The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

R

riksavage

Banned Member
The MOD has just announced a £100M contract with BAE Systems Insyte, to install a new more powerful and improved 3D maritime Medium Range Radar capable of tracking a target the size of a 'snooker ball' over 20km away. Clealry snooker-balls' represent a major threat because SAMSON can do the same at much grater ranges! Combine this with the announced upgrade program for Seawolf and the possible replacement of an even more capable missile then we can expect to see the life of the T23’s being extended. They are still excellent ships, and their hull's are still sound.

The new radar will replace existing systems on our Type23 frigates, landing ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark and the assault helicopter carrier HMS Ocean - as well as the two new aircraft carriers. No mention of any upgrades to the Type 42‘s, they are definitely history now the T45’s are coming on line. Due to the small numbers of the latter I can't see them being anything other than dedicated area defence ships for the amphibious fleet, leaving the upgraded T23’s to carryout any stand alone global commitments inaddition to providing ASW coverage.
 
B

Brutoni

New Member
Hi guys, i think at some level we are heading in the wrong direction. Right now the Royal Navy while maybe needing the new Carriers has made an error in ordering the t-45 before the FSC.

It seems to do what the Navy and MoD always does. Order what is due instead of what it REQUIRES. We are complaining about the cost of big ships doing small ships jobs. Why then are we ordering massive Aircraft carriers, Fleet submarines and Large AAD destroyers.

While those are needed right now we could have instead have started ordering the first of 4 T-45, the first two could have been held back and the orders for 5-8 C-3's placed. They would be much quicker to build and far more suitable for deployment in the Falklands, Mediteranian, Gulf and Patrol of British waters against terrorism. The first of the 4 T-45s could be underway to provide protection for the carriers when they come in. With 2 more to enter service after the carriers.

As the carriers finished building more C-3's could be ordered. They could have been built on a large hull (steel is cheap and air is free) so that the C-2 could use there hull and essentially be a far more weapons and sensor packed warship. Mid range but cheap because of the experience with the C-3 on the same hull used for the C-2.

I mean what a small vessel like that can be turned out in say 8 months? So Straight after the carriers another 4 could be built, allowing the saving during that year and the preperation for the C-2 to be built on the same hull. By that time 9-12 C-3's will have been built and the experience with that hull will be telling.

Finally i want to know WHY oh WHY does the RN insist on altering its batches SOOO much. You all wonder why the cost goes up when it orders 12 ships in 3 batches and each batch is completely different....

ORDER them, build them and then if a fault is seen REFIT en mass. Its a far cheaper and a far more efficient engineering method and cuts costs. The bloody americans do it too.


Right now we need NUMBERS.

The C-3 fits the light patrol duties and the C-2 can be a mid level replacement for some of the lighter duties of the T-23 and T-22. Once all that is done it would be an experienced shipbuilding industry that built the final high end ships.

You have 4 T-45 and the first of the C-2's. Build the final 2 T-45's to protect the carriers and start on the remaining C-2's and C-1's

BY 2025 we would have a similar projected fleet size. THe treasury is happier (doesnt feel the crunch of multiple EXPENSIVE fleet replacements), the Government is happy. THe RN is generating publicity with its patrol ships seizing drugs and such like. The royal navy is more likely to argue that it needs more high end power projections to start getting properly involved in stabilising the middle east arguing that bringing that stability give the politicians more votes. (there is no way the middle east will be anywhere near stable before 2015. It took France Decades to get back on its feet after WW2 and it was only occupied for a short time.)

Just my 2 cents.
 
A

ASFC

New Member
They had to order T45-the T42s are obsolete. In the absence of a Carrier with a good Air Defence Fighter, a good AAW Escort becomes essential otherwise there will be no fleet left if the RN is forced to go into a hot situation.

Ships have to be ordered in batches to avoid ships becoming obsolete-If it takes 10 years to introduce new Frigates (based on past RN experience), then you want the last ships to be built with up-to-date technology not technology from 10 or 15 years ago.

I have to agree with you Hull numbers are an issue-I am surprised that they are not either keeping the best T42B3s for the lighter policing duties around the world or have not bought the 3 Brunei Corvettes for places like the Gulf and the Carribbean (although obviously the MOD does not have a bottomless pit of money).
 
D

davros

New Member
Yeah Type 45 had to be ordered as the sea dart is obsolete and the 42 hulls are coming towards the end of there design life span. The only real big mistake imo was getting rid of the Sea Harriers I know they needed a bit of money spending on them but it would have been worth it imo to give the navy proper air support, and i am sure with all these minor conflicts going on at the moment its a decision that they probably regret now, the government at the time said it was a risk.
 
B

Brutoni

New Member
To quote ASFC and Davros respectively.

"They had to order T45-the T42s are obsolete. In the absence of a Carrier with a good Air Defence Fighter, a good AAW Escort becomes essential otherwise there will be no fleet left if the RN is forced to go into a hot situation."

"Yeah Type 45 had to be ordered as the sea dart is obsolete and the 42 hulls are coming towards the end of there design life span."

The current need for AAW is MUCH less than the current need to free up funds in the treasury. Not only that capital ships in the Gulf and Mediteranian is quite frankly boarding on stupidity im my very humble opinion. It is the perfect area for mines, terrorist attacks and multiple small threat attacks that can swarm the surface combatant ability of a ship such as a Type 23 or 42.
I understand the T-45 class was required, however we will have 3-4 in service very soon. I had not said do NOT build any now. I had merely pointing out that it would be very possible to get 2-4 Small Surface fleet combatant and Patrol ships for the cost of one T-45 Destroyer!

4 T-45's are more than capable of preforming AAW duties for a task force in a hot zone. It is unlikely even one hot zone will exist let ALONE multiple hot zones that require AAD capability that the T-45 posseses!

Even if one was in deep maintainence that would leave 3 for depoloyment with the fleet.

Which if a hot zone errupted we would be able to counter. Our requirements in the Gulf, Mediteranian, WIGS, Falklands and home waters would be eased by the ability to deploy a C-3 to the Falklands and WIGs, 2 to the Gulf and perhaps 1 in the Mediteranian and Home waters. Leaving the T-22's, T-45's and T-23's for deployment with a CAG or ARG. Up to 3 T-42's will be in service untill just before the Carriers enter service and so they could be stripped down (ie removed of Sea dart and the torpedo tubes given to the T-45's) and maybe have an extra 30mm or two slapped on the ship (doubt they are expensive to bolt on! These 3 would be perfect for Ocean Patrol.


True that means we neither have ALL the FSC (only the C-3's) or ALL the T-45's planned. But it is a more balanced approach allowing the navy to deal with RIGHT here RIGHT now which it can't because of the fear that it must be able to deal with the deep blue water and high end situation that MIGHT arise.

I could be wrong there.

As too batches. I understand that each batch might change...But every bloody ship is tweaked, fitted with extras, changed in small bits. This is understandable right after, say the falklands, but in a year or two gap. It is an expensive way to build ships and results in project budgeting never staying on target.

You need only look at the T-42's and T-22's for you to see that. Our bloody fitted for but not with is such an idiotic approach. Leave space for expansion yes. But if you go and install the Sensor kit, harware points and software for an extra 16 cell Slyver 70 why in hells name isnt it there. Or phalanx, or the torpedo tubes, or the small guns.

The T-45 is not the worlds most advanced destroyer. At the moment it is a SEVEN THOUSAND Ton vessel that carries 48 missiles and a 4.5 gun (oh and a helo of course). All that expensive software and sensor equipment for the extra 16 Slyver 70 cells, phalanx, torpedo tubes, potential TLAM's is wasted :unknown.


Now i could be wrong but it just seems to me that the Royal Navy is so crippled by fear of defence cuts that it orders ships on the basis of them needing to be able to do EVERYTHING should a real shooting war start that the MoD ends up with over expensive budgets which encourages more defence cuts because the government isnt willing to see what needs to be done. ie

"Right what are your opperational requirements"

"This this this and that would be nice mr prime minister!"

"Right you can only have this and this, this will take a while longer to fund and that can't be afforded right now"

"Ok so thats Power Projection, high patrol ability, FAA will take a while to come back, no we cant have 8 T-45's and an extra Astute"


Or am i completely wrong?

As it is we have 6 ships not a potential 8-10
 
A

ASFC

New Member
People bang on about how T45s are rubbish and 'too much fitted for but not with'. On face value I agree with this statement. But when you look at it deeper, I don't. The T45 is an Area Air Defence Vessel-that is what it is designed for. The RN are still stuck in the past a bit with designing specialist vessels, but they have tried to correct that. It is not fitted for but not with an extra 16 VLS. It is fitted for, but not with, Harpoon, Phalanx, and Torpedoes. This is a good idea-why should the RN buy new Harpoon, Phalanx and Torpedoes when it can just take stuff like Phalanx etc of decommissioned ships. In other words it is a cost saving measure at the build stage-as time moves on and the escort vessel problem will get worse before it gets better, I expect the RN to fit out the Darings to their full potential to maximise what they have got.

And tell me, which Batches of ships did they 'tweak' majorly-oh yes, the Type 22. Well that was beyond the RN's control-that vessel had to go from a specialist ASW Frigate to a GP Frigate quickly because of lessons learnt at the Falklands and the end of the Cold War. Ships have to be built in batches if you are building a fair few of them-it prevents block obsolence. If they did not build the Type 42 in batches, they would have all been poor sea boats and they would have all suffered from the problems that led to Sheffields loss, comcerning its rather poor radar/satellite comms set up.

And as the MOD does not have a bottomless pit of money (I will thank the nations demand for more spending on the blackhole that is the NHS for that) what the Navy gets will be a balance between what the other two Services want as well.
 
B

Brutoni

New Member
ASFC said:
People bang on about how T45s are rubbish and 'too much fitted for but not with'. On face value I agree with this statement. But when you look at it deeper, I don't. The T45 is an Area Air Defence Vessel-that is what it is designed for. The RN are still stuck in the past a bit with designing specialist vessels, but they have tried to correct that. It is not fitted for but not with an extra 16 VLS. It is fitted for, but not with, Harpoon, Phalanx, and Torpedoes. This is a good idea-why should the RN buy new Harpoon, Phalanx and Torpedoes when it can just take stuff like Phalanx etc of decommissioned ships. In other words it is a cost saving measure at the build stage-as time moves on and the escort vessel problem will get worse before it gets better, I expect the RN to fit out the Darings to their full potential to maximise what they have got.

And tell me, which Batches of ships did they 'tweak' majorly-oh yes, the Type 22. Well that was beyond the RN's control-that vessel had to go from a specialist ASW Frigate to a GP Frigate quickly because of lessons learnt at the Falklands and the end of the Cold War. Ships have to be built in batches if you are building a fair few of them-it prevents block obsolence. If they did not build the Type 42 in batches, they would have all been poor sea boats and they would have all suffered from the problems that led to Sheffields loss, comcerning its rather poor radar/satellite comms set up.

And as the MOD does not have a bottomless pit of money (I will thank the nations demand for more spending on the blackhole that is the NHS for that) what the Navy gets will be a balance between what the other two Services want as well.
Click to expand...
I would like to highlight i didn't say it was "rubbish" i said a lot of its potential has been wasted. The crux of this is that right now it is a highly specialist and highly advanced warship. No doubt in the AAD it will prefrom admirabley (although with only 48 missiles i do feel that the extra Slyver 70 cells for more aster or navalised storm shadow would be nice) within its design function.

HOWEVER, what i am trying to get at is that right now we do NOT need 6! What we might need is 4 right now to provide AAD we are lacking for the carrier fleet. THE MOST important thing right now is NUMBERS. In WW2 it was not the large number of capital ships that kept the sea lanes open, it was the large number of small patrol and merchant fleet escort ships. In 1805 it was the navies ability to keep ships on standing patrol to blockade the French navy. Everyone goes on about the navies need for highly advanced warships that can fight a MAJOR engagement. You need hulls in the water for any engagement. You need escort ships for the merchant fleet, you need small corvettes that can opperate in "packs" to attack merchant fleets but be expendable. You need to still be able to protect your intrests around the world.

WE do not have this. The gorvernment WILL not fund 12 T-45's, 10 C-1s and 10 C-2's.

It will fun 6-T45, 8 C-1's, 10-12 C-2's and loads of C-3's.

To be frank i would rather have 4 T-45 and 4 C-2's or 8 C-3's than 6 T-45. We have a lot of territorial water (that has just been expanded round our boarders) and we need patrol vessels.

You advocate the batch building heavily and for reasons i understand. Surely then instead of a batch of 5 and then 1 :confused: it should have been 4 and 2. With the 2 built later and the money used to build 6-8 C-3 Patrol Vessels.

Afterall look at it this way, if the falklands are invaded when we have the T-45 we cant just DROP all our other deployments. So we might only get 4 ships the size of the Daring out there anyways. With 6-8 C-3's we can suddenly slap two down in the falklands (more capable than the current patrol vessel and so more of a deterent), 2 into the gulf, 1 in the Med, 1 as WIGs and 1-2 at home. Then the T-45's ARE FAR more likely to be free to react with the CAG and ARG if needed.

While i might have some problems with the batch building it does provide flexibility...Why is this not being used.


2004-2012: 4 T-45's and 6-8 C-3's built, Astute class start coming into service.
2012-2016: 2 Carriers built, final astute and 4 more C-3
2015-2020: Use a similar hull to build a more "compact" and capable C-2 order 6 of them and the Final 2 Daring class
2019-2025 Design the C-1 around a T-45 hull (its more than large enough) and order 6 of them, and another 2-4 C-2's

2 CV
6 T-45
7 Astute
6 C-1
8-10 C-2
10-12 C-3

Post 2025 options for more C-1 or the replacement for the HMS Ocean and a mine sweeping derivative of the C-3 to replace our mine hunters (possibly already have 2 minesweeping ones in service)

Either way that would put the Surface fleet at 30-32

12 High end warships
8-10 leander (a very capable ship imho) type mid end warships capable of escorting picket ships and or carriers or doing falklands style gunboat raids
10-12 patrol vessels for Drug and slave trafficing (still exists apparently), Gulf, WIGs, Med and Home deployment.


Course the main problem with that is that the C-2's being based on the C-3 (if you gave the C-3 a large hull as "steel is cheap and air free") might be very ripe for defence cuts by the government and you end up with them being glorified C-3's incapable of ocean patrol.
 
A

ASFC

New Member
I wasn't necessarily refering to you on the 'rubbish' comment. I was talking in general, on here and in real life.

To be fair on the T45, they fully expected 12, and then 8, to be built. They did not expect only 6, and if 12 had been built, it could have been 6 now and 6 in five years or something. That will be why they probably have not been built in batches.

The main problem with FSC is the RN and the Govt do not know what they want-that S2C2 study well documented on Navymatters was never confirmed MOD policy-so it is not just as simple as building some now when they still don't know what they want.
 
B

Brutoni

New Member
That is a valid point, although in a defence magazine in July (or June??) there was news that the FSC was to be moved forward with the aim for it to be deployed around 2015 which is good enough news i suppose.

Had they still recieved 12, ie 6 now and 6 then. I still believe they would have made the mistake in ordering FAR too many T-45's when numbers where required.

That is the simple point of my arguement. Right now although the T-45's are needed. We could do far better with 4 and numerous small ships as oppossed to 6 and no other small ships.
There is no getting away from the fact that by 2015 we need a decent number of small patrol vessels. By 2025 we WILL need 32+ Escort ships. If 10 have to be C-2 and another 12-14 C-3 so we only get 12 C-1 and T-45 then that is that. Right now we need the numbers. As it is 12 high end capital ships is enough to escort the ARG or CAG. With the 10 C-2 able to do raiding.


Or something along those lines. That or we keep a small fleet of high end warships able to react in JSO a few decent patrol vessels for Falklands, patrol of our waters and maybe WIG's and pull out of the Med, Gulf and Oceanic Patrol and policing.

Though as soon as that happened the governement would realise how much political clout and reassurance a large navy gives a nation such as Britain in the world Theatre
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Brutoni said:
That is a valid point, although in a defence magazine in July (or June??) there was news that the FSC was to be moved forward with the aim for it to be deployed around 2015 which is good enough news i suppose.

Had they still recieved 12, ie 6 now and 6 then. I still believe they would have made the mistake in ordering FAR too many T-45's when numbers where required.

That is the simple point of my arguement. Right now although the T-45's are needed. We could do far better with 4 and numerous small ships as oppossed to 6 and no other small ships.
There is no getting away from the fact that by 2015 we need a decent number of small patrol vessels. By 2025 we WILL need 32+ Escort ships. If 10 have to be C-2 and another 12-14 C-3 so we only get 12 C-1 and T-45 then that is that. Right now we need the numbers. As it is 12 high end capital ships is enough to escort the ARG or CAG. With the 10 C-2 able to do raiding.


Or something along those lines. That or we keep a small fleet of high end warships able to react in JSO a few decent patrol vessels for Falklands, patrol of our waters and maybe WIG's and pull out of the Med, Gulf and Oceanic Patrol and policing.

Though as soon as that happened the governement would realise how much political clout and reassurance a large navy gives a nation such as Britain in the world Theatre
Click to expand...
The problem with large numbers of ships with limited capability is that if you go into a war situation, in terms of firepower you are at a disadvantage if you are fighting against a smaller fleet of higher end warships.

C3 is basicly an OPV along the lines of the River class, though possibly slightly larger and with full helicopter facilities. It will have little means of defense against aerial attack, including anti-shipping missiles that can be launched from ships as small as FAC's, Even low flying aircraft dropping dumpbombs such as the Argintinians did during the falklands war would prove a threat.

You cannot maintain a viable warfleet with only OPV's suitable for courier and law enforcing tasks.

4 T45's is not enough, Your CVBG and ARG would most likely travel seperately due to the differing speeds of advance. With one in refit, and possibly one deployed elsewhere, that leaves only one per group, even if all 3 of the "ready" ships are available you will still have one group with 2 and one group with 1.

Remember that one of the disadvantages of VLS cells is that they, unlike a normal magazine, cannot be reloaded at sea. If for whatever reason one of them uses all its missiles, it has to find a friendly port or sheltered bay to reload from an RFA.
 
B

Brutoni

New Member
I didn't realise that re-arming of a VLS required such a stable or sheltered place.

I have at no point suggested that 4 would be enough. Currently i would like to mention that the Royal Navy is not really capable in many areas. 1 Type 45 with the remaining 3 T-42 in picket (missile sink) duty would work in a hot zone, especially as we would have enough T-23's fred up by the C-3 to have 3 placed as goal keepers and the rest with the main fleet to back up the T-45.

This would not be ideal, especially without the FAA, however i still feel that untill the new carriers come out it is a mute point. It comes down to what you want.

6 T-45's with so few opperational small escorts that they cannot help but end up in zones of danger out of scope for a high threat warship!

or 4 with multiple small escorts freeing up the T-22's and T-23.

Even with 2 T-22, 10 T-23 and 4 T-45 you could respond to a major threat i believe. 1 Might be in deep mainanance, however the other 3 would certainly be made availiable. Ie 2 with CAG, 1 with the ARG. 3 T-42 in picket duty with a T-22 and 2 T-23, the other T-22 with the Cag and the remaining 7 T-23's scattered around the various duties.

It would be tight but then ive not included the full amount of T-23's in that.


I just feel that rather than go "all eggs in one basket" and have 6 T-45, 2 Carriers, then C-1 and finally C-2 and C-3...It would make more sense to use the batch system to its full flexibility to start rebuilding our CAG and ARG abilities while not neglecting the "dirty" work.


I also feel that the RN is not only the publics agenda or governments. If we are successfully taking £3 million in drugs more often, responding to natural disasters with mid class vessels (C-2 type one for hypothetical sake), protecting our merchant shipping from oil and terrorisim. Then the Public will support a larger navy. They will see us doing a good job there and when the RN says. "We currently are able to do the patrol and humanitarian duties required, however our Amphibious and Power Projection abilities are not up to us fighting a modern war." They will accept a little bit more spent to expand the fleet.


Maybe im being silly it just seems to me the RN asks what is due for it instead of what it really needs (western establishments as a whole have poor long term plans). If the politicians want to play the game then play it back. Make the navy indespensable. Ensure you ask for ships that can REALLY carry out the policing duties without fear of what happened with IRAN. (Though that captain was WELL out of line with how he handled that opperational deployment) Make sure that your Ships escorting the CAG and ARG are seen to be useful.

I could be wrong, i understand why we need the T-45 but right now we need EVERYTHING replaced. It is a bit unfortunate no? If you need everything replaced i find its usually better to not put all eggs in one basket like we are currently doing.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Brutoni said:
I didn't realise that re-arming of a VLS required such a stable or sheltered place.
Click to expand...
VLS replenishment can only usually be done like this in sea states less than 3 & with less than 10 Kts of wind. The obvious reason is that in sea state 3 & above, you can end up with swell giving you 2 feet of bounce, added to wind forcing equipment about. Not a good thing with a live missile !

Brutoni said:
Even with 2 T-22, 10 T-23 and 4 T-45 you could respond to a major threat i believe. 1 Might be in deep maintenance, however the other 3 would certainly be made available.
Click to expand...
Mmmm... At present, it's the case that current build & entry into service for T45 will be 1 every year, once Daring is accepted. Using that basis, by the time ship 4 enters service, ship 1 will have at least 1 year, possibly 18 months before any "deep maintenance" is required.

Additionally, I think that the idea of ships being taken "offline" every 5 years, for 12-18months is trying to be phased out with T-45, with the deep maintenance being scheduled every 10 years. This doesn't mean that the T-45 will not be pulled in every now & again for a quick "tart-up" (undersides of hulls usually need to get cleaned at least every 5 years, to maintain speed / efficiency).



Brutoni said:
I just feel that rather than go "all eggs in one basket" and have 6 T-45, 2 Carriers, then C-1 and finally C-2 and C-3...It would make more sense to use the batch system to its full flexibility to start rebuilding our CAG and ARG abilities while not neglecting the "dirty" work.

I also feel that the RN is not only the publics agenda or governments. If we are successfully taking £3 million in drugs more often, responding to natural disasters with mid class vessels (C-2 type one for hypothetical sake), protecting our merchant shipping from oil and terrorism. Then the Public will support a larger navy. They will see us doing a good job there and when the RN says. "We currently are able to do the patrol and humanitarian duties required, however our Amphibious and Power Projection abilities are not up to us fighting a modern war." They will accept a little bit more spent to expand the fleet.

Maybe I'm being silly it just seems to me the RN asks what is due for it instead of what it really needs (western establishments as a whole have poor long term plans). If the politicians want to play the game then play it back. Make the navy indispensable.
Click to expand...
Nice idea ! But thinking outside the box...

#1. How do you change public opinion?
#2. How do you change the mindsets of the politicos who make these decisions?
#3. How do you finance it ??
#4. How do you overcome nearly 30 years of "minimal funding" ?

Answer these questions, then you have the following problems...

How do you get these ships built, on budget & in a very tight timescale (say x2 per year for 5 years, on top of "Current planned build strategy"), when there aren't enough build facilities in the UK, nor the experienced engineering people to carry out the work?

Hopefully from this you can understand why it's not happened thus far...

Brutoni said:
Ensure you ask for ships that can REALLY carry out the policing duties without fear of what happened with IRAN. (Though that captain was WELL out of line with how he handled that operational deployment)
Click to expand...
Very unfair & invalid comment ! While the Captain does bare some responsibility for his actions, we are not at war & rules of engagement dictated his actions , as did those of UN mandates & how the UK govt wanted the situation dealt with.

Can YOU imagine how stupid we'd have looked in front of the world, if we'd blown those boats out of the water, possibly dragging the UK into a deeper conflict, or better yet if they'd blown that T-22 outta the water, killing most of the crew & publicly displaying the wounded as "war Trophies" ??

Don't think public opinion would have supported the navy then...

Brutoni said:
I could be wrong, i understand why we need the T-45 but right now we need EVERYTHING replaced. It is a bit unfortunate no? If you need everything replaced i find its usually better to not put all eggs in one basket like we are currently doing.
Click to expand...
T-45 IS NOT putting "all our eggs in ONE basket".

Our Navy has had to evolve over the last 30 years, making do with what it has, to get EVERYTHING done. That means we have to have ships that can do most things, with "Build room" for modifications / FBNW / ILDS, whatever you want to call it.

It's a practical solution to a funding issue, fit what you have / can afford & leave space for what you want / what you THINK you might need at a later date.

T-45 has this & makes it more "Future Proof" for this reason. On the other hand, ask the senior leaders within ANY Navy worldwide if they're happy with a ship design, once it's made it to the build stage & you'll probably get this reply...

"If we could start from scratch, right now, We'd design it differently!"

...But hindsight IS a wonderful thing !


SA:nutkick
 
O

outsider

New Member
Regarding concerns over limited UK shipbuilding capacity and limited finances:

We could get India to build C3 ships to a British design. They could probably churn these out pretty quickly and at a low cost. And if there were any national security concerns over what I would think would be a modest electronics fit, then we could have any "sensitive" euipment installed in the UK.

Or is this all too logical, and therefore won't happen under any british goverment.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Not at all logical, I'm afraid. Indian shipbuilding is neither fast (very slow, in fact) nor particularly cheap. If you want fast & cheap, you go to China, or for a little less cheap but better, & just as fast, S. Korea. Japan, because of the efficiency of its yards, might be able to match India on price, & wins hands down on speed.

There's capacity much closer to home which is cheaper than UK yards & faster, & more efficient, than Indian yards, in E. Europe.
 
O

outsider

New Member
swerve said:
Could be done, & there are precedents. Denmark & France have used E. European yards to make blocks of warships recently.
Click to expand...
Why don't we do it then? It doesn't sound like it would be so difficult or expensive. I'm just trying to come up with a solution to the RN declining hull numbers. Or doesn't it matter to UK anymore?
 
A

ASFC

New Member
It is not going to happen. Whilst BVT seem willing to outsource production of Fleet Auxiliaries to the likes of Daewoo, it is guarenteed they will guard the warship building market in the UK jealously.

And then there is the fact that any military ship built for Britain means jobs, and politicians will not be ready to upset any constituents if they represent a shipbuilding area (COUGH Brown-CVF COUGH), by giving it to cheap overseas yards. Look at the storm the Scottish Executive caused when they tried to build (have they built it yet?) a SFPA OPV in Poland instead of Fergusons in Glasgow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top