Here's a neat video showing how the two yard layout is going to work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP0SmUA7mEc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP0SmUA7mEc
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
OPV finance
Afternoon,
I have read this thread for a number of weeks, becoming acquainted with the tone and the subjects that are discussed, as well as learning a great deal. I thought, with it being such an important year for defence, I'd take the plunge to post...
There is clearly an opportunity for the RN to reduce the strain on its valuable escort resources, by introducing the x3 OPVs in addition to the current Rivers, whilst continuing to maintain a presence in areas that serve British interests.
Given, that the vessels are being built due to the terms of agreement with BAE in regards to the provision of shipbuilding in the UK, the question is, can we absorb the ships running costs into the budget?
There armament* is suitable for the tasks that would be expected of them and not even the treasury could mistake them for 'front line' vessels! They ought to be lean manned and there is a precedent for them to be forward based (hms clyde, minesweeper in the gulf etc).
I wonder....has there ever been consideration, given the areas they would most likely patrol, (N Atlantic patrol, Gibraltar) namely 'British overseas territories' that the territories themselves could help to fun some/if to the running costs of the ships?
I understand, that Gibraltar has expressed that it would contribute to its defence given its geopolitical location. Then there are the likes of Bermuda, the Cayman Islands that stand out, in terms of population and relative wealth (tourism, gaming, banking etc). As well as the Turks and Caicos islands, the Falklands and to a much lesser extent Montserrat, the Ascension islands etc.
There could even be a drive to investigate if it were possible that the ships are manned (where possible) from these locations, especially given the lack of 'sophisticated' hardware compared to frigates/destroyers.
*On a side note, I read previously about the limitations of having no hangar facilities. Has there not in the past, been semi permanent hangers, optic hangers(?) installed on ships?
I believe it is essential any vessel assigned to the North Atlantic patrol has an embarked helo (wildcat) to conduct drug busts, surveying damage post hurricanes etc. However, clearly is not essential for the South Atlantic patrol, nor do I think it would be essential if one were posted in Gibraltar, as it could lillypad helos from the frequent escorts that pass through/return to/from the Gulf/East of Suez.
Musings done, typical Sunday.
Thanks, Sellers.
Afternoon,
I have read this thread for a number of weeks, becoming acquainted with the tone and the subjects that are discussed, as well as learning a great deal. I thought, with it being such an important year for defence, I'd take the plunge to post...
There is clearly an opportunity for the RN to reduce the strain on its valuable escort resources, by introducing the x3 OPVs in addition to the current Rivers, whilst continuing to maintain a presence in areas that serve British interests.
Given, that the vessels are being built due to the terms of agreement with BAE in regards to the provision of shipbuilding in the UK, the question is, can we absorb the ships running costs into the budget?
There armament* is suitable for the tasks that would be expected of them and not even the treasury could mistake them for 'front line' vessels! They ought to be lean manned and there is a precedent for them to be forward based (hms clyde, minesweeper in the gulf etc).
I wonder....has there ever been consideration, given the areas they would most likely patrol, (N Atlantic patrol, Gibraltar) namely 'British overseas territories' that the territories themselves could help to fun some/if to the running costs of the ships?
I understand, that Gibraltar has expressed that it would contribute to its defence given its geopolitical location. Then there are the likes of Bermuda, the Cayman Islands that stand out, in terms of population and relative wealth (tourism, gaming, banking etc). As well as the Turks and Caicos islands, the Falklands and to a much lesser extent Montserrat, the Ascension islands etc.
There could even be a drive to investigate if it were possible that the ships are manned (where possible) from these locations, especially given the lack of 'sophisticated' hardware compared to frigates/destroyers.
*On a side note, I read previously about the limitations of having no hangar facilities. Has there not in the past, been semi permanent hangers, optic hangers(?) installed on ships?
I believe it is essential any vessel assigned to the North Atlantic patrol has an embarked helo (wildcat) to conduct drug busts, surveying damage post hurricanes etc. However, clearly is not essential for the South Atlantic patrol, nor do I think it would be essential if one were posted in Gibraltar, as it could lillypad helos from the frequent escorts that pass through/return to/from the Gulf/East of Suez.
Musings done, typical Sunday.
Thanks, Sellers.
spsun100001
New Member
Genuine question about UK warship building
Is the decision to preserve both yards being done because that is the most cost efficient way to build warships for the Navy or is it a case of the defence budget being used to support jobs to avoid politically damaging headlines about a yard closure and job losses in Scotland?
This is a genuine question and not an opinion masquerading as a question!
Is the decision to preserve both yards being done because that is the most cost efficient way to build warships for the Navy or is it a case of the defence budget being used to support jobs to avoid politically damaging headlines about a yard closure and job losses in Scotland?
IIRC the different yard proposals were brought up before the Scottish referendum. They decided to wait until after which was a good call, otherwise there's a risk that they'd have been investing in a country which has started the cogs of independence with no orders on the horizon.
I also think that - more or less - that's how it worked with the Type 45's at least. They got mostly built and then docked elsewhere for fitting out etc.
Good to hear!
Agreed.
Depends who you ask, one camp would say no and another would say yes, suppose it depends on the £8bn headroom over 10 years and if it exists post-2015-SDSR
Absolutely, some have voiced opinions that they should be getting CAMM etc when it's just not worth it, that's not the sort of work they'd be doing. That being said, i'm not sure i'd put one in the Gulf. In terms of areas being 'hot' (militarily, not literally) then the Gulf ranks up pretty well. But the likes of APT(N) would suit, Severn is out there now I think, Gib too maybe. Definitely more benign environments IMO which suit the platform better than the Gulf.
It's an option, although politically it might not be ideal that the '2nd biggest budget in NATO' that the Govt are so keen to parrot needs funding from BOTs.
If they want to contribute then from my perspective that'd be ideal.
Yeah, Cardigan Bay (i think) has one in the Gulf. It's possible, but the risk is that if the design doesn't have the aviation capacity built in then what're the limitations on aviation fuel/lubricants + munitions storage aboard?
In terms of the hangar itself, we're talking about an OPV so if it needed to be 'packed up' (for the want of a better term) for a launch then whilst it may be a pain in the arse and not ideal, it'd be adequate. It's an OPV after all, not an aircraft carrier, turnaround rate doesn't neccesarily have to be stellar. I
It'd certainly be an improvement over the situation now IMO.
It doesn't appear to make as much sence as the single site option.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA12hn48eZI
Suppose it depends on your opinion. The second setup has a greater setup for redundancy, you've got a cluster of manufacturing halls for construction + assembly, then the hull goes downriver for fitting out (which has two docks). The single yard has a number of construction buildings and one covered yard which, presumably, covers all assembly/fitting out.
Considering the second yard is only 2.5km along the Clyde, it's not a long trip down the Clyde and I think they did the same with the Type 45's anyway.
Basically, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
For a bit of background homework, here's what the RN OPV's will be based on...
Amazonas Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology
While there's no Hangar, there are 'aviation facilities' Including a landing grid, flight deck lighting & fueling capabilities.
These were of course, based on these...River Class - Naval Technology
As stated previously, a semi-permanent hangar arrangement could, in theory, be added https://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/amphibious-vessels/p47253-hmas-choules-l100.html, (It's the gray structure fwd of the flight deck crane)
However, I think that it would be a hindrance, more than a help.
Personally, I think the x2 yard option is actually more cost effective. As stated above, facilities that are already there can be 'easily enhanced'.
The costs of digging out the berth, providing a cofferdam to protect the build from the river while they do it, putting in the foundations to bedrock (which IIRC caused massive delays to the Braehead shopping centre during the 1990's (which is directly opposite), as they had to go down to depths of about 100m versus the original estimates of 25m), so that the finished structure can support itself & the weight of 1.5 - 2 ships & all the plant to build them.
Doing all the work & building the facility would easily wipe out say £150m & probably still ask for more.
The costs & the timescales involved, would likely delay the build & 'launch' of the 1st ship.
THOSE are the facts n figures that the media & the general public don't like, especially if it's taxpayers money !
But that's just my opinion....
spsun100001
New Member
Telegraph Article on MPA
Saw this article today hidden away in the Finance section of the Telegraph. It seems to suggest that the SDSR is almost certain to lead to us bringing back an MPA capability following the embarrassment of having to ask NATO partners to help us out with suspected submarine incursions.
Battle to win £2bn deal to replace Britain's Nimrod spy planes - Telegraph
I hope we go for the P8. Going for converting other air frames (which is one of the options discussed) just seems a recipe for disaster to me. It's bound to lead to over optimistic bids to get the works, followed by escalation in costs and then a reduction in the number of planes to offset the cost increase.
The P8 is a finished product whose costs are known. Maybe we could even keep maintenance costs down by having the US maintain them: treating them as if they were part of their fleet (I understand this is what happens with our RC135's). It would be no surprise though if we ended up doing something like trying to convert an Airbus. After all, the primary purpose of the defence budget for most politicians is to create and safegaurd civilian jobs so it would be no shock if we bought something that was appalling value for money but had the word European or British in front of it.
It would also be better to have them in the Fleet Air Arm. The RAF were prepared to throw any none-supersonic fighter capability under the bus in the last SDSR to save as many Tornadoes as possible. We quickly had to reverse their attempt to kill of Sentinel after it proved essential in conflict after conflict, hopefully there is now an acknowledgement that an island having no MPA capability was ridiculous and of course we ended up without carrier aviation thanks to ditching the GR9's. A dozen of them flying off a carrier would have been far more use in Libya than a handful of Tornadoes and Typhoons trekking from Italy and back.
In other SDSR speculation, Michael Fallon ominously commented how each Type 26 would be far more capable than the ship it replaced. This is of course a stupid statement as the threat environment in which the ship will have to operate has also increased. It's exactly the language that preceded the Type 45 reduction from 12 to 8 to 6 and thus far only 8 Type 26's have been committed to.
The numbers might be safe due to the fact that the primary role of the Type 26 is to create jobs in Scotland and the government would not want to give the SNP more ammunition by jobs going in Scottish yards.
My bet would be that further vessels will be built beyond the eight to sustain jobs though it might be less than five and they might strip back the capabilities of that second batch to save money thus consigning them to non-warfighting roles. I could see them considering things such as:
- Leaving off the long tube VLS
- Cutting the number of CAMM
- Using only the Lynx rather than Merlin
- Not equipping them with a sonar (we already know they won't be equipped for a towed array)
Anyway, all just speculation. The one thing we can be sure of it that the SDSR will be a Treasury led, capability and resource reducing exercise that starts with the answer in terms of the budget and writes a Janet and John strategy to fit it (like the assumption in the last SDSR that there would no no conflicts involving UK forces for the next five years: Libya and Syria anyone?)
Saw this article today hidden away in the Finance section of the Telegraph. It seems to suggest that the SDSR is almost certain to lead to us bringing back an MPA capability following the embarrassment of having to ask NATO partners to help us out with suspected submarine incursions.
Battle to win £2bn deal to replace Britain's Nimrod spy planes - Telegraph
I hope we go for the P8. Going for converting other air frames (which is one of the options discussed) just seems a recipe for disaster to me. It's bound to lead to over optimistic bids to get the works, followed by escalation in costs and then a reduction in the number of planes to offset the cost increase.
The P8 is a finished product whose costs are known. Maybe we could even keep maintenance costs down by having the US maintain them: treating them as if they were part of their fleet (I understand this is what happens with our RC135's). It would be no surprise though if we ended up doing something like trying to convert an Airbus. After all, the primary purpose of the defence budget for most politicians is to create and safegaurd civilian jobs so it would be no shock if we bought something that was appalling value for money but had the word European or British in front of it.
It would also be better to have them in the Fleet Air Arm. The RAF were prepared to throw any none-supersonic fighter capability under the bus in the last SDSR to save as many Tornadoes as possible. We quickly had to reverse their attempt to kill of Sentinel after it proved essential in conflict after conflict, hopefully there is now an acknowledgement that an island having no MPA capability was ridiculous and of course we ended up without carrier aviation thanks to ditching the GR9's. A dozen of them flying off a carrier would have been far more use in Libya than a handful of Tornadoes and Typhoons trekking from Italy and back.
In other SDSR speculation, Michael Fallon ominously commented how each Type 26 would be far more capable than the ship it replaced. This is of course a stupid statement as the threat environment in which the ship will have to operate has also increased. It's exactly the language that preceded the Type 45 reduction from 12 to 8 to 6 and thus far only 8 Type 26's have been committed to.
The numbers might be safe due to the fact that the primary role of the Type 26 is to create jobs in Scotland and the government would not want to give the SNP more ammunition by jobs going in Scottish yards.
My bet would be that further vessels will be built beyond the eight to sustain jobs though it might be less than five and they might strip back the capabilities of that second batch to save money thus consigning them to non-warfighting roles. I could see them considering things such as:
- Leaving off the long tube VLS
- Cutting the number of CAMM
- Using only the Lynx rather than Merlin
- Not equipping them with a sonar (we already know they won't be equipped for a towed array)
Anyway, all just speculation. The one thing we can be sure of it that the SDSR will be a Treasury led, capability and resource reducing exercise that starts with the answer in terms of the budget and writes a Janet and John strategy to fit it (like the assumption in the last SDSR that there would no no conflicts involving UK forces for the next five years: Libya and Syria anyone?)
It is certainly good news that it would appear an MPA capability would be reinstated...at what cost remains to be seen.
I would be delighted with the P8, but I still would not rule out the 'sea hercules' proposal.
Given the preference for a c130j air frame over atlas for special forces insertions to enable 1 airframe to cover several roles. We already own the air frames (with significant life remaining in them) could perhaps justify a fleet of between 10-16.
They have long legs (4 engined, i know to extend range the nimrods would regularly fly on 2 for extended patrols, I don't know if this is an option? Perhaps someone may know?) and excellent low altitude handling, if the cost could be restrained, it may still be on the table.
Cheers, Sellers
I would be delighted with the P8, but I still would not rule out the 'sea hercules' proposal.
Given the preference for a c130j air frame over atlas for special forces insertions to enable 1 airframe to cover several roles. We already own the air frames (with significant life remaining in them) could perhaps justify a fleet of between 10-16.
They have long legs (4 engined, i know to extend range the nimrods would regularly fly on 2 for extended patrols, I don't know if this is an option? Perhaps someone may know?) and excellent low altitude handling, if the cost could be restrained, it may still be on the table.
Cheers, Sellers
I'm lead to believe the same situation (8 with, 5 without) will continue with the Type 26.
Is it a "fitted for but not with" situation, where there's room for later growth/acquisition in the 5 without?
To paraphrase a wiser person on naval affairs than me, "Build frigates without sonars? One might as well build slow destroyers."
I believe the intention is for it to be FFBNW, it would seem silly (to me as a layman) to alter the design to remove capability* for the last 5.
*in a sense of removing kit, shifting the internal layout or whatever isnt unexpected for a batch build
*in a sense of removing kit, shifting the internal layout or whatever isnt unexpected for a batch build
spsun100001
New Member
I stand to be corrected but I believe the last five will NOT be fitted with the equipment needed for the 2087. The last 5 Type 23's were built without it to save money so there would be no winching gear, control panels etc. to bring across onto the Type 26's.
There's no gear to pull through from the Type 23's so yes, I'd say there's little hope of finding the cash let alone the room for a TSA at a later date
I'm more concerned on the SDR that we might see some of the type 23 refits moved back as that's an immediate cash saving - worrying about the 11th or 12th T26 isn't worth it right now as they're some distance away.
I'm more concerned on the SDR that we might see some of the type 23 refits moved back as that's an immediate cash saving - worrying about the 11th or 12th T26 isn't worth it right now as they're some distance away.
That's what I said, Fitted For But Not With. That includes all ancillary equipment rather than just the primary systems.
When i talk about not altering the design, I mean internal configuration of the bulkheads, passageways etc where the ASW kit would be on an ASW ship. Seems like a waste of money to mess around with it design wise in a major way.