The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

International Coorporation

Concerning the discussion of international coorperation in aquisition of weapons.

Since it's given that it's mostly the US that's driving the evolution of weaponsystems, We have to realise that this evolution of weapons naturally takes place accordingly to the cababilities and possibilities of a $10 trillion economy. It's almost given that this evolution of arms doesn't favour a $1 trillion economy.

The situation is comparable to the evolution/introduction of siege cannons in medival europe. Before the siege cannons thieves, robbers and warlords (also known as "the nobillity") could sit in their high castles and do as they pleased. It was nearly impossible for the central power to reign them in. After the cannon, a - at the time - very high tech and enourmously costly weapon system, those castles lost their millitary function, and the new castles/fortresses needed to defend against cannons, were so large and expensive to build that only a central power could do it. Partly in that way the nobillity lost their position and the socity changed.

So countries like f.ex. the large european countries can might aswell just realise that they can't keep up with the US on their own. Germany can't build the full suite of GPS, NMD, Carriers, Fighters etc etc it is too demanding for the smaller economy.

The european countries can first of all choose between two things; Either they give up and do like the nobillity of old OR they coorporate. If they choose coorporation there are two options: A transatlantic or a European coorporation.
While many things can be said about the nature of those two models of coorporation,
I think that there is one objective truth: If you coorporate with the US you don't have a political leverage on the US. That's natural, it's not because americans are bad people - they just don't need you, when it comes down to it.
In the European coorperation it's very different and the european countries has a huge political leverage on each other. Just consider the most idependent of the lot, France. If you want to make the french uneasy, you just start talking about getting rid of EU farm subsidies...

Ofcourse, from a national point of view, a down side of coorporation is that you "loose" national independence. I write "loose" in citation marks, since, in reality, you can't loose something you don't have.

 

[Grim901]

Concerning the discussion of international coorperation in aquisition of weapons.

Since it's given that it's mostly the US that's driving the evolution of weaponsystems, We have to realise that this evolution of weapons naturally takes place accordingly to the cababilities and possibilities of a $10 trillion economy. It's almost given that this evolution of arms doesn't favour a $1 trillion economy.

The situation is comparable to the evolution/introduction of siege cannons in medival europe. Before the siege cannons thieves, robbers and warlords (also known as "the nobillity") could sit in their high castles and do as they pleased. It was nearly impossible for the central power to reign them in. After the cannon, a - at the time - very high tech and enourmously costly weapon system, those castles lost their millitary function, and the new castles/fortresses needed to defend against cannons, were so large and expensive to build that only a central power could do it. Partly in that way the nobillity lost their position and the socity changed.

So countries like f.ex. the large european countries can might aswell just realise that they can't keep up with the US on their own. Germany can't build the full suite of GPS, NMD, Carriers, Fighters etc etc it is too demanding for the smaller economy.

The european countries can first of all choose between two things; Either they give up and do like the nobillity of old OR they coorporate. If they choose coorporation there are two options: A transatlantic or a European coorporation.
While many things can be said about the nature of those two models of coorporation,
I think that there is one objective truth: If you coorporate with the US you don't have a political leverage on the US. That's natural, it's not because americans are bad people - they just don't need you, when it comes down to it.
In the European coorperation it's very different and the european countries has a huge political leverage on each other. Just consider the most idependent of the lot, France. If you want to make the french uneasy, you just start talking about getting rid of EU farm subsidies...

Ofcourse, from a national point of view, a down side of coorporation is that you "loose" national independence. I write "loose" in citation marks, since, in reality, you can't loose something you don't have.

Completely off topic.

I'd also disagree that a country like Britain with a transatlantic partnership with the USA has no leverage at all. There are instances where that leverage has been used over the years. There are also plenty of instances where it has been shown to be a lot better than a European partnership.

And are you seriously saying the French are the most independent European country? France and Germany are practically the cornerstones of the EU! Britain is more independent and on the whole a lot less pro-EU. And being in the EU doesn't necessarily create leverage. For example, Luxembourg couldn't coerce Britain into doing just about anything without the rest of the EU ganging up. It may be a good thing for the tiny countries but I still struggle to see what the larger, more powerful countries get out of it unless they are running the whole show like France and Germany.

 

[kev 99]

I don't get what your post is doing in a Royal Navy thread palnatoke unless its meant as a dig.

 

[Grim901]

I don't get what your post is doing in a Royal Navy thread palnatoke unless its meant as a dig.

That was my assumption as well.

 

[Palnatoke]

I am sorry - was away for some weeks and were responding to an earlier post - didn't realise it would be that much "out of the blue".

\begin{OffTopic}

Anyway, Grim, T. Blair's experiences with GWB made it pretty clear to the rest of the world that the US cares very little about what britain should think when they have decided something is important to them.
Suez is perhaps the most notorious example.

And yes France is the most independent European country. That from a millitary, as well as industrial as well as political point of view.

\end{offTopic}

 

[Grim901]

I am sorry - was away for some weeks and were responding to an earlier post - didn't realise it would be that much "out of the blue".

begin{OffTopic}

Anyway, Grim, T. Blair's experiences with GWB made it pretty clear to the rest of the world that the US cares very little about what britain should think when they have decided something is important to them.
Suez is perhaps the most notorious example.

And yes France is the most independent European country. That from a millitary, as well as industrial as well as political point of view.

end{offTopic}

Suez was a long time ago, the relationship has evolved. And can you give some examples of GWB not caring what Britain thinks. Britain and the US seemed to be pretty well aligned during that time I can't think of when there was much conflict at national levels.

And can you go into a little depth on how France is more independent than Britain in the areas you mentioned, i'm intrigued. Depending on the point you're trying to make you might be right, or you might not.

It seems highly unlikely though that France is more politically independent than Britain from the EU. Just looking at the number of EU things France is a part of that Britain isn't is an indication of that.

 

[Palnatoke]

Grim

Eventhough Suez is still a long time ago, I think it's difficult to understand the UK-US OR Fr-US relationship, without considering that event.

"Britain and the US seemed to be pretty well aligned during that time"

I think that the US-UK shared a basic view about that something had to be done vis a vis Iraq. But from that point on GWB and Rumsfield steamrolled Blair.
Instead of "alligned" I would rather say, "realligned" if not "adapted".

I have to get back to you later

 

[citizen578]

I don't get what your post is doing in a Royal Navy thread palnatoke unless its meant as a dig.

When have his posts been anything but an impertinent dig?!

Does anyone know when the Sea Viper is due for firing trials (from HMS Dauntless, i believe)? All the info I've managed to gather is that 'phase 2' of the trials started in June, and that a launch (supposedly from Dauntless) is due ''during the summer''.

 

[Grim901]

When have his posts been anything but an impertinent dig?!

Does anyone know when the Sea Viper is due for firing trials (from HMS Dauntless, i believe)? All the info I've managed to gather is that 'phase 2' of the trials started in June, and that a launch (supposedly from Dauntless) is due ''during the summer''.

Not heard anything related to test launches. Although did hear some good news on the progress of CAMM the other day. They've just rolled out the first test variant of the land based firing unit (rapier replacement). Interestingly they've decided not to give it a dedicated radar or launch vehicle, they've containerised it to be put wherever is needed and tied into a local air defence system. An interesting idea if something like this could be created for the navy to give C3 a little extra defence in high threat scenarios.

@Palnatoke: I look forward to you getting back to me.

 

[Systems Adict]

Does anyone know when the Sea Viper is due for firing trials (from HMS Dauntless, i believe)? All the info I've managed to gather is that 'phase 2' of the trials started in June, and that a launch (supposedly from Dauntless) is due ''during the summer''.

Mmm....

Dauntless did indeed complete her 2nd set of sea trials "during the summer".... (see link below)

BVT Surface Fleet - Second Type 45 Destroyer Dauntless completes sea trials ahead of schedule

However, I think you're a bit premature.

The set of trials she completed where Shipbuilders trials, not official RN Trials. It's only once the ship has been handed over & accepted as a commissioned 'ship of the line' that firing trials will take place , as the RN will want to be in full control of proceedings.
(& yes I do know that they fire the guns on Shipbuilders trials, but Missiles are different !)

After all, Daring has only just been commissioned as a full RN warship (July 09)...

News : HMS Daring : Type 45 Destroyers : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy

So, if you consider that ANY sea trials undertaken by the shipbuilder are classed as Phase 1, then any trials undertaken by the RN, once the ship is commissioned are classed as Phase 2.

As Daring was handed over in December 08 and BAE are gonna hand over a Type 45 roughly every 12 months, then it's a fair assumption that Dauntless won't be handed over till Xmas 09 / January 2010, with her phase 2 trials not really commencing till "during the summer"....

No hard evidence to back that up, but basing it on Daring, I'd say that it's a fair estimate...


SA

 

[Grim901]

Systems addict, remember that Daring was first of class. At least some of the trials are being done faster for the rest of the class. Not sure which ones are being sped up, or iof any are being cut. I'm sure at least one builders trial is not being done this time round, so the whole lot could happen faster.

 

[Systems Adict]

Systems addict, remember that Daring was first of class. At least some of the trials are being done faster for the rest of the class. Not sure which ones are being sped up, or iof any are being cut. I'm sure at least one builders trial is not being done this time round, so the whole lot could happen faster.

Mmmm...

Yes, they are only doing 2 Shipbuildres trials per ship for the last 5, but the drum beat delivery is set in stone.

x1 ship per year, that's it....

SA

 

[Grim901]

Mmmm...

Yes, they are only doing 2 Shipbuildres trials per ship for the last 5, but the drum beat delivery is set in stone.

x1 ship per year, that's it....

SA

Alright fair enough. I just remembered they're doing something similar for FSC aren't they, something about keeping the work steady at the shipyards right?

 

[Palnatoke]

Grim

And can you give some examples of GWB not caring what Britain thinks

I think it's more interesting to ask: when has GWB and his administration cared about what Britain thought?
I think it's a fair bet that Britain was just as decived as the rest of the world by the GWB administration's outright lies culminating in Powel's famous long speech before the world and UN. The socalled sex'ed dosier seems to colaborate a thought that these lies had been pretty much adopted by the british administration.

how France is more independent than Britain in the areas you mentioned

That f.ex. France has a complete defense industry, with 100% "homemade" systems, including fighter airplanes, nuclear weapons and delivery systems, a space programme, extensive own means of gathering intelligence etc etc.

Don't get me wrong: I think that the french insistence on "self sufficiency" is singular stupid and a grand waste of money and engineering potential.

"It seems highly unlikely though that France is more politically independent than Britain from the EU"

I never claimed that, as a specific example I mentioned that france has a weak point regarding farm subsidies - not that the french economy is dependent on the subsidies, but the goverments are depending on the farmers not going bezerk because of changes in the highly counterproductive farm-subsidy policies of the EU. I used that as an example that in the EU coorperation ALL nations (including Britain) are very interdependent f.ex. since their economies are very dependent on the EU common market and different EU structures. And this is infact a great advantage when you coorporate since all has a strong interest in abiding to the rules of the game.

My faint hope is that the succeses of the EU economical coorperation, could be used as a model for defense&security, and in that way stop the deroute that seems so inevitable as things are now.

 

[Grim901]

Grim


I think it's more interesting to ask: when has GWB and his administration cared about what Britain thought?
I think it's a fair bet that Britain was just as decived as the rest of the world by the GWB administration's outright lies culminating in Powel's famous long speech before the world and UN. The socalled sex'ed dosier seems to colaborate a thought that these lies had been pretty much adopted by the british administration.

I think too little is known about what really happened there and who knew what and when to make a claim on GWB not caring about British opinion.

That f.ex. France has a complete defense industry, with 100% "homemade" systems, including fighter airplanes, nuclear weapons and delivery systems, a space programme, extensive own means of gathering intelligence etc etc.

Don't get me wrong: I think that the french insistence on "self sufficiency" is singular stupid and a grand waste of money and engineering potential.

Interesting. I completely agree with your final point there. I'm glad Britain hasn't gone for complete independence out of weird paranoia like the French. It means we can choose between our own industry, EU, USA or just about anyone else if we wish.

I think for the most part you are right on the equipment too, however that doesn't make the military more or less independent, that implies to me that the country of origin has a say in how/when the weapon is used, which simply isn't true, right up to our nuclear weapons.

Note also that Britain has chosen not to have a space program of its own AND that the French program is no longer independent, having effectively come under EU (ESA) control.

Final point on this part, Britain does have extensive intelligence gathering capabilities of its own, the only exception really being satellite surveillance. The British security services aren't some arm of the CIA, and we have and extensive global monitoring and listening network, that likely has far greater coverage than anything the French possess. There is a reason the USA has chosen to work with us here (+Australia and Canada). We have some well positioned bases and territories that make us an asset in this regard.

"It seems highly unlikely though that France is more politically independent than Britain from the EU"

I never claimed that, as a specific example I mentioned that france has a weak point regarding farm subsidies - not that the french economy is dependent on the subsidies, but the goverments are depending on the farmers not going bezerk because of changes in the highly counterproductive farm-subsidy policies of the EU. I used that as an example that in the EU coorperation ALL nations (including Britain) are very interdependent f.ex. since their economies are very dependent on the EU common market and different EU structures. And this is infact a great advantage when you coorporate since all has a strong interest in abiding to the rules of the game.

My faint hope is that the succeses of the EU economical coorperation, could be used as a model for defense&security, and in that way stop the deroute that seems so inevitable as things are now.

Hmm, at present i'm struggling to see the weak point of Britain in the EU, especially not on the scale of the French. The French workforce is volatile at best, and much of EU law is written or prodded in the right direction by the French in order to keep their farmers and fishermen happy. It has led to tension with Britain to the point where the EU actually has to pay Britain each year to stop us from tearing up the CAP and telling the French where to stick it.

In general, outside of the vague, "We're better together" and the increased trade of being inside the block rather than outside, there is little to no benefit to Britain of being in the EU, there are far more negatives in my opinion. It does make sense for the EU in some form to exist, especially for the smaller and less powerful countries, but at present they have gone in the wrong direction to make it more worthwhile for Britain to be involved, hence rising anti-EU sentiments here. If the EU were to fall apart tomorrow and the trade barriers it threw up, that incidentally is what effectively forced Britain to join in 1973, were to collapse, Britain would be no worse off, the trade would continue and we'd be happier. The economic success you may have mentioned was partly forced. It could have been greater, especially if nations like Britain hadn't been forced to abandon it's old trading partners in the 70's who, instead of buying the more expensive EU good that they used to get from Britain cheaper, turned to the USA instead.

I also dislike the thought of further security and defence integration that you mentioned. In the short to long term it effectively forces Britain and France, with smaller contributions from everyone else, to fight on command for the EU. The fact that the EU has called for access to a CBG whenever it wishes is reason enough. I don't see the EU pooling its money and buying one, training a multinational force of sailors to operate it. They have instead looked expectantly at Britain and its shiny new QE class that is on the way.

In the long term it could work, if the EU were to effectively become one superstate similar to the USA, training a single military force and acting as a true democracy, rather than the entirely undemocratic mess it is now. But it requires too much heavy lifting to be done by Britain for a possible benefit that is too far off to be worthwhile.

/total off topicness.

 

[citizen578]

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Support contract announced for Navy's torpedoes

Support contract announced for Navy's torpedoes

A ten-year contract for the support and maintenance of the Royal Navy's torpedoes, worth £370m, has been signed by the MOD and BAE Systems (BAES).

The contract, which will benefit the UK's torpedo industry, covers all aspects of support and maintenance for the heavyweight Spearfish torpedoes that arm Britain's submarine fleet and the lightweight Sting Ray torpedoes which are carried on Royal Navy ships and helicopters and Royal Air Force Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft.

Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said:

"This contract is an excellent example of the principles of the Defence Industrial Strategy in action. The contract will provide a more cohesive and efficient approach to our torpedo support programme and ensures that the UK sustains this important capability into the future.

"These potent British-designed and built weapons arm the Royal Navy's submarine fleet, surface fleet and helicopters and Royal Air Force Nimrod patrol aircraft. The contract further demonstrates our continued investment in high-technology defence equipment for our Armed Forces."

The contract will safeguard around 120 posts at BAES Insyte in Portsmouth, while further jobs will be sustained at a number of UK subcontractors.

MOD Defence Equipment and Support Torpedoes Project Team Leader, Captain Jim Johnson RN, said:

"This ten-year availability contract is a radical improvement over legacy arrangements and has significantly reduced costs. It delivers more coherent and affordable support for torpedoes and also provides the foundation for the development and upgrade of the Spearfish weapon.

"The adoption of partnering principles and close collaborative working with BAES Insyte was pivotal to delivering the optimum support solution."

Spearfish is a submarine-launched heavyweight torpedo and is embarked in current attack (Swiftsure and Trafalgar) and deterrent (Vanguard) submarines. It will be deployed in the Astute class from 2010.

Spearfish is optimised for anti-submarine warfare, while retaining a credible anti-surface capability. Spearfish is powered by a high-performance thermal engine and communicates with the launch submarine via a wire-guided link.

Sting Ray is a lightweight anti-submarine torpedo carried aboard RN ships, Lynx and Merlin helicopters and RAF Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. It is fully autonomous once launched. Sting Ray has recently undergone a mid-life update, improving its capability against modern threats.

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

New torpedo contract to save millions

The Royal Navy and RAF are expected to save millions of pounds in an updated contract for their Spearfish and Sting Ray torpedoes.

The Torpedoes Capability Contract (TCC) will cover in-service support for the torpedoes through to 2019 as well as providing the foundation for a proposed upgrade programme for the Spearfish torpedo.

It will see BAE Systems and Defence Equipment and Support's (DE&S) Weapons Operating Centre working as "Team Torpedoes". According to BAE. the partnering approach will result in cost savings of around 20 per cent over the traditional support approach and result in efficiencies of at least £65m. The TCC consolidates what were 11 separate contracts into one.

Torpedoes project team leader, Captain Jim Johnson said the project was a "radical improvement".

"It delivers more coherent and affordable support for torpedoes and also provides the foundation for the development and upgrade of the Spearfish weapon," he said.

The contract will support 120 jobs at BAE in Portsmouth and a third of the contract value will go to approximately 20 sub-contractors across the UK.

The MoD and BAE have been discussing the longer term contract since early 2008. The original contract only lasted until 2011

See fellas, you can get it right!

 

[Palnatoke]

Grim

Today there was an announcement in danish press: "the Lindø yard will close 2012".
This is the last large steelship yard left of the long shipbuilding traditions of Denmark. "Out-competed by a bunch of chineese" as an agitated ironworker put it on national TV. The closure is no surprise, the yard has been running with a hefty loss the last years.


I think you are completely wrong on the EU common market and it's relevance for Britain. The ultimate "what if it disappeared tomorrow" is easely answered by "Economical meltdown" for Europe in general and those that have significant trade with europe. It's not even an interesting question, because no european goverment would see it's interest in such an event. The interesting question, vis a vis this thread, is which mechanisms of the common market can be used to make european defense industry more efficient. Because if things continue as they are the day is not far away, where you as an (I presume) englishman will see the last ironworker of the last british yard say:"Out-competed by a bunch of ... ".

To dig a little bit into details:

"We're better together" and the increased trade of being inside the block rather than outside, there is little to no benefit to Britain of being in the EU

When a company operates on a small market ("small" meassured in the number of competitors) that company will MOST likely end up less efficient than a company operating on a market with many more competitors.
This is one of the things the common market does for you, it automatically increases the efficiency of your economy, through competition. As british (at least if you are elder) you know from first hand experience that you can keep competition away from your shores, but the result is that your protected home industry will grow more and more inefficient (relatively to the outside) and one day the damn breaks.

When we have agreed that the common market is not just a convenience, but a prerequisit for an efficient European economy (which includes Britain for those in doubt) then you get sucked up in all the annoying common rules and regulation needed for that common market to function - the premis that is behind any aspiration of wealth comparable to other great markets(economies).

If we consider defense industry in that view, and observe that, mostly, French Def industry operates on a french market, British on a British market and german on a german market and, say, US on a huge US market and the rest of the world (well knowing that the individual companies does have/own important, sometimes even more important, activities in other countries than "home country") you just known, just from that, that the French, british and german industry has a long term efficiency problem.
The answer, the only answer to this problem, is to make the market(s) on which these industries operates larger. You need a common market for defense. Now you can choose to have a common market of defense with the US, though I emplore you to consider the wisdom in investing british taxpayers money in R&D in an economy that you are not part of.

 

[Grim901]

Grim

I think you are completely wrong on the EU common market and it's relevance for Britain. The ultimate "what if it disappeared tomorrow" is easely answered by "Economical meltdown" for Europe in general and those that have significant trade with europe. It's not even an interesting question, because no european goverment would see it's interest in such an event. The interesting question, vis a vis this thread, is which mechanisms of the common market can be used to make european defense industry more efficient. Because if things continue as they are the day is not far away, where you as an (I presume) englishman will see the last ironworker of the last british yard say:"Out-competed by a bunch of ... ".

I think the panic that the collapse would cause would create a meltdown yes, but theoretically if everyone kept cool they'd realise that the people they've been trading with are still there, there are just fewer rules about the trade now. It brings new opportunities too, in the form of new trade partners outside the old bloc, and no limiting of production for fairness in the form of quotas. Granted it may not be the case, we'll never really know what'd happen or if we'd simply be outcompeted by other protected economies. I still wonder where Britain would be today if it hadn't been forced to abandon its old trading partners.

You are correct, I am English, but with Scottish, Welsh and Irish grandparents (I couldn't be more British basically). And we saw the day you mentioned long ago, the civilian yards are quiet and the industrial might of the North East of England went with it. Welcome to post war Britain. That is partly why we won't let go of our defence sector, it is the only real manufacturing we have left, but we do it a hell of a lot better than the Chinese.

To dig a little bit into details:

When a company operates on a small market ("small" meassured in the number of competitors) that company will MOST likely end up less efficient than a company operating on a market with many more competitors.
This is one of the things the common market does for you, it automatically increases the efficiency of your economy, through competition. As british (at least if you are elder) you know from first hand experience that you can keep competition away from your shores, but the result is that your protected home industry will grow more and more inefficient (relatively to the outside) and one day the damn breaks.

You're right, that usually is the case. But opening up to the outside market would only really help those companies become efficient if they didn't with and die because of the competition. Effectively you'd be forced to protect your own economy and companies or push on hoping for efficiency in the few that survive.

When we have agreed that the common market is not just a convenience, but a prerequisit for an efficient European economy (which includes Britain for those in doubt) then you get sucked up in all the annoying common rules and regulation needed for that common market to function - the premis that is behind any aspiration of wealth comparable to other great markets(economies).

It is the rules and regs you mentioned that are the problem. They are based on sharing and fair play and keeping every single party happy, which means every side will end up losing out in some way. In one instance (CFP) they've actually had to step back and say they'll give control back to national govt's, because the system doesn't work. Unless the EU and its members were to fundamentally change the way they operate, their is no way around that, therefore no way to solve the problem while the EU exists.

If we consider defense industry in that view, and observe that, mostly, French Def industry operates on a french market, British on a British market and german on a german market and, say, US on a huge US market and the rest of the world (well knowing that the individual companies does have/own important, sometimes even more important, activities in other countries than "home country") you just known, just from that, that the French, british and german industry has a long term efficiency problem.

True, there are definitely efficiency issues. But the alternative is either to bleed the nation dry being inefficient or to merge with another company abroad, thus losing another company. Britain has tried to find ways around the issue t stop further companies being lost. BVT is now our only surface warship builder, to stop them from either going out of business or merging internationally (probably leading to shipyard closures/workforce reductions) they've guaranteed continual work to them for the next 15 years. Now they just have to try and ensure fairly efficient work.

The answer, the only answer to this problem, is to make the market(s) on which these industries operates larger. You need a common market for defense. Now you can choose to have a common market of defense with the US, though I emplore you to consider the wisdom in investing british taxpayers money in R&D in an economy that you are not part of.

You've hit the nail on the head there. By expanding your company into another country through a merger you begin paying part your taxpayers money into another countries hands rather than your own. As a taxpayer, i'd rather my hard earned cash was going towards weapons built in my own country, rather than haemorrhaging money to a multinational company that will employ abroad. I'd rather we had replicated capability and a slightly more expensive weapon than one that in no way contributes to my country.

The main problem with you idea of expanding markets is that the companies seek the cheapest labour and manufacturing costs, which for the EU means the East, the money and the work both flow out of Britain and France and Germany and head away.

I probably shouldn't have tried to reply now, i'm very tired and doubt my arguments lack coherency or the meaning I was trying to convey. Maybe i'll take another crack at it tomorrow.

 

[Palnatoke]

Grim

First of all. To explain the difference between the Common market and a free trade system like the WTO, consider the following:

You are a chicken farmer from Canada, and you are the best chicken farmer in the world. You want to sell chickens to Denmark, which you can do because we are lovers of free trade! But before you can actually sell a chicken to a danish "house-mother" you just have to send us a 40 foot container filled up with (expensive) scientific documentation testfying that your canadien chickens lives up to our standards of food....
If you on the other hand are a british chicken farmer you can sell us your chickens, directly, because we trust that the british authorities have checked your production to at least common market minimum regulations (be that, that they are perhaps lover than canadien minimum standards). The canadien producer is operating on an export market, which is difficult, while the british producer is operating on something that's a near home market for him, when they do buisness with Danes.
So wavering the "free trade" instead of "common market" is not an argument, or only concerns products which are very similiar (like iron bars).

More to the point, might be that polish yards can offer you a good quote on the construction of a ship. Maybe your skilled engineers and designers could do what they are good at (design, develop etc), then have the damn thing builded in Poland (after all that's not so high tech, but it's labour intensive), fit all the high tech stuff back in UK and perhaps you have a good business plan. You get to keep the high value jobs and the poles get to do what they are good at. The beauti of it all is that british economy will, or can, benefit directly from the stimulus in poland, since british firms can operate efficiently in Poland, due to the common market. It would not be the same story had you builded the ship in, say, Japan.

But opening up to the outside market would only really help those companies become efficient if they didn't with and die because of the competition.

True. But what are your interests in an uncompetiative company?? Do you enjoy paying too much for your products?
The Lindø yard died because of competion. They tried hard, f.ex. by world leading automatisation, to offset their fundamental problem; Danish ironworkers are much too expensive when compared to a chinese ironworker. And when nobody wanted to have their ships builded at Lindø at the asking price, There where two options: let the yard die or start pumping public money into the yard, a typical way of doing that would be to build warships for the danish navy (to get around EU and WTO regulations) . So we could raise tax and expand the navy at an increased price (remember, Lindø weren't competiative). In that way we would tax all the healthy parts of danish economy to keep one sick part afloat, that sounds like a bad strategy to me...

The main problem with you idea of expanding markets is that the companies seek the cheapest labour and manufacturing costs, which for the EU means the East, the money and the work both flow out of Britain and France and Germany and head away.

We should have a common market of defense industry so that we can make it efficient. Through competion and through a better division of labour: F.ex. British engineers should design and develop beautifull weapons and ships, but we should leave it to, people that got a comparativ advantage in construction/manufactoring to build them.
If you don't adapt, you are going too loose both the ironworkers and the engineers...

 

[Grim901]

As you pointed out, the building that you suggest handing off to Poland is the labour intensive bit, what exactly are all the British labourers supposed to do instead? They can't all become engineers and designers, they are simply out of the job because of cheaper labour elsewhere. That in turn leads to gretaer unemployment which is bad for the economy as those few engineers who do still have a job now have to pay for their old shipbuilders to get state welfare.

We've moved out of theoretical economics now, this has actually happened in parts of the UK. It is taking massive government intereference in certain regions to try and breathe life back into the old manufacturing areas, with mixed results.

How do you propose to address that?