Where are they going with this then ? Is this some agitation to force a yard select or to get more activity to keep the three yards open ? I thought that the carrier program had always been intended to end in a wind down of the workforce as there'd never been the workload to keep all three in use?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
It's possibly to highlight that we may loose yet another shipyard, or to try & make the govt actually bring fwd the T26 programme.
Who knows, normally the majority of the conservative tabloid type news outlets are the first to stick the knife into BAE, for whatever reason they choose.
Who knows, normally the majority of the conservative tabloid type news outlets are the first to stick the knife into BAE, for whatever reason they choose.
Hampshire is pretty much true blue as well
Demographically and politically, interesting one - the MOD is saying BAE is free to select any yard it chooses, but in reality two of them are in areas that are *never* ever going to vote Conservative.
I dunno - I wonder if perhaps the current government might not park some work on the yards in a hurry if the decision were to be announced prior to 2015 ? Needn't be much - just enough on the surface combatant front to stop stuff getting shut off at Portsmouth prior to a) the general election and b) the referendum on independence for Scotland.
Just thinking out loud...
Because from a *business* perspective, then it's clear keeping both yards on the Clyde open make more sense - Portsmouth has a large chunk of the workforce on short contracts, there's some savings from just having two yards down the road from each other.
I'd understood that the shipyards had been beefed up to build the carriers and that it was always intended to look at dropping down to something sustainable in the longer term.
Ian
And the one at threat is the one with a Liberal MP but which might vote Tory at a pinch. It was Tory for at least 18 years before Mike Hancock was elected in 1984, & he was ousted by another Tory from 1992 to 1997. The Conservative party isn't going to count on a continued alliance with the Lib Dems after 2015.Hampshire is pretty much true blue as well
Demographically and politically, interesting one - the MOD is saying BAE is free to select any yard it chooses, but in reality two of them are in areas that are *never* ever going to vote Conservative. ...
Ian
Summary, I don't think it'd be politically acceptable lose Portsmouth on the run up to the 2015 election. Not when I suspect the Lib Dem vote will partially defect next time around in any event - in the case of Hampshire, likely to Conservative (unless, well..they had some really hideous job losses to get over!)
So, I guess I'm saying I expect someone to announce a further pair of Rivers or anything that's MOTS and will be cheap to run in the RN. And let's face it, adding a River or two would mean we're not sending a Type 45 to go chase pirates.
I'd rather they just brought Type 26 forward but hey, I'm used to disappointment.
So, I guess I'm saying I expect someone to announce a further pair of Rivers or anything that's MOTS and will be cheap to run in the RN. And let's face it, adding a River or two would mean we're not sending a Type 45 to go chase pirates.
I'd rather they just brought Type 26 forward but hey, I'm used to disappointment.
It'd be more efficient to keep the two Scots yards going, they're at least on the same river so moving chunks between them is easy, they have heavy lifting gear (including a crane capable of lifting 500 tonne blocks) - you'd have to move that for instance.
if the vote is a No then there will be no long term future. The capacity is greater with the Scots yards but that is not an asset when you look at the RN order book.
The best solution for the UK and BAE is a BAE exit from shipbuilding and maybe a sale to Babcock. This is pretty much their core business, BAE can then focus on something...merger with a US defence contractor, EADS or if they had some vision Embraer (no danger of that then!).
Otherwise its long painful time on the rack at the hands of the shareholders....which BAE has been on before.
Babcock's Marine and Technology Division has a pretty sweet deal right now, they provide support + maintenance to every RN vessel, IIRC they built a couple of sponsons for the CVF + final integration is a Babcock job.
They won't pick up the gauntlet in regards to future UK military shipbuilding as the RN is not their core business by any means, off of the top of my head they along with Rolls Royce have been given juicy contracts to support the UK's nuclear Horizon project. They're fairly successful in the civilian sector, you should check out their website and see what sectors they work in.
They earn roughly 2x more with the rest of their buisness than what they generate from their Marine + Technology division. It's a secure and lucrative stream of work for sure, but the company is more developed than that.
They won't pick up the gauntlet in regards to future UK military shipbuilding as the RN is not their core business by any means, off of the top of my head they along with Rolls Royce have been given juicy contracts to support the UK's nuclear Horizon project. They're fairly successful in the civilian sector, you should check out their website and see what sectors they work in.
They earn roughly 2x more with the rest of their buisness than what they generate from their Marine + Technology division. It's a secure and lucrative stream of work for sure, but the company is more developed than that.
Babcock does have a civil nuclear business with good decommissoning contracts, they are also the only real players for the 20 old SSN/SSBNs that are at Devonport & Rosyth. Marine & Tech is their biggest division, also they have a contract on the RCN subs. They run Devonport & own Rosyth & Appledore, whereas the marine business for BAE is a smaller percentage of their business and certainly not core focus.
Marine & Technology is only their biggest by ~£60mn which - considering their total revenue is in the several billions - is negligable IMO.
But whether Babcock could do it or not isn't important, BAE isn't about to chop of their marine division and Babcock certainly aren't chomping at the bit to pick it up either. They're content to pick up the refit and maintenance contracts for the ships at the back end of production, otherwise this talk of mergers going on recently you'd have thought Babcock might'be brought it up if they were particularly keen on it.
But whether Babcock could do it or not isn't important, BAE isn't about to chop of their marine division and Babcock certainly aren't chomping at the bit to pick it up either. They're content to pick up the refit and maintenance contracts for the ships at the back end of production, otherwise this talk of mergers going on recently you'd have thought Babcock might'be brought it up if they were particularly keen on it.
Bacock is far more descrete than BAE, Peter Roger the CEO just does not approve of debating with a client via the press. They have a good solid business, BAE is in a very difficult position.
They have a more solid business than BAE because of the nature of how the companies operate. Babcock will always have refit/maintenance contracts as long as the RN has ships. BAE on the other hand being the producer means we have the risk of situations like we have now of a yard having to close due to lack of work, order numbers for BAE fluctuate and now they're beginning to realise they need the export revenue.
BAE needs to push their products more internationally because of the shrinking defence market. Babcock on the other hand is more balanced as has a fair chunk of civilian projects as well as substantial interests in the defence sector, they don't neccesarily need to push their company as much as BAE needs to because the vast majority of their contracts are stable + reccuring.
BAE needs to push their products more internationally because of the shrinking defence market. Babcock on the other hand is more balanced as has a fair chunk of civilian projects as well as substantial interests in the defence sector, they don't neccesarily need to push their company as much as BAE needs to because the vast majority of their contracts are stable + reccuring.
Babcock is an interesting company, it really only goes back about 20 years,and is largely a financial creation via agressive acquisitions, the largest being the rump of VT, which was c40% of the Groups value. For the modest surface ship requirments the RN is likely to have, it would be a good fit.
The whole situation with MARS seems very strange, even the number of ships; why did we need 4 new tankers now. Even with both CVF operational 6 looks a lot.
It certainly is an interesting company (I've applied to it for my Year in Industry Marine & Tech div, along with several other companies), it seems to have a hand in defence but still have strong civilian components which can only benefit the naval sector and vice versa like communications, nuclear, development training + management support.
It is a lot, when you look at the RFA roster we're actually increasing our tanker force from 5 to 6 for a period until the Wave's go when it'll be 4.
But when you start counting off what the RFA tankers do then they're actually quite scarce, the fact that the RFTG technically should have a tanker assigned to it but deployed to the Med without (same with the T45s) shows something. More often than not they're being tasked with counter piracy + narcotics patrols.
With respect to the RFTG in the Med, it should have a T45 + RFA support, it's supposed to do what it says on the tin so when it goes to sea without 2 key assets; support + AWD to me it's not yet ready, not to mention that any experience T45 crews get with big carriers can only make CVF integration with the RN that bit easier.
EDIT: Also IIRC MARS is an umbrella term and will also encompass the MARS SSS when they arrive which should be fairly soon for Austin + Rosalie, so gotta start calling them Tide class fleet tankers now
It is a lot, when you look at the RFA roster we're actually increasing our tanker force from 5 to 6 for a period until the Wave's go when it'll be 4.
But when you start counting off what the RFA tankers do then they're actually quite scarce, the fact that the RFTG technically should have a tanker assigned to it but deployed to the Med without (same with the T45s) shows something. More often than not they're being tasked with counter piracy + narcotics patrols.
With respect to the RFTG in the Med, it should have a T45 + RFA support, it's supposed to do what it says on the tin so when it goes to sea without 2 key assets; support + AWD to me it's not yet ready, not to mention that any experience T45 crews get with big carriers can only make CVF integration with the RN that bit easier.
EDIT: Also IIRC MARS is an umbrella term and will also encompass the MARS SSS when they arrive which should be fairly soon for Austin + Rosalie, so gotta start calling them Tide class fleet tankers now
The MARS order is rock bottom to replace a group of single hulled tankers that are well past sell by date. And don't forget, tanker support is one of a number of things the RN can offer up as part of a task group that many nations *can't* - the entire RFA organisation is one of the things that sets the RN apart from pretty much the rest of the planet - there are perhaps 4-5 navies in the world that can do the reach/influence mission as well. Skimp on the tanker side, why have CVF? No CVF, why have so many escorts...etc.
Agreed but they are replacing c 63,000 tons with c148,000, at a time when the ranges of ships have been increacing. The CVF will use a lot of liquids, but I struggle with the need for the 6 tankers + 3 SSS. It appears to be the single role approach again (LPH/LPD, T45/T26, Wildcat/Merlin....). It would have made more sense to build a smaller multi role tanker (still bigger than the Rovers say 20,000t) to support escorts and a larger multrole tanker to support a CVF. A 4-4 mix would have fitted in with the shipyards.
Anixtu
New Member
No.
I make it about 70,000CZ liquid cargo capacity to replace about 170,000CZ.
4 x Tides are to replace 4 x Leafs, 3 x Rovers and 2 x Forts, many of which were retired for reasons of expediency prior to their replacements being ordered or delivered. Much like aircraft carriers and maritime fixed wing aircraft. They should not be seen as replacing only the three single hulled tankers currently in service.
Thats open to debate, the Leafs did more trunking/support work, we are in danger of having more support than primary assets. I'm ok with over ordering if it creates UK jobs/retains capacity....but if the work is in South Korea.
If you look at the ranges of the T42 & T22s (far to short another lesson the Admiralty had to re-learn) that have just left service compared to the ships in service now. It is time the brass in the RN accepted the need for long range OPV, and stopped being terrified of losing the odd frigate. They could then focus on well equipped multi role escort to protect major units.
The Tide class aren't replacing the Fort I's, there was and AFAIK always has been a requirement for 2 SSS as part of the MARS umbrella (MARS doesn't just refer to the tankers, but several components that make up the 'MARS' project) to replace the Forts as they're designated by the RFA as 'stores' ships and not 'tankers'.
When Beedall was writing about this, up to 2007 the requirement for 2 SSS still existed, I'd absolutely love to see proof that the Fort I's are included to be replaced by the Tide's but considering there was already a requirement and they're solely SSS in the first place, i'm highly sceptical.
EDIT: Well, a report from DefenceNews in regards to MARS published in Feb 2012
http://www.defensenews.com/article/...eet-Oilers?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
As a side note, i'm waiting on an FOI request with various questions on the RFA, so that should be interesting
When Beedall was writing about this, up to 2007 the requirement for 2 SSS still existed, I'd absolutely love to see proof that the Fort I's are included to be replaced by the Tide's but considering there was already a requirement and they're solely SSS in the first place, i'm highly sceptical.
EDIT: Well, a report from DefenceNews in regards to MARS published in Feb 2012
http://www.defensenews.com/article/...eet-Oilers?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
100% sure the Fort I's aren't included.
As a side note, i'm waiting on an FOI request with various questions on the RFA, so that should be interesting