I have read that the upholders have been having problems partly due to the lack of experience with the boats equipment. although they had trouble with the torpedo tubes at one point as well.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
and the Trinidad and Tobago OPV which are being built, also a the Liukiu frigierts from Malaysia to add to the list
you good argue that the CVF is an export as the design from Thales was design for the Royal Navy and the design was sold to the French
I no longer think the CVF will be built, and no more than 1 if it is. I note the French appear to have all but pulled out.
To cut costs, I think the Royal Navy will go to the UXV as soon as possible, built on the Type 45 design they will make plans to build 8, but only get to build 4.
To cut costs, I think the Royal Navy will go to the UXV as soon as possible, built on the Type 45 design they will make plans to build 8, but only get to build 4.
...Thanks everyone for the corrections !
If we're talking OPV's for export, have VT not flogged some to Greece, or where they built their? Or were they just acting is integrator ??
Galrahn, I can understand why you mention UVX, (a "be all things to all men" design), but believe that design is probably 3 - 5 years away from being a build-able ship.
So the French have pulled out ??
...& you think only 1 CVF will be built ??
Think that the designers & builders, who are now in partnership with UK MoD, & have aligned business goals & outputs to match these demands, may beg to differ.
UK Govt Demanded (not asked), these private sector businesses align to the MoD songbook, not the other way around. Have a feeling that there are a few clauses in the contracts that mean UK MoD / Govt, CAN'T back out & they have to build 2 ships.
That may explain some of the delay as, as partners, they thrash out a solution about how to slow the build program to meet Govt budgets for the project, pushing the in-service date to the right & assisting the F-35B program to get the extra wiggle room it needs to perfect the build & testing program, before they go into full production.
Then again, I could be talking a pile of pish-posh !
...Only time will prove me right or wrong.
Systems Adict
:nutkick
If we're talking OPV's for export, have VT not flogged some to Greece, or where they built their? Or were they just acting is integrator ??
Galrahn, I can understand why you mention UVX, (a "be all things to all men" design), but believe that design is probably 3 - 5 years away from being a build-able ship.
So the French have pulled out ??
...& you think only 1 CVF will be built ??
Think that the designers & builders, who are now in partnership with UK MoD, & have aligned business goals & outputs to match these demands, may beg to differ.
UK Govt Demanded (not asked), these private sector businesses align to the MoD songbook, not the other way around. Have a feeling that there are a few clauses in the contracts that mean UK MoD / Govt, CAN'T back out & they have to build 2 ships.
That may explain some of the delay as, as partners, they thrash out a solution about how to slow the build program to meet Govt budgets for the project, pushing the in-service date to the right & assisting the F-35B program to get the extra wiggle room it needs to perfect the build & testing program, before they go into full production.
Then again, I could be talking a pile of pish-posh !
...Only time will prove me right or wrong.
Systems Adict
:nutkick
Last edited:
To agree with Jon K, I think that I can compare the Media, to being like a Jack Russell with an old sock or slipper. They get a hold of something, that's old & out of date, chew on it a bit, then thrash it about all over the internet / media !
I'd heard thru the grapevine very similar rumors about our Canadian brothers. I even met a few in 2003 when they were here in the UK overseeing the overhaul of the last boat (HMS Upholder). I couldn't believe that one of the guys had been in the "airforce" one day, then got "drafted" on a 2 year secondment to England to oversee the re-activation of the sub.
It's like a few things in the defence industry I've seen over the years. If I & a few others happened to put our experiences into print, to let other see what's happened on various programs, they'd never believe it ! The publisher would probably list it as a work of fiction !
...& as for the torpedo tubes issue with the Upholders, that was an early operational issue for the RN, who fixed it by modifying some of the kit & changing their S.O.P's.
Systems Adict
contedicavour
New Member
Good heavens you're being too pessimistic... the minimum number of Type 45s is set at 6. The French will have a 2nd carrier whatever it costs - even if it will end up damaging the rest of the fleet as funding dries up for several other programmes (especially the last batch of FREMMs).
cheers
The absolute minimun number of Horizons was 12, then the absolute minimun number of Type 45's was 8. Now it's six.
I believe Galrahn was referring to possible UXV numbers. But to Type 45's, yes, six Type 45's will be probably built but how many will be operated by RN for any significant time? After working up the ships it would be best possible time for a hot transfer.
AFAIK, the British parties are interested in securing industrial jobs, ie. shipyards and bases. In that issue it's not that different from other governments of the world.
windscorpion
New Member
Short termism is a problem with British politics, all the politicians seem to care about is saving their own worthless hides (i.e. getting re-elected) so programmes are delayed to save a few quid knowing that there will be an election before the effects of the delay need to be handled with, and probably a different minister in place to face to flak anyway.
But anyway its been like that for a long time... if not always.
:contedicavour
New Member
... and certainly not only in the UK... the best chance to save the industry is to have it concentrated in a few constituencies with powerful MPs representing them. Otherwise the industry's voice just gets diluted by all sorts of special interests with a stronger electorate.Short termism is a problem with British politics, all the politicians seem to care about is saving their own worthless hides (i.e. getting re-elected) so programmes are delayed to save a few quid knowing that there will be an election before the effects of the delay need to be handled with, and probably a different minister in place to face to flak anyway.
But anyway its been like that for a long time... if not always.
cheers
As was pointed out on this forum many times, politicians care about one thing only.. votes. The CVF programme has survived for the last nine years and since the Labour government has made it one of the cornerstones of their defence policy, I believe they will defenitely be built. (Both of them)
If a Conservative government were to come to power.. well I'm not an expert on British politics, but look whats happening to Australia's Super Hornet purchase. (The first steel of the first Hornet has already been cut)
On the bright side, although the Royal Navy is shrinking rapidly, they still count amongst the major players in the world. A carrier battle group(although not yet equipped with multi-role aircraft); an amphibious group; modern and capable escorts(albeit few in number); some of the most capable submarines plus a nuclear detterant.. how many countries can boast that, whilst only spending 2.3% of GDP on defence?
I believe NATO wishes everyone to spend 3% GDP on defense. If the United Kingdom did, there wouldn't be any defense cuts. When you continue to cut defense for short term political gains, eventually you cut too much and spend more later. One thing isn't going to change, and that is it costs more to build a ship next year.
Officially, at least 2%.
Countries below that limit are, IIRC -
Germany
Italy
Spain
Canada
Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
Denmark
Norway
Czech Republic
Portugal
Hungary
Slovenia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania & Bulgaria are just managing it, & Turkey is safely above it. Those three are the poorest per head. Poland is, I think, around the limit, maybe just below. Greece, the USA, the UK & France are the only other countries at or above the line.
I agree. In fact today sees another step on that road with the ordering of 80,000 tonnes of steel for the vessels, as well as a few other long-lead items:
UK orders 80,000 tonnes of steel for 2 new aircraft carriers
Out of interest, I wonder what we could do with 80,000 tonnes of steel if the carriers were canceled? ;-)
WillS
www.boilingthefrog.co.uk
There are dozens of Local Councils across the UK who would be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of all the pointless/ridiculous looking sculptures and politically correct statues that they could erect with all that steel.
That very very very interesting that means that the steel cutting phase is only a few months away. well done WillS were almost at construction phase of CVF1 pretty much on time. this kind dose indicate that the CVF are solid as only one carrier after the WW2 was canselled while being built that was the Malta which was on the stocks when the fuel crisis with Iran caused a major cut in spending.
one last thing im enjoying you blog
I got this from the corus site
The £3.8bn state-of-the-art carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016, respectively. Corus will start rolling steel for the aircraft carriers later this year. Corus’ Scunthorpe and Dalzell steelworkers will produce plate steel for the ships’ hulls, while the company’s employees in Skinningrove will manufacture bulb flats - steel used to stiffen the construction.
The £3.8bn state-of-the-art carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016, respectively. Corus will start rolling steel for the aircraft carriers later this year. Corus’ Scunthorpe and Dalzell steelworkers will produce plate steel for the ships’ hulls, while the company’s employees in Skinningrove will manufacture bulb flats - steel used to stiffen the construction.
spsun100001
New Member
Fleet basing
In the recent review of Naval Dockyards what, if any, consideration was given to the increased use of overseas bases?
Gibraltar would be one but I think particularly about Diego Garcia given the ongoing and significant naval presence in the gulf, the potential flashpoints of Iran and North Korea and the increasing naval presence in the theatre of India and China. Obviously substantial refits would still need to be carried out in the UK but if the infrastructure was established to support routine maintenance wouldn't there be significant advantages to basing ships there and flying the crews out?
Wouldn't there would be far less transit time with correspondingly less wear on the ships and savings in fuel?
In the recent review of Naval Dockyards what, if any, consideration was given to the increased use of overseas bases?
Gibraltar would be one but I think particularly about Diego Garcia given the ongoing and significant naval presence in the gulf, the potential flashpoints of Iran and North Korea and the increasing naval presence in the theatre of India and China. Obviously substantial refits would still need to be carried out in the UK but if the infrastructure was established to support routine maintenance wouldn't there be significant advantages to basing ships there and flying the crews out?
Wouldn't there would be far less transit time with correspondingly less wear on the ships and savings in fuel?
mikehotwheelz
New Member
Does Diego Garcia have any deep water facilities? I thought it was just an air base.