Implications of Scottish Independence

[RobWilliams]

The SNP have an agreed defence policy approved during the Perth conference. It appears they're going to do what we all expected and ask for proportional shares of UK kit

The Scottish defence and peacekeeping forces will initially be equipped with Scotland’s share of current assets including ocean going vessels, fast jets for domestic air patrol duties, transport aircraft and helicopters as well as army vehicles, artillery and air defence systems. A Scottish defence industrial strategy and procurement plan will fill UK capability gaps in Scotland, addressing the lack of new frigates, conventional submarines and maritime patrol aircraft.

Joint procurement will be pursued with the rest of the UK and other allies as well as shared conventional basing, training and logistics arrangements, fulfilling shared priorities in ‘Smart Defence’. This includes sharing conventional military capabilities, setting priorities and better coordinating efforts providing economic synergies, job stability and taxpayer value for money.

MORAY SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY: SNP CONFERENCE APPROVES UPDATED DEFENCE POLICY

The whole article is in the above link.

They're being a bit general in terms of types of vehicles, "Ocean going vessels" can easily be interpreted to be OPVs and/or frigates + the 'fast jets' will undoubtably be Typhoons, would transport aircraft be C130's coming off the back of the A400M purchase?

Interesting about the "lack of new frigates, conventional submarines and MPA". With frigates unless Scotland buys a few T26 then the closest they'll get is a sniff at a few Type 23s when they go out of service. However they might not be happy with having to buy new radars and point air defence kit when we tear out Artisan + CAMM for the Type 26

As to the last 2; 'conventional submarines' (I'm assuming they mean SSKs?) and MPA, does Scotland have the sort of infrastructure to manufacture that kind of kit in the sort of numbers they'll get at something remotely close to an affordable price?

Would £2.5bn per annum be enough for all that gear including what else they've got their eye on?

Anyway, this have given me a lot to mull.

 

[swerve]

It says " A Scottish defence industrial strategy and procurement plan will fill UK capability gaps in Scotland, addressing the lack of new frigates, conventional submarines and maritime patrol aircraft."

I presume they'd plan to build frigates & buy aircraft, to which they'd fit Selex (Edinburgh) radars. They'd probably buy the subs as well, though I can imagine 'em exploring licence-building.

 

[RobWilliams]

True, case of jumping the gun there on my part

But it's definitely interesting nonetheless. Got all the potentials buzzing through, fair few German SSKs around on the market and I guess France would be very accommodating if they got the nod, in naval terms they've pretty much got the surface ship capability they'd want sorted.

How much of a step change in difficulty is building submarines in comparison to surface ships? From a rookie's point of view building the hull would seem within what the experience of Scottish yards has it's just kitting the thing out.

In terms of an MPA - if any - my bet would be on the C-295, something OTS and ready to go.

Better not have their eyes on those River class OPVs the MOD finally got round to buying, seem to be decent bits of kit.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

The hull itself will be easy enough, its fitting all the internals that make a sub quiet that makes a sub expensive, subs hull when we were in the yard was cut and had to walk thru it, its just metal (of certain thicknesses) that probbaly any country could make for relatively cheap. The electronics, pumps, powerplant & reduction gears and components are the expensive part. Since they want to go non nuclear what type of AIP / battery are they looking for, what type of endurance to counter what type of threats are they expecting to face, a sub in port is pretty useless if its not first rate and can make an opposed transit to operating waters where it can operate in its open ocean environment. So they will probably need 2 at least or more depending on what type of deterance they want to perform, if just in territorial waters / eez they will probably think that 2 is enough, one out one in port and ready to go, if they are going further than going to need 3 or alot more depending on how far you want to try to deter (subs not the best at "show the flag" type of missions.) To my way of thinking it would be more benificial for them to look at a smaller FF(G) or corvet with a first class sonor than subs. Since I think the main reason they want a split is economic and self determination (I'm guessing on the reasons but seems logical) then going with the more versital ships would be benificial. Seems like they could buy a ship from the US (the city i work in just got the USS Edson for pretty much free). How much would it take to upgrade Edson back to fighting shape im not sure but the bones would be there and probably need to strip out the old for the new stuff.

 

[RobWilliams]

Sounds logical enough, don't expect they'd be getting much choice in terms of the performance they would probably end up buying OTS from Germany or France IMO, would it be worth trying to do a licence build for something like 3 boats? From my perspective for something that small they may as well just buy from the supplier.

Don't see them buying from the US at all, AFAIK wouldn't the only thing be Perry class FFGs? Personally I see them going for Type 23s when they come off the line - if they want something that size - because it's a ship Scottish personnel will be familiar with, 2 are named after Scottish Dukes and as I understand it the hulls are in pretty good nick for the age considering the theatres of service.

But even so would Scotland be able to man vessels like that? The whole Scottish military will be around 20k including reserves (15,000 full time 5000 reservists) so would be operating vessels ~180 be worth it? A River class OPV is manned by about ~30 so right there that's enough crew for roughly 6 OPVs, they need vessels with as much manpower efficiency as they can get.

 

[Blackshoe]

Building subs gets hard when it comes to making things SUBSAFE and guaranteeing the quality of welds needed. IIRC, the Brits had to ask the US for help when they were building the ASTUTE-class because the industrial knowledge for building submarines had gone away. Starting it up would be even worse. I can't see it being cost-effective to try and develop Scot shipyards to produce submarines (although cost-effective probably isn't something SNP really cares too much about, at least until they have to write the checks).

In terms of MPAs, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't at least look into former USN P-3s, since there's going to be a large number of them coming on the market fairly soon with the P-8 rollout.

 

[RobWilliams]

The more fundamental issue with Astute wasn't physically constructing the boats - interestingly the welds on Astutes hull get physically checked and then checked using Ultrasound waves and then X-rays; very good documentary here [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ODDjsK0BOg"]How to Build A Nuclear Submarine (Full) - YouTube[/nomedia] ) - but that the final design of Astute couldn't even be finished to acceptable standards by BAE.

The contract will provide for U.S. submarine design and production expertise; assisting with the development of computer aided design (CAD) tools and their use in submarine design and production processes; producing Astute-Class production drawings; and assisting/exchanging of expertise on submarine construction techniques.

...

The failure of BAE to be able to successfully complete the design of the Astute's in-house, and its now all to public reliance on an American company to help complete the design, is a major failure

Navy Matters | Astute Class

Then a yard doing something it had never done before with workers who most probably have done nothing like it, that seems like asking for trouble. Although there's nothing stopping BAE transferring key personnel from Barrow to the Scottish yards to help move it along, but I still reckon they'd go for OTS examples.

Cost efficiency is the name of the game for the SNP, they don't have the resources to operate inefficient (both in terms of manpower + economically) vessels and if they end up with less vessels requiring more crew for a higher than possible running cost then they might not be very happy about it.

That's true, I'm sure the US would offer second hand P-3s at a very decent price to Scotland if they showed the interest.

 

[Blackshoe]

Cost-efficiency was more directed towards the industrial side of the equation than the actual ships themselves. Granted, there are shipyards in Scotland, but none currently capable or experienced with building submarines (unless I'm wrong in that BAE is the only builder on the island who does subs). As you mentioned, BAE could send workers north to start up a Scottish submarine yard, but I'm not sure they would unless someone (most likely the new Scottish government) offered them a lot of money to do so. That's where the SNP would have to come in.

I was just going off the assumption that swerve's comment meant that the Scotsmen were going to create a yard for building subs in their own country, which I see now might have been in error.

 

[RobWilliams]

Ah I see, well even so with the sort of budget they're going to be having then they'll still most definitely be looking for the most efficient procurement methods possible.

AFAIK the situation is how you describe it. But although i'm no professional engineer (yet), the sort of work going on in the Devonshire dock hall in Barrow definitely looks like it could be carried out in places like Govan (which is currently building CVF blocks) with some modest investment, but like you say BAE would be thinking "What's the point and is it worth it?".

I put swerves earlier comment in the context that the SNP will be looking for oppertunities to keep Scottish shipyards working and therefore any sort of Scottish Navy would be the most obvious way so there's the potential they may toy with license building to keep Scottish citizens employed.

How I expect it to pan out - if SSKs are actually on the cards - that there'll be a study about building them and it'll be rejected on cost grounds but as sort of a consolation prize for Scotland there'll be contracts put out for Scottish buisnesses. That's my take on it anyway

 

[Systems Adict]

AFAIK the situation is how you describe it. But although i'm no professional engineer (yet), the sort of work going on in the Devonshire dock hall in Barrow definitely looks like it could be carried out in places like Govan (which is currently building CVF blocks) with some modest investment, but like you say BAE would be thinking "What's the point and is it worth it?".

I put swerves earlier comment in the context that the SNP will be looking for opportunities to keep Scottish shipyards working and therefore any sort of Scottish Navy would be the most obvious way so there's the potential they may toy with license building to keep Scottish citizens employed.

As a Scotsman, who's been in the defence Industry for nearly 20 years I poke fun at Mr Salmond's 'ideal world' where air is free, steel is cheap & an Independent Scotland will run & manage it's own defence's (including the removal of Nuclear weapons).

Firstly, HOW can an Independent Scotland dictate to the likes of BAE that it wants THEM to do particular things?

BAE is a company, owned by shareholders, who employs between 10 & 20,000 (MAX.), Scottish employees, north of the border.

IF BAE didn't want to do particular things, short of the Scottish Govt waving the big carrot of cash rewards, I don't see it happening.

For BAE to convert some of it's production facilities to build SSK's, would require serious investment probably into the 10's of Millions. Could Scotland afford such costs ??

Secondly, Mr Salmond seems to forget that the UK is an island nation & that Scotland is PART of it, not an Island in it's own right. There is absolutely NO SENSE in hiving off sections of the military, purely for Scottish needs, when the costs associated will run to BILLIONS.

I hear that war-cry coming from the SNP "Well, where's our share of the taxes from the North sea oil?" and I can here the corporate fat cats from the oil companies laughing all the way to the law courts, suing the Scottish govt for money over loss of earnings / increase in taxes, while UK PLC ups the rates to pay for the Scottish part, while reducing the demand in the process.


At this time, the Scottish yards are almost, but not quite at full capacity (Yes I know that T-45's are almost finished & there'll be a surplus of manpower, but not that much that it could be significantly employed). The carriers are currently being constructed & hopefully the impending T-26 frigates will mean that MORE personnel will be required, leaving even fewer people to undertake such activities.

As a fully paid up UK / Scottish citizen, I can see NO VALUE in Half the things that the SNP are promoting with regards defence of the realm, & personally I WON'T be voting for this, as it makes absolutely no sense. :flame :finger

SA

 

[RobWilliams]

100% agree, at the end of the day BAE is a company out to make a profit. As much as BAE has a bad rep sometimed for inflating costs and the like during the projects completion, the key words are "during the projects completion". It'd take some serious enticements for BAE to even think of doing it.

In regards to the T26, all the chatter we've been seeing from Cameron is that an independent Scotland wouldn't get a sniff at future UK defence projects at it would become - ultimately - a "foreign nation". It's one thing for a RFA tanker to be built abroad (but even that's not entirely equivalent) but surface escorts will be produced in the UK.

Fairly heavy belief in "If they vote for independence then why should they earn from our Navy when we've got internal shipyards who'll take the work on with open arms?", and rightly so IMO.

If this happens however, I expect - should BAE get any sort of export orders for any future naval vessel - that any sort of export examples will be built in Scotland. The MOD won't be keen on RN delivery being put back and potential customers probably wouldn't be keen on the idea of being next in line.

 

[swerve]

The more fundamental issue with Astute wasn't physically constructing the boats - interestingly the welds on Astutes hull get physically checked and then checked using Ultrasound waves and then X-rays; very good documentary here How to Build A Nuclear Submarine (Full) - YouTube ) - but that the final design of Astute couldn't even be finished to acceptable standards by BAE.

I think this is because BAe was operating very short-term (& I suspect still is), & didn't invest in keeping the capability to design subs after the last design for the RN was complete, although it knew that the RN would need new subs eventually.

I see much the same elsewhere. Does BAe ever invest in anything without a British or US (now it's bought into the US market heavily) government contract? It sold out of commercial aircraft, where it has to spend its own money on development, & every shipyard bought by BAe has promptly dropped out of the international market.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, legally, I don't think we can award a defence contract to one EU country directly without competing it - the MARS stuff was offered out to international competition, Fincantieri bid on it, as did the winners, but BAE didn't submit a bid as they felt they didn't have the capacity or could put a decent price together.

Major surface combatants can be exempted from bidding in any event and I definitely feel that any future government would award contracts in the rUk - there are many areas which could benefit from the work, often in economically poor areas where the work will be welcome.


Scotland won't get a look in unless they participate in some workshare arrangement over Type 26 where they buy some for their own purpose as part of a larger buy, and simply assemble components or sections.

I think Type 26 will be too much of a frigate for the Scots navy as anticipated.

It depends on what work they want to get I suppose - if they want refit work then there's three Type 22's available for instance ?

 

[swerve]

... the MARS stuff was offered out to international competition, Fincantieri bid on it, as did the winners, but BAE didn't submit a bid as they felt they didn't have the capacity or could put a decent price together.

Exactly. They'd have to produce a design at their own expense, with no guarantee of the contract. BAe doesn't seem to be willing to do that. Everything has to be handed to them on a plate by the government.

The price is a red herring, as they could have partnered with a low cost yard overseas to do the boilerplate building.

 

[StobieWan]

Exactly. They'd have to produce a design at their own expense, with no guarantee of the contract. BAe doesn't seem to be willing to do that. Everything has to be handed to them on a plate by the government.

The price is a red herring, as they could have partnered with a low cost yard overseas to do the boilerplate building.

Daft really - they could have partnered with BMT or similar and pulled a nearly-OTS design in. I'm starting to think taking the yards off BAE and offering them up to Thales/Fincantieri/AnyoneButBAE would be better.

 

[RobWilliams]

I think this is because BAe was operating very short-term (& I suspect still is), & didn't invest in keeping the capability to design subs after the last design for the RN was complete, although it knew that the RN would need new subs eventually.

I see much the same elsewhere. Does BAe ever invest in anything without a British or US (now it's bought into the US market heavily) government contract? It sold out of commercial aircraft, where it has to spend its own money on development, & every shipyard bought by BAe has promptly dropped out of the international market.

It's BAEs main weakness and the know it. That's probably part of the reason why the T26 is so determined on export orders (alongside that the MOD doesn't want to pay a high unit price) and I expect that in the future they may experience more export success. At one point the Saudis were actually looking at a pair of Type 45s and the fact they're being so open about the modularity of the T26 demonstrates - to me - that they know they need export orders and pretty much anything from them from now on will have that accommodated for, IMO

To Stobie

I'm 99% sure the design for the MARS tanker was from BMT Defence - at least they seem happy to tell people it is. I was getting at the contracts and the lack thereof from British yards in the "not entirely equivalent" a couple of posts back.

I expect BMT will design the next SSS for the RN using a very similar design to the MARS tanker, who knows they may end up with contracts for replacing RFA Argus and RFA Diligence using similar hulls, propulsion etc.

 

[explorer9]

United Kingdom comprised with England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. If Scotland gets its way and got separated from UK union then what would be the political ramification of this move. Will that provide impetuous to the separatist movement in Northern Ireland? How the experts see the future of United Kingdom after this happening.

I have heard the discussion on Russian Television show of cross talk where experts were saying that SNP wants to remain within European Union after the independence, then why Scots want to be independent. Why would they fancy to leave to small & strong federation but to remain in big and weak union.

I would like to know the assessment of senior members on the regional geopolitical implication of proposed Scottish referendum.

 

[swerve]

United Kingdom comprised with England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. If Scotland gets its way and got separated from UK union then what would be the political ramification of this move. Will that provide impetuous to the separatist movement in Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland is divided between a majority which wants to stay in the UK (they vote for political parties which call themselves Unionists) & a minority which would like to be part of the Republic of Ireland (they call themselves Republicans). They divide by religion: unionists are protestant, republicans are Catholic. They used to kill each other over the issue, but nowadays the government includes parties from both sides.

Independence is not a serious option. Neither side wants it.

As for Scotland, your question is not valid at the moment. You ask "If Scotland gets its way and got separated from UK union" - but it's not been decided that Scotland wants to secede. There has never been a majority vote by Scots for independence, or for the SNP. The SNP got 19.9% of the votes cast (12.6% of voters) in Scotland in the 2010 national election, & 45.4% of a much lower total vote in the Scottish Parliament election in 2011 , or 22.9% of voters.

 

[1805]

Daft really - they could have partnered with BMT or similar and pulled a nearly-OTS design in. I'm starting to think taking the yards off BAE and offering them up to Thales/Fincantieri/AnyoneButBAE would be better.

I suspect a vote on independence could set this course of events in chain. A few negotiations with BAE and I'm sure a fairly state control/interventionist minded SNP will nationalise, probably with BAEs full support. If this happens it will be about the time of the post ACA settlement. I could see the UK yards moving from BAE, probably unlikely to be nationalised, but my hope would be someone like Babcock (UK owned and more maritime focused).

The initial design cost for the Type 26 at a staggering £127m for a fairly basic design is a very worrying example.

 

[explorer9]

Northern Ireland is divided between a majority which wants to stay in the UK (they vote for political parties which call themselves Unionists) & a minority which would like to be part of the Republic of Ireland (they call themselves Republicans). They divide by religion: unionists are protestant, republicans are Catholic. They used to kill each other over the issue, but nowadays the government includes parties from both sides.

Independence is not a serious option. Neither side wants it.

As for Scotland, your question is not valid at the moment. You ask "If Scotland gets its way and got separated from UK union" - but it's not been decided that Scotland wants to secede. There has never been a majority vote by Scots for independence, or for the SNP. The SNP got 19.9% of the votes cast (12.6% of voters) in Scotland in the 2010 national election, & 45.4% of a much lower total vote in the Scottish Parliament election in 2011 , or 22.9% of voters.

United Kingdom comprised with England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. If Scotland gets its way and got separated from UK union then what would be the political ramification of this move. Will that provide impetuous to the separatist movement in Northern Ireland? How the experts see the future of United Kingdom after this happening.

I was watching the discussion on Russian Television (RT) talk show “cross talk” where experts were saying that SNP wants to remain within European Union after the perceived independence. The question I asked over that why the Scots want to come out from the federation of United Kingdom, a veto wielding major regional power.

Economic crisis and ethno-linguistic nationalism aggravated the pro-independence movement in a number of European Countries. How the internal dynamics of UK different from Spain and Belgium?

Most of the comments I read above covered points on defense and miliatry upheaval. Kindly accentuate on political ramification of Scottish independence on EU in particular and on continual Europe in general.