Good point... Oh well, there goes my hopes for the RN having a reasonable number of escorts in the forseeable future.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Let me add to the topic of drumbeat: To UK naval shipbuilding there is the issue of maintaining continual building of vessels in order to have a consistent size of skills and engineers with as little fluctuation as possible. So the projcts will be stretched out over time and fewer vessels means less per unit efficiency.
In Denmark, these frigates are vedged in between commercial builds.
How much commercial building do the BAE yards do?
In Denmark, these frigates are vedged in between commercial builds.
How much commercial building do the BAE yards do?
Yes,
Having a foreign nation build your warship hulls, transport them across Europe & then fitting them out in you home country sounds like a great idea!
NOT !
#1. Design...
By doing this, your giving away the design of the ship, it's layout, the materials used to construct the hull, it's strengths & weaknesses, as will as the ability for the information to be copied & used by others to understand any flaws in your design.
It's like one company designing a product that EVERYONE wants, then handing the completed plans & IPR across to a direct competitor, so they can build it. MADNESS !
#2. Costs...
By having them "Built Cheaply", then transported you would, IMHO increase the costs back to a level such that it's just as cheap to have built the thing in your own back yard, using the indigenous labour within your own country.
#3. Quality & Control of....
By building them "in-house" in the UK, you contain your core manufacturing skills, you're on site to oversee the whole process from end to end, checking the quality, ensuring that it's done to the standard you want, & if not having it fixed, just the way you want it.
Now before you go off on one, I'm not by any means saying that E. Europe cannot match this quality, but to attain the speed of the build, while keeping costs low, quality usually suffers.
Finally, if quantity & speed was all you were interested in, why have other nations not adopted this method of construction for ALL their ships ??
Could you see the US doing this ?
Certain things can be built by companies across the globe, using YOUR Plans & Designs & this works extremely well in the Mass produced domestic sector, on everything from computers to cars or on simple equipment like boots, clothing & guns .
But 1 thing no nation wants to give away is it's rights to control who it's military forces are supplied by, how & when they're supplied and the materials they use to protect their country.
Warships are extremely complex systems, at the top of years of design & development, built to produce a unique & bespoke piece of technology, which gives you the edge over your Ally & your enemy, while integrating some of the best technology & equipment that's available. (after all, why re-invent the wheel, when someone else has EXACTLY what your looking for ??)
Or would you rather the Chinese / Indians / Russian built our Radar & guidance systems for us ?
Think about it ....
SA
Having a foreign nation build your warship hulls, transport them across Europe & then fitting them out in you home country sounds like a great idea!
NOT !
#1. Design...
By doing this, your giving away the design of the ship, it's layout, the materials used to construct the hull, it's strengths & weaknesses, as will as the ability for the information to be copied & used by others to understand any flaws in your design.
It's like one company designing a product that EVERYONE wants, then handing the completed plans & IPR across to a direct competitor, so they can build it. MADNESS !
#2. Costs...
By having them "Built Cheaply", then transported you would, IMHO increase the costs back to a level such that it's just as cheap to have built the thing in your own back yard, using the indigenous labour within your own country.
#3. Quality & Control of....
By building them "in-house" in the UK, you contain your core manufacturing skills, you're on site to oversee the whole process from end to end, checking the quality, ensuring that it's done to the standard you want, & if not having it fixed, just the way you want it.
Now before you go off on one, I'm not by any means saying that E. Europe cannot match this quality, but to attain the speed of the build, while keeping costs low, quality usually suffers.
Finally, if quantity & speed was all you were interested in, why have other nations not adopted this method of construction for ALL their ships ??
Could you see the US doing this ?
Certain things can be built by companies across the globe, using YOUR Plans & Designs & this works extremely well in the Mass produced domestic sector, on everything from computers to cars or on simple equipment like boots, clothing & guns .
But 1 thing no nation wants to give away is it's rights to control who it's military forces are supplied by, how & when they're supplied and the materials they use to protect their country.
Warships are extremely complex systems, at the top of years of design & development, built to produce a unique & bespoke piece of technology, which gives you the edge over your Ally & your enemy, while integrating some of the best technology & equipment that's available. (after all, why re-invent the wheel, when someone else has EXACTLY what your looking for ??)
Or would you rather the Chinese / Indians / Russian built our Radar & guidance systems for us ?
Think about it ....
SA
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Systems Adict,
Re 1 & 3 in case of the Danish frigates. The E. European yeards are owned by the Danish yard, i.e. IP and QA is managed. And they're are bulding blocks, not doing design and assembly. Core skills are maintained.
About outsorcing high-value-added items like radars. Those should be kept in-house, as they're commercially viable and the most critical items, as opposed to blocks.
My 0.02€
Re 1 & 3 in case of the Danish frigates. The E. European yeards are owned by the Danish yard, i.e. IP and QA is managed. And they're are bulding blocks, not doing design and assembly. Core skills are maintained.
About outsorcing high-value-added items like radars. Those should be kept in-house, as they're commercially viable and the most critical items, as opposed to blocks.
My 0.02€
Ahem, that would be none.....
Well not in the last 5 years, but it has happened during "slack" periods.
As for the "Drumbeat", it's now a matter of course to build ships that way.
The Wave Class Auxiliary Oilers, the Bulwark class LPD's, the Bay class LSD(A)'s & now Type 45 are / have all been built that way.
The biggest sticking point (apart from the sheer cost of labour for building a ship in the UK vs. the Far East), was the way the UK Govt farmed the work out, based on funding, causing the Boom & Bust process which pretty much killed the shipbuilding Industry in the UK.
By producing the UK's Integrated Shipbuilding strategy & getting the companies to take partial ownership by "Buying-In", the Govt has at last attempted to "smooth out" the peaks & troughs, hopefully helping it control spending, by planning when & where funds are needed.
I know it's not the best example, but it's what we've got & we need to give it a bit of time to work...
SA
Nobody was suggesting that... but your points are taken.
It's an idea that seems to work for Holland, maybe it's just what the Industry needs. However, I'm not sure that the UK mindset of BAE will stretch that far.
Yes, by acquisition they've bought the rights (by default), to repair & maintain a large portion of the US fleet, but that's not quite the same thing as country 'A', going to Country 'B' & buying it's shipyards, so that they can control how their ships are built.
If that were the case the likes of Kaverner or Hyundai in the 1990's would have bought everything.
But that's the commercial world, were it's sort of deemed "acceptable".
SA
...Believe the jury is still out on that one, as the Pluro-crats in Brussels go on another junket to Poland & Eastern Europe, to spend 2 years debating it, while wasting our hard earned Taxes, deciding if it's unfair for a sovereign nation to demand to build it's own ships, or to have another nation build them while the govt of said nation helps them undercut the competitor, by helping fund the build, using subsedees...
But I'm not bitter about that, just twisted that yet another UK shipyard is close to going to the wall, while EMP's live the life of the rich & famous....
SA :nutkick
mikehotwheelz
New Member
Costs and labour may well be greater in the UK compared to abroad but much of that money gets re-absorbed into the Treasury through taxes and spending of wages. Money spent abroad mostly stays abroad, and is lost to the government's coffers. Big multinationals are understandably more concerned with their bottom-line than any money draining from the Exchequer.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
How much of the money does the government get back through various taxes though? Remembering that any overseas build would mean the tax money going to that countries government.
I was thinking more about competition within the UK, back in the day 4-5 different shipbuilders would tender for the construction of a major unit. I think its important for us to keep construction of warships within the UK to keep up skills and maintain shipbuilders as well as construction being unaffected by foreign goverment interference.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Most of the shipyards got bought up by some "ship repairer" company didn't they? They still exist, they just probably don't have the workforce to build large ships anymore without a bit of investment.
FluffyThoughts
Member
Sorry, I caught Swerves comments (see below) and I disagree...!
Not at all logical, I'm afraid. Indian shipbuilding is neither fast (very slow, in fact) nor particularly cheap. If you want fast & cheap, you go to China, or for a little less cheap but better, & just as fast, S. Korea. Japan....
Now I believe that the dockyards at Gdansk and Gydinia are up for grabs. Apparently the Ukrainian steel-mill owners have given up.
Why cannot BAe/BVT buy it ($500 milllion) then build some of our RFAs and pseudo-military vessels (such as HMS Ocean's replacement) there? Design will stay in the UK, but we can help our Polish allies avoid the EU rules that only France, Germany and Italy get away with.
[Building two of the six Point-Class RoRo's in Belfast was not a great success. And don't forget the success of the two Bay-class LPDs built in Our 'Tony Blair's backyard!]
Design is as important as construction. ARM design most of the world's micro-processors. The UK does not manufacture them though.
[Cough; Scottish-Independence; Cough: No more subsidies up-north, but better ships! :nutkick]
Not at all logical, I'm afraid. Indian shipbuilding is neither fast (very slow, in fact) nor particularly cheap. If you want fast & cheap, you go to China, or for a little less cheap but better, & just as fast, S. Korea. Japan....
Now I believe that the dockyards at Gdansk and Gydinia are up for grabs. Apparently the Ukrainian steel-mill owners have given up.
Why cannot BAe/BVT buy it ($500 milllion) then build some of our RFAs and pseudo-military vessels (such as HMS Ocean's replacement) there? Design will stay in the UK, but we can help our Polish allies avoid the EU rules that only France, Germany and Italy get away with.
[Building two of the six Point-Class RoRo's in Belfast was not a great success. And don't forget the success of the two Bay-class LPDs built in Our 'Tony Blair's backyard!]
Design is as important as construction. ARM design most of the world's micro-processors. The UK does not manufacture them though.
[Cough; Scottish-Independence; Cough: No more subsidies up-north, but better ships! :nutkick]
I think you mean Swan Hunter, on Tyneside. Its last Navy job was building two Bay-class LSDs. The first was supposed to be the first of class, but ended up being third, the BAe yard at Govan building two in less time than Swan took to build one. The second was such a mess that eventually it was towed to Govan, where it was completed. Before beginning work on completion, they had to spend a few months ripping out faulty work & putting it right. That incomplete, faulty ship had already cost more than either of the two Govan had delivered.
Swan closed down as a shipbuilder immediately afterwards. The machinery has been sold (a lot of it's now in India), & everything is being dismantled -
Local newspaper article - 22 May 2008
The problem was that there were no longer enough people available locally with the right skills (including management of such projects), & the firm failed to rebuild the skilled workforce gradually. Tried to jump in with a big contract, & couldn't handle it.
But Swan isn't "most of the shipyards".
Interesting idea, & might work, but I don't see 'em going for it.Now I believe that the dockyards at Gdansk and Gydinia are up for grabs. Apparently the Ukrainian steel-mill owners have given up.
Why cannot BAe/BVT buy it ($500 milllion) then build some of our RFAs and pseudo-military vessels (such as HMS Ocean's replacement) there? Design will stay in the UK, but we can help our Polish allies avoid the EU rules that only France, Germany and Italy get away with.
[Building two of the six Point-Class RoRo's in Belfast was not a great success. And don't forget the success of the two Bay-class LPDs built in Our 'Tony Blair's backyard!]
Right about the Points & Bays. Both were, in effect, industrial subsidies (& unsuccessful ones) at the expense of the defence budget. Better to have had Flensburg build all the Points, & Govan all the Bays.
Nobody has suggested this. GD has answered re. the Danish ships. The French have adopted it for amphibious ships. They have had basic hull sections built abroad - the low-tech, no-secrets parts.
Not so. Nobody would do it if that was so. It has been done, it is being done, & it is universally agreed that it's saved money.
If labour costs are 25% of what they are in the UK, skill levels similar (seems to be true for Polish plumbers, carpenters, & brickayers - just had a couple do some work on my house), why would quality suffer? You build at the same speed, to the same quality - and it's cheaper.
Because they aren't the only things. Straw man. Nobody has said that.
No. So what? They insisted recently on 15 ro-ros, built to standard commercial designs except for a few, non-secret military features, being built in the USA at much greater cost than having them built in, e.g. Korea. And then had them operated for the USN by a Danish-owned shipping company, alongside 5 foreign-built (Denmark/S. Korea) ro-ros that the US bought secondhand. See any logic in that? I don't see US policy as logical.
More straw men. What's been suggested is that the relatively simple, low-end ships should be built abroad, & completed in the UK. Most of the responses have been of the "OK in part, as long as you don't go too far" type. You've gone rather over the top, I'm afraid, reacting as if it has been seriously suggested that the building of top-end ships crammed full of secrets should be
outsourced to China & Russia. Not even hinted at, so why bring it up?
spsun100001
New Member
I agree that there is a lack of competition and time after time major vessels are delivered late and over cost (Albion/Bulwark, Astutes etc.). The UK defence budget is primarily there to provide jobs first and defence second. Time and again we design and build inferior equipment or leave capability gaps to offset cost increases for platforms that are always years late.
The Type 45 is a great example. I understand that the cost per ship is now in the order of £1 billion which is about the same cost as a flight IIA Arleigh Burke. We could have bought the Arleigh Burke design from the US and potentially had the vessels in service years earlier saving the huge amounts of money that have been required to keep the Type 45 going and leaving the fleet less vulnerable to the AAW threat post the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier.
For our money we'd have got a ship with potentially twice the number of AAW missiles, two helicopters rather than one, an AAW missile that has capability against small surface warships, an AAW missile and radar that may be able to be upgraded to give TBMD capability and a land attack capability through the Tomohawk.
A hell of a lot more capability, delivered earlier, for the same cost but hey, as long as we've created jobs it doesn't matter that the product on which servicemens lives may depend is late, has a list of 'fitted for but not with' as long as your arm, was described by the Programme Director as the best ship we can afford not the best ship we can build and finally delivers 21st century AAW capability 25 years after it entered service with the US Navy and after it is already in front line service with the German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese and Korean navies. A real achievement to be proud of.
The Type 45 is a great example. I understand that the cost per ship is now in the order of £1 billion which is about the same cost as a flight IIA Arleigh Burke. We could have bought the Arleigh Burke design from the US and potentially had the vessels in service years earlier saving the huge amounts of money that have been required to keep the Type 45 going and leaving the fleet less vulnerable to the AAW threat post the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier.
For our money we'd have got a ship with potentially twice the number of AAW missiles, two helicopters rather than one, an AAW missile that has capability against small surface warships, an AAW missile and radar that may be able to be upgraded to give TBMD capability and a land attack capability through the Tomohawk.
A hell of a lot more capability, delivered earlier, for the same cost but hey, as long as we've created jobs it doesn't matter that the product on which servicemens lives may depend is late, has a list of 'fitted for but not with' as long as your arm, was described by the Programme Director as the best ship we can afford not the best ship we can build and finally delivers 21st century AAW capability 25 years after it entered service with the US Navy and after it is already in front line service with the German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese and Korean navies. A real achievement to be proud of.
I disagree the Type 45 has the best radar set in the world and the most advanced propulsion set in the world. and will do until SPY-3 is seen on a ship. the benefits for UK industry and independences is a price that far outweighs the increase cost of having another country build you ships.
the T45 are a cracking deal as they have far more advanced equipment than other vessels of that class.
The IEP which is the 1st on surface combatants and years before the USN or other navies have used. [its a different animal from the old turbo electric systems]
the SAMSON S1850 combination is the best radar combination in the world with PAMMS offers advantages over the standard missiles [faster, active seeker] with a large potential for upgrades.
the T45 has worked for Britain far better than just buying someone else warship and putting a few British bits on them. the T-45 gives RN a ship they can use for vessels being a basis for many other different ships a bit like the Roysth class of 50 years ago
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I was specifically thinking of Appledore Shipbuilders which folded in 2003 after building the Echo class ships, they were purchased by DML. Do they still build ships?
DMT = Devonport Management Limited, they themselves were bought out by Babcock last year.
Edit:
@harryriedl: Spy 3 may or may not be better then Sampson, they are both AESA radars.
@spsun100001: The problem with the Burke class is that they require similar sized crews to the T42's that they would have been replacing, whereas the T45's require a much smaller crew, which reduces the costs of Running the ships significantly over their lifetime (190 Vs ~330). And of course the missiles the burkes are equiped with are still Semi-Active homing whereas the Aster uses more modern Active homing missiles.