MoD looking at pulling Clyde frigate contract and giving it to the French
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?
What about UK plc? Well, we've been raped by BAES before. Right?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh - does no one on here pay attention?
Michael Fallon overrules Royal Navy head over Scotland?s shipyards | Politics | The Guardian
Michael Fallon overrules Royal Navy head over Scotland?s shipyards | Politics | The Guardian
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, 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.”
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, 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 17th Nov 2014 at 10:22.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Good words, NaB.
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.........
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.........
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
) or accept we're going to have what are really enhanced River Class patrol boats
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
) or accept we're going to have what are really enhanced River Class patrol boats
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
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***
After all they break them up for us
Turkish shipbuilders steaming ahead with naval orders***
After all they break them up for us
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
What scares me most is that people STILL believe these professional liars every time they open their slimy maws!!
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.....
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.....
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.
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.
