View Full Version : RN T45s to be diverted for Saudi order?
The question being, would Gordon then fund further options, or would they just exercise the existing ones, and cap the fleet at a total of 6?
The Independent: UK seeks £2bn Saudi destroyer contract
Britain is seeking to win a £2bn order from Saudi Arabia for the world's most advanced naval destroyer...... The Saudis are understood to be interested in buying two or three Type 45 destroyers to strengthen their defensive capabilities in the region.
One possibility would be for Saudi Arabia to take two of the Type 45s being built for the Royal Navy, which has ordered a total of six ships with the option to buy a further two.......
Thud_and_Blunder
10th Mar 2007, 11:34
RN T45s to be diverted for Saudi order?
I thought only the USN flew Goshawks?
http://www.tail-wheel.com/images/Alliance%20Show%20photos/Navy-T45-GOSHAWK.gif
...careful, you'll have the "not aviation" police after you!
There was me thinking the T45 was an Air Defence Destroyer... :rolleyes:
Samuel
10th Mar 2007, 20:15
...not with those funny little legs!:eek:
Navaleye
11th Mar 2007, 01:34
I would guess that hulls 5&6 will be diverted to the Saudi order. That ease the cashflow problems on the MoD budget and allows slots 7 & 8 to be filled for the RN later.
ChiefWiggum
11th Mar 2007, 12:59
That ease the cashflow problems on the MoD budget and allows slots 7 & 8 to be filled for the RN later.
With this governments' record on procurement do you honestly think the RN will see the planned number of T45s?
This is probably the easiest way of reducing the ships the RN gets
"Well we've sold these two to the Saudis but don't worry you'll definitely get the next two, unless someone else wants them"
Cynical switch back to off.:ugh:
Fox3snapshot
11th Mar 2007, 14:52
With ya mate, right up until I saw the figure 6 mentioned, then I saw a chink in my chain of assumptions :\
In the loop now though, but don't know nuff'n bout boats and stuff so will read and learn! :8
:ok:
WE Branch Fanatic
11th Mar 2007, 15:31
Hmmm.... all the more reason to crack on with CVF (as discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116)).
Look at this story from 1999: Navy facing warship gap (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm)
The Royal Navy faces a "looming gap" in its warship capability, an all-party committee of MP's has warned.
The Defence Select Committee said new Type 45 destroyers being developed for the navy may not come into service until 2007 - eight years after the first of the ships they are designed to replace goes out of service.
The MP's said the delay meant there may be a "looming gap in our anti-air warship capability".
Since then the Sea Jet (as discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)) has been retired prematurely, and the future carriers delayed, making the T45 more important than ever. Delayed until 2009 though.
Surely only six have been ordered thus far, if two go abroad then we might end up with only four!! We were meant to get twelve to replace the T42s one for one, Hoon cut this to eight, now rumoured to be six.........
NURSE
11th Mar 2007, 23:38
or 2 to be diverted from the 6 ordered and them not be replaced and the Navy can have 4 T45 destroyers. And the Saudi funding pocketed by Bae/Treasury or put to CVF budget.
WE Branch Fanatic
16th Apr 2007, 14:58
Also I forgot about an earlier Type 45 related thread.
Type 45 Destroyer - Embarked Aviation (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=205675)
The issue of ships having two helicopters for deployments to places such as the Gulf has come to the fore recently with events in the Gulf.......
GreenKnight121
17th Apr 2007, 05:40
Its sure the gummint won't ever try to find out now... after getting their hands slapped the last time they tried to look under there.
ManOverhead
17th Apr 2007, 13:55
We were going to have 12! But the numbers changed about as often as the name of the Project (The Future Frigate, The Common New Generation Frigate, The Anglo-French Frigate, Project Horizon etc).
And the question was asked: "It's an Anti Air Warfare Destroyer, why does it need a flight deck?" Fortunately common sense prevailed :eek: - how else would they get the spares, mail, etc, and when not doing air defence they'd be doing other stuff where a helo is really useful.
RichardIC
17th Apr 2007, 14:55
"We were going to have 12!"
Tut tut, a gross distortion of the MoD's SDR commitment. We were going to have "up to" 12.
BootFlap
17th Apr 2007, 20:10
'allows slots 7 & 8 to be filled for the RN later' (Navaleye quote)
......... for some reason I feel compelled to banter, but for the life of me can't work out why?
:ok:
NURSE
17th Apr 2007, 20:30
well thats slots 5&6 so the RN will get slots 7&8 or will they and will slots 5&6 be replaced not by this govt I surmise the T45 will be a 4 ship class with clapped out T23's as the T22's will be declared after this investigation to be not fit for purpose and sold to some friendly nation like Argentina or Pakistan, and the CVF will be left without suficient escorts
WE Branch Fanatic
22nd Apr 2007, 18:10
And the question was asked: "It's an Anti Air Warfare Destroyer, why does it need a flight deck?" Fortunately common sense prevailed - how else would they get the spares, mail, etc, and when not doing air defence they'd be doing other stuff where a helo is really useful.
You're joking right? Oh, you aren't...........
Regarding numbers, the First Sea Lord has stated that any more cuts will have a serious effect on operational capabilities.
DEL Mode
22nd Apr 2007, 18:49
And after the Iranian farse, the First Sea Lords view is going to have what impact on the plan to reduce the fleet?
Well, that answers that question, the two being diverted to Saudi are not being replaced by more orders. The T45 order is being capped at 6 - a 25% reduction.
The Times: (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2080285.ece) .....The defence budget also contains provision for six Royal Navy destroyers worth £3.6 billion. BAE and VT, which are building the destroyers, have launched two of the ships already and began work on the remaining four without a fixed contract. However, a proposal to build a further two of the Type 45 destroyers has been axed from the MoD budget.
Widger
16th Jul 2007, 15:27
It's not ideal, but then, in an ideal world.......................
The important thing is that the RN does get some, to cover the yawning capability chasm, left by the SHAR (WEBF, get down!, get down Shep!) and most importantly, the CVF, upon which the RN has sold the family silver. I can quite understand, shelving two T45 in favour of better vehicles for ground forces, I won't say Army, because all three services will end up travelling in them.
Not_a_boffin
16th Jul 2007, 15:31
We've been here before. Believe it when you see Gordon handing over the cheque and the contract getting signed.
WE Branch Fanatic
17th Jul 2007, 18:57
It has been noted that we will probably be down to twenty or less frigates/destroyers within a year or so. We had 35 when Labour took office, the SDR said we needed 32. Hoon (2004) said 25 would do. Yet the Fleet's workload has continued to increase.
Iceberg dead ahead?
As for the "but they are better equipped" argument....
From Janes (http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061128_1_n.shtml)
The UK Royal Navy's (RN's) most senior officer has argued that the service should accept sacrificing quality for quantity if it is to maintain a surface fleet of sufficient size to contribute to maritime security operations on a global scale.
In other words we need more ships.