MoD reveals design of Royal Navy future warships

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Why is there a Scot talking about where we will build our ships and suggesting we buy off the shelf US junk? By the time we are ready to sign contracts Scotland will have tanked and gone cap in hand to the Euro.

Time to start moving the BAE shipyards to Areas of England that need the jobs. The Scottish can make their own work.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkman
Why is there a Scot talking about where we will build our ships and suggesting we buy off the shelf US junk? By the time we are ready to sign contracts Scotland will have tanked and gone cap in hand to the Euro.

Time to start moving the BAE shipyards to Areas of England that need the jobs. The Scottish can make their own work.


I'd be sad to see the yards go but ultimately it's a commercial decision for BAE. What's certain is that there won't be sufficient home grown naval contracts coming their way after Scottish independence. Unless they can become competitive on civilian contracts, a very difficult market at the moment due to the economic downturn, then unfortunately I don't think they'll have a future.

The Arleigh Burke's are junk ? The USN plan to build 75, most people recognise it's one of the most capable naval platforms the USN has ever had. It's such a shame you can't tell them about your concerns in person yourself. You're such a loss to the diplomatic service.

I wonder whether the T45 concept, a specialised air defence destroyer, was really the best way for the RN to go. It's a bit too late now to re-hash it. I just think a more general, more versatile ship ought to have been purchased for the RN, less expensive, better armed and more of them too. The last British air defence destroyer, HMS Bristol (Type 82) became a bit of a white elephant, I fear the Type 45's will share her fate.

Everyone looks at the lines of a ship, how cool she looks as she cuts through the waves etc etc. It's not the ship though that's important, it's the weaponry you equip it with. That's where the T45 fails so miserably, it's so specialised it's become stuck up it's own behind.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
As an aside, you folks are obviously into your warships. The weaponry forum is a bit thin when it comes to warships & all matters maritime.

Do you think a very general "current warships" thread might be fun ? If so, I'm very happy if any one of you wish to initiate one, I'd be a very active participant.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


The T45 was built for a specific role, Fleet Air Defence. Protecting the carriers, you know, the big "second rate" things being cobbled together in Rosyth? That said, it can perform ASW and other missions satisfactorily.

This new Frigate (and frigates have always been the workhorse of a post-WW2 Navy) are to be the general dogs bodies with a range of equipment for a range of missions. That said, they will have 3 basic variants to have a speciality for different mission types.

Problem is, you're comparing apples with oranges with regards to the USN naval doctrine and the UK's.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Well, we disagree on the T45 I'm afraid.

Same with the carriers, funnily enough. The British CVF programme is so perfect an example of procurement gone wrong, it's a wonder you've dared mention it.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


The CVF programme has had issues, but mainly from political interference more than anything..

From a technical and capability standpoint, it's top notch. Consider that there are few nations on the planet than operate carriers and of them, even fewer still can build them, it ain't that bad. Of the few non US carriers in service around the Globe, a good many are ex-RN carriers!

I really don't know what your problem is with the T45, the CVF or this new ship. It certainly seems like you just dislike anything made in Britain.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


That's a good point about the ex-RN carriers. I'm absolutely amazed that HMS Hermes still serves in the guise of INS Viraat, she was laid down in 1944. Built to last ! Although I "think" she's probably the last of the post war British carriers still in service.

I'm not against the RN, Stumason, I'm not even against buying British. What I'm against is the colossal waste of money in defence procurement, money which could be used to give our boys better kit. If there had been less farfing about by politicians of both sides, the RN would soon have 2 carriers with cats & traps, with aircraft which could more easily cross operate with their US equivalents. Instead we're getting 65,000 ton ships with ski ramps & aircraft not as good as the ones the US will use.

We're getting top notch air warfare destroyers ... they will prove exceptionally good in that role. But they're also ships which aren't themselves equipped with anti ship missiles. Or torpedoes. To me, the idea of sending a ship into battle without it having the ability to attack another ship in all sea states, in all weathers and even in the dark, well, to me that's just plain nuts.

All I'm saying is the RN could've done so much better. I want them to have the best.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


1944?! 68 years of service. That is mighty impressive. It seems that ships in general as a class are more durable than aircraft, I suppose that makes sense due to an aircraft frame being under a great deal more or pressure and strain over its life time than ships.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


Fair point about the ski ramps/cats and traps..

The irony with that is Brits invented the steam catapult and we even have a design for an EM catapult which was going to be put on the CVF's. Dithering and budget constraints canned that, but we would have had the most advanced carrier in the world, albeit somewhat smaller than the Yanks.

As for the T45, there is provision for the fitting of quad Harpoon launchers. If money became available, it is a simple refit that would be required. That said, they are meant to be part of a carrier battle group, defending the fleet. The idea is that they would be protected from submarine and surface threats by the carrier or frigates.

However, they do deploy on their own at the moment, such as down in the Falklands. That said, there is an Astute on duty as well, providing ample protection from submarine and surface threats.

But, I totally agree that the Government has no idea about procuring anything and seems to accept quotes on face value. It should be written in to contracts that the price paid is only a % above cost, with accounting details made public so everyone can see what is being paid...



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Speaking as an American all I can say is I'm very glad to hear Britian is NOT buying American warships. Honestly the American military and defense establishment are so busy resting on their laurels that they haven't put out a top grade product in close to 2 decades. Your money is best spent at home even if you do face the same issues with defense contractors that we do.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Just to advise that the MoD has announced that the contracts for these ships won't be announced until well after the result of the referendum. That means that if Scotland votes for independence, the contracts will be placed with yards south of the border. The BAE Govan & Scotstoun yards will then probably close, for good.

www.scotsman.com...

Nice one, MoD. Blackmailing people into supporting the union, how low is that ?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


With all due respect, why should an independant Scotland be awarded the contracts?
Surely they should go to a yard in the nation it is going to serve and operate.

If Scotland votes for independance then surely it will build it's own boats / ships in it's own yards or would they award the contract to an English or Northern Irish yard?

Surely if the Scottish economy is strong and robust enough to support independance this defence contract will not make that much difference, will it?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I've already said that I think the yards will close following a "Yes" vote. There won't be enough naval work to keep them going, no matter how vibrantly or otherwise the rest of the Scottish economy is performing.

What I object to ... as a current "British" taxpayer ... is delays being deliberately introduced into a procurement process simply in order to swing an election. That delay I'm paying for & so are you.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 




I've already said that I think the yards will close following a "Yes" vote. There won't be enough naval work to keep them going, no matter how vibrantly or otherwise the rest of the Scottish economy is performing.


I fully understand that, not quite sure a lot of Scots do though, but then again that's another discussion.



What I object to ... as a current "British" taxpayer ...


I object to quite a lot as a current British taxpayer - again, something for another time and place.



is delays being deliberately introduced into a procurement process simply in order to swing an election.


I am not that naive to not realise that there's obviously an element of that there.
But I don't think that's the sole consideration.

Would you rather Scottish yards miss out completely on MOD contracts.
What happens if subsequently Scotland votes against independance?

It's been reported that there is a gropwing sense of unease amongst businesses to invest in Scotland at present due to the uncertainty over it's future - this is one example of that.



That delay I'm paying for & so are you.


Unfortunately my taxes are paying for many things that I neither agree with nor condone - but unless I am prepared to take a more militant stance it is something I have very little, if any, control over - one of life's harsh realities I'm afraid.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


If Scotland votes for independence then the yards will close. If they don't, I assume Govan/Scotstoun will get the orders for the Type 26.

However, one fly in the ointment is the ballot paper itself. "Devo max" may also be on offer in a double question referendum. if that's the case, I'm confident that Scotland will vote "No" for independence but "Yes" to devo max. That'll mean all powers being repatriated to Scotland apart from defence & foreign affairs.

But such a vote, like the 1997 devolution referendum, far from assuaging nationalist fervour will galvanise it still further. And I can see independence votes becoming the norm until such time as the nationalists finally win. After all, the nationalists only have to be lucky once. For those who doubt such a result, you only have to look at the composition of Parliament right now ... a majority SNP government. This is no longer some academic debating point, it's being argued in every pub, workplace and home in Scotland right now.

So the Type 26 may never be laid down in a Scottish yard at all.

I think that Scotland leaving UK would be such a shattering blow that the government at Westminster would simply suspend procurement on most major projects, instead conducting another defence review or Royal Commission. Everything then would be in question, the aircraft carriers, the trident submarines & their replacements etc.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthernThird
 


See, I know this is going ever so slightly off topic now, but I don't believe that there will be a 3rd question. It is obvious to the "No" campaign and Westminster that the question of devo max, of which there appears to be little appetite in the public, is just a cop out for the SNP as they know they can't win the Yes vote. From rumblings in Westminster, it seems that the Scottish Parliament doesn't have the constitutional power to even run the referendum or dictate the questions.

It seems only fair that if the SNP truly believe their position is the right one, they would wholeheartedly back a simple yes-no vote as soon as possible, not fudge a 3 way vote on a historic anniversary which is guaranteed to boost nationalist fervour. They do not, however and are fighting at every turn to delay the vote. For a truly democratic and fair vote, it makes sense to keep it simple and do it on a "neutral" date.

As for their majority, the SNP have other policies which the Scottish people find attractive. It is foolish to assume that because they have a (slim) majority in Parliament that it should mean that a majority of people back independence. Free prescriptions, University and other "carrots" can do quite a bit to garner voters...

And should Scotland become independent, this will have little to no bearing on UK defence policy. Scotland, in terms of population and tax revenue, is but a very small portion. By the time any vote is carried out and acted upon, the Carriers will be built, the Trident replacement is already under way and these ships need to be built to replace the ageing Type 23's.

Scotland, however, would do well to find a source of revenue that would allow them to not only avoid massive tax hikes to cover current spending, but to be able to provide for their own defence and foreign relations, which doesn't come cheap. North Sea oil revenues are falling all the time, but the SNP continue to peddle the lie that everyone in Scotland will become rich overnight with independence.

Even using their own figures from the Scottish parliament, current tax revenues in Scotland with their "geographic share" of the Oil revenue doesn't even touch the sides of their current spending. They would be running such a huge deficit that it would make our current austerity measures look quite benign.

Of course, they will run the deficit for a few years to continue to make the Scots feel good, then smack you with a massive bill. Not only that, but also you're not guaranteed automatic entry to the EU (so no free trade), you'd be tied to a foreign currency (with no control over interest rates - like Greece) and it's bound to go horribly wrong. Of course, this doesn't matter to Salmond as he paints his face blue and shouts

"FREEDOM!!!!"



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


It's also worth mentioning that an independent Scotland is likely to be given a substantial bill by the remaining UK for the HUGE bailouts of Scottish banks of which the UK bears the brunt. Many billions were used to prop up HBOS and RBS, which to be honest an independent Scotland simply could not have afforded. Their share of this should be paid upon independence.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Devo max won't be popular with some ; it means fiscal autonomy for Scotland. That means taxes go up, spending goes down or some combination of the two. It's exactly what would happen with full independence. And it's SNP policy too. With that comes the recognition that Scotland can't support shipyards with empty orderbooks, the yards will either have to diversify (difficult given their location on the Clyde plus the civilian shipping market right now is on it's knees) or they'll have to close. Either way, it's a commercial decision for BAE, the Scottish Government will just have to deal with the consequences if and when it happens.

I don't know how a Scottish navy would be composed if independence becomes a reality, much would depend on whether Scotland is in NATO.

The oil might be running out but there's still a large area to cover in the North Sea, plus the Western Approaches can't be forgotten about either.

Thinking seriously about it, if in NATO Scotland would probably need 5 or 6 frigates plus a command ship, plus smaller patrol boats for inshore waters (there's 3 Scottish Fisheries Protection Vessels in service today, although none are armed). I don't see any need for submarines, they'd be too expensive to run with a division of only one or two in number anyway. They'll need some kind of maritime patrol aircraft, Orion P-3 turbo props will suit the bill plus some Sea Kings for search and rescue, the latter are already based at Prestwick.

If not in NATO, the authorities would struggle to even justify frigates.

I can't guess what the mood would be south of the border. I suspect many would prefer that Trident is de-commissioned and that the rest of UK goes non nuclear. The carriers still might not be in service,or maybe only one in commission with the other still fitting out. I can't see both remaining with the RN, unfortunately, I can't see either in RN service if I'm honest about it. It all comes down to what role remains for the rest of the UK, what happens to N. Ireland, whether Wales floats off, there's so much we simply can't second guess about all this.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Well, you're completely off topic now about the banks, you're baiting me in fact. I won't rise to it, suffice to say I'm confident Scotland will cover it's fair share of the national debt. Whether it's entirely fair to lumber the Scottish taxpayer with most of the bank debts is "up for debate".

I prefer the Icelandic solution, myself. Sod the banks. Let them fail, we can start anew.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Just to advise that the MoD has announced that the contracts for these ships won't be announced until well after the result of the referendum. That means that if Scotland votes for independence, the contracts will be placed with yards south of the border. The BAE Govan & Scotstoun yards will then probably close, for good.

www.scotsman.com...

Nice one, MoD. Blackmailing people into supporting the union, how low is that ?


You have raised a lot of good points over this debate but i have to say i totally disagree with this statement. The MoD isn't blackmailing anyone - it is upto Scotland to make its own decisions on this matter. What the MoD is doing is saying that decision won't be made until after the vote.

Fair enough, for the reasons we already discussed, namely that defence contracts for the Navy go to UK firms. That isn't blackmail in any shape or form, it is simply common sense - something that seems to be missing from many SNP arguments in the media. By that, i mean that the SNP seem to ignore what they are being told by Westminster (and business) regarding an independence vote and what the result would be for Scotland.

Obviously, each side is trying to paint the rosiest picture possible so the truth, i suspect, would be somewhere between the two points. However, i have to say that, as a neutral, it doesn't make the SNP look very good when they always seem to open with "that isn't right / true". Really? That is the answer to everything?


Whether they like or not, some things they will have to accept. And one of these is that independence means no more UK defence spending in Scotland.





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join