The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

It's good to see that discussions about the carriers are taking up a few pages of comments here, & rightly so.

For the UK Navy & Gov't, the decision was always going to be difficult to make, weighing up costs over nationalist pride, balanced against whether they're needed over replacing the Invincible class (which in fairness are getting a bit long in the tooth!).

Add to this a power shift in the form of the current PM retiring & being replaced, all in the middle of the biggest shake up military procurement & management since the start of the cold war.

Finally, lay on top of all of this one of the biggest design tasks that's been undertaken by the military contractors in the UK since the 1980's & top it off with a piece of doctrine from the Gov't that basically tells the UK shipbuilding Industry to merge, or die.


Can anyone who's read all 42 pages of this thread honestly say that they would volunteer for the task of manager for this project?


...& then, have a bunch of media people & spineless anti-nuclear MP's(who want to see the budget for these ships spent on other things, while removing future defence spending from the budget altogether) start on the idea that Building a 3rd ship for a foreign nation will be "as easy as pie" & a good thing?


Personally, I nailed my colours to the mast back in post #354 (April 2007).


Thales offered to build this ship in France, using the British design, but amending it to suit French requirements. A flat "Non" came back at them. (Can anyone comment why, other than it would cost France too much financially ?)


As an heavy industrial manufacturing economy, the UK (In point of fact), is on a precipice of it's own making.

With the current shortage of Engineering experience, due to population statistics (low birth rates thru the 70's & 80's), added to cut upon cut on investment in retaining engineering positions across the country in that time & right thru to the end of the 1990's, we are at a stage where we have reached the balancing point.

Between the need for the skills to undertake the construction of these 2 ships, the 6 currently ordered Type 45's, the 4 currently ordered Astute subs & numerous other projects (including the construction of over 1,000 new schools & 30 new hospitals throughout the UK over the next 5 years), on top of the construction of various arenas for the 2012 Olympics, there are just not enough skilled people to go around.

Does this help explain why the Construction Consortium for CVF is trying the pull the wind out of the sails of adding a French CVF to ours ??


Your comments please.

Systems Adict

 

[riksavage]

The restructuring of the UK military ship-building industry is critical moving forward. Too many hard lessons learnt, resulting in cost overruns becoming totally unacceptable in today’s world. Blank-cheque government contracts are over and companies such as BAE are now held accountable for spending over-runs and delays (as was seen with the problems associated with the CAD system for Astute).

The shrinking UK engineering skill levels has come about as a direct result of the UK changing from a heavy-industry / manufacturing society to a commercial / services society with a focus on the financial sector driven by London’s influence. Why should kid’s today select engineering when they can make millions as investment bankers in the city! I don’t see this ‘skill shortage’ as an issue, we live in a world driven by globalisation, bring in qualified engineers from Asia-Pac or the Indian Sub-Continent (positive vetted of course). At the end of the day you still retain proprietary control over critical-information. Go to any university in both the UK and US and see how many overseas Chinese are studying at prestigious institutions. These same individuals then go on to stay and work in highly specialised areas in avionics or microelectronics, often related to the defence industry.

I personally believe the UK defence industry is now stronger than at any time since the 70’s. Companies such as BAE and Rolls-Royce are thriving. The former is now the largest non-US defence contractor in terms of revenue. I have no-doubt BAE & VT will merge their respective ship-building arms to ensure cost-effectiveness and remove any current redundancies and go on to build the UK carriers. I also believe Gordon Brown may not prove a total nightmare for UK defence spending. Accepted he’s a savvy economist, but he also realises that national security in today’s unpredictable world is paramount in order to secure overseas investment. Brown has also confirmed his intention to get involved militarily in situations with a moral imperative (Sierra Leone / scenario). For this type of operation we need to maintain an expeditionary capability.

Moving forward on the carrier program I wish we would continue as planned with the super blocks being built in the UK for our vessels. I just see any cooperation above and beyond exchanging design ideas with the French as a recipe for disaster!

 

[Tasman]

The restructuring of the UK military ship-building industry is critical moving forward. Too many hard lessons learnt, resulting in cost overruns becoming totally unacceptable in today’s world. Blank-cheque government contracts are over and companies such as BAE are now held accountable for spending over-runs and delays (as was seen with the problems associated with the CAD system for Astute).

The shrinking UK engineering skill levels has come about as a direct result of the UK changing from a heavy-industry / manufacturing society to a commercial / services society with a focus on the financial sector driven by London’s influence. Why should kid’s today select engineering when they can make millions as investment bankers in the city! I don’t see this ‘skill shortage’ as an issue, we live in a world driven by globalisation, bring in qualified engineers from Asia-Pac or the Indian Sub-Continent (positive vetted of course). At the end of the day you still retain proprietary control over critical-information. Go to any university in both the UK and US and see how many overseas Chinese are studying at prestigious institutions. These same individuals then go on to stay and work in highly specialised areas in avionics or microelectronics, often related to the defence industry.

I personally believe the UK defence industry is now stronger than at any time since the 70’s. Companies such as BAE and Rolls-Royce are thriving. The former is now the largest non-US defence contractor in terms of revenue. I have no-doubt BAE & VT will merge their respective ship-building arms to ensure cost-effectiveness and remove any current redundancies and go on to build the UK carriers. I also believe Gordon Brown may not prove a total nightmare for UK defence spending. Accepted he’s a savvy economist, but he also realises that national security in today’s unpredictable world is paramount in order to secure overseas investment. Brown has also confirmed his intention to get involved militarily in situations with a moral imperative (Sierra Leone / scenario). For this type of operation we need to maintain an expeditionary capability.

Moving forward on the carrier program I wish we would continue as planned with the super blocks being built in the UK for our vessels. I just see any cooperation above and beyond exchanging design ideas with the French as a recipe for disaster!

It's good to read these positive comments. I am concerned at the skills shortages in the construction industry mentioned by Systems Adict but hopefully the efficiencies that should result if the merging of the shipbuilding arms of BAE and VT goes ahead, as you expect, will result in an efficient and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry. I agree with you that, whilst there ought to be sensible exchange of information and ideas, the CVFs should be built in the UK. Now I would just like to see the contracts signed and the construction begin.

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

The massive wave of mergers and acquisitions should influence the make-up of the European defence industry soon. Thales and DCN are merging in France, and there are rumours of further mergers between Thales and Finmeccanica. The British defence giants such as BAE are mostly looking at the US market.
The only way to ensure the success of pan-European defence programmes is via a merger of the owners of the shipyards and defence companies.
In aeronautics Panavia Tornado and EFA Typhoon were conceived by using collaborative relations between EADS-Airbus consortium companies or their major suppliers.
I may be dreaming but the day the British buy, say, Navantia or Finmeccanica (including Fincantieri shipyards) merges with Thales-DCN, then we'll see serious cost-cutting and uniformisation of components and -in the end- of designs and requirements as well. Until then, the best that can be achieved are joint ventures like CVF or Horizon, which, to say the least, are far from being optimal in terms of costs and delays.

cheers

 

[riksavage]

Agreed, BAE ‘s nailed its colours firmly to the US market, after all it is they who spend, and will continue to spend the big-bucks. Because of this I can not see them (BAE) looking to integrate more and more with the larger European defence companies because in order to continue driving their US acquisition programme forward they have to jump through endless bureaucratic and security hoops to ensure classified US proprietary information remains just that – classified. I still believe the American administration does not trust some European countries, particularly the French and for this reason would not like to see a company such as BAE merged with a partially state run company such as DCN. This could result in them vetoing any strategic purchases by BAE in the US of high-tech military equipment companies - not good news for BAE or the UK defence industry.

 

[swerve]

... This could result in them vetoing any strategic purchases by BAE in the US of high-tech military equipment companies - not good news for BAE or the UK defence industry.

I'm not at all sure that the interests of BAe & the UK defence industry coincide, because I fear that BAe may decide at some point that the UK defence industry is a dispensible sideline to its US business, if it continues as it's going.

BTW, BAe purchases of US companies does not necessarily make their technology available to the British part of the firm. Some of those US bureaucratic hoops concern restrictions on intra-company technology transfer.

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

Well, BAE has quietly changed it's strategy a little, from UK-US centred to world centred. They have dropped the "transatlantic defence company" tag and now advertize 6 home markets (UK, USA, Australia, Saudi-Arabia, South Africa and Sweden). They have not sold their shipyards and are still very large in the UK and with the DIS this should be increasing. Therefore I think a transformational merger with one of the big US defence primes is off for the medium term. And let me add luckily.

 

[Systems Adict]

I'm not at all sure that the interests of BAe & the UK defence industry coincide, because I fear that BAe may decide at some point that the UK defence industry is a dispensable sideline to its US business, if it continues as it's going.

BTW, BAe purchases of US companies does not necessarily make their technology available to the British part of the firm. Some of those US bureaucratic hoops concern restrictions on intra-company technology transfer.

I would have to agree with your sentiment (WRT having to jump thru DoD bureaucratic hoops), but the reality is, as often is, stranger than fiction.

UK defence manufacture NEEDS BAE, like it or not.(largest UK defence manufacturer (FACT))

US defence manufacture ALSO needs BAE, like it or not.(either 5th or 7th Largest Global defence Manufacturer (FACT))

BAE's portfolio of parts & equipment that they make for other larger US Core projects, & the fact that some of the really small companies (of no more than 100 employees) that BAE has purchased in the last 5 years, which were US owned & are key to the US intelligence services mean that they have a significant amount of pull with the DoD.

At the moment, BAE's purchase of Armour holdings (the Humvee makers), is allegedly in the balance, but I don't see that it will come up against much resistance.

This added to the fact the BAE owns (either outright, or by majority share), a significant portion of the US Navy's ship repair facilities & some manufacturing plant also means that they are not going to easily fade away.

But as always, like most countries, there will be contractual rules which prohibit the export of knowledge/data/equipment, thus preventing BAE from utilising parts from US equipment in the UK, & vice-versa.

Either way, BAE will be here to stay for a reasonable time (short of a merger with one of it's US "peers", which is doubtful in the next 3 - 5 years).


Systems Adict

 

[riksavage]

Rumblings in the MOD are coming to the fore pushing for a delay in the building of the new carriers, apparently driven by the army top-brass who are pressing hard for funds to be diverted to buy new equipment to fight the war in Afghanistan and elsewhere; FRES, UAV’s, new helo’s and heavy lift transport (more C-17’s) are high on the shopping list. The army argue the ‘clear and present danger’ to the UK is centred around terrorist activity, training and recruiting centres in failed states – hence the need for ground / CAS / surveillance related equipment being upgraded ASAP. This will coincide with their plans to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2008.

No talk of cancellation, just delay. However I’m seriously starting to doubt whether we will 65,000 ton vessels. Worse case scenario I would like to see the UK buy at least two US LHA 6 / LHX / LHA(R) type vessels, still capable of carrying 20 Harrier / F35 STOL aircraft and cheaper at the price.

 

[alexsa]

No talk of cancellation, just delay. However I’m seriously starting to doubt whether we will 65,000 ton vessels. Worse case scenario I would like to see the UK buy at least two US LHA 6 / LHX / LHA(R) type vessels, still capable of carrying 20 Harrier / F35 STOL aircraft and cheaper at the price.

LHD7 has a pretty limited airwing capacity in the hanger and has no ramp for effective VSTOL operations. In addition LHD7 cost in the order of 1.4 billion USD. this is not cheap. Add to that the ships ahve a crew of 1004 personal this will be an expensive beast ot man and run.

LHA-6/LHX/LHA(R) have a larger hanger area but it is tull just ove half the length of the ship and only permits the carriage of about 8 to 10 JSF in the hanger. The rest are on deck. Global security shows 8.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lha-r-2005-line5.gif

Again I doubt this thing is going to cost less than LHD7 (suggestions of a price of about 3 billion) and it still has a very high number of crew at around 1100.

These are not good options for the RN

 

[Izzy1]

Either way, BAE will be here to stay for a reasonable time (short of a merger with one of it's US "peers", which is doubtful in the next 3 - 5 years).

Not so sure on that. Speaking with my company hat on, there has long been a view that a tie-up with Boeing is not so far away - despite the official denials over a number of years. he Jane's artcile below is the most modern I can find, the other two links are dated, but prove that this isn't just a flash of short-term fantasy.

MARKET INTELLIGENCE

Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006


JANE'S DEFENCE INDUSTRY - NOVEMBER 01, 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boeing denies interest in BAE Systems
Ben Vogel Editor of Janes.com

BOEING has rebutted market speculation that it is interested in acquiring BAE Systems.

"There is nothing to it," a Boeing spokesperson told Jane's on 13 October 2006. "We do not have any discussions with BAE Systems, and we have no plans for any discussions."

Market rumours of Boeing's interest in BAE Systems had helped push the latter's share price up to 419.75 pence by 1303 h local on 13 October.

BAE Systems was unavailable for comment at the time of writing.

A Boeing bid for a group as large as BAE Systems is improbable, particularly as the latter's position as number six supplier to the US Department of Defense (after the acquisition of United Defense in 2005) could preclude any such deal on US competition grounds.

As Jane's World Defence Industry will state in its 20th edition (to be published in March 2007): "Consolidation of the prime contractors in the US is now largely complete and there is a strong argument that further merger and acquisition activity among these would erode competition to an unacceptable degree."

The twin facts that the UK government has a 'golden share' in BAE Systems, and has championed the group through the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) white paper, would also militate against a bid from a foreign contractor.

But since consolidation among US prime contractors has been exhausted, the next logical step for the US defence industry would be a strategy of expansion abroad through acquisitions or mergers with the larger European companies - a step beyond the ad hoc joint ventures and collaborations that are currently in evidence.

The interest may not only flow in one direction. "UK-owned defence companies are at a peak value today," defence academic (and former head of the Defence Export Services Organisation) Tony Edwards told the Jane's Defence Conference in London on 10 October 2006. "That's why a number of UK-owned companies... are actually looking at their stock options and thinking 'who can we sell to?'

"Sure enough, we have had General Dynamics putting a ruler over Rolls-Royce, and Boeing have announced that they are coming to Europe to invest and they are looking at the UK first." Edwards added: "I know there were a couple of secret meetings last week."

Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS), revealed earlier in October 2006 that the group is looking to buy in the UK to compensate for an expected slowdown in the US defence budget.

Boeing IDS, which posted turnover of USD31 billion in 2005, is certainly seeking greater involvement in UK defence projects alongside fellow US-based contractors Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon - all of which enjoy a more prominent presence in the UK.

In pursuit of this objective, Boeing Defence UK is establishing a new facility in Bristol in an effort to capture work on the British Army's high-priority Future Rapid Effect System (FRES).

The company is engaged in discussions with the UK Ministry of Defence on the FRES programme and is committed to providing further in-country support as the Defence Procurement Agency refines its FRES acquisition programme.

"If you think about DIS, it is about growing capabilities onshore. We are mindful of that and can grow [UK capabilities] through acquisitions," said the Boeing spokesperson.

In terms of General Dynamics' reported interest in Rolls-Royce (another UK company in which the government holds a golden share), an official at the US company told Jane's that "it would be inappropriate for us to comment on such speculation". Rolls-Royce was unavailable for comment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 Jane's Information Group

http://robots.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/02/03/boeing.bae.reut/

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=666112003

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

I doubt that either BAE Systems or Rolls-Royce are going to be bought or are merging in the medium term. I think they will stay independent in the long term, both are strong groups and in any deal there is the need for proxy boards and other issues for operational independence of the British side of the group. I think it is more likely that companies such as Cobham, Meggitt, Ultra Electronics, etc... might be bid targets. Anyway, I hope all stay British-owned as the UK needs a good mix between international and domestic groups. The domestic groups are largely centred around BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce that is why they need to stay independent.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not at all sure that the interests of BAe & the UK defence industry coincide, because I fear that BAe may decide at some point that the UK defence industry is a dispensible sideline to its US business, if it continues as it's going.

BTW, BAe purchases of US companies does not necessarily make their technology available to the British part of the firm. Some of those US bureaucratic hoops concern restrictions on intra-company technology transfer.

ITAR issues can be dealt with via structural/corporate firewalls. My company is going through a similar situation at present where we need to have a corporate and intellectual firewall in place to comply with ITAR issues

 

[nz enthusiast]

I was hoping them would get a second ship of the 'Ocean' class so they could divert pretty much all the amphibious operations away from the larger 'fleet' aircraft carriers.

6 Type 45 destroyers will never be enough, they come across as reassuring that Britain will have at least 8, I think 12 may be pushing it, especially if a Labour government remains in power, so 10 would be nice. Same with the Astute class submarines.

My god please no more cuts to the frigate force, just because the Cold War is over does it mean that submarines vanished from the face of the Earth. Nations, especially those in the Pacific (oh yeah forgot nothing east of the canal ) have rapidly growing submarine fleets.

 

[Systems Adict]

Not so sure on that. Speaking with my company hat on, there has long been a view that a tie-up with Boeing is not so far away - despite the official denials over a number of years. he Jane's artcile below is the most modern I can find, the other two links are dated, but prove that this isn't just a flash of short-term fantasy.

From practical experience....

I worked at BAE Warton in 2000, prior to 9/11 & the crash in the worldwide A/C market, Boeing was talking about a new SST / the dreamliner & concorde was still flying. Every other conversation was about the up & coming merger with Boeing.

Here I am nearly 7 years on & NOTHING other than the demise of the SST/dreamliner & 9/11 has happened.


To quote the band "Public Enemy"

"Don't believe the hype !"

Systems Adict.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sorry to but inn boys but, i'm wondering were the F35B is going to fit into the RN's force structure once the CVF's are built, especially if you build CATOBAR variants. You'd be better off buying F35C's in that case. So whats the deal with the RN's F35B's????????

 

[contedicavour]

Sorry to but inn boys but, i'm wondering were the F35B is going to fit into the RN's force structure once the CVF's are built, especially if you build CATOBAR variants. You'd be better off buying F35C's in that case. So whats the deal with the RN's F35B's????????

CATOBAR is only planned for the French CVF, not for the RN Queen Elizabeth CVFs.
Besides, if the USN LHD7 alternative were ever considered, having F35B is simply vital ! I like this idea of LHD7 anyway, it would perfectly fit with the UK armed forces strategy of focusing on fast troop deployment all the while providing some air cover.

cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It seems the RN wont simply be relliant on STOVL fighters for air defnce, and in that case the large investment in the F35B wont be usefull. If they choose a STOBAR design they would be much better off with F35C's and typhoons. if they do indeed go ahead with one of these designs the lerge investment in the F35 wil have been somewhat of a waste IMO. The CAS role the F35B would fulfill in the RAF could easily be done by future harrier variants, for alot less cost.

 

[contedicavour]

It seems the RN wont simply be relliant on STOVL fighters for air defnce, and in that case the large investment in the F35B wont be usefull. If they choose a STOBAR design they would be much better off with F35C's and typhoons. if they do indeed go ahead with one of these designs the lerge investment in the F35 wil have been somewhat of a waste IMO. The CAS role the F35B would fulfill in the RAF could easily be done by future harrier variants, for alot less cost.

I'm not aware of any plans to develop "future harrier variants" as all of the existing ones won't be able to fly beyond 2020-25, they will simply be too old.
Typhoon doesn't exist in a navalized version, and its R&D would cost a fortune nobody can afford.
F35Cs can only operate on conventional carriers with catapults, so a STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery) which has no catapults, is incompatible with F35Cs.
One last thing : the RAF has always been just as much interested as the RN into modern CAS planes. Once the Harrier is gone, the F35B will be the only plane left on Earth who fits the requirements.

cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I'm not aware of any plans to develop "future harrier variants" as all of the existing ones won't be able to fly beyond 2020-25, they will simply be too old.
Typhoon doesn't exist in a navalized version, and its R&D would cost a fortune nobody can afford.
F35Cs can only operate on conventional carriers with catapults, so a STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery) which has no catapults, is incompatible with F35Cs.
One last thing : the RAF has always been just as much interested as the RN into modern CAS planes. Once the Harrier is gone, the F35B will be the only plane left on Earth who fits the requirements.

cheers

I cant see the huge costs in navalising a Typhoon, especially given the capabilty. CATOBAR is a good idea and i'm not shure why it's been sidelined. At lest you get the capability for fixed wing tankers and AEW&C aircraft, rather than Sea King AEW. However if both of these options have been discarded then i agree F35B is the only choice. Although i was under the impression that the CVF would not just be a STOVL variant, but if that assumption is wrong then the F35B is the only choice. As a replacement for harrier i agree the F35B is the only aircraft available.