Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
The Treasury dictated the build rate not Bae.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 08:52
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 Any Batch 2 T26 are highly unlikely to be laid down this year! With plans for these to be built in a major new facility which has yet to be built (possibly not yet even having received planning consent), I would think it more likely to be well into 2024 or even 2025 before hull 4 and/or hull 5 could be laid down.

What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
So with an 18 month drumbeat, that would mean that 14 escorts would be finished in 21 years. That would extend the gap in the UK 30 year shipbuilding plan mentioned in the previous post to 9 years.

So you would have to fill that gap with building more ships else risk losing experienced shipbuilders. But in todays tight defence Budget, what would you cut??

Thats the problem if looking at a 30 year shipbuilding drumbeat. You want a good rhythm, not fast sections followed by quiet pauses.
Also the UK would lose the design teams and most of the project managers building the same ship for decades. So small ship classes would be required.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Ron5 wrote
The Treasury dictated the build rate not Bae.
Quite so, but it is not what is required, so The Treasury should think again and get it correct.

I know that it is not their area of expertise, but if they can’t read the runes, they should get a size 11 boot up their “six”! :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 2):
Ron5serge750

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

wargame_insomniac wrote
So you would have to fill that gap with building more ships.
Exactly, there would be no gap, you really are catching on fast aren’t you!

Shame that HMG and The Treasury don’t seem to be! :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Ron5

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 13:13
wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 08:52
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 Any Batch 2 T26 are highly unlikely to be laid down this year! With plans for these to be built in a major new facility which has yet to be built (possibly not yet even having received planning consent), I would think it more likely to be well into 2024 or even 2025 before hull 4 and/or hull 5 could be laid down.

What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
So with an 18 month drumbeat, that would mean that 14 escorts would be finished in 21 years. That would extend the gap in the UK 30 year shipbuilding plan mentioned in the previous post to 9 years.

So you would have to fill that gap with building more ships else risk losing experienced shipbuilders. But in todays tight defence Budget, what would you cut??

Thats the problem if looking at a 30 year shipbuilding drumbeat. You want a good rhythm, not fast sections followed by quiet pauses.
Also the UK would lose the design teams and most of the project managers building the same ship for decades. So small ship classes would be required.
I think there's a fair bit of crossover between the Surface Ship and submarine design teams so it's not quite as bad as that SSNR will be keeping them busy including any support of AUKUS related developments

Left field idea - if there really is a design black hole in say the early 2030s how about the MOD pay them to design a family of armoured vehicles. CAD is CAD. Start with a blank screen and see what they can come up with. Just a thought

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 17:43
Ron5 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 13:13
wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 08:52
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 Any Batch 2 T26 are highly unlikely to be laid down this year! With plans for these to be built in a major new facility which has yet to be built (possibly not yet even having received planning consent), I would think it more likely to be well into 2024 or even 2025 before hull 4 and/or hull 5 could be laid down.

What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
So with an 18 month drumbeat, that would mean that 14 escorts would be finished in 21 years. That would extend the gap in the UK 30 year shipbuilding plan mentioned in the previous post to 9 years.

So you would have to fill that gap with building more ships else risk losing experienced shipbuilders. But in todays tight defence Budget, what would you cut??

Thats the problem if looking at a 30 year shipbuilding drumbeat. You want a good rhythm, not fast sections followed by quiet pauses.
Also the UK would lose the design teams and most of the project managers building the same ship for decades. So small ship classes would be required.
I think there's a fair bit of crossover between the Surface Ship and submarine design teams so it's not quite as bad as that SSNR will be keeping them busy including any support of AUKUS related developments

Left field idea - if there really is a design black hole in say the early 2030s how about the MOD pay them to design a family of armoured vehicles. CAD is CAD. Start with a blank screen and see what they can come up with. Just a thought
Might end up a tad big tho :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 15:45 Ron5 wrote
The Treasury dictated the build rate not Bae.
Quite so, but it is not what is required, so The Treasury should think again and get it correct.

I know that it is not their area of expertise, but if they can’t read the runes, they should get a size 11 boot up their “six”! :mrgreen:
Not clear that that the Treasury could plan a pissup in a brewery.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 13:13
wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 08:52
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 Any Batch 2 T26 are highly unlikely to be laid down this year! With plans for these to be built in a major new facility which has yet to be built (possibly not yet even having received planning consent), I would think it more likely to be well into 2024 or even 2025 before hull 4 and/or hull 5 could be laid down.

What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
So with an 18 month drumbeat, that would mean that 14 escorts would be finished in 21 years. That would extend the gap in the UK 30 year shipbuilding plan mentioned in the previous post to 9 years.

So you would have to fill that gap with building more ships else risk losing experienced shipbuilders. But in todays tight defence Budget, what would you cut??

Thats the problem if looking at a 30 year shipbuilding drumbeat. You want a good rhythm, not fast sections followed by quiet pauses.
Also the UK would lose the design teams and most of the project managers building the same ship for decades. So small ship classes would be required.
I have come around to the fact that we need only one UK Warship design team, who would get a design contect completely separate from construction contract.

If we stick with the aasumed 30 year ship replacement cycle, then we would need to design new carriers, DD, FF, OPV / MCM SV, LHD / LSD / MRSS, MROSS. That should be enough work?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 13:09
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
The Treasury dictated the build rate not Bae.
If all the money went to one yard, then the drum beat would be 15mths with a fleet of 24 ships each with a 30 year life. It’s a conscious decision to have two inefficient production lines.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Ron5
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 15:51 wargame_insomniac wrote
So you would have to fill that gap with building more ships.
Exactly, there would be no gap, you really are catching on fast aren’t you!

Shame that HMG and The Treasury don’t seem to be! :mrgreen:
If you had asked me similar question a few months ago before Liz Truss / Kwasi Kwarten's mini-Budget, and the subsequent fall out with worlds banking community, I would have said that UK Should have been able to increase UK Defence Spending to maybe 3%.

In that case then it would have been fair enough to hope that the RN could afford extra escorts to get to 24 or more escorts. Now I think that is more mere hope rather expectation that could be fully funded.

So saying that a future shipbuilding gap could be covered by building more escort is optimistic at best, fantasy at worst.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:16
Ron5 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 13:09
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
The Treasury dictated the build rate not Bae.
If all the money went to one yard, then the drum beat would be 15mths with a fleet of 24 ships each with a 30 year life. It’s a conscious decision to have two inefficient production lines.
If we only had one shipyard, then you would have zero competition and that would lead to spiralling costs and lengthening delivery times as the UK government would have little control to either keep costs sensible or keep to tight production deadlines. The MOD has a vert poor track record of wisely handling.large Budgets project.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 07:21 Yes, and work will be continuing “in the existing facilities” on blocks for both Hulls 2 and 3 !!!
Do you really think that they will have room for Hull 4 and 5 Blocks to be built let alone stored, whilst they are still attempting to build and assemble the same for hulls 2 and 3.
They will need the space in the existing hall currently used for block integration to cope with building and assembling “two hulls” (and their component blocks) simultaneously. :mrgreen:
I didn't mention hull 5. Hull 2 will be outside shortly so hull 3 fore and aft superblocks can be integrated in the space given up by hull 2 moving onto the hardstanding. The space left in the SBOH will be used for the first blocks of Hull 4.
Steel was cut for Hull 2 Cardiff August 2019
Steel was cut for Hull 3 Belfast June 2021
So on that basis steel will be cut for hull 4 June\July this year with Cardiff and Belfast still in assembly on the hardstanding and in the SBOH.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyo

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:35
Repulse wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:16
Ron5 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 13:09
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
The Treasury dictated the build rate not Bae.
If all the money went to one yard, then the drum beat would be 15mths with a fleet of 24 ships each with a 30 year life. It’s a conscious decision to have two inefficient production lines.
If we only had one shipyard, then you would have zero competition and that would lead to spiralling costs and lengthening delivery times as the UK government would have little control to either keep costs sensible or keep to tight production deadlines. The MOD has a vert poor track record of wisely handling.large Budgets project.
Nationalise it - competition will do diddly squat when there is not enough money to fund it
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Suggest google “sturgeon ferry contract “

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 19:48
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 07:21 Yes, and work will be continuing “in the existing facilities” on blocks for both Hulls 2 and 3 !!!
Do you really think that they will have room for Hull 4 and 5 Blocks to be built let alone stored, whilst they are still attempting to build and assemble the same for hulls 2 and 3.
They will need the space in the existing hall currently used for block integration to cope with building and assembling “two hulls” (and their component blocks) simultaneously. :mrgreen:
I didn't mention hull 5. Hull 2 will be outside shortly so hull 3 fore and aft superblocks can be integrated in the space given up by hull 2 moving onto the hardstanding. The space left in the SBOH will be used for the first blocks of Hull 4.
Steel was cut for Hull 2 Cardiff August 2019
Steel was cut for Hull 3 Belfast June 2021
So on that basis steel will be cut for hull 4 June\July this year with Cardiff and Belfast still in assembly on the hardstanding and in the SBOH.
It’s not ideal though, and ships are getting bigger.
Hence why Barrow has just undergone massive expansion - difficult to do that when there’s a city in the way. I still think a greenfield option should be considered but hey we’ve been all around this

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 01:29
tomuk wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 19:48
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 07:21 Yes, and work will be continuing “in the existing facilities” on blocks for both Hulls 2 and 3 !!!
Do you really think that they will have room for Hull 4 and 5 Blocks to be built let alone stored, whilst they are still attempting to build and assemble the same for hulls 2 and 3.
They will need the space in the existing hall currently used for block integration to cope with building and assembling “two hulls” (and their component blocks) simultaneously. :mrgreen:
I didn't mention hull 5. Hull 2 will be outside shortly so hull 3 fore and aft superblocks can be integrated in the space given up by hull 2 moving onto the hardstanding. The space left in the SBOH will be used for the first blocks of Hull 4.
Steel was cut for Hull 2 Cardiff August 2019
Steel was cut for Hull 3 Belfast June 2021
So on that basis steel will be cut for hull 4 June\July this year with Cardiff and Belfast still in assembly on the hardstanding and in the SBOH.
It’s not ideal though, and ships are getting bigger.
Hence why Barrow has just undergone massive expansion - difficult to do that when there’s a city in the way. I still think a greenfield option should be considered but hey we’ve been all around this
The planned expansion at Govan by infilling the Wet Basin and building an assembly hall gives them more room. The blocks for two hulls can be integrated in the new hall undercover without needing to use the hardstanding and allows them toplay an easier game of tetris moving the blocks and super blocks around in\between the SBOH and the new assembly hall.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
Ron5wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SD67 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 01:00 Suggest google “sturgeon ferry contract “
Complete balls-up; doesn’t mean that a nationalisation or tight partnership to focus on one dockyard would be a failure. Where there isn’t real competition don’t try and invent it.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Ron5
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Repulse wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 07:09
SD67 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 01:00 Suggest google “sturgeon ferry contract “
Complete balls-up; doesn’t mean that a nationalisation or tight partnership to focus on one dockyard would be a failure. Where there isn’t real competition don’t try and invent it.
A rail franchise model could work. Government owns the freehold and plant, Prime contractor leases the site for duration of the contract. Next contract the old contractor ships out and the new team ships in. Basically what Australia are doing with Hunter
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 2):
RepulseJensy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:10 I have come around to the fact that we need only one UK Warship design team, who would get a design contect completely separate from construction contract.
Tell that to Margaret Thatcher (who threw the Admiralty naval architects away because private industry is always better. The remnants formed what is now BMT. That's in an era when private industry designed the Type 21's and the Navy designed the Type 23's.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:35
Repulse wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:16
Ron5 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 13:09
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
The Treasury dictated the build rate not Bae.
If all the money went to one yard, then the drum beat would be 15mths with a fleet of 24 ships each with a 30 year life. It’s a conscious decision to have two inefficient production lines.
If we only had one shipyard, then you would have zero competition and that would lead to spiralling costs and lengthening delivery times as the UK government would have little control to either keep costs sensible or keep to tight production deadlines. The MOD has a vert poor track record of wisely handling.large Budgets project.
Other countries manage this "problem" very well. Why can't the UK?

Other areas of UK Defence manage this "problem" very well. Why can't frigate building?
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 09:36
Repulse wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 07:09
SD67 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 01:00 Suggest google “sturgeon ferry contract “
Complete balls-up; doesn’t mean that a nationalisation or tight partnership to focus on one dockyard would be a failure. Where there isn’t real competition don’t try and invent it.
A rail franchise model could work. Government owns the freehold and plant, Prime contractor leases the site for duration of the contract. Next contract the old contractor ships out and the new team ships in. Basically what Australia are doing with Hunter
Not clear the Australian model works either.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 14:26
wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:10 I have come around to the fact that we need only one UK Warship design team, who would get a design contect completely separate from construction contract.
Tell that to Margaret Thatcher (who threw the Admiralty naval architects away because private industry is always better. The remnants formed what is now BMT. That's in an era when private industry designed the Type 21's and the Navy designed the Type 23's.
There were issues with the old model. Take Scotts they were one of the yards building Oberon class submarines. After building some for the RN they continued to build some for export. They wished to continue doing this as there was a market for smaller diesel subs but the Admiralty had moved on and weren't interested and the yard had neither the rights to the design or the capability to make some small improvements potential customers were requesting. End of production ensued.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 18:35
Ron5 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 14:29If we only had one shipyard, then you would have zero competition and that would lead to spiralling costs and lengthening delivery times as the UK government would have little control to either keep costs sensible or keep to tight production deadlines. The MOD has a vert poor track record of wisely handling.large Budgets project.
Other countries manage this "problem" very well. Why can't the UK?

Other areas of UK Defence manage this "problem" very well. Why can't frigate building?
This is a very interesting disability of MOD/RN. Look like they do not understand how to do it. Very incapable there.

It is clear that, if there are enough orders to support 3 ship-yards, they can compete healthy for a few decades. But, a lack of order for one shipyard for, say, 5 years or so will make it EVEN LESS competitive, and then will never come back = bankrupt. Monopoly is the natural outcome of competition.

So, ANYWAY, RN/MOD needs to (re-)establish the technique to control the cost of their program. It is must. "Competition" is just "if possible", never a must (because it will never be a true competition). Holding a competition under some control is not a bad thing, balancing the order. But, in this case, a contract like TOBA is must, which will force HMG to order something to fulfill the contract. The "something" may not make big profit, but will safe the day.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 15:02There were issues with the old model. Take Scotts they were one of the yards building Oberon class submarines. After building some for the RN they continued to build some for export. They wished to continue doing this as there was a market for smaller diesel subs but the Admiralty had moved on and weren't interested and the yard had neither the rights to the design or the capability to make some small improvements potential customers were requesting. End of production ensued.
Looks like no problem here? It is very natural, taking place all around the world, not only limited to warship building. Warship builders cannot survive without its own nations' order. That's it.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 15:22
tomuk wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 15:02There were issues with the old model. Take Scotts they were one of the yards building Oberon class submarines. After building some for the RN they continued to build some for export. They wished to continue doing this as there was a market for smaller diesel subs but the Admiralty had moved on and weren't interested and the yard had neither the rights to the design or the capability to make some small improvements potential customers were requesting. End of production ensued.
Looks like no problem here? It is very natural, taking place all around the world, not only limited to warship building. Warship builders cannot survive without its own nations' order. That's it.
You miss the point Donald, Scott's could have gone on building subs for export but they didn't have either the rights to the design or a skilled enough design team as these were vested\existed in the Admiralty Naval Architects Dept. The Admiralty had moved onto to the next project leaving the yard high and dry.

Post Reply