The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

Disagree all you like, you are wrong; they are amphibious assault ships, built to carry lots of marines for vertical assault, having the capability to carry F35bs doesn't change that.



Build a big hanger space and you lose the ability to carry lots of heavy cargo, all you would be doing was reducing the very capability they built for.



It becomes pointless moaning when you continuously emphasis the same points over and over again even when others have pointed out the holes in them.



It did not cost us anything in export potential, the RN were offered the chance to get a cheap platform for the job, there was no chance of them getting anything better because there was no budget for it, so they took what was offered. The Cold war was not long over, the MOD budget was in stagnation after a long period of cuts, the RN got what it could get in difficult times, they took the right decision.



Yes I blame the politicians, the Major Government was too quick to make savings on the Peace Dividend and lots of procurement screw ups resulted. The present Government has made increases in defence spending that are below the rate of inflation while inflation in defence equipment runs at double the rate, service personnel have also received salary increases at higher than the rate of inflation and all while we were involved in two wars. That is utterly idiotic and its fairly obvious that the MOD equipment budget was going to go down the toilet. Then of course, there is the strategic defence review, very well received by the military until it became apparent that the Government failed to provide the funding for it. The MOD aren't blameless but to say they are totally at fault for the current mess they are in is short sighted in the extreme.



There are other places Government should make savings before looking at the MOD budget, there are billions in savings that can be made in other Government departments that won't have a great deal of effect on frontline services. But of course the MOD will have to suffer like every other department because the politicians in this country are idiots.

I have made my responses elsewhere, but you are again ducking the issues, focusing on detail around Ocean. the point was about cost reductions, to be offer up with some knowledge or waiting for cuts imposed by uninformed Politicans. Just saying their are plenty of other areas that should take cuts outside MOD is not going to get the RN anywhere. Yes other departments will have to take cuts but the MOD will have aswell. UK defence spending is still fairly generous, I just don't see the evidence we are getting bang for buck, the face I was talking about logisitcs/assault capability does not negate a very valid general observation. The "peace dividend" was fair to take. We do not face a massive Soviet threat. The UK needs to look to the Russian approach to equipement. Now they don't have huge internal production runs they are going for export big time.

You are the one just repeating yourself, you haven't produced evidence:like export success, comparision with activity in other relevant navies.

 

[kev 99]

The detail about Ocean was because we were discussing Ocean, you're comment just comes across as shifting the emphasis when you know you've lost the argument.

ASFC is right you mention wanting to build more expensive ships and then moan about the MOD "not getting bang for the buck" you need to make up your mind, as for your response you don't really do a very good job of answering it, in fact it sounds like you're just trying to shift emphasis again.

Repeating myself? Because you continue to make the same points over and over long after several people including myself have pointed out the weaknesses in your arguments.

We understand you think every decision the MOD has made is wrong, after all, you've been saying it since you joined this forum, you've practically turned this into the 1805 Royal Navy Winge thread. If you don't believe me go back about 10 pages and have a read though it.

Export success or not has nothing to do with any of the points I have been making, you are the one that keeps bringing it up not me.

To be honest I've broken my own rule I made about arguing with you, I decided a while ago there wasn't any point to it, we're just going round in circles here and I don't see any reason to continue, it's fairly obvious that I have been unable to convince you of anything, I know that you have similarly had no effect on me.

 

[1805]

The detail about Ocean was because we were discussing Ocean, you're comment just comes across as shifting the emphasis when you know you've lost the argument.

ASFC is right you mention wanting to build more expensive ships and then moan about the MOD "not getting bang for the buck" you need to make up your mind, as for your response you don't really do a very good job of answering it, in fact it sounds like you're just trying to shift emphasis again.

Repeating myself? Because you continue to make the same points over and over long after several people including myself have pointed out the weaknesses in your arguments.

We understand you think every decision the MOD has made is wrong, after all, you've been saying it since you joined this forum, you've practically turned this into the 1805 Royal Navy Winge thread. If you don't believe me go back about 10 pages and have a read though it.

Export success or not has nothing to do with any of the points I have been making, you are the one that keeps bringing it up not me.

To be honest I've broken my own rule I made about arguing with you, I decided a while ago there wasn't any point to it, we're just going round in circles here and I don't see any reason to continue, it's fairly obvious that I have been unable to convince you of anything, I know that you have similarly had no effect on me.

My original post was about ways to save money, to prempt the loss of a CV (i don't think they will be cancelled either but a sale of one is not inconcievable). I mentioned Ocean as part of a number of suggestions. I don't think I have lost the debate about LPH/Albion (also the Bays are cheap to run, but where not free run/build), I think the Mistral/SPE and others are examples of ships that would have been better. However we are not going to agree on this, and I accept you hold your points strongly aswell, but making it personal debase your argument.

I don't think the RN is badly run but I do think it should be open to challenge. I expect it to be top quartile reflecting spend/status/history which I don't think it is? I was watching Dan Snows BBC program last night whilest writing and do feel we lack a Fisher....where are the RN Dreadnoughts? (I mean innovative 1sts, not the 1906 battleship).

I am sorry if you don't like my post, or it seems any opposing views, but I don't think they prevent other people having debates and I would rather that the thread was active showing an interest in the future of RN (as I am sure you do to).

 

[ASFC]

I wasn't saying Ocean was a bad ship or poor value of money in isolation. I was actually trying to stimulate a debate on where money could be saved (reluctabtly) to reduce any risk to the new CVs which should be a priority.

Fair enough...but

The budget issue is a red herring the RN must have said it wanted a LPH not a replacement for a LPD ie a replacement for Fearless/Intepid (with helicopters)

Ocean is a replacement for the Commando Carriers of the late 60s-early 80s The ones that carried lots of Helicopters and Landing Craft, and where retired without any direct replacement. The RN wanted replacements for both the Commando Carriers and the LPDs (at one time we operated both Commando Carriers and LPDs.....)

If you consider the 'effective' RN ampbhibious force during the 90s was HMS Fearless, plus 6 Round Table Class LSLs and anything the Invincibles could offer, the fact that 15 years later we now have Ocean, 2 Albions, 4 Bays, which are miles better than there replacements, I think the RN have done quite well.

 

[1805]

Fair enough...but


Ocean is a replacement for the Commando Carriers of the late 60s-early 80s The ones that carried lots of Helicopters and Landing Craft, and where retired without any direct replacement. The RN wanted replacements for both the Commando Carriers and the LPDs (at one time we operated both Commando Carriers and LPDs.....)

If you consider the 'effective' RN ampbhibious force during the 90s was HMS Fearless, plus 6 Round Table Class LSLs and anything the Invincibles could offer, the fact that 15 years later we now have Ocean, 2 Albions, 4 Bays, which are miles better than there replacements, I think the RN have done quite well.

Look I agree I think we are focusing on the wrong detail. They are good ships but, a big increase in tonnage over the Falklands fleet, and although I have no issue with this if it can be accommodated. We now have the: Leafs, Rovers, Forts all moving to 35 years+ old and no sign of a replacement for at leat 4 years, since MARS went to ground? Could we not have built 3-4 16,000t Rover replacements, in the late 90s.

 

[swerve]

Like the Bays/Albions/Point a massive increase over the previous adequate force. .

The Point class are not a massive increase. Previously, we had a couple of leased ro-ros, which we supplemented with short-term charters, at prices which depended on the state of the shipping market & the urgency of the need, & with no guarantee that we'd be able to get hold of ships which were a good fit for our needs. We now have stable, predictable costs, & guaranteed availability of ships which we know are suitable. We can load them with nose to tail Challengers, for example, instead of having to space them across the deck, as with commercial ro-ros.

There is no net increase in ships used.

Part of the increased size of the Albions & Bays over the ships they replaced is accounted for by higher accommodation standards, & the rest by an official perception that the previous force was not adequate.

They are good ships but, a big increase in tonnage over the Falklands fleet,

Don't forget that we no longer have the same ability to requisition ships from the British register that we had in the past. This isn't the 1960s, or even 1982, when we called up large numbers of ships that no longer exist, & have not been replaced by new British-registered ships. We need to have our own ships now, to make up for the loss of that civilian fleet.

The world changes, & we must recognise that, or fail.

 

[1805]

The Point class are not a massive increase. Previously, we had a couple of leased ro-ros, which we supplemented with short-term charters, at prices which depended on the state of the shipping market & the urgency of the need, & with no guarantee that we'd be able to get hold of ships which were a good fit for our needs. We now have stable, predictable costs, & guaranteed availability of ships which we know are suitable. We can load them with nose to tail Challengers, for example, instead of having to space them across the deck, as with commercial ro-ros.

There is no net increase in ships used.

Part of the increased size of the Albions & Bays over the ships they replaced is accounted for by higher accommodation standards, & the rest by an official perception that the previous force was not adequate.



Don't forget that we no longer have the same ability to requisition ships from the British register that we had in the past. This isn't the 1960s, or even 1982, when we called up large numbers of ships that no longer exist, & have not been replaced by new British-registered ships. We need to have our own ships now, to make up for the loss of that civilian fleet.

The world changes, & we must recognise that, or fail.

I do love the Points, the call off nature is even better, and have no issue with them. You are absolutely right about the state of UK civil fleet.

 

[MrQuintus]

I do love the Points, the call off nature is even better, and have no issue with them. You are absolutely right about the state of UK civil fleet.

Actually you'd be stunned at just how many ships are still available under DORA, they may not be built here, crewed by brits or even see these shores much, but the red ensign still flies far and wide

 

[Systems Adict]

I wasn't saying Ocean was a bad ship or poor value of money in isolation. I was actually trying to stimulate a debate on where money could be saved (reluctantly) to reduce any risk to the new CVs which should be a priority.

The biggest issue with Ocean, is that we didn't build more than one.

That had more to do with bean counters & procurement than RN requirements...

The biggest issue with 'NEW' products, is that due to the industrial decline in shipbuilding of the last 30 years, many of the individuals who are now involved in the design & procurement of ships don't understand the needs of the navy or pride that has previously been put into the products made.

In the UK, if we took more time to support our industrial base, rather than screwing them to the wall for the margin, so that the companies make profits, while the suppliers close down. It just shows that the procurement people don't care about providing the 'best' product, but the cheapest.

....And the Cheapest doesn't help save money !

SA

 

[riksavage]

The biggest issue with Ocean, is that we didn't build more than one.

That had more to do with bean counters & procurement than RN requirements...

The biggest issue with 'NEW' products, is that due to the industrial decline in shipbuilding of the last 30 years, many of the individuals who are now involved in the design & procurement of ships don't understand the needs of the navy or pride that has previously been put into the products made.

In the UK, if we took more time to support our industrial base, rather than screwing them to the wall for the margin, so that the companies make profits, while the suppliers close down. It just shows that the procurement people don't care about providing the 'best' product, but the cheapest.

....And the Cheapest doesn't help save money !

SA

Fortunately the recent Astute, T45 and ongoing QE programme has reintroduced much need skills to military shipbuilding. The one thing the UK Government has done to its credit is sign long term agreements with the likes of BVT/BAE, guaranteeing 10, 15, 25 year contracts. What this does is allow companies to pro-actively engage apprentice / graduates on embedded programmes and hopefully move away from boom - bust construction cycles. Whilst you may not be able to retain certain design skills once a class of ship is complete, you can retain specialised manufacturing / machining / CadCam and project management skills to cover long term maintenance contracts. The Astute programme has been compared to building the space shuttle and new construction techniques (moving from stuffing the sausage to vertical construction of individual sections before welding) will roll over to the Vanguard replacement programme, which will endup being an evolved Astute +.

 

[1805]

The biggest issue with Ocean, is that we didn't build more than one.

That had more to do with bean counters & procurement than RN requirements...

The biggest issue with 'NEW' products, is that due to the industrial decline in shipbuilding of the last 30 years, many of the individuals who are now involved in the design & procurement of ships don't understand the needs of the navy or pride that has previously been put into the products made.

In the UK, if we took more time to support our industrial base, rather than screwing them to the wall for the margin, so that the companies make profits, while the suppliers close down. It just shows that the procurement people don't care about providing the 'best' product, but the cheapest.

....And the Cheapest doesn't help save money !

Well thats certainly handy because nothing the RN has brought recently has been very cheap or attractive to foreign buyers.

Where are all these ships built on the cheap......T45, Astute.....? Prehaps we should raise some more taxes? Mod edit: Text Deleted. Ones participation here on DefenceTalk is voluntary. Adherence to the forum rules is not. That means no insulting or derogatory comments about other nations or aimed at other posters.
-Preceptor

 

[Systems Adict]

[Well thats certainly handy because nothing the RN has brought recently has been very cheap or attractive to foreign buyers.

Where are all these ships built on the cheap......T45, Astute.....? Prehaps we should raise some more taxes?

Just because the RN has chosen to procure 'expensive' vessels, doesn't mean to say that they are not 'value for money'.

As far as the RN is concerned Type-45 IS currently, the most advanced Air Defence Warship in the world, at this moment in time. It's been built to their designs, they've been involved from initial ideas to the manufacture & installation of equipment & the vessels will do more than was originally asked.

Now, if you were talking to the MANUFACTURERS (e.g. BAE), then that would be different, after all it is THEM who manufacture & sell the vessels / ideas / designs, not the RN...

...& as for Finance / Taxes, I have whole heartedly stated on this forum & fully advocated, as a paid up member of the British Tax payers club, that the Govt should levvy an additional 'penny in the pound', to continue the support our armed forces, where ever they are called to go, to support humanitarian issues & rid the globe of mainiacs, as well as providing our armed forces with ALL the correct tools to do the job...

It would just help if the procurement people bought the right tools for the job, instead of doing 'the 3 quote jig' & picking the cheapest kit, every time, only because they haven't the experience....

...& before I'm accused of being a 'liar', I've worked in the defence Industry for the best part of the last 20 years & have seen it happen, ALL too often !

SA

 

[davros]

Bulbous Bow for HMS Queen Elizabeth has been complete along with another bow section these will leave for final assembly on March 31.

HUNDREDS of tonnes of steel — resembling a conventional submarine — will be floated out of the River Torridge next month.

It will mark the completion by Appledore Shipyard of a key stage in one of its most significant projects to date.

The huge bulbous bow, which weighs more than 33 double decker buses, is one of two bow units set to leave Appledore on March 31 to form part of the HMS Queen Elizabeth warship.

Shipbuilding director Andy Hamilton said: "It is the biggest event so far in the life of the aircraft carrier and is really significant.

"Appledore will be delivering the largest part so far to Rosyth in Scotland for assembly."

This part of the shipyard's £50 million carrier project has sparked a series of high profile visits to the North Devon yard and praise from the Ministry of Defence Director Ships, Rear Admiral Bob Love.

He witnessed work on the bow module which forms part of the first lower block.

He said: "I was delighted to see lower block 1 coming together at Appledore.

"This work is proof that the project is progressing well, milestones are being met and momentum is growing.

"The next year will see the carrier programme make a significant step forward as this block, the first of the four large lower blocks to be constructed for HMS Queen Elizabeth, is delivered to Rosyth."

Mr Hamilton said the yard had progressed very well with the work, and met targets and costs.

There are now 30 new apprentices at the shipyard working on the project after a further 16 joined at the end of last month.

Mr Hamilton said: "The first batch are doing really well, they have picked up some excellent shipbuilding skills and we now have 30 in total which is excellent for the economy and jobs in this area."

He added: "Eight hundred tonnes of ship construction will leave Appledore for Rosyth and around 150 people, about half the workforce, have been directly involved in it. We have been involved in the design, drafting and construction of the vessel.

"I am really pleased with the development and progress at Appledore Shipyard and we have made huge strides forward since 2003."

The bulbous bow is a protruding 'bulb' at the bow of the ship just below the waterline. By altering the bow wave generation and water flow around the hull, it will reduce drag and increase the carrier's speed and fuel efficiency.

Babcock's Marine Division warships managing director, Mike Pettigrew, said: "It is only when you witness the structure first hand that you can get an idea of the sheer scale of this vessel.

"In terms of schedule and cost, the progress at Appledore has more than fulfilled everyone's expectations and show just how far advanced this project is."

After the bow units leave Appledore on a transport barge, the shipyard team will continue with work constructing the flight desk sponsons and centre blocks for HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Work on the second warship, HMS Prince of Wales is due to begin in Appledore in January, 2012.

Last week Prime Minister Gordon Brown restated his commitment to the two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.

 

[davros]

I also read today in the Portsmouth News that parts of the double bottom hull have arrived in Portsmouth in the last 48 hours for assembly into one of the supper blocks they are building. Looks like there is plenty of progress.

 

[davros]

HMS Illustrious begins a 13 month refit.
If anyone wants a construction CGI video of a CVF visit this link Appledore shipyard, Navy aircraft carrier, Babcock Marine ¦ This is North Devon

HMS Illustrious arrived at Rosyth today in preparation for a 13 month docking period to start next month, in a £40 million contract awarded under the Surface Ship Support Alliance (the alliance between the MoD, Babcock and BAE Systems). This is the fifth refit to be undertaken by Babcock on the Invincible class aircraft carriers (CVS) and second to be carried out by the company’s highly experienced team on HMS Illustrious.

HMS Illustrious received a large number of capability upgrades during her last refit by Babcock in 2005, and will receive further upgrades during this upkeep period. These will include the Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) providing a coherent information infrastructure enabling sharing of information and collaborative working across platforms, and installation of reverse osmosis plants for improved shipboard fresh water production.

Close working between Babcock and the MoD and Royal Navy in advance of the refit has enabled knowledge and experience to be applied to establish a work package that will ensure HMS Illustrious returns to the fleet in optimum condition within the budget parameters, to deliver maximum value for money to the MoD and Royal Navy.

Various measures have been implemented to maximise efficiency and minimise cost and time in dock. For example, early surveys of the two funnels has enabled the originally required renewal of both to be reduced to a more cost-effective series of repairs. Additionally, measures have been put in place to de-risk overhaul times in key areas to aid adherence to schedule, and use of two time windows in advance of the upkeep start date to undertake some initial survey, testing and preparation work on a number of aspects of the programme will also optimise efficiency when the project starts.

In addition to the capability upgrades, major repairs to both funnels, and a full Lloyds Register structural survey, the work to be undertaken on HMS Illustrious includes application of a foul release paint system on the keel, which provides improved fuel efficiency and speed through the water. High pressure air and salt water systems will be overhauled, as will all 200 underwater valves. Additionally the flight deck and hangar deck paint coatings will be renewed, and work undertaken to the diesel generators.
Habitability upgrades for the 682 crew and 366 aircrew will include revitalising the mess decks, as well as galley equipment upgrades for improved catering facilities, and the chilled water and air conditioning plants will also be overhauled.

Babcock project manager Charlie Forrester, leading the refit project, commented: “Many of the team involved in this docking period have been involved in all four previous CVS refit contracts and we have a wealth of platform knowledge and experience to take forward onto Illustrious. We are looking forward to the challenge of another CVS upkeep at Rosyth, and to working closely with the MoD, ship’s staff, and all internal and external stakeholders, and to returning Illustrious on-time and in the best possible material condition, fully capable, fighting fit and ready to perform her operational duties providing forced strike projection anywhere in the world.”

David Winstanley, Clyde Director (Rosyth) Project General Manager, said: “The MoD upkeep team at Rosyth are looking forward to working in partnership with Babcock and ship’s staff to deliver this upkeep project against challenging budget and programme requirements.”

Cdr Martin Douglas, Senior Naval Officer for the upkeep period, commented: "The ship's company and I are looking forward to working with the team in Rosyth to deliver Illustrious back to the Fleet as one of the key elements of the Royal Navy's continued Carrier Strike development."

HMS Illustrious will be docking in No.2 Dock at Rosyth, alongside No.1 Dock where Babcock will be undertaking the assembly and integration of the massive new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

HMS Illustrious will sail from Rosyth in spring 2011 for sea trials before returning to the Fleet. She will remain operational until her out of service date after the commissioning of the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. During the upgrade, HMS Ark Royal will become flagship of the Royal Navy fleet.

 

[harryriedl]

Great to see so much progress on the program

 

[1805]

Just because the RN has chosen to procure 'expensive' vessels, doesn't mean to say that they are not 'value for money'.

There is nothing wrong with expensive ships, if they fill an important function or are flexible. Also it does not mean they are poor value for money if other countries don't buy them, but if no foriegn navy has brought any RN deployed design for nearly 40 years, then that for me is very worrying sign of their value for money or attractiveness

As far as the RN is concerned Type-45 IS currently, the most advanced Air Defence Warship in the world, at this moment in time. It's been built to their designs, they've been involved from initial ideas to the manufacture & installation of equipment & the vessels will do more than was originally asked.

We only have the RN & BAe opinion that they are the most advance Air Defence warships in the world, which is hardly an independent view. Although I have every confidence they will be operational soon, none are currently in service and other Navies are now getting access to anti balistic missile capability.

Now, if you were talking to the MANUFACTURERS (e.g. BAE), then that would be different, after all it is THEM who manufacture & sell the vessels / ideas / designs, not the RN...

Agreed but what the RN deploys is a huge benefit when selling kit, and exports have a knock on effect to production runs/costs. The T45 are staggeringly expensive (not only PAAMS also gold plating elsewhere..propulsion etc) however people have pointed out much of this is development cost which would be much cheaper if a larger production run. The future of a meaningful RN is as much dependent on a healthy industrial basis.

...& as for Finance / Taxes, I have whole heartedly stated on this forum & fully advocated, as a paid up member of the British Tax payers club, that the Govt should levvy an additional 'penny in the pound', to continue the support our armed forces, where ever they are called to go, to support humanitarian issues & rid the globe of mainiacs, as well as providing our armed forces with ALL the correct tools to do the job...

To be honest I don't want to pay more tax (on top of the higher taxes we already face) and outside of this forum you will get little support for it. I would think (someone maybe able to confirm) the RN has propably the 2nd to 3rd largest budget in the world. I would be very interested to see an actual list if anyone has?

It would just help if the procurement people bought the right tools for the job, instead of doing 'the 3 quote jig' & picking the cheapest kit, every time, only because they haven't the experience....

I am sure procurement could be better, but it is the industrial strategy piece around: what systems we UK develop/buy from abroad, or go into joint ventures with and what we chose to deploy/go without, which looks wrong to me and that is largely in the hands of politicans/defence chiefs

...& before I'm accused of being a 'liar', I've worked in the defence Industry for the best part of the last 20 years & have seen it happen, ALL too often !

SA

I think you could spend 4 years in a trench and be very brave but it wouldn't give you a detailed understand of the causes of the Great War

Mod. There are a number of complaints and reported posts coming from members (general membership as well as senior) about your style of engagement and your lack of respect for people within the industry and/or profession.

Take this as a formal warning and a reminder that you need to re-evaluate how you want to engage with others/. As you've been warned before, this is your second formal warning. A third breach could see you on a short holiday depending on the severity of a future breach.

 

[Systems Adict]

There is nothing wrong with expensive ships, if they fill an important function or are flexible. Also it does not mean they are poor value for money if other countries don't buy them, but if no foriegn navy has brought any RN deployed design for nearly 40 years, then that for me is very worrying sign of their value for money or attractiveness

Mmm...

Hands up If you know the answer....

Over the last 40 years, which Navies have 'bought' Leanders / Type 21's, Type 22's, Type 42's & Type 23's ??


It matters not whether these were sold on 2nd hand or not, they have been purchased by countries who have seen these vessels as not only a way of replacing older/obsolete vessels, but of having the same equipment that the RN has !

After all, many were sold on while we still operated 'sister' ships.

Even recently (within the last 5 years) both the Chilean & Algerian navies have shown interest in the Type 23 hull form, so it's still a worthwhile & valid design, even though the 1st Type 23 was built & launched in the mid 80's !

It should be understood that Naval shipbuilding cannot be directly compared to its commercial cousin & as we progress into the 21st century & the world continues to deal with & develops its strategies on addressing how it will cope both financially & politically as the balance of power moves, would it be wrong for any nation to snap up our older ships, safe in the knowledge that they are of sound design & are 'value for money' ??

We only have the RN & BAe opinion that they are the most advance Air Defence warships in the world, which is hardly an independent view. Although I have every confidence they will be operational soon, none are currently in service and other Navies are now getting access to anti balistic missile capability.

The RN/ UK MoD know from comments recieved from our allies across the pond, that the US are having to play 'catch-up', thus implying that the statement is indeed correct. The RN also know that once the US has perfected its Naval BMD program, that they will take the top spot once more. But it should be noted that there aren't many navies out there with a systems that's comparrible . A feat we should be proud of !


SA

 

[1805]

Mmm...

Hands up If you know the answer....

Over the last 40 years, which Navies have 'bought' Leanders / Type 21's, Type 22's, Type 42's & Type 23's ??


It matters not whether these were sold on 2nd hand or not, they have been purchased by countries who have seen these vessels as not only a way of replacing older/obsolete vessels, but of having the same equipment that the RN has !

After all, many were sold on while we still operated 'sister' ships.

Even recently (within the last 5 years) both the Chilean & Algerian navies have shown interest in the Type 23 hull form, so it's still a worthwhile & valid design, even though the 1st Type 23 was built & launched in the mid 80's !

It should be understood that Naval shipbuilding cannot be directly compared to its commercial cousin & as we progress into the 21st century & the world continues to deal with & develops its strategies on addressing how it will cope both financially & politically as the balance of power moves, would it be wrong for any nation to snap up our older ships, safe in the knowledge that they are of sound design & are 'value for money' ??

I think you have to accept navies buying out ships secondhand is very different, as the concept of value for money is cost v capability. I am not contesting the capability generally and secondhand the price dramatically reduced

The reason this is important is you are note accepting there is a problems and therefore see no need to change approach?



The RN/ UK MoD know from comments recieved from our allies across the pond, that the US are having to play 'catch-up', thus implying that the statement is indeed correct. The RN also know that once the US has perfected its Naval BMD program, that they will take the top spot once more. But it should be noted that there aren't many navies out there with a systems that's comparrible . A feat we should be proud of !


SA

All fine and well but it is not operational yet and missed its last test? BMD is currently being introduced into service with the Dutch/Spanish. Current UK Fleet defence is with 5 T42 and Harriers armed with Sidewinders, probably given advances in both attack/defence worst than during the Falklands?

 

[windscorpion]

Some info about sonar upgrades for the Trafalgar & Astutes

Thales announces significant Sonar 2076 upgrade

When they mention "open architecture" are they talking about the same kinds of concepts as open source software? Published specs et cetera.