Thanks - i would have thought the Aster 30 (Block II) would have been the "45" as i was imagining? Having something with a longer range would seem to be better for protection.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I agree that there should be an additional T26 built, but I feel that an additional Astute class SSN is where we could use more numbers. That is an area where many navies cannot compete.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well as referenced by Swerve earlier on, Block 2 appears to be a totally different missile to Block 1 - different seeker, hit to kill warhead, reaction control system, high endoatmospheric envelope.
Here's the MBDA skinny on this puppy:
MBDA - e-catalogue
It fits the existing silos so with software changes to PAAMS, we're in business for IR/MRBM intercepts.
That's about as good as it gets for ABM work from sea.
Ian
Queen Elizabeth (the first ship) is expected to be completed without a ski jump, & without catapults or arresting gear.
Since we have no STOVL aircraft & are not intending to buy any, & it is hoped to refit her with EMALS later (as you say), the ski jump would not only be superfluous, but a positive hindrance. She'll be large enough to operate allied STOVL aircraft, if desired, without a ski jump.
I agree the RFA replacements are overdue, however we seem to be accepting gaps in capability all over the place and if we had to rely on allies for support ships over a period, I would say this was a much lower risk than some of the others the RN have accepted/living with (no fixed wing capability for example).
If the requirement is for 37,000t ships, then yes our capacity for build in this space is limited, but the Waves are not far of this and we did build a number of Points/Bays/LPD.
I was at Rosyth recently and I can't help thinking what future is there for this facility once the carriers are built. Building 10-13 Type 26s (c 70,000t) will be swallowed up in no time.
The social impact of unemployment in these relatively remote locations is huge and the RN has scored another own goal. Could you imagine the Germans/French/Spanish ordering from foreign yards in the current climate.
Flexibility on both MOD & suppliers sides is vital, if they don't have capacity or capability now then what can they build/when and how could the gap be bridged. 18,000t is 56% increase in size over a Rover and similar size to a number of other designs in foreign service in the 18-25,000. I am assuming the 4 would replace 6 current ships.
1805: you're forgetting something very important about the MARS deal. NO BRITISH SHIPYARD PUT IN A BID TO BUILD THEM!
The total cost of this lot is less than one Type 45. Sending the bulk, low-value part of it that no British shipyard thought worth bidding for abroad is not exactly a big deal. They'll be finished in the UK, BTW.
Rosyth is not building carriers, it's assembling them from blocks built elsewhere. When they're complete, its big dock will be needed for carrier maintenance from time to time. It could also do the same for the new tankers.
Building 13 Type 26 is much more work than a single carrier: they cost more per ton, & are more labour intensive.
The MoD has already signed up to a deal guaranteeing British shipyards many years of relatively smooth work. Getting these tankers built in the UK would require ramping up a workforce, which would then have to ramp down again. That's exactly what the shipbuilding industry has complained about in the past. HMG piles orders on it, then cuts them off. Turning the tap on & off breaks businesses.
The total cost of this lot is less than one Type 45. Sending the bulk, low-value part of it that no British shipyard thought worth bidding for abroad is not exactly a big deal. They'll be finished in the UK, BTW.
Rosyth is not building carriers, it's assembling them from blocks built elsewhere. When they're complete, its big dock will be needed for carrier maintenance from time to time. It could also do the same for the new tankers.
Building 13 Type 26 is much more work than a single carrier: they cost more per ton, & are more labour intensive.
The MoD has already signed up to a deal guaranteeing British shipyards many years of relatively smooth work. Getting these tankers built in the UK would require ramping up a workforce, which would then have to ramp down again. That's exactly what the shipbuilding industry has complained about in the past. HMG piles orders on it, then cuts them off. Turning the tap on & off breaks businesses.
Anixtu
New Member
What swerve said in bold caps, and...
This is one area where the allies rely on us.
Waves were built at Barrow and Govan, yards occupied with Astute and CVF work. Bays were built at Govan (see previous) and Swan Hunter, and bankrupted Swan Hunter in the process. Points were built at Flensburg (4) and Harland & Wolff (2). They were the last ships built at H&W who are no longer in the shipbuilding game. FSG didn't bid on MARS FT and are somewhat German.
The unemployment is there already and will come back as soon as we're finished building these ships, unless we order more, and more, and more. Fat chance of that.
Naff all + 50% is still naff all and you're talking full-load numbers rather than DWT CC which is what matters for a tanker. The 4 MARS FT replace 3 ships currently in service and we could argue over how many that have already left service. What suits small foreign navies that never deploy task groups overseas may not suit the RN. Twice the number of smaller ships takes twice the number of crew, the RFA having just shed 400 posts.
It's a glimmer of hope I think - there's been a few pieces falling into place and if this is a confirmed "four" not "up to four" then we're still in the blue water business. This plus funds being released for Type 26 work, the carriers proceeding smoothly - there's the core of a capability coming into place. It's encouraging after a very bleak period for the RN.
As to the tanker buy, it's the simplest way to get this done - it'll be on time, in budget and soon.
As to the tanker buy, it's the simplest way to get this done - it'll be on time, in budget and soon.
OK, here's some thought, facts & vague figures comments from the top of my head.
As MARS goes, it's been on the cards since 1999 / 2000.
At that time, the UK Industry was still in a bit of flux. Cammel Laird had just shut / was about to shut / had shut & was reopened. Swan Hunter was up and running (but only just), VT was thinking about the possibility of moving from their Woolfston yard, BAE SYSTEMS had just been formed & it's shipbuilding arm covered the x2 Clyde yards & Barrow. Rosyth was dealing with RN work as it always had & Harland & Woolf was running out of work, looking for something to do.
At that time the Labour Govt had proposed x12 T45's, 2 carriers, was talking about the C1, C2 & C3 options for FSC, plus the MCMV / Survey / multi-use / amagamtion vessels. With that build programme, the MARS tankers were mentioned (with 6 units IIRC). The was also the LSD(A)'s
The govt had decided that it didn't like the boom n bust option that favoured one yard / company, while affecting another, so thought that it would propose a partnership option, effectively ending the loss of our skilled work force.
Work wise - BAE had the x2 Auxilary Oilers & the x2 Albion class LPD's at Barrow, was finishing the last of the last Batch of T-23's, the Malaysian Frigate project had just completed with the Brunei OPV's just about to be stated on the Clyde. There were rumours of other work for our countires in Asia also.
So the ship yards looked at their manpower profiles, workload & the future, thinking that what with the work that was coming up, they could gain a large slice of it. Swan Hunter, BAE, Harland & Woolf and VT all had the same thought.
At the time most the projects were only ideas / possible future contracts, to be planned, examined & prices / workload worked thru.
So time passes by & it's 2004....
Barrow's LPD's are late, the AO's are complete, but late. Harlands has moved goals, thought about the off-shore industry as shipbuild work has been forthcoming, then pretty much folded. Swan Hunter has been 'revitalised' with the news that they are building the the LSD(A)'s, gaining the work at BAE's loss. VT & BAE are talking about the T45 program (with 8 ships) & sharing workload, to comply with Govt demands. Cammel Lairds has shut / closed / is about to close as refit work is thin on the ground. BAE's Barrow Submarine yard has started the design work for Astute.
MARS has progressed (slightly), but the govt is reviewing how it wants to do things, with the possibility that the workload should go abroad, as the main shipbuilding protaganists in the UK will not have the manpower to support it / it will probably be cheaper & on time !
So time passes yet again & it's 2008.
BAE & VT are in full build mode for T45, with the Carrier Alliance having been formed to 'spread the workload' as our technical manufacturing abilities as thinly spread. Swan Hunter has closed in 2006, after BAE are dragged in to finish the project, following Swan's dealying the project asking for more funds on more than one occasion!
British shipbuilding is in a terrible state & the Govt is still looking at MARS. More determined that due to cost implications that it would be easier to have these ships built 'offshore'. BAE form a design partnership with BMT, who are starting to survey shipbuilders in the far east, who can do the work (on commercial quality projects), quickly & cheaply.
As the workload in shipbuilding across the UK is arranged, the govt sees the off-shore option as a good-thing. So MARS is very quietly put out to a few interested parties, to provide designs & costings. Amongst them BAE / BMT & Daewoo form a consortium.
..& here we are in 2012...
The govt has changed, the world is in turmoil over financial crashes & almost 4 years to the day, the UK Govt announces that the MARS program will go ahead, with the BMT / Daewoo / BAE consortium winning the bid.
So would bringing a £450million contract for 4 ships to the UK really make a difference at this time??
Going by our standards & our past contracts, it's a possibility, that they'd be late, cost more & would, as Swerve & Anixtu said, is a drop in the ocean, that may have kept x1 ship yard busy for 2 -3 years, but would probably close it as soon as the work was done.
South Korea's industry has a reputation. Come to us with a design, we'll look at it, negotiate with you & from the date of contract signature, we'll provide you with a complete vessel, ready to sail away in 12 months !
As these yards are able to launch a ship every month, with capacity to build up to 8 commercial large LPG carriers at once, it's a GOOD possibility that these ships can be supplied within 2 years !
Now thinking logically, would YOU pay for a new car, wait 2 - 3 years to get it & have to pay 25 - 50% more for it, to do the thing you asked the manufacturer make it do??
I hate to say it, it IS a good thing for the UK....
Rant over...
SA
I don't disagree with your logic and the comments of Swerve & Anixtu, and I am generally uncomfortable with subsidy ongoing. However these are jobs created in areas of very high unemployment, yes its OK for the London/SE to finance the economy but the social impact is very harmful of areas where whole families are unemployed. The opportunity is lost now, but I struggle with 4 x 37k, looking at the spec on the BMT website, it looks like a fair bit in the LSD(A) space. Yes 4 big ships would likely need less crew than 6 smaller ships, but then they can be in 2 more places at once and the ships they replace are very old now and there would still be a big saving on running costs.
Look at the BP tanker fleet (a company that cares little about saving money and a lot about it's PR!) plus RFA could keep a few yards busy, people in work and help strength the case for the RN.
Whether or not the AEW is CEC capable, the units that would most benefit from that are the T45s, enabling them to engage on the basis of remote data. L16 data from the AEW will be perfectly adequate to guide fighter intercepts, although QEC is primarily a strike carrier rather than an AD asset anyway.
Thus whilst QEC may get fitted with CEC in time (and it has other advantages), it is not as essential as you imply for QEC
'Somewhat' German is about right. Flensburg is a partly Danish town (one of my Copenhagen relatives is from there: grew up speaking Hochdeutsch at school, Plattdeutsch & the local Danish dialect with her playmates, & proper Danish in Danish Sunday school). The current Oberbürgermeister is a member of a local Danish political party.
There's no industry to save...not in that class of vessel. Better to concentrate on keeping the design facilities current and making sure we have the yards and work to keep the major surface combatant build cycle ticking along.
There is no capability to build tankers that size in the UK and if we created one, it'd be for the four ships involve, then promptly fall flat on it's face.
And hey, we need those ships *now*...seriously, MARS is well overdue. We do not need some home grown kludge which lands three years late, 50% over budget and which does nothing to generate sustainable industry.
Ian
(in other words, what SA/Serve/Anixtu all just said)
I was not suggesting building 37k RFAs, I was questioning the need for 4 such large ships, when we also have the Waves. Ships in most other similar fleets are c18-25k.
The first three T23 are due to leave service 2023, 24, 25. If the fleet gets cut at all in the next 11 years (highly likely on past track record) the first T26 does not have to entre service till 2026. There could easily be a gap in production after the CVF. Building 6 smaller tankers provides more flexibility and is inline with the remains of our ship building industry.
However once again the RN has gone for the top end of capability without consideration for :it's own PR, the social or industrial impact on the UK. One operational carrier does not justify 4 x 37k ships. 6 ships can be in 6 places 4 only 4.
Just a little snippet I saw in the UK press today.
It looks like BAE Systems DID offer to build at least one of the ships in the UK, but the govt said "No !"
MoD rejected offer to build the Navy's tankers in Britain | Mail Online
SA
Know "something" we don't Andrew ????
This is what BAE has on their website...
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020346
SA
The DMC daily press release had a comment on that which I'll quote for you:
"Defence Equipment Minister Peter Luff said: "The fact is that no British company entered a final bid. The Fincantieri bid did not contain any mention of BAE Systems involvement and BAE Systems have themselves said they don't know the costs of building one of the ships in the UK.
"BAE Systems also made it clear that building a tanker in the UK would impact on the build programme for the new aircraft carriers and the new Type 26 frigate. The Fincantieri bid did not meet some fundamental requirements and, even if it had, it was hundreds of millions more expensive and therefore would have been the wrong choice for UK taxpayers."
So, someone's not quite being entirely accurate there. Surely not the press...
Ian
I suspect BAE did not want the MARS getting in the way of T26 production, as the CVF work dries up they will be pushing hard to accelerate starting work (we have already seen a lobbying threat on closing Portsmorth). If we look at a similar build time as the first T45, (say 6 years but really should be less) then first steel needs to be cut in c2017, however if we do lose 3 T26, then this could be as late as 2020.
The RN would probably be better offering up the later exit ships: Kent (I think still in refit at Rosyth), Portland & St Alban's for sale once they have CAMM fitted, this will support an early export for the new system, whilst helping to ensure an timely construction scheduled for T26 and keep the RN in the driving seat.
These MARS ships at 37,000t will be a lot more than replacement for the existing RFA fleet, whilest it's good to have additional logistics capability. Even with the loss of a Bay, Points, the potential new capability of the T26 (which looks more like an Absalon by the day) seem more than sufficient.
I would like to see a more honest approach to T26 numbers, based on need and not on current numbers, they got into this mess over the 12 T45. What will the GP vessels do, if it's only adding SCALP, then why not fit the full complement of VLS to the 6 T45.
Last edited:
Anixtu
New Member
It only appears so because some of the ships they are replacing have already been retired. Each of the four Leaf class tankers in service until 2008/2009 had a cargo capacity of at least 28,000t vs the 19,000t of MARS FT. Oakleaf's was significantly larger, and this doesn't include the Rovers (which wouldn't add much...).
I see less logistics capacity, not more.