Complete with the usual shoddy journalism. Perhaps HMS Duncan didn't lose power, but just got too tired to sail after a crash diet to lose 4,000 tonne.
oldsig
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
oldsig
with expert eye witness testimony from Dave the van driver there
Type 26 is the opposite of type 45 in terms of risk and cutting edge, so I suspect we're back to "no-one ordered the bloody thing in time" here.
Vulcan
Member
They've been clear they're not going for IEP for Type 26 from the get-go to reduce costs.
Gotta chip in with the Duncan breakdown, it's nothing to do with power generation tripping out, a seawater pipe burst and the flooding triggered an engine shut down.
https://navaltoday.com/2016/11/24/royal-navy-destroyer-towed-back-to-port-after-engine-breakdown/
Gotta chip in with the Duncan breakdown, it's nothing to do with power generation tripping out, a seawater pipe burst and the flooding triggered an engine shut down.
https://navaltoday.com/2016/11/24/royal-navy-destroyer-towed-back-to-port-after-engine-breakdown/
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-national-shipbuilding-strategy-an-independent-report
The UK's National Shipbuilding Strategy is here at last.
The estimable Think Defence summarised the strategy on Twitter as:
- Spend more money
- Export more ships
- Shaft BAE
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38141477
BBC take here
The UK's National Shipbuilding Strategy is here at last.
The estimable Think Defence summarised the strategy on Twitter as:
- Spend more money
- Export more ships
- Shaft BAE
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38141477
BBC take here
Last edited:
Pretty much the same issues and solutions that pluaged Australia and even Canada along with probably a few other nations. We all have the requirement large enough, have the industry and knowledge to do it but we all had highs and lows in ship building that put each of us at risk.. Australia has taken steps already to fix it, The UK is on it's way.. Canada is no where to be seen.
Good on the UK though, A strong ship building industry allows for a strong navy.
Regards.
Good on the UK though, A strong ship building industry allows for a strong navy.
Regards.
The shipbuilding strategy has shades of the Japanese approach of "replace on schedule, replace young, keep building" ..
"The MOD should determine the optimum economic service life for a naval ship
and then replace ships with new vessels at that point, rather than operate longer
and thus avoid expensive major refits. As a pathfinder, Type 31e should also be
procured as a RN asset that stimulates exports including via sales from the
Fleet.
The General Purpose Frigate should be treated as an urgent project. "
Interesting if actually done.
"The MOD should determine the optimum economic service life for a naval ship
and then replace ships with new vessels at that point, rather than operate longer
and thus avoid expensive major refits. As a pathfinder, Type 31e should also be
procured as a RN asset that stimulates exports including via sales from the
Fleet.
The General Purpose Frigate should be treated as an urgent project. "
Interesting if actually done.
If memory serves didn't Australia do such a report back in 2006? that found the optimal replacement age for ships and submarines (conventional) was around the 18 - 21 year age frame. Said report was based off of a number of countries and navies.
No much for the MOD to do beyond reduce average ship life from 30 years down to 20. Should allow them to spit out at least 1 major surface combatant a year indefinitely.
That's logical - possibly too logical for them, being the civil service and all
t68
Well-Known Member
I remember Abraham Gubler saying the exact same thing for the RAN sometime age, we could sustain a single yard in Australia soley for the RAN. And if they expand Techport they could build the next gen supply and Amphibous ships as well.
Commercial shipbuilding in the UK is a bit of a joke, the example of RRS Sir David Attenbourgh is laughable, it's being built at Cammell Lairds but the project is being run by Vard in Norway with support from Kongsberg, ditto for the two roro ferries at Fergusson for CalMac, most of the project is being run out of Norway, big ticket items like the elctrrical systems are designed in and coming from Norway, the supplier base for commercial shipbuilding in the UK has erroded completely.
As someone whose livelihood is dependant on shipbuilding in the UK, I take what is being stated by the report with a large pinch of salt.
It is obvious that BAE has what some would call a dominant stranglehold on Military shipbuilding in the UK.
However, if you look at all the Military & pseudo-military (read as RFA's) contracts that have been produced in the UK since the formation of the business back in 1999 / 2000, there have been many choices made / different yards used & like it or not, BAE has been the one that has pulled most of these contracts to completion.
YES, they are not perfect (thank goodness, or I'd be out of a job !), but neither are the various 'competitors' who could attempt to fulfill the task, or for that matter Govt's that have controlled the purse strings, demanded that particular equipment be fitted & then complained that the shipbuilder is at fault, when the ships are delayed due to problems with fitting untried & untested systems into a new ship.
The idea of building 'parts' across the UK & shipping them to a central assembly point may seem like a great idea, but the logistics & individual contracts with each yard are a nightmare, the quality will be 'restrictive', with the costs probably outweighing the same ship being built from scratch in one place.
I personally would love to see Type 31 being developed & built in the UK for export customers across the planet, but no two customers want the exact same thing & while a hull-form can be common, tying x5 different combat systems (& the variations of guns / missiles / radars), to x7 different powertrain variants, to a ship that only needs to be crewed by 80, but is able to take 160 is a design nightmare.
Type 31 will succeed as an export variant, but only if it is sold as a set of plans to be built in-country, by the nation that wants it & whom adjusts the equipment to suit themselves.
SA
My experience with BAE is that their initial take over of Tenex was an unmitigated disaster during which they lost a stack of good people and trashed the legacy of the operations they inherited.
A big part of this was the government of the days very poor procurement decisions and management but also the egos and competence of the managers BAE kept, appointed, imported and / or promoted. They were very good at the back ground political and media stuff but sucked big time at the actual work the tax payer was paying them to do, i.e. delivering on quality, cost and schedule to their customers. What fixed things was when competent experienced people were brought out from the UK.
Sorry Volk - we have sparred on this one before. BAE took over Tenix just as the LHD contract was being negotiated and was able to manage Navatia, L3 and other subcontractor to deliver LHDs modified to Australian standards within about 6 months of original contract.
Please name another major naval program that achieved that.
BAE also took over Tenix's floundering M113 mod project and dragged it to completion.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/analysis-uk-naval-shipbuilding/
Interesting and very downbeat assessment of the UK National Shipbuilding Strategy from Shephard Media.
Interesting and very downbeat assessment of the UK National Shipbuilding Strategy from Shephard Media.
IMHO - The author of that piece has been drinking deeply from the same bitter well as the report author, or wearing the same rose-tinted glasses.
Yes, there are some extremely 'on-point' facts being made (like the RN not wanting anything but the most expensive / best, then wanting to change the design as they go, or the UK Govt's ability to meet cost budget & timescale ), & yes designs by a design house might be a better approach, but WHEN have BMT ever physically built a ship ? Same comment for Babcock,
Ship design, ship repair / system integration are NOT the same as ship build.
That's like saying apples & pineapples are the same fruit....
SA
The real problem is who are the other yards which could build a warship?
Cammell Laird, one large vessel in decades which needs help from Norwegian companies to build.
Fergusson Shipbuilding, two small roro ferries under construction, the first decent sized vessels in decades, again requiring Norwegian help to build.
Harland and Wolff last major vessel built early 2000's
Appledore I think RMS St Helena was the last big commercial project they have built plus some small partol vessels for Ireland.
It's a sad and sorry state of affairs, when within living memory of many the UK was the Korea of it's day, shipbuilders to the world.
I think you're being a little bit down here, perhaps understandably. Both of these yards are capable of building ships in the right tonnage range. I think the last RN vessel that Appledore built was HMS Scott, which at 13,000t is no row boat and despite its survey role was built to military specs.
The problem isn't finding yards capable of doing the work. The problem is finding politicians willing to make decisions, the benefits of which are only likely to appear long after those politicians have left office.
WillS
Babcock own Appledore, they're building ships now just not for the RN and not of the "complex" variety.
The author of the Shepherd article is wrong, I think, when he says that BAE are "the sole large complex warship builder left in the UK". The phrase should read:
"the sole large complex surface warship prime contractor left in the UK"
WillS
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Further Suppliers Come Aboard UK Type 26 Programme
Speaking of BAE, more suppliers are being signed up as the design inches towards production.]
Speaking of BAE, more suppliers are being signed up as the design inches towards production.]
Inching at about the same velocity that Christchurch moves towards the Southern Alps each year - ever so slowly @ nanometers per day.