The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Dude,
Wot planet are you from ??
As a world renowned stater of the obvious (on this forum), I'll do just that, so you can better understand why what you have said above is HIGHLY incorrect ....
#1.
Although the UK was originally part of CNGF / Project Horizion, it withdrew from it. However prior to doing so, it had ALREADY agreed to certain contractual obligations, due to being one of the main designers of the ship. During the 20 odd years of the unified project the UK had been closely involved in the design of the PAAMS missile system & it's asociated radar. With the penalty clauses being so financially prohibitive for them to withdraw from, they opted to utilise the equipment in the design that is Type 45.
#2.
By retaining the equipment, they where also "held to ransom", as many of the equipment manufacturers had been shrewed, by insisting that a "complete set" of components & spares had to be purchased from the outset, not spread across the life of the equipment.
For instance MBDA ensured that 48 missiles for each ship had to be purchased, not just 48 across the fleet of 6 ships. This process cost an awful lot of cash !
#3.
Under E.U. directives, each country within the E.U. MUST put all COMMERCIAL shipping construction contracts out to tender, but each country has the soverign right to ensure that MILITARY shipbuilding contracts are built by the state, if that state chooses to do so
(by specifying that equipment is deemed to be "Secret" & not sharing the design information, it would Not be "in the interests of national security" of the soverign state, to have a foreign nation build the ship.)
Since the directive has been enacted, there have been numerous occasions where soverign states (including Poland & France), have provided "financial incentives / perks / loans, etc", to ensure that their nation gets COMMERCIAL orders, to sustain their shipbuilding ability.
(& I believe your idelogical comments in a previous post suggest that this SHOULD be the way to operate, as it happens in YOUR country !)
However, such practices are in contravention of the directives, with countries (such as Poland), now being investigated.
#4.
Since 2000 there have been many cases where the passing of illict funds / bribes to nations / manufacturers have been widely documented in the media, as these practices are now not in the best interest of the individuals involved.
So that there is a "transparency" of where taxpayers funds are actually being spent (I'm sure that there was legislation prior to this time, such as the laws for FRAUD), the chances of such practice happening these days are much reduced, as the legislation regarding punishment for such activites has been reviewed also, bringing in tougher sentencing for indiviuals / companies.
So unfortunately, because of the Politics / contracts / E.U. the UK has been left to pay a serious amount of cash to enusre that the project continues.
However by doing so, thay have provided the best "Bang for their buck", ensuring that while the ships are expensive, the taxpayer gets it's monies-worth.
All that said, if the project was to start again, from scratch, on a blank piece of design paper, it is doubtful whether the UK RN / Govt, would have went down the route they have & probably would have bought an AGEIS SPY 1 phased array system to fit on the replacement for the Type 42 destroyers...
SA
agree with most of that except the UK would probably still stuck with PAMMS or some kind of indigenous solution as almost every shipboard Radar system has been UK designed for RN ships since its invention. AGEIS would have no benefit for the UK industry.
EU??? That's hillarious.
Wrt to the rest of your post, well I don't know what to say, some of it are probably correct, though I often fail to see the relevance.
Buying 48 missiles per ship - well do you intend to operate 6 large air defense destroyers with a total stock of 48 missiles? (let's hope that there is never a war!)same goes for radars and other systems (maybe we should have the 7th Type45 but without engines? Could make a lot of sense...).
Incidentially the PAAMs and Asters are, in my mind, the only excuse for the ship and it's price, since that system is most likely the very best.
Let me put it this way. First off all it's very natural that the surplier gives a price IF you buy this and that many items. Secondly if the MoD has signed contracts that turns out to be very costly, well I am not at all surprised.
Erhh... no and no. btw Which country?
OR the Thales APAR-Smart-L config that have won a nice deal of Nato deals.
So very true...
The RN has always seemed to take equipment that others have produced, then have it "tweaked" to do specific things, that the OEM may NOT have originally designed it for.
By doing this, they get the equipment they wanted to do the job they wanted, but it means that the costs can probably have double over the standard equipment.
While Buying AEGIS may not have had much benefit to UK industry, it would have given the UK...
#1. A proven (off the Shelf) system &...
#2. A system that "links" directly to the US one, giving the US & UK a better tactical advantage when working together.
While I'm not an advocate of such a choice (as I feel that Sampson is better), it's not beyond the realms of imagination, especially if a thatcherite (Tory) Govt had remained in power in 1997, as it would have been something to help further that "special relationship" between the US & UK.
SA
Why so hilarious ?
Has the E.U. & it's cross border / centralisation of rules across Europe, not put additional stress on the likes of the Dutch, French, Italians, Spanish, Polish & British, to name but a few ?
The E.U., it's Parliament & our ludicrously overpaid MEP's, by insisting on equality in law, then not correctly policing it, makes tasks that were simple 25 years ago, very difficult, by adding 'X' amounts of bureaucratic drivel & paperwork, to ensure that all members states get an "equal opportunity" at orders.
MOST of it IS correct...
As for the Missile purchase & spares, well ALL Military OEM's that I've had experience with over the last 15 years, have a tendency to sell the equipment dirt cheap, but make the spares 3 times as expensive.
That's how these companies make their cash, in the "SUPPORT" contracts.
Modern supplier / customer relationships over the last 5 years have pushed the suppliers to the brink, by putting all the support of spares, maintaining them & even storing them till they're needed, firmly on the shoulders of the OEM.
By doing this it actually relieves the Customer / end user of the need to pay for them, pay for maintenance & storage, thus saving money !
If the RN had such a contract with MBDA, the Asters would have been cheaper, as they might have only bought a total of 48 for the 6 ships, with the option to buy the rest, when & if they needed them.
Yes, you are correct.
Type 45 would be POINTLESS without Aster & Sampson, after all these are the main components of the "Principal Anti-Air Missile system". The Design, Manufacture, Development & purchase of this equipment equates to approx 50% of the TOTAL cost of EACH Type 45...
SA
Just pointing it out, but a MEP earns about as much as a Mayor of an average German city. Which isn't exactly much in the grand scheme of things.
This isn't restricted to defence suppliers - it's an accepted general business model throughout the world.
Type 45 is but a carrier, just as any other ship. In this case a carrier for a single specific weapon system, i.e. PAAMS. Just like say the Whitbys were in essence built around their ASW weapon system with those three sonars, the two Limbos and the Mark 20E torpedo system, or the French Suffrens were literally built around the Masurca/DRBV-50 system.
Systems Adict
In regard to the EU, my personal oppinion is that what you write is completely wrong, though I am aware that Front Nationale, Freiheit parti dansk folkeparti and BNP to name a few of the lot have a different perception of the EU, so let's just call it a day and agree to disagree wrt the EU.
Wrt to the price of the type45 I don't think we disagree that much. In essence what I am trying to say is that 1bn pounds for a ship seems extreamly expensive for people that can add - and it's not the only european military project that has been very very expensive (where the background function seems to be only "very expensive") and maybe parts of the fault lies in goverments that of political reasons maintain untransparant and unliberal procurement processes?
F.ex. I suggest that in essence they, the politicians, waste taxpayers good money by using defense procurement as a tool to further some misconceived industrial policy, where you quickly get the feeling that it could have nothing to do with patriotic defense of the fatherland , but a lot to do with servicing different powerfull "interest groups".
In regard to the EU, my personal oppinion is that what you write is completely wrong, though I am aware that Front Nationale, Freiheit parti dansk folkeparti and BNP to name a few of the lot have a different perception of the EU, so let's just call it a day and agree to disagree wrt the EU.
Wrt to the price of the type45 I don't think we disagree that much. In essence what I am trying to say is that 1bn pounds for a ship seems extreamly expensive for people that can add - and it's not the only european military project that has been very very expensive (where the background function seems to be only "very expensive") and maybe parts of the fault lies in goverments that of political reasons maintain untransparant and unliberal procurement processes?
F.ex. I suggest that in essence they, the politicians, waste taxpayers good money by using defense procurement as a tool to further some misconceived industrial policy, where you quickly get the feeling that it could have nothing to do with patriotic defense of the fatherland , but a lot to do with servicing different powerfull "interest groups".
citizen578
New Member
Do you think perhaps you could display some manners?
Disagreeing with the running of the EU does not make one a racist, or a right-wing extremist, as the first part of your post implies.
Secondly, it has been shown that the T45 does not cost £1bn, nor anything near that price.
Surely there is somewhere more appropriate for you to practice your frankly astounding arrogance and political rants.
No my post does not imply that, I just mentioned a number of parties that I know of that has the mentioned view of the EU which I disagree with of political reasons, I don't claim the list to be complete there is f.ex. also a lot of left wing parties that has views of the EU to that effect. Btw with the exception of FN, I don't think the mentioned parties are neither racists or right-wing extremists.
MoD (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/Type45Destroyer.htm)
Also
That's the "Value for Money" conclusion of the National Audit Office. Notice the words: "poor", "inappropriate", "over-optimism".. Also notice that the Audit got the cost figure to 6.5bn, almost 10% more than the MoD makes public above - I wonder who's right?
Notce the formulation towards the end: "Although ...", " not yet demonstrated that it will be able to achieve..." "... from spending £6.5 billion procuring the Type 45 destroyer.". In a value for money analysis, that's not exactly positive, almost a negative or what do you think?
Strangely they don't mention the "EU bureaucratic drivel & paperwork"
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/the_type_45_destroyer.aspx
Last edited:
Total average cost vs marginal cost.
"marginal cost", could also be phrazed "Cost of the next unit", though there aren't going to be a next unit, so... The TVC is the interesting figure here and the one the National audit chooses to use.
kev 99
Member
A defence contract that goes over cost? Surely not?
kev 99
Member
Sorry but the BNP definitely are racist, no matter how hard they try to appear as a legitimate political party.
kev 99
don't know much about the BNP, so could be wrong. And ofcourse eventhough, at least in my lanquage, there is this saying "If you howl in a pack..." clearly just because you share some view points with a political party you don't have to share all the view points of that party.
Personally I think a cost comparison with other ships, like the sachsen class, the dutch and spanish similar classes, the Nansen class or the Huitfeldt class (bearing in mind that the type45 for the sake of international price comparison have benefitted greatly by the recent decline of the pound) does give an impression that £1bn per ship is quite a lot of money.
don't know much about the BNP, so could be wrong. And ofcourse eventhough, at least in my lanquage, there is this saying "If you howl in a pack..." clearly just because you share some view points with a political party you don't have to share all the view points of that party.
It's not only the approx +30%. It also the way it happened, the delays and it seems an uncertainty whether the MoD can bring the project to a worthwhile conclusion.
Personally I think a cost comparison with other ships, like the sachsen class, the dutch and spanish similar classes, the Nansen class or the Huitfeldt class (bearing in mind that the type45 for the sake of international price comparison have benefitted greatly by the recent decline of the pound) does give an impression that £1bn per ship is quite a lot of money.
Yeah. Though remember that £2bn does draw a lot of capital interests during the life span of the ships who also has to be maintained.
But one can say that that's one of the riscs you run when wanting to develop stuff alone yourself, if your money runs out, the few completed items will be very costly. That's also why it's so obvious to try to share riscs with as many others as possible.
kev 99
Member
Go here:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/t45main.htm
Read up about all of the problems with the project. Currency fluctuations have been a significant cause of cost overruns with the project more specifically pound value verses Euros during the project as much of the electronics are European, also the problems with absorbing as much of the costs spend on the CNGF programme as well.
RE BNP: there are plenty of other political parties that have a skeptical stance on the EU (particularly in the UK) like UKIP for example. Comparing someone to a member of an organisation which wants all non whites expelled from the country and has high ranking members who are openly anti semitic, anti Islamic and holocaust deniers and preach violence as a means to an end to achieve these aims is pretty offensive.
Nope, both have pretty much similar agendas. But the BNP is gaining more support recently, possibly because it's the only party NOT pandering to the EU. Pity about the racism and lack of other real policies really.
/politics.
All this talk of the Type 45 annoys me, simply because it reinforces the fact that we should have bought more.