The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Yes, it will take years to fix a problem made over the last 20 years, there is no fast way out of this mess
Yup, that takes us down to 5 Frigates - Westminster is a blow as she's had a lot of money spent on her for little return. We need a bipartisan permanent committee of some weight to steer ship building over various governments. The mess we're in here, well, the previous government could have staved it off in the 14 years they had to work with, but realistically, the Type 26 program was dragging its heels even before then.
I'd like to think we'll learn some lessons and not push the OSD for Type 45 to the right but...well, yeah, as if.
I'd like to think we'll learn some lessons and not push the OSD for Type 45 to the right but...well, yeah, as if.
It will have to be pushed, no way the replacement type 83 will be specced and built in time
As most would know it takes time to build a ship.
The UK also has some social challenges with a greater number of the population feeling some economic pain.
While still an economically rich nation the pollies will reflect on the above.
Frigates, destroyer and subs are not a priority for many.
A shrunken fleet and carriers without a complete air wing are the result.
No easy fix for today and the immediate future even with regards as to the increased perception of threat and need.
They are in a bad spot.
Cheers S
The lack of F35s? to be honest I think that there are enough now (47 frames in total) for one carrier fully loaded or two decently partially populated. The real problem is weapons integration, which is dependant on software and hardware upgrades, Lockheed Martin are a serious gating factor in delivering capability here, buying more now delivers airframes but not more capability, and those airframes would need updating before they could deliver those capabilities, better to hold off now and place orders once block 4 capability is actually deliverable in my opinion.
Interesting take on the numbers.
I wonder if block 4 had been reached earlier if the UK would have in fact have increased the numbers of aircraft.
Both A and B models.
Cheers S
Impossible to know, but continuing to purchase machines that will need some very expensive upgrades to deliver what we actually want isn't the best idea in the world, again, in my opinion.
They'd had their planned lives extended quite some time ago, but they're not lasting until the new planned dates. I don't know whether it's lack of maintenance, overwork, or just unreality when setting the new retirement dates.
IIRC if Type 26 hadn't been pushed into the future, T26s would be coming into service to replace the worn out T23s. We had to order the River Batch 2 OPVs, not because they were seen as essential, but because a previous government had signed a contract with BAE requiring the government to spend a minimum amount on ships each year, to try to break the expensive cycle of boom & bust procurement, which was causing delays & extra cost. A steady drumbeat of orders, keeping shipyards working, recruiting & training new workers, maintaining building yards, would, over time, save money as well as making predictable delivery of ships possible. If we didn't order ships we still had to give BAE x million pounds per year, just to maintain the building capacity.
Great idea - but despite that contract, the Conservative governments in the 2010s didn't order the planned warships, i.e. Type 26 frigates. The River B2s were ordered because they were thought to be the most useful ships that could be built quickly enough to use the money we were contractually required to spend.
Consider also the RN's AEW helicopters. The old Sea Kings were wearing out & needed replacement. A lot of money was spent examining possible replacements. Among the options suggested, but rejected, was a quick refurbishment & update of the Searchwater radars & Cerberus mission system & fitting them to Merlin helicopters which were already in service, while a long term successor was identified & procured.
Instead we had a long process of evaluation of potential successors, & selection of one. After some years, it was clear that it wasn't going well, e.g. the developer had decided to use a different radar (the original one had been a big selling point). The interim proposal resurfaced, & this time was accepted - but with a major redesign & rebuild of the radar & combat system, so we've actually got pretty much a new radar built on an old base, after a capability gap of several years, & it's probably cost more.
Politicians & the Navy seem sometimes to conspire to cock things up.
Interesting but not unexpected.
Ships are harder to build when you dont maintain the capability to design and build. Also, minimum change never is, it just means you are hoping your technical risks dont evolve into technical debt, i.e. stuff you need to fix late in the program, because somebody early in the program said it would be ok.
Interesting but not unexpected.
Ships are harder to build when you dont maintain the capability to design and build. Also, minimum change never is, it just means you are hoping your technical risks dont evolve into technical debt, i.e. stuff you need to fix late in the program, because somebody early in the program said it would be ok.
From what I'm reading, Babcock are taking the cost on the chin so it's not pushing the price of the order north.
Out of sequence build errors do seem to be endemic in first of class construction and I'm told something similar happened with the carriers.
What happens next is going to be interesting in that the River batch 1s are all going out of service in 2028 or so. I'm wondering if ordering a diet lite spec of type 31 to replace one or two of the batch 1s would be feasible?