The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Troothsayer]

A 3rd CVF!!?

Given the budget defecit and Grim Reaper Osbornes scythe, I'd be happy for 1 to still exist this time next year!

 

[Grim901]

Richard Beedall. He's taking a break. It was interfering too much with the rest of his life, I think. He posts occasionally on the Warships1 forum, & probably others. IIRC he uses the name RichardB.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for a resumption of activity.

Thanks for the info. I've never really used Warships1 due to the shocking layout and skin last time I went on. Really should since the RN is my main interest.

A 3rd CVF!!?

Given the budget defecit and Grim Reaper Osbornes scythe, I'd be happy for 1 to still exist this time next year!

Indeed. While the rest of the Tories, especially Fox, actually seem quite positive on defence Osborne is a real liability, having said at least once he'd cancel CVF right away even before the whitewash of an SDR comes out.

 

[MrQuintus]

Thanks for the info. I've never really used Warships1 due to the shocking layout and skin last time I went on. Really should since the RN is my main interest.



Indeed. While the rest of the Tories, especially Fox, actually seem quite positive on defence Osborne is a real liability, having said at least once he'd cancel CVF right away even before the whitewash of an SDR comes out.

Osbourne can burn in hell, their is talk of shifting him sideways to the Deputy PM slot (or first secretary of state) anyway, with the task of overseeing all the actual cuts across departments, but not setting them

 

[Troothsayer]

How do the cuts get decided? I think i'm right in that the Treasury tell departments how much needs to be saved/cut in the budget and then it's up to the MoD to give the Treasury & Prime Minister options on what can be cut and what the consequences are. In the meantime all the services will have alternative things they would be willing to give up. Do I have that right?

It isn't just a random cut here and there, there is some method to it?

I'm not optimistic whichever party gets in power,although Labour did have the carriers in their manifesto. Given that the Tories have said they want to reduce the deficit 80/20 meaning 80% spending cuts and 20% tax rises and that these cuts are going to fall accross only 40% of government spending including defence, we could be looking up to a 20% defence cut per year for 3 years.

Also, given the fact that on top of this we have a supposed potential £36bn black hole over the next decade anyway I don't see how this all adds up.

Something has to give - that's close to £22bn from the defence budget over the next 3 years spending round.

 

[StevoJH]

Richard Beedall. He's taking a break. It was interfering too much with the rest of his life, I think. He posts occasionally on the Warships1 forum, & probably others. IIRC he uses the name RichardB.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for a resumption of activity.

Didn't he just recently write an article on the RN for a magazine. There was a thread about it on Warships1, followed by a comment by the editor on my profile page.

 

[kev 99]

Richard Beedall. He's taking a break. It was interfering too much with the rest of his life, I think. He posts occasionally on the Warships1 forum, & probably others. IIRC he uses the name RichardB.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for a resumption of activity.

It might happen in the future, there's precious little to write about at the moment other than bits of metal getting welded together for CVF, other than that most of the rest of the equipment programmes are more or less in limbo anyway.

 

[AndrewMI]

Didn't he just recently write an article on the RN for a magazine. There was a thread about it on Warships1, followed by a comment by the editor on my profile page.

If so any link would be helpful.

I am optimistic about the RN - defence in general may suffer a little - but there is a realisation that you cannot continue with Afghanistan and not invest in the military. There is a huge amount of fat/wastage in other areas that needs trimming.

Within the MoD there seems to be a shift from these expeditionary type strategy (e.g. Afghanistan) to this "strategic raiding" which requires a strong navy. Resources are key over the next 50 years and it is daft not being able to protect your trade routes.

 

[kev 99]

Didn't he just recently write an article on the RN for a magazine. There was a thread about it on Warships1, followed by a comment by the editor on my profile page.

No, it was a the Royal Navy chapter in the splendid Seaford Naval review. It does show that he's still taking an interest so you never know, Navy Matters may be resurrected/updated at some stage.

 

[windscorpion]

Is the Seaford Naval Review good? I've been thinking of getting it but none of my local book shops have had any copies (not even Ian Allan's) and i'd like to check it out before ordering it from anywhere. I did recently get British Warships 1860-1906 : a photographic record and that IS good.

 

[kev 99]

Is the Seaford Naval Review good? I've been thinking of getting it but none of my local book shops have had any copies (not even Ian Allan's) and i'd like to check it out before ordering it from anywhere. I did recently get British Warships 1860-1906 : a photographic record and that IS good.

I thought it was a bargain, the chapters on the larger navies of the world are a little on the brief side but those on the more important ships that have been launched (Cavour, Daring, Freedom) more than make up for it.

 

[windscorpion]

Right i'll keep it on my Amazon Wish list then thanks!

 

[swerve]

Indeed. While the rest of the Tories, especially Fox, actually seem quite positive on defence Osborne is a real liability, having said at least once he'd cancel CVF right away even before the whitewash of an SDR comes out.

I think Osborne is a glove puppet. He's there to do & say the things Cameron doesn't want to sully his own image with.

Osborne has never had a proper job. He failed to get a job after university, living off the money his parents gave him while doing a couple of short-lived dead-end jobs & failing to get into journalism. He was rescued from oblivion by his old school & college & family friends getting him a job in the Tory party. He rose within the party by being an assiduous courtier, & being in the same clubs as people with ability. I can see no reason for Cameron giving him any post of significance except for Osborne being dependent on Cameron for his position, & therefore loyal.

Osborne is evidence that the old Tory party still exists, providing otherwise unemployable upper-class wastrels with high-paid jobs at our expense.

 

[Smashy]

I read this thread a lot, but haven't posted before - just thought I would say that I totally agree with Swerve about Osborne. The trick is to make Cameron understand that ultimately his reputation will be the on the line as the one responsible if any significant cuts completely destroy our military capability - as we are already down to the bone and probably beyond.

There are some people trying to make sure C does at least hear this message - and by some accounts I hear it is getting through, but of course anything could happen. CVF for instance should be safe as a programme at an advanced stage, and as it is right at the heart of the much reduced, but still well equipped navy we have left....but it will look tempting to Tory apparatchniks who only see them as ships existing as a bribe in the relevant Rosyth constituency that I understand will likely be Labour again after the election (I think the relevant constituency was taken by the Lib Dems in a by election in 05, even though it is next to GB's, polling suggests it may be the only Labour gain in the whole country).

Lets hope and pray that Cameron is made of stern stuff - whatever happens this week. The pressures will be immense with the crises (military and otherwise) we face.

 

[1805]

Well although I'm sure we would all wish otherwise, the MOD will face spending cuts. Its right it takes its share and anyone who thinks otherwise has the same limited economic sense as those rioters on the streets of Greece. One can just hope that the defence chiefs offer up sensible solutions or they will have to accept the random axe of the politician.

 

[MrQuintus]

I don't think people realise just how bloated Labour has made the government, a hell of a lot of savings are going to be made through natural wastage and good contracting, most of this stuff wont come to light until the tories actually get in. One simple example was revealed this week, nearly 700 million quid a year can be saved just by buying the Central government's paper from a single supplier at the current lowest contract rate, and that's not even with the massive bulk discount you could get on a single contract.

Expect some surprises when the cuts get announced

 

[swerve]

One simple example was revealed this week, nearly 700 million quid a year can be saved just by buying the Central government's paper from a single supplier at the current lowest contract rate, and that's not even with the massive bulk discount you could get on a single contract.

While in general I agree that there are many places where savings can be made by more efficient purchasing, I'd want more information before accepting the above claim. Can the cheapest supplier actually supply the entire requirement at that price? Is it wise to be dependent on one supplier? I once worked for a firm that never bought anything from a single source, after having nearly gone broke once when a supplier failed. It also often had to buy fewer of the cheapest parts than it wanted to, because the cheapest supplier couldn't (or occasionally wouldn't, for fear of over-dependence on a single customer) supply as much as my employer would have liked to buy.

BTW, back in the 1980s the government wasted many millions by getting a special price on bulk supplies of pencils. It ended up selling off most of what it had bought, at a loss, because it was cheaper than storing them. It would have been cheaper in the long run to pay twice as much per pencil, buying them in smaller batches when needed.

 

[AndrewMI]

Agree with Swerve's sentiments, however when you are government - the normal rules do not apply in quite the same way.

I think the Navy is in a very strong position at the moment. The sentiments coming out of the politicians is that in future this idea of being able to park your navy close to a hostile location and influence them is gathering support and this requires a strong navy. The largest threats to the UK (in no particular order are:

Rogue states
International Terrorisom
Cyper Terrorism/Crime/Sabotage
Resource Depletion/Security
Spread of Piracy

All these can be combatted to certain degrees by a strong navy. It is a shame we under produced the T-45, an error that i think may be regretted.

 

[MrQuintus]

Agree with Swerve's sentiments, however when you are government - the normal rules do not apply in quite the same way.

I think the Navy is in a very strong position at the moment. The sentiments coming out of the politicians is that in future this idea of being able to park your navy close to a hostile location and influence them is gathering support and this requires a strong navy. The largest threats to the UK (in no particular order are:

Rogue states
International Terrorisom
Cyper Terrorism/Crime/Sabotage
Resource Depletion/Security
Spread of Piracy

All these can be combatted to certain degrees by a strong navy. It is a shame we under produced the T-45, an error that i think may be regretted.

An error which can still be rectified, the D class is still in production after all

 

[Systems Adict]

An error which can still be rectified, the D class is still in production after all

While that is a valid point, the chances of ANY of this happening are nothing but a pipe dream.

My understanding of the reality is thus...

ALL equipment & major parts for T-45 were all purchased 'early doors'. To continue production would require a complete renegotiation with suppliers (some of whom have went bust & some of whom have been merged / sold on & subsumed into larger companies).

This act alone would be time consuming & EXPENSIVE. There would actually have to be a physical break before ships 7+ could be produced (after all ship 6 is on the stocks, due to be launched in November).

It would be likely that it would take 3-4 years before (minimum) before another hull could be produced, due to the current workload within the UK shipbuilding industry. After all BAE is currently...

#1. Finishing off x4 Type 45, & supporting x2 in-service
#2. Constructing x3 vessels for Trinidad & Tobago
#3. Constructing x3 vessels for Oman
#4. Constructing sections of QEC

This all points to a period in time where the Industry is at it's busiest for the last 15 years.

Additionally, within the RN now effectively focusing on Type-26 (which, dependant on whom you listen to, will be based on the T-45 hull form), it all points to a 'done-deal'. NO MORE TYPE 45 !

While that seems like a deathknell, it's not. After all looking at something like the car industry, a manufacturer only builds a particular model of car for a certain period, then moves onto a newer / more improved version of the model, possibly renaming it. This would appear to be the case with T45 leading to T26 ??


But that's just my tuppence worth....


... or does our 'Procurement Expert' 1805 want to argue / counter that ??


SA

 

[Grim901]

SA, the key difference being that T45 and T26 will be geared towards two different things with design differences to boot, so you couldn't simply decide to have a T26 in the AAW role because it wont have the approriate equipment and structure.

If they were using an unmodified (or with all the features of the AAW but improved like your car analogy) T45 hull just with a different radar and weapons set then it would be possible to go back and produce more T45's. Unfortunately it's more like a car company going from building a 4x4 to a sports car than simply updating the 4x4.