British yards have a successful niche in small warships, such as OPVs & corvettes.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
OK, I stand corrected. Though I think the main point stands: Being largely shutout of the commercial market, It's difficult for a number of european nations to expand their shipbuilding industries into an millitary export market, hence we are left in the situation that the industry is dominated (read: nursed) by their one customer: The goverment.
I would like to narrow the field down a little bit.
I do not consider Electronics, radars, weapon components etc as core "shipbuilding" industry. These can be viewed as sub components delivered by sub-contractors. Their respective industrial branches have a quite different buisness enviroments (and largely these branches and firms seems to be doing well, relative to their international competitors).
I do not consider Electronics, radars, weapon components etc as core "shipbuilding" industry. These can be viewed as sub components delivered by sub-contractors. Their respective industrial branches have a quite different buisness enviroments (and largely these branches and firms seems to be doing well, relative to their international competitors).
In some respect you speak the truth. Ships are built cheaper where there is cheaper labor costs. Always will with just about everything. What is your solution? Cut everyone's salaries in Europe 90 percent? Developing nations are developing.. Many are building ships.
On the other hand most governments prefer to spend as much of their defense funds in their own country. Its helps significantly with their balance of trade. They take the attitude if they have to spend so much, might as well as fund jobs in country.
Last edited:
Lower labour cost in some countries is/was a factor in the decline. Though I consider unfair competion as much more damaging to european shipbuilding. There are certain yards in certain asian countries where the line between the yard's money and the state's money seems to be more than blurry (to put it nicely). though european's shouldn't point fingers: During the 80ties (illegal) subsidies in europe made sure that no yards could make a healthy business and inefficient yards were allowed to continue. Thus you kept the unhealthy (subsidised) yards and the healthy yards went down.
So my suggestion, regarding commercial shipbuilding, would be something like enforcing a "level playing field" - internationally.
The same would go for millitary shipbuilding, but of security reasons not all contenders can be allowed into that game, it would be a "friends only club".
Uh... India and China maybe. Other than that, you're looking at like two or three military shipyards in developing nations worldwide.
The defence industry is evolving away from boom and bust cycles to better meet there own and government requirements. The UK, specifically BAE, is leading the way (the same company we love to bemoan).
Traditionally shipyards have suffered from building a series of ships/submarines for a Navy, which are slated to last 20-30 years, they then suffer if the same models can't be sold overseas. Subsequently engineers, tradesmen are let go or leave and apprenticeships are severed. When new orders are placed for the next generation the yards have to go through the whole process again of ramping up recruitment and building specilaised knowledge. BAE/BVT have changed their approach dramatically and signed long term agreements with the UK government guaranteeing consistent revenue covering 20 -25 year periods, this has been done with Typhoon, Harrier, Tornado, T23 & T45 with sigend and sealed long term supporting contracts. This helps BAE/BVT retain expertise and more crucially introduce long term apprenticeship programmes, which builds an indigenous high-quality proprietary work force.
This approach is the only way to go as large Navies are replaced by smaller, more expensive and more technical fleets. By adopting this methodology you will introduce more efficient working practices, thus reduce batch costs, in-service delay problems and knowledge gaps.
The contracts are written in such away as to guarentee a number of platforms for front line service under strict penalty clauses For example BAE staff in the UK are obligated to maintain a fixed number of Harriers which MUST be available for front line service, this appraoch dovetailed with the RAF logitics chain also means that RAF engineers can now be released for front line maintenence duties in A-Stan. The same applies to the T45, BVT are retained on long term contracts, which are desigend to ensure 5 out of 6 vessels will be available for sea under most circumstances.
Traditionally shipyards have suffered from building a series of ships/submarines for a Navy, which are slated to last 20-30 years, they then suffer if the same models can't be sold overseas. Subsequently engineers, tradesmen are let go or leave and apprenticeships are severed. When new orders are placed for the next generation the yards have to go through the whole process again of ramping up recruitment and building specilaised knowledge. BAE/BVT have changed their approach dramatically and signed long term agreements with the UK government guaranteeing consistent revenue covering 20 -25 year periods, this has been done with Typhoon, Harrier, Tornado, T23 & T45 with sigend and sealed long term supporting contracts. This helps BAE/BVT retain expertise and more crucially introduce long term apprenticeship programmes, which builds an indigenous high-quality proprietary work force.
This approach is the only way to go as large Navies are replaced by smaller, more expensive and more technical fleets. By adopting this methodology you will introduce more efficient working practices, thus reduce batch costs, in-service delay problems and knowledge gaps.
The contracts are written in such away as to guarentee a number of platforms for front line service under strict penalty clauses For example BAE staff in the UK are obligated to maintain a fixed number of Harriers which MUST be available for front line service, this appraoch dovetailed with the RAF logitics chain also means that RAF engineers can now be released for front line maintenence duties in A-Stan. The same applies to the T45, BVT are retained on long term contracts, which are desigend to ensure 5 out of 6 vessels will be available for sea under most circumstances.
I understand this is a worse case scenario RAS option, but must be practiced as part of Darings ongoing 'beat-up' programme. All eventualities have to be covered before she can be considered fully operational.
In crisis situation when time is limited, RFA's might have an option of RAS'ing port & starboard, as well as one vessel aft. Or if the RAS vessel is battle damaged it may only have an option of RAS'ing over the stern???? Looks like they simply throw the hose over the side, let the currrent do the rest until the hose can be hooked by thrown grapple.
It does mention the practice is very rare in the RN article (link attached).
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operati...ws/over-the-bow-shows-em-how/*/changeNav/6568
Also noted the new NATO Submarine Rescue System (NSRS) being used from a Norwegian vessel on an ORP Sep Koben class submarine from Poland. The old system is now up and running in Australia covering the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operati...ry/*/changeNav/00h00100300d002/imageIndex/13/
Last edited:
RS
While I welcome improved ways of handling public-private relationships, I don't see that the above changes the fundamental problems that I suspect lies behind the cost structure of much millitary ship building, namely an industry that because it doesn't function on an open market is slowly but certainly rendered inefficient. I.e. that the industry ineffect got only one customer, the respective MoD of the country.
I could fear that while what you describe very likely improves the service that the public can instantly demand from it's private contractors there is a risc that such practices further entrenches the, imho, fundamentally sick structure of the industry in that it consolidates the all ready large enterprises into true monopolies, thereby also reducing the surplier side . F.ex. because you need a certain size and weight to make and gurantee a large, long running contract with a goverment, effectively shutting out smaller firms as main contractors. If I be bold, I would suggest that you end up with the singleton relationship of one customer and one surplier, in which case the customer can might as well buy the surplier - That would be, nationalizing the defense industry.
Further more, and I stress that this is my own unscientific oppinion (though based in part on personal experience), in a public-private relationship in which the private part is "large" and the problem field complex, the private part has a huge information advantage. The private firm has the specialist expertice and knowledge. On the public side you have civil servants, whom, with all due respect, just aren't on the same technical knowledge level (and if they are, they are for sure soon employed in the private sector), their strenghts lies in other fields. So if you are dealing with one or few surpliers, it can be hard for the public/state to actually know what value they are getting for tax payer's money....
But then again maybe I wrong, maybe the cost structure isn't bloated. Maybe there is good value for taxpayers money?
It's hard to tell, those that probably got the knowledge to answer the question are all parties of interest to the matter (f.ex. the navy and the builders) and I don't think either of them has good stewardship of public money very high on their "to do list".
While I welcome improved ways of handling public-private relationships, I don't see that the above changes the fundamental problems that I suspect lies behind the cost structure of much millitary ship building, namely an industry that because it doesn't function on an open market is slowly but certainly rendered inefficient. I.e. that the industry ineffect got only one customer, the respective MoD of the country.
I could fear that while what you describe very likely improves the service that the public can instantly demand from it's private contractors there is a risc that such practices further entrenches the, imho, fundamentally sick structure of the industry in that it consolidates the all ready large enterprises into true monopolies, thereby also reducing the surplier side . F.ex. because you need a certain size and weight to make and gurantee a large, long running contract with a goverment, effectively shutting out smaller firms as main contractors. If I be bold, I would suggest that you end up with the singleton relationship of one customer and one surplier, in which case the customer can might as well buy the surplier - That would be, nationalizing the defense industry.
Further more, and I stress that this is my own unscientific oppinion (though based in part on personal experience), in a public-private relationship in which the private part is "large" and the problem field complex, the private part has a huge information advantage. The private firm has the specialist expertice and knowledge. On the public side you have civil servants, whom, with all due respect, just aren't on the same technical knowledge level (and if they are, they are for sure soon employed in the private sector), their strenghts lies in other fields. So if you are dealing with one or few surpliers, it can be hard for the public/state to actually know what value they are getting for tax payer's money....
But then again maybe I wrong, maybe the cost structure isn't bloated. Maybe there is good value for taxpayers money?
It's hard to tell, those that probably got the knowledge to answer the question are all parties of interest to the matter (f.ex. the navy and the builders) and I don't think either of them has good stewardship of public money very high on their "to do list".
ICELORD, can you DEFINE 'over the bow'. I know that T-45 has a 2nd-ary RAS point on the fo'c'sle (just FWD of the Bridge), but it's a mighty long way to the bow from there !
The pics you mentioned, are they on-line & do you have a link to them ??
As Daring is 1st of type, 1st of class, she'll have a whole ream of tests & trials that she'll have to undertake, until Dauntless is Accepted Off Contract (AOC).
The 2nd ship will be a nice Xmas prezzie for the RN (seeing as they're gonna be getting another 4 after this, 1 a year at Xmas !). It will allow them to do more, possibly including letting Daring go off & do some Hot / Cold weather trials even or a trip to the states, to do some show-boating....
SA
PS
DOH !!!, should have read all postings before opening my gob n puttin me foot in it !
Nice pics of this strange evolution though !
Last edited:
Icelord
The RAS you are on about is a little used technique but still utilised from time to time. Most RFA tankers are still fitted with hose units aft to conduct this drill and all Major RN units have to be able to carry this type of ras out. Most RAS(F) are either probe or NATO B/QRC abeam, but over the bow, which is a lot slower is coupled to a QRC coupling on the focsle.
This is definetly the case, checked with my oppo who has joined Diamond as the CBM.
Regards rnrp
Icelord, I'm not sure how long you've been in and I haven't been at sea for a good few years, but astern refuelling used to be practised in the RAN (at least up until the 1980s) and it was certainly in the books.
Astute starting sea trials 
Lots of interesting pics.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/first_sea_trials_for_bae_systems_barrow_submarine_astute_1_635671
Lots of interesting pics.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/first_sea_trials_for_bae_systems_barrow_submarine_astute_1_635671
windscorpion
New Member
Wildcat makes it's first flight
PICTURES: Lynx Wildcat makes first flight, with AW149 also poised for debut-13/11/2009-London-Flightglobal.com
"The UK armed forces’ new Lynx Wildcat helicopter has made its first flight, with the programme milestone to boost AgustaWestland’s marketing efforts for the internationally-branded AW159 during the 15-19 November Dubai air show.
Performed at the company’s Yeovil site in the UK on 12 November, the flight debut included “a range of general handling checks”, says AgustaWestland. Flown by chief test pilot Donald Maclaine, “the aircraft performed as expected”, it adds. Carrying the military registration ZZ400, the helicopter was painted in British Army markings for its debut."
PICTURES: Lynx Wildcat makes first flight, with AW149 also poised for debut-13/11/2009-London-Flightglobal.com
"The UK armed forces’ new Lynx Wildcat helicopter has made its first flight, with the programme milestone to boost AgustaWestland’s marketing efforts for the internationally-branded AW159 during the 15-19 November Dubai air show.
Performed at the company’s Yeovil site in the UK on 12 November, the flight debut included “a range of general handling checks”, says AgustaWestland. Flown by chief test pilot Donald Maclaine, “the aircraft performed as expected”, it adds. Carrying the military registration ZZ400, the helicopter was painted in British Army markings for its debut."
Nice photo's of Astute underway, you can see how different she is when compared to a T-Class. You can also clearly see how the design has evolved from that of the Vanguard class, similar profile from above, particularly the large sail. The new sail design and flat deck will make it easier for SF deployments.Astute starting sea trials
Lots of interesting pics.
North West Evening Mail | News | First sea trials for BAE Systems Barrow submarine Astute
You would be pretty damned skitty the first time the order to dive is given.
LargeImageTemplate departs from Barrow-in-Furness
LargeImageTemplate setting off for Faslane
Last edited:
When it comes to budget cuts, the most savings is with aircraft. The whole purpose of a carrier is their flexibility, being able to be used throughout the world on the free seas. Instead of cutting a carrier, a country can find significant savings with an air force squadron as well.
Couple of good photo's showing Daring RAS'ing in a more conventional manner utilising two rigs concurrently alongside RFA Fort George.
Hopefully flag training will continue to proceed with zero dramas and shorten the period of time required for the rest of the D-Class fleet as lessons learnt are passed on.
All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy
All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy