fine, but how will BAE and VT manage to ensure there won't be cost overruns vs planned if construction techniques don't evolve a bit ?
The advantage of shared construction of several modules of the ship's hull is that economies of scale can play...
Anyway even without shared production with the French, there's not a chance in hell that the QE2 will be ready before end of 2014 (cf my previous post)
cheers
The advantage of shared construction of several modules of the ship's hull is that economies of scale can play...
Anyway even without shared production with the French, there's not a chance in hell that the QE2 will be ready before end of 2014 (cf my previous post)
cheers
There have been a lot less pussy-footing from the French side than between MoD and the British Industrials.
From where we're standing we're waiting for them to sort their internal-out and the latest drealock is an all UK problem too.
I'm living in the UKs since 1991 and the press blames France for literally weverything from Diana death to the NHS debacle to Astute cost over-run.
If i got a dautghter sometime i'll name her Jeanne for sure.
ohhhhh, more bloody delays. and now, there refusing to work with the french.:shudder i sence a cancellation coming on, if the carriers are cancelled it will really be a thorn in the side of the RN. wont they be getting those "excuse for an aircraft carrier" things like we have now as invincible replacements?
May be it's a joke. Brits are trying to gain more work for their yards.
3.9 billion £ is already un under-estimate price considering the long time needed to build the 2 carriers.
Without the partnership the price will rise, that could put the MoD towards a completely stop.
No good for both the countries. They need the 2 super carriers for their own interests.
3.9 billion £ is already un under-estimate price considering the long time needed to build the 2 carriers.
Without the partnership the price will rise, that could put the MoD towards a completely stop.
No good for both the countries. They need the 2 super carriers for their own interests.
The real problem is NOT workshare.
It is the FACT that Britain is totally unable to produce anything relatively cheap, on cost and on time.
Now MoD is unwilling to put up wuth the fat cats and there is a gouvernement decision on a condition for the signing of the contract: Restructuration.
They need to sanitise their industry or else MoD wont be able and unwilling to pay the bill.
For France, doing it alone would already be affordable (<> 20% cheaper).
It is the FACT that Britain is totally unable to produce anything relatively cheap, on cost and on time.
Now MoD is unwilling to put up wuth the fat cats and there is a gouvernement decision on a condition for the signing of the contract: Restructuration.
They need to sanitise their industry or else MoD wont be able and unwilling to pay the bill.
For France, doing it alone would already be affordable (<> 20% cheaper).
Last edited:
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
Ah..................... .
So why did France ask the MoD to build them together? And why did the Thales CEO say that the joint build would be cheaper for both countries taxpayers?
Source: Navy Matters
Dont tell me you didnt know that it was first and foremost for purely geopolitical reasons.
First our Navy Couter-Admiral wanted a CdG II, a Nuclear powered vessel, second the choice to go conventional was made purely on the ground of making the collaboration with Britain possuble.
They openly stated that the idea was to re-inforce the European Defence industrial bases and collaboration between France and the UKs.
It doesnt change the FACT that Thales France and DCN have given a bill 20% lower to DGA and proposed fully-National alternatives for 20% lower cost too.
French shipbuilding industry doesn't need restructuration and DGA finances are clean for a number of years now, not the UK case...
No disrespect but we know damned well what British ideas of cost-saving end-up to be generally...
Not my reference, informative yes but WAY off when it comes to France's PoV.
They should try vaccationing in Paris more often.
« Pour faire rigoureusement les mêmes bateaux, les Anglais sont plus chers que nous. Si nous construisons des navires avec eux, ils feront une grosse économie et nous une petite », explique une source proche du dossier.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=103546
Super Nimrod
New Member
Even if they don't do a full workshare there are bound to be some other economies of scale on the procurement side, unless the French completely redesign their craft.