Where? We already have the Rivers to do that job, & the RN would have to pay for them. Why spend the money?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
With the expected reduction in the frigate fleet how about covering the APT(N) role? Perhaps even basing a couple of these permanently in the Caribbean (like HMS Clyde does in the Falklands). We could lease them until a C3 replacement is available.
As an aside, IMHO the rumours about potentially losing a 1/3 of the destroyer / frigate fleet may work in the short term with the Navy carefully managing deployments and overworking platforms. In the medium term it will not, but the Treasury will say that they've managed ok with less and will probably not approve the additional expenditure to bring the fleet back up to the required size. Filling the fleet with short term replacements may actually help the argument in the long term.
Right . . . so we retire ships early, then get new ships to make up for retiring ships we still need? How does that make sense?
Savings on operating cost (they'd be cheaper to run than frigates) would be offset by acquisition cost. A lease would have depreciation costed in, so we'd still pay much of the capital cost of the ships.
Helicopter deck - but hangar?
Savings on operating cost (they'd be cheaper to run than frigates) would be offset by acquisition cost. A lease would have depreciation costed in, so we'd still pay much of the capital cost of the ships.
Helicopter deck - but hangar?
Not having a hanger is an issue for independent operations. I doubt the capital cost will be much: 2nd hand, doing BAe a favour and they will get a bit of compension, both ships are nearly complete.
In an ideal world you are right, but in an ideal world the Navy would be properly funded and could always look to what is right in the long term. The political mood seems to be that the Navy has too many expensive ships, hence replacing these with 'cheaper' vessels fits in with this.
You are correct in that by leasing them you will be paying the depreciation costs plus interest, but if you lease them say for 5 years the residual value of the vessels must still be a pretty high proportion of the original cost. This is very embarrassing for BAE which could impact significantly selling these types of ships in the future; I'm sure BAE would be more than willing to do a deal on the funding costs, especially as the RN will be showing off their wares.
No hanger could be an issue (I'm no specialist), but haven't Bay Class vessels done a similar role recently and they don't have hangers.
A hangar, or not having a hangar, that is a question !
Ideal for some nations who don't really have a need to be far from base (Ideal for OPV / IPV / Corvette sized ships), but still having avaition facilities is a pure force multiplier, as it allows so much to be done, from support & transport of EMF, to humanitarian aid.
Having a hangar does have it's benefits, especially in larger ships, but on OPV's it's not a must.
FYI, they are / were getting 3 ships...
... & from info gleened from various sources...
x1, sitting 'complete', that was built in Portsmouth dockyard (by VT / BAE),
x1, About 95% 'complete', (built in Glasgow by BAE) &,
x1 still being built, (in Glasgow) but has been launched, due to be going to sea this year (It should be 'finished by end of Q1, 2011).
Trinidad and Tobago looks to terminate OPV programme
BAE faces £150m hit as Trinidad and Tobago cancels drug-busting patrol ship deal - Telegraph
SA
Last edited:
Should offer these to Brazil. I suspect they will have been designed for a tropical climate, not ideal for the British Isles.
If the UK had cash to spare they would be a nice addition to the Gib sqn. Another potential customer could be Iraq, they would prove ideal for the protection of their coastline and O&G facilities.
Having seen a phot of the vessels they would make pretty decent C3/MCM vessels. Look larger than existing Hunt/Sandown's. Why not retro fit the latest (and recently introduced) MCM remote submersibles and bring them online to fullfil the role of anti-piracy / MCM / OPV?
Last edited:
F.Y.I. BAE owns NONE of these vessels...
#1 Brunei - The Bruneians went to court, lost the case & paid BAE their outstanding funds. They then proceeded to move the ships to a Neutral Harbour in the UK & has been using a 3rd party (Lesuens (??) from Germany) to sell them. It's therfore logical that all funds from the sale will go back to Brunei.
#2 Trinidad - The Trinidad Govt has announced that they don't want the ships & is 'in discussions'with BAE. No definitive statement has really been made other than the amount of money that it will cost BAE.
(go back 2 posts to the links) :unknown
SA
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I don't see a company like BAe accepting a contract of that size without making sure there were as few loopholes for T & T to get out as possible. Especially after what happened with Brunei.
Maybe T & T were happy enough with their Austal Patrol Boats that they felt they no longer needed the OPV's?
They're reported to be late & over cost. That may provide a let-out for Trinidad.
Unlike the Bruneian Nakhoda Ragam class, they seem to fit a Brazilian requirement quite well, so it's feasible that Brazil would be interested in buying them plus a fourth, if the terms are right. That could save BAe and/or Trinidad quite a lot.
Unlike the Bruneian Nakhoda Ragam class, they seem to fit a Brazilian requirement quite well, so it's feasible that Brazil would be interested in buying them plus a fourth, if the terms are right. That could save BAe and/or Trinidad quite a lot.
1) Good idea. I wouldn't be surprised if BAe wasn't already making calls.
2) But we don't have cash to spare. Iraq? Maybe.
3) We have enough vessels for the main C3 roles (which, BTW, was defined as mostly MCM, survey, & EEZ protection, not the small frigate type of ship widely discussed), which is probably why it's been postponed. The patrol fleet & survey ships are pretty new, the MCM vessels have no hull life problems, & they've all been paid for.
Or indeed the ambition any more it seems. I'm sure we've all now read Fox's letter to the PM re the cuts?
It seems to indicate that not only will the escort fleet be cut back but that the *entire* amphibious capability is being disposed of:
"Deletion of the amphibious shipping (landing docks, helicopter platforms and auxiliaries) will mean that a landed force will be significantly smaller and lighter and deployed without protective vehicles or organic fire. We could not carry out the Sierra Leone operation again."
Other reports/leaks from the meeting indicate that the carriers are also still under threat with the PM asking if the savings of £1bn from cancellation are an under-estimate.
All so that the Army can keep 7000 troops in Afghanistan for 4 years before conducting another of its famous 'strategic' withdrawals a la Basra.
Is there a mechanism to rename this thread "UK Coastguard Discussions and Updates"?
WillS
Troothsayer
New Member
Will the last person to leave this thread please turn off the lights - thankyou
They were reported as sold to Algeria two years ago, but haven't been delivered (there are recent reports of them on the net, still in Britain), & I'm not aware of any sign of preparations being made for delivery. They still have the Bruneian ship numbers (28, 29 & 30), I think.
I found a French-language Algerian forum a while ago where this was being discussed. They concluded that it was a baseless rumour. Nobody could find any evidence for it, or reports of it, in Algeria.
I can't find where the story originated. I've not found the usual official press release. I concur with the Algerians on that forum (of which I did not keep the URL).
I'll believe they've been sold to Algeria when they set sail for Algeria, flying the Algerian flag.
Last edited:
That's interesting. Looks like you're right. On following up on my assumption it seems that all of the Algerian references point to each other as 'evidence'.
I'm sure the UK govt will be relieved that the sale hasn't gone ahead - there's still a chance they'll be able to flog the Algerians some T23s next month
WillS
As ever, here to state the obvious, I think I've found your source....That's interesting. Looks like you're right. On following up on my assumption it seems that all of the Algerian references point to each other as 'evidence'.
I'm sure the UK govt will be relieved that the sale hasn't gone ahead - there's still a chance they'll be able to flog the Algerians some T23s next month
WillS
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_National_Navy"]Algerian National Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]
The Wiki 'QUOTE' lists this article....
How Lurssen Wooed Brunei
Working in the Industry, I know from discussions with 'friends', that these ships were last seen in Barrow-in-Furness (which was around March this year). So I'd reckon that based on the 'SOURCE' reference, there isn't much truth in the matter.
Also, since 9/11 transport of WMD (which is how I think these vessels would be viewed), requires stringet export licenses, hence why they're still in UK waters.
Apart from that, I'd of thought that seeing these vessels & their history is something that the Daily Mail / Daily Telegraph / The Guardian would all be interested in, as it's one of the 'sensitive' moments that BAE has had over the last 10 years, It would have had some serious column coverage by the aforementioned media.
...& as for your T23 reference comment, & i've thought that maybe Brazil or Chile might be have been top of the list.
Getting back on the UK RN topic, have any of you seen this ??
Warship is barred from entering Uruguayan port - Portsmouth Today
Methinks that it's time for some 'GUNBOAT Diplomacy', as per WWII.... ?
:nutkick
SA
That would be counter-productive. It might lead to Brazil also closing its ports to RN vessels, would sabotage efforts to sell ships to Brazil, & would generate a storm of protests from other countries, including the USA, which would see it as a breach of its self-proclaimed protectorate over the Americas, AKA the Monroe doctrine. We'd probably end up with a humiliating climb-down.
It certainly would not get Uruguay to change its policy.
There are credible reports that the Algerians have looked at the Nakhoda Ragams, & perhaps that's where the story that they'd bought them started, but they've also looked at various other options, e.g. visiting Fincantieri.