MoD reveals design of Royal Navy future warships

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
As a point of note, did anyone else notice the Defence Ministry junior saying the shipyards of an independent Scotland would miss out on any contracts to build these?

He pointed out that in the history of the Royal Navy, contracts are only ever awarded to "home" contractors. And then pointed out that an independent Scotland would not be deemed as a "home country".

To which one of Salmond's cronies said, basically, "yes we would still get the contracts!". Good to see denial in place already.........




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Sonar? Got that licked already..

The Astute, it is said, can distinguish between ships in New York from the other side of the Atlantic..

The only problem with sound based detection is that it travels really slowly. Not much good with aircraft which travel faster than sound, although they did use sound based detection in WW2 alongside the nascent radar systems of the time... Didn't work so well...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
To which one of Salmond's cronies said, basically, "yes we would still get the contracts!". Good to see denial in place already.........


Off topic, I know, but mwoooohahahahahahahah....

Yes, seems Salmond wants and independent Scotland, but only one which relies on the UK Pound, still has the Queen, has open borders with England, benefits from English economic decisions and defence procurement...

How is that independent? Well, he'll be "in charge" and that's what it is all about isn't it? Salmond's ego...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Yes, sorry to Peruvianmonk for going off topic but i also had my manic laugh at that. I just loved the fact that the SNP guy thinks he can still dictate what the MoD does, even though they will not be a part of it anymore.

Would be a shame though because in all fairness the Clydebank shipyards did a cracking job with the T45's.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It'll be a bit of a muddle if legally binding contracts are placed with British Aerospace for these ships then Scotland votes for independence. Either BAE builds them at Govan/Scotstoun as the easiest way to fulfill the contract or they shut the yards, strip them and shift production somewhere else. Or they'll undertake a "defence review" and simply cancel the ships on the grounds that the Royal Navy can at that point be reduced from a blue water navy to something little better than a Coastguard with guns (no-one's going to attack England anyway, everyone simply adores the multicultural nation that England has now become).

Either way, I'm sure trivia like this won't stop Scotland becoming independent.

As to the ships, "fitted for but not with" ... where have we heard that before ? And if you think they'll replace existing ships on a one for one basis, well, hope springs eternal I guess, God loves an optimist.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


I actually think BAE would go for stripping and relocating the shipyards. Which is totally their right but at the same time not so good without also relocating the workforce...........

Independence would mean any contracts are null and void, neatly sidestepping any legal wrangles over it.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Either BAE builds them at Govan/Scotstoun as the easiest way to fulfill the contract or they shut the yards, strip them and shift production somewhere else.


Citing "national security concerns", the Government can cancel whatever they please. I suspect if Scotland goes independent then they will lose out.


Originally posted by NorthernThird
Or they'll undertake a "defence review" and simply cancel the ships on the grounds that the Royal Navy can at that point be reduced from a blue water navy to something little better than a Coastguard with guns (no-one's going to attack England anyway, everyone simply adores the multicultural nation that England has now become).


There is no logic to the fact that losing Scotland would result in kind of massive defence review your putting forth. Scotland as a whole has less of a population than London. 90% of the UK's population resides in England so defence would remain the same.


Originally posted by NorthernThird
Either way, I'm sure trivia like this won't stop Scotland becoming independent.


Nope, the SNP will stop them. The Pro-Independence campaign is losing ground daily. They are their own worst enemy and people are seeing them for the short-termist, self-serving idiots they are.


Originally posted by NorthernThird
As to the ships, "fitted for but not with" ... where have we heard that before ?


As of 2016, there will be a new missile entering service Sea Ceptorthat I suspect will also replace the Astor missiles on the T-45. They are DAMNED site more capable as well: Mach 3, range of 500Km+, thrust vectoring.. Useful against sparrows or ICBM's



Originally posted by NorthernThird
And if you think they'll replace existing ships on a one for one basis, well, hope springs eternal I guess, God loves an optimist.


I personally think we'll end up with more than 1 for 1..... That's just my thinking..But I can see, by 2022, that we will be running both carriers simultaneously, not 1 in and 1 out as proposed and as a result, we'll need more Frigates to accompany them.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Scottish independence might prove beneficial for the Royal Navy in the long term.

No longer will they have to buy expensive 2nd rate rubbish, they can dispense with "Buy British", there won't be the yard capacity in England for major surface vessels.

They can use this as a long overdue opportunity to simply buy off the shelf from USA. Then they'll have less expensive ships with weapons rather than more expensive ships without weapons, ships which can simply slot in and out of a US led fleet with little if any problem.

I don't think the "Royal Scottish Navy", assuming it's reactivated at all, will play much of a role at all, it will simply be a coastal defence force like that of the Republic of Ireland, fishery & oilfield patrol vessels, largely inactive. It certainly won't have Type 26 ships, carriers, submarines etc.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


Dear lord, man...

Buy off the Yanks? They have looked at the T-45 and the Astute and gone "wow.....".. Give me one ship, in a class for class comparison, that the Yanks have that is head and shoulders above anything the RN has (and is cheaper as well...)

Second rate rubbish? Best bloody ships available mate, which is why they cost.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


Surely there will still be co-operation in a major form if Scotland does go independent? It's not like we should suddenly stop co-operation just because a majority of Scottish people vote for it?

We have to be adults about this, if the Scottish do go independent I wish them the best of luck and hope that as England & Wales we can help them and they can help us.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


I will also point out that with a modular design, you don't need massive, dedicated shipyards any more. Ships can be built in sections and assembled in a larger dockyard (like at Portsmouth where there are BAE Systems Surface Ships facilities.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Well, without derailing the thread with "this ship is better than that ship", I'm confident the US Arleigh Burke class would've proved a good enough platform for the RN. A proven & tested design, a class which which might well continue in production for another 30 yrs.

Just my opinion, of course.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


No problem, Stumason. Just encourage BAE to build the Type 26 in England then.

I'm not arguing about it. I'm sorry for the men who will lose their jobs if/when the yards close, obviously. And I'm confident the Scottish Government will do it's best to help the guys retrain, get work elsewhere.

But the one thing I can't stomach is people south of the border suddenly becoming concerned about unemployment in Glasgow, as a stick by which to "bash nationalists", it'll be a long day in hell before I see English politicians demonstrating at the border about the high levels of Scottish unemployment.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


With the new Sea Ceptor missiles (even with the Astor), the T-45 is as capable an Air Defence platform as an Arleigh Burke, and quite a bit cheaper
.. If the T-45 gets the new missiles, it will be a formidable ship indeed, making it an effective missile interceptor platform as well.

I know you're not arguing, we're having a good chin wag
.. Apologies if I came across argumentative!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Okies, Mr. Defence Secretary. Here's our tender. For $1.843 billion (or £1.17 billion in your funny little English pounds) we will give you ...

A fully equipped ten thousand ton guided missile destroyer, with Tomahawks, Harpoons, a whole Pandora's Box of RIM SAM's, ASROCSs & BMD weaponry, AEGIS, Phalanx, torpedoes etc etc etc .. why, you can even call it HMS Saint Edmund if you like ... (was that you or Freeborn in another thread ? can't remember haha) ... and you guys can come over and collect it in 2 yrs time.

Or. You can can buy this new Type 26 destroyer of yours in perhaps 8 years time (for 8 read 15), we think it might cost about £400 million *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *£400 million ? Oh you're having a laugh* ... we can't quite tell you an awful lot more than that, obviously, but here's a pretty picture and a video too *throw in a token few lines about British shipbuilding heritage etc etc etc*

So. Your call Mister Defence Secretary. What do you want ?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthernThird
reply to post by stumason
 


Okies, Mr. Defence Secretary. Here's our tender. For $1.843 billion (or £1.17 billion in your funny little English pounds) we will give you ...

A fully equipped ten thousand ton guided missile destroyer, with Tomahawks, Harpoons, a whole Pandora's Box of RIM SAM's, ASROCSs & BMD weaponry, AEGIS, Phalanx, torpedoes etc etc etc .. why, you can even call it HMS Saint Edmund if you like ... (was that you or Freeborn in another thread ? can't remember haha) ... and you guys can come over and collect it in 2 yrs time.

Or. You can can buy this new Type 26 destroyer of yours in perhaps 8 years time (for 8 read 15), we think it might cost about £400 million *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *£400 million ? Oh you're having a laugh* ... we can't quite tell you an awful lot more than that, obviously, but here's a pretty picture and a video too *throw in a token few lines about British shipbuilding heritage etc etc etc*

So. Your call Mister Defence Secretary. What do you want ?


Thanks you for your kind offer. Unfortunately, we see no benefit in lining the pockets of foreign defence contractors and helping a foreign nation with its deficit. Money spent by our administration on your 30 year old design would be lost to us while money spent on a UK product would in large part churn its way back through the economy to the exchequer.

Not to mention foreign sales potential and most importantly the political capital to be had from new manufacturing jobs in a time of austerity.

So thank you, but we must decline.

:-)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


What does this stuff matter when you have to start riding camels to catch up with terrorists...this is all a giant waste of money when you have nuclear weapons...what's the point



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


I have the fortune to know someone who works in the Royal Navy at a high level. She says that the new RN ships (T45, CVF) have crew accommodation that is far in excess to the USN.

Regardless of the relative strengths of the T45 Daring class (specialist AAW warship) versus e.g. the Arleigh Burke (jack of all trades, master of etc), the RN crew will be more comfortable with the added benefit of a few beers, compared to the rather cramped and (er) dry USN equivalents.

Anyway, to topic. The Type 26 is an attractive design, but the devil is in the detail. The problem with concepts is that between the designers table, the military planners and the accountants things tend to get lost.

To those who habitually rant and rave in threads like this about the “killing machines of doom”, consider that the Royal Navy tends to render assistance to disaster zones more, thus saving lives at no cost to the rescues and helped, more times than it pulls the trigger. The RN is thankfully good at both jobs.

Regards



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Most of you are sufficiently well versed in British naval procurement that you know in your little heart of hearts that this new warship class will come in late, miles over budget and without some of the basics. That represents a colossal waste of money. It's not just ships, it's aircraft, it's fighting vehicles. It's just about everything the MoD buys.

There's something profoundly out of balance between the Ministry of Defence and those who supply the British armed forces. Companies such as BAE have demonstrated time and time again that they're completely unable, more probably unwilling, to deliver the kit our servicemen need any faster, any better or any cheaper.

That's in no small measure due to the complete lack of any competition in the British arms market (and don't BAE know it ?!), that and the unwillingness of politicians to buy anything other than British, simply in order to keep local electorates sweet (especially in Scotland where the benefits of union with England are, to many, just no longer apparent ... a sad truth). Then there's the corruption now endemic in British public life, where politicians and civil servants with the responsibility for major procurement decisions end up working for the very same companies to which they've signed off huge contracts. Bonus please !

The problem with what I suggest, that of buying American (or from anywhere else) is that once we do that, there's a very good chance we'll lose the ability to build warships, tanks & aircraft altogether. No patriotic orders for expensive, second rate kit=immediate factory closures, job losses and the emasculation of design, engineering & metallurgical/material skills which have taken decades to pull together. I think the NATO governments need to consider whether closer cooperation in warship design & procurement might not be the way ahead, the introduction of standard warship classes, weaponry etc.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthernThird
The problem with what I suggest, that of buying American (or from anywhere else) is that once we do that, there's a very good chance we'll lose the ability to build warships, tanks & aircraft altogether.


Exactly. It has nothing to do with "voters" as you allude, or even the lack of an apparent reason for Union (which will become quite readily apparent should Scotland ever leave...you don't have the money to carry on doing what you do) but rather strategic need.


Originally posted by NorthernThird
No patriotic orders for expensive, second rate kit


Second rate?

There is very little the Americans have a massive lead over us in, even Stealth, thanks to BAe and their involvement in a good many US projects, such as the F-22 and F-35. The US MBT, the Abrams, is a mechano kit of European tanks with an American gas guzzling engine and their Submarines are, frankly, inferior. We are even keeping up in the hypersonic arena with the Sabre engine.

I have no idea why you think American kit is better. The main advantage the US has over any enemy is the sheer amount they can deploy. If the Americans had to deploy a unit of the same size and strength as any other NATO country, they would find it tough going. When my brother was in the Navy aboard HMS Iron Duke, they took on two American destroyers (one an Arleigh Burke, as it happens) and a sub in a war game.. With some deception and good old fashioned naval tactics, they killed the Sub and the surface ships without the Yanks ever knowing where they were.

The second advantage the Yanks enjoy is their intelligence gathering, but again this is simply down to money. If we had a £300 billion defence budget, we'd have the sattelites they do, after all we can make them and we're good at it too.


Originally posted by NorthernThird
I think the NATO governments need to consider whether closer cooperation in warship design & procurement might not be the way ahead, the introduction of standard warship classes, weaponry etc.


That is the thinking behind this, but if you had followed the history of this and others you'd see that the countries try try to work together, but everyone has their own needs. This new Frigate will be of a base modular design and we alone will have 3 variants. India and Brazil are also interested in buying it as a base unit then strapping on their own kit for the role they need. Other export markets for the ship are being explored.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join