MoD looking at pulling Clyde frigate contract and giving it to the French

[NutLoose]

Surprised if it happens, do the modern ones still carry a helicopter?

MoD considers pulling £4bn Clyde frigate contract - The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-considers-pulling-4bn-clyde-frigate-contract-1-3602708)

[MPN11]

They will be burning kilts and claymores if that happens.

Still, Scotland wants to be as foreign as France (apart from the wine and cheese) so this is what happens, I guess.

[N707ZS]

Should re-open the TAG yard on the Tees and move the whole contract down there. There is even room for the nuclear subs.

[Daysleeper]

5,500 tons and it's still a Frigate?

Besides if they didn't threaten to go elsewhere how well do you think the price negotiations would go?

[Vendee]

Still, Scotland wants to be as foreign as France (apart from the wine and cheese) so this is what happens, I guess.Care to elaborate?

[Lima Juliet]

I think he means 37.8% of the country voted for independence (which is 44.7% of the 84.6% that bothered to turn out and vote). When looked at it like this with 15.4% of the Country not being arsed to turn up and vote, then Sturgeon and her cronies still have a long way to go if the 15.4% is a "no" to independence.

Still decisions to buy from France seems like a bad idea unless:

A. Their boats are heaps better than ours?

B. Their boats are heaps cheaper than ours with same capability?

If either of A or B cannot be answered to UK's advantage, then it is a truly dumb idea.

LJ

[Rosevidney1]

Should the Defence Minister renege on the pre-election promise there will be many angry voters on both sides of the border.

[Courtney Mil]

It's odd. If the MoD blindly goes with BAES regardless of cost and the inevitable over-runs they are accused of failing to get value for money for the tax payer. If the MoD even considers going elsewhere because of cost, they are pilloried for failing to support industry on the Clyde.

Any referendum promise could never have been a blank cheque. Imagine how that would run. "Yes, we'll buy from you no matter what as long as it's a NO vote." "OK, fifty squillion quid." "No problem." Yeah, right.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, and you could do a lot worse than buying a boat from DCNS. They've got a pretty good track record and a long history - over 300 years?

[MPN11]

Thanks for clarify my statement, Leon.

[Pontius Navigator]

Daysleeper, is it not true that an ASW is designated as Frigate and an AAW platform as a Destroyer?

Both are the size of light cruisers.

[Vendee]

Thanks for clarify my statement, Leon.If you read what Leon wrote, you will see that the people of Scotland rejected becoming a "foreign" country by a comfortable margin.

[Herod]

Didn't one of the ministers say, in the run-up to the referendum "We certainly wouldn't be having the rUK's warships being built in a foreign country"?

[Coochycool]

This plays right into the SNPs hands on a number of levels. Not just reneging on past promises but assuredly doing their work for them too.

One of the obvious drawbacks of independence was the inevitable demise of the Scottish shipbuilding industry. If this is now effected by a Tory Westminster government instead, it frees the SNP from this culpability and simultaneously alienates some of those who voted against them.

But this is merely typical of the cul de sac Westminster managed to park itself in with a whole host of 11th hour promises and has happily forgotten. Scotland expects concrete reform by January and we havent seen anything yet.

Wakey wakey......seconds away Round 2.

[pzu]

Delivery from French Yards could well be subject to SANCTIONS!!!

PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)

[Davef68]

Admiral Zambellas may say that, but the final decision will be made by the politicians.

It sound slike a negotiationg tactic to me.

[Fareastdriver]

I think The Scotsman is just stirring it.

[Biggus]

Not just The Scotsman:

BBC News - Admiral raises doubts on Scottish warship work (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30032217)

[Frostchamber]

1SL went a bit off script, albeit probably a well intentioned attempt to put some negotiating pressure on BAe. BAe isn't known for coming in cheap, as we know, notwithstanding that much of the kit on T26 (eg radar, sonar, missiles) will be pulled though from upgraded T23s. Following a slight delay, expect orders to be announced with a flourish in the run up to the election - for ships built in Scotland, which has never been in question, referendum aside.

[Vendee]

I think The Scotsman is just stirring it.My first thought was that it was a veiled threat to the "nukes out" SNP brigade but I reckon its more to do with BAe Systems trying to take advantage of the panic pledges that were made only days before the referendum.

[RedhillPhil]

Scotland has always had historical links with France.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh the politics! Which option gives the MoD the better deal? With a limited and shrinking budget, how else should they shop around to get the best deal for the defence of the nation and those that have to go out and do it?

What about UK plc? Well, we've been raped by BAES before. Right?

[GreenKnight121]

Sigh - does no one on here pay attention?

Michael Fallon overrules Royal Navy head over Scotland?s shipyards | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/michael-fallon-royal-navy-frigate-clyde-scotland-shipyards-zambellas)

Michael Fallon overrules Royal Navy head over Scotland’s shipyards

Defence secretary makes clear new frigate will be built on the Clyde after First Sea Lord suggests contract could go abroad

Wednesday 12 November 2014 18.22 EST

The Defence secretary, Michael Fallon (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/michael-fallon), has moved to defuse a damaging row over thousands of Scottish defence jobs by contradicting the head of the Royal Navy, Sir George Zambellas.

.....

But an MoD spokeswoman said the ministry’s policy was fixed and had not changed. “As the Defence Secretary has made very clear, complex UK warships are only built in UK shipyards and we have no plans to change this,” she said.

“And while this contract has not yet been awarded, we have also been clear that from 2015 the Clyde will be the UK’s only shipyard that builds complex warships.”

Asked if Fallon was slapping Zambellas down, she added: “The defence secretary has reiterated the established government position on that one. You can draw your own conclusions on what that means but this is our position as a government department.”

[Courtney Mil]

Sigh. Obviously we do not.

Anyway, it looks like the contract will awarded on politics rather than quality and value for money as usual then. The MoD will get it in the neck later when there are issues. the wheel goes round.

[FODPlod]

Thus the Government gives BAE Systems advance notice that their blank cheque is in the post; they will be awarded the contract irrespective of cost, quality or fitness for purpose.

[Not_a_boffin]

For once actually, it appears that people are a little keener to put some pressure on BAES.

There are a couple of reasons for this - the T26 design is not yet ready to go to contract (despite three years and £150M spent in the assessment phase) and the price is apparently a little rich for some peoples taste. That said (despite 1SLs quip) there is nothing out there that actually meets the requirement and that includes FREMM.

The first issue is probably the more serious and had directly led to the order for the batch 2 River class, which the RN doesn't really have a requirement for, but are needed under the TOBA to provide work for BAES production engineering and steel trades (steel on the PoW is nearing completion). The choice of ship was entirely based on the absolute minimium design work required ('cos they're all desperately gyrating in circles to fix T26) before starting to cut steel.

Word on da street has it that they're struggling to solve the "issues" because no-one really appears to be in charge and that BAES are reluctant to commit more effort until there is more money. While it is perfectly acceptable to wonder what the 300 people in Filton and Scotstoun have been doing over the last three years, it would also appear that some of the MoD/RN types involved might not be helping either. So there is something of an impasse which will need to be overcome before the ship can go forward to contract.

On the price - there appear to be two issues. The ship has been about the same size as a T45 for a couple of years at least. The primary drivers of this are the accommodation standard and damage control provision, with secondary effects from the modular mission bay and the Wokka capable flightdeck and some impact from the Mk41 VLS and the gun. However, the very fact that the ship is larger than the T23 it is to replace has brought out the usual cabal of VSO and CS who are absolutely convinced that they can cost a ship purely on its displacement and that it cannot possibly be right for it to be so much bigger than a T23. They are of course delusional, as T23 was designed to a very different set of standards compared to those in use now, which would not pass muster in a new design safety case among others.

The other issue is that MoD is incapable of producing a should-cost estimate with which to support negotiation with BAES. This is particularly important in that the capital cost of a large chunk of the combat system equipment should not fall on the T26 project itself (as mentioned in an upthread post, its cross-decking from upgraded T23). That means that the ship cost is even more dependent on manhours than previous ships. Just as a stake in the ground, the mid to late T23 were being built (using 1990s practices) for between 2 and 2.5M manhours apiece. Size is not directly proportional to work content, which would indicate that you should be able to get a T26 with manhour content at ~ 3M or so. Put your manpower cost (inc overhead) against that and you can see whereabouts that price should end up. Steel is cheap btw - the steel for each ship should cost no more than £7M, with (say) 700000 of your 3 million manhours to fabricate it.

This one is going to run and run - a game of chicken writ large.

One other thing - there are about eight "western" warship building yards left. Plus a couple of wilder options in Korea and Japan. Further consolidation is not going to lead to a bright new future and affordable ships (despite what Mr Rand may think) - it will actually lead inexorably to the same end-state as the european aircraft industry. We may need to start realising that there are costs involved in contraction of an industry as well.

[Courtney Mil]

Good words, NaB.

[PhilipG]

I was under the impression that in broad terms any and all redundancy costs that BAES incurs in its warship building division are to be covered by the state, one of the reasons for the two River Class being ordered.

So IF the eventual order for the Type 26 does not go to BAES the redundancy costs and no doubt decontamination costs fall on the State, talk about having the MOD over a barrel.

[Not_a_boffin]

Good words, NaB.

Far from good mate. Desperately wish that we were in a different/better position. This is the third go around the buoy for this one since 1999 and it needs to be right, because the answer "oh we'll just extend T23" has lost any validity it ever had.

[Sandy Parts]

the shame of it is that the 'validity' of that option will no doubt suddenly gain credence when the SDSR2015 budget pops up and the option is 2xCVS or....

[Not_a_boffin]

There is only one CVS left in existence and she's been decommissioned.

The sorts of reasons that would prevent further extension of T23 are the same sort of reasons that militate against C130K extensions, or VC10. The sort of reasons that beyond a particular timespan would get Mr H-C very interested.........

[Heathrow Harry]

Looking at Norman Friedmans "British Destroyers" it seems we have a mind set based on WW2 - Frigates "should be around 1500- 2000 tons, Destroyers 3000, cruisers 6000 tons

The inevitable growth due to the size, weight & complexity for a "destroyer" soon takes us towards 7000 ton ++ - trouble is early estimates are always too small and too cheap.

We either decide to build to the spec (if they can ever agree on it - I mean - the T45 has no SS missiles :eek:) or accept we're going to have what are really enhanced River Class patrol boats

[NutLoose]

They wouldn't do badly awarding the contract to Turkey, they have been consistently delivering warships either on time or ahead of it.

Turkish shipbuilders steaming ahead with naval orders*** (http://defence.pk/threads/turkish-shipbuilders-steaming-ahead-with-naval-orders.206081/)

After all they break them up for us

[Deepest Norfolk]

Yes, I know all of the main parties promised to build them in Scotland if they voted no to splitting the Union.

However, what everyone forgot, and forgets every time one of these worthless gobsh1tes makes a promise, is that they are politicians and they will promise anything to get what they want. Once they have got it, they will conveniently forget every promise they made and if anyone has the temerity to remind them they say things like, "Circumstances have forced us to re evaluate these plans" of "Well, that's not EXACTLY what we were meaning" or some other worthless drivel.

What scares me most is that people STILL believe these professional liars every time they open their slimy maws!!

DN

[t43562]

What scares me most is that people STILL believe these professional liars every time they open their slimy maws!!Would anyone elect them if they were "honest"? I doubt it. They would say all the things people don't want to hear and they'd be ignored.

[JFZ90]

NaB

Interesting that the size is so near a T45 now it seems. Project Brian seems a long time ago.

One wonders if - with hindsight - it would have actually been cheaper through life to go with the economies of scale & support of buying 18 T45s (6 as destroyers +12 as frigate), might even cope with less if you could felx between them. You could have spent all the additional T26 non recurring on a decent VL cruise and ASW towed array kit etc.

Whats the flaw? Sounds like the T26 are heading towards T45 costs anyway.....

[Not_a_boffin]

Oh yes. Project Brian. Madder than a box of frogs on acid. A "minimum change" T23 that just had a different hullform, a completely different propulsion system, no change to accommodation or safety standards and a bunch of weapons that had in no way been designed for the naval environment. Which was obviously going to cost "about the same" as a T23. What could possibly go wrong?

If you know anything about T45, you'll realise that it ain't a happy place right now - primarily for propulsion reasons. The old arguments against it as an ASW variant remain valid - you'd need to change most of the marine systems and you'd need to rearrange the internals, all of which make it a "new" ship in terms of drawings required and production effort. The only thing you might save on is some hydrodynamics tests, which tend to be comparatively cheap in any case. Certainly not a game changer in per ship cost.

T26 is eminently capable of being fixed. All it requires is the will to allow people to address the known problems (ie change the bits of the design that are causing the issues) and a hard-headed negotiation with BAES and HMT to get where the ship cost ought to be. That means being open and honest (internally) about what's wrong and ending the game of chicken.