PDA

View Full Version : RIP Portsmouth


black_shuck
6th Nov 2013, 18:01
We now have a foreign nation building our ships , if the Scots vote for independence.
How is that going to work?
We can't afford to keep Portsmouth going but we can help India launch a rocket to Mars . I think I need a long lay down.

Has anyone heard Drakes drum lately ?

Dak Man
6th Nov 2013, 18:40
It's for the good of the country - dontcha know?

airship
6th Nov 2013, 18:50
Must have something to do with this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24831779)...?! :rolleyes:

The UK made her 1st mistake awarding the construction contracts for the 2 new pseudo aircraft-carriers to BAE (basically a USA corporation these days, BAE having chosen sides between a future in Europe or across the pond). These contracts should have been awarded to the French (for "proper" aircraft-carriers, nuclear-powered and equipped to carry "fixed-wing" airplanes instead of the VTOL etc. types envisaged).

One or both of which would have been built in UK. Representing a great opportunity for RN types from Portsmouth and elsewhere to move temporarily (or even permanently to France) where they might have bought houses for a fraction of the price of their say "Pompey homes" with no room to "swing a cat" easily in the living-room...?! Do you seriously believe that the French would behave as badly as BAE are today if that had been the case?

You have to laugh at it all (or else cry). The UK went with BAE for good or ill, refuting her European partners. They will eventually receive 2 pseudo diesel-engined aircraft-carriers, well over-priced and very late, compared to original estimates. Dedicated to operating a single US made F-35B STOL/VTOL airplane, with the operational range and payload capacity to deliver "the mail bag to the aircraft-carrier in question" if not too far off the coast... :uhoh:

No wonder the Scots want independence...
India launching a mission to Mars is debatable. However, at some stage in the future, when India assumes her position as the World's 2nd most populous nation, we should help them develop modern technologies. Who knows? Ca. 2030, there may be a small Ř100m meteorite headed for central London. With all the millions of Indian immigrants living in the UK at that time (expect many of these to be emigrants rapidly once the news spreads...), India may well feel an obligation to use her technologies to thwart the offending meteorite's intentions, to protect her own emigrants in UK as well as the indigenous UK population...?! :ok:

I probably need a lay down too...

airborne_artist
6th Nov 2013, 19:13
I was born in Portsmouth to a dad in the Royal Navy, and I then joined the Navy myself.

Any ideas how many ships have been launched in Portsmouth since 1960, excluding minesweepers and patrol boats?

Three, and the last was launched in 1967. HM ships Rhyl, Sirius and Andromeda. Rhyl was launched in 1960, Sirius in 1964. No submarines have been built there either.

The little ships were not even built in Portsmouth anyway, but Porchester which is about 5 nm away.

Lots of repair/refit and deep maintenance, but no shipbuilding whatsoever until the assembly of the two QE carriers. There is no expertise, very little infrastucture and absolutely no recent heritage of ship-building in Portsmouth.

Today's headlines are ludicrous - just look at the facts.

I just about remember my Dad commuting to Glasgow for a year or so in 1961/2. Why? Because he was the resident officer overseeing the build of HMS Hampshire on the Clyde ... :ugh:

rab-k
6th Nov 2013, 19:50
Source: Business Standard (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/uk-proposes-building-future-warships-with-india-111081100061_1.html) (11 Aug 2011)

"With defence ministry shipyards unable to meet the Indian Navy's growing need for warships, New Delhi had no choice but to look to Russian shipyards. Now, with Britain looking to partner India to cut the UK’s warship building costs, one of India’s new private defence shipyards — which have high-tech facilities but no experience in building large, complex warships — could get the opportunity to build its first line of world-class frigates.

Business Standard has learnt that a cash-strapped UK government has approached New Delhi to jointly design and build a next-generation frigate, designated the Global Combat Ship (GCS). While the UK had originally planned to build this alone (then designated the Type 26 frigate), shrinking defence budgets have forced it to seek international partners. And, India, along with other countries, including Brazil, has been invited into a consortium to design and build the GCS.

The British shipyard that will participate in the GCS project belongs to BAE Systems. The ministry of defence (MoD) in New Delhi will nominate an Indian shipyard."



Given it took a decade for the UK yards to built just 6 Type 45 Destroyers, I doubt the MoD will wait for an extended period for the Clyde yard(s) to build 13 Type 26 Frigates.

If the above assumption is correct, expect to see a fair number of Type 26 vessels being assembled in India before being towed to Scotland for final fitting out.

The UK Govt. will be able to crow that not only are they securing jobs for 3000 BAe Systems employees in Glasgow for the next 10 years, (Assuming a "No" vote in September), but that they're also saving the UK coffers a fortune by getting work done cheaper elsewhere.

As for not allowing UK defence assets to be built outside the UK - horse feathers!

Lon More
6th Nov 2013, 21:08
As for not allowing UK defence assets to be built outside the UK -
Remind me where the Phantom was built, the Chinooks, The Trristars, the C17s ?

tony draper
6th Nov 2013, 21:14
I believe the new fleet tankers are being built abroad.
The filth that govern us will probably end up getting the Chinese to build our new warships.
:suspect:

500N
6th Nov 2013, 21:21
For the basic welding work of building the hull, why not use an overseas location and make your place a value added skill workshop.

We have the same problem here in Aus, everything is subsidised by the Gov't
to keep things open when it is more than likely uneconomic.

tony draper
6th Nov 2013, 21:27
Because you destroy your own industry and skill base,to late for this place,they started that exercise thirty years ago,almost complete now.
Some industries are strategic never ever ever under any circumstances should they be put into the hands of bloody foreigners.
:suspect:

Vitesse
6th Nov 2013, 22:15
If the vote goes the wrong way (depending on your location/politics) then I wouldn't be surprised to see a change of 'closed facility' announced.

At the most basic level - WTF is an English government doing providing jobs to a foreign power at the expense of it's own subjects/citizens?

Aw shucks... they've been doing that for years.

VP959
7th Nov 2013, 07:08
Apart from the fact (re-stated earlier in this thread) that Portsmouth has only built a small handful of warships in the past fifty years (as in three......) and that it hasn't had ANY war ship building activity there for tens of years before the recent carrier project, there is the underlying fact that warfare has changed massively in recent decades, and we simply have no need for a large navy any more.

The RN (with whom I worked closely for years) have always fought against the idea that there was no real requirement for a big fleet of warships to protect the UK, because their proud heritage is that, for hundreds of years, the navy was the principal protector of the country and the former British Empire.

The changes in both the types of conflict we get engaged in, and the nature of the threats to our own security, mean that conventional fighting ships have only a minor place in our defence forces. Every model of every major scenario for future conflict I saw in the final few years of my career showed that the only major roles the RN would have would be:

Supporting and enabling amphibious assault

Providing offshore air defence, perhaps with command and control coordination.

Provision of a small nuclear deterrent (via Trident)

Providing humanitarian aid in peacetime.

The days of large navies engaging in big sea battles have long since passed, although there are many in the Admiralty who find that a bitter pill to swallow.

Alloa Akbar
7th Nov 2013, 07:48
VP959 - Have you ever spent significant time on an operational British Aircraft Carrier, as in, at sea on global ops?

I ask because you present an over simplistic view of the roles of the Navy IMHO. The UK has commitments and responsibilities to fulfill, and whether you agree with the politics, they still exist.

The current warfare scenarios and models are all very well, but will those models still be relevant in 10-15 years time?

Lon More
7th Nov 2013, 08:37
Because you destroy your own industry and skill base,

According to many commentators on tv/radio yesterday evening the skill base in Portsmouth does not exist in comparison to that on the Clyde.

Seems to be forgotten that Scotland got royally shafted in the last round of defence cuts and there have been accusations in the past that Davenport ha been unfairly subsidised,... an unpublished report by consultants Grant Thornton for the Warship Support Agency.

The report claimed that Rosyth was at a significant disadvantage because the MoD paid for storage, gas, electricity, sewerage, water and repairs (at Davenport) thus providing an effective subsidy not enjoyed by Rosyth, which has to meet these costs itself.

.... and that the Davenport Dockyard was privatised at 44% of its value against the sale of Rosyth at 64%

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 09:03
Given the Scotland vote is pretty much a done deal, I think its safe to say that this was purely a commercial decision. Its not like they needed to buy Scottish more No votes, it it?

Anyway, I've visited Pompey's dockyards on many occasions and I've never realised that there was actually a shipyard there. I should really pay more attention.

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 09:10
The Trristars

Christ, you're showing your age Lon! How many decades ago were these built for BEA (or was it BOAC)? Hand-me-down OTS commercial products don't really count.

VP959
7th Nov 2013, 09:43
VP959 - Have you ever spent significant time on an operational British Aircraft Carrier, as in, at sea on global ops?

I ask because you present an over simplistic view of the roles of the Navy IMHO. The UK has commitments and responsibilities to fulfill, and whether you agree with the politics, they still exist.

The current warfare scenarios and models are all very well, but will those models still be relevant in 10-15 years time?

No, but that's not the point here. The importance of maintaining a carrier capability has been thoroughly argued over the last 20 years or so and the decision was made to invest in new, bigger, carriers. We've also invested already in the assets to protect them (Type 45) and are committed to further investment in the form of the Type 26. Those decisions were about maintaining a capability to mount effective air-based operations in support of three of those roles I mentioned.

The point of this thread is that warship building is to cease at Portsmouth, with some trying to allude that Portsmouth has been a hub for warship building (when it hasn't been for decades). I was simply making the point that the RN doesn't have anywhere near as big a role in the defence of the UK (or in it's political ambitions) as it has had in the past.

The same argument applies to long range bombers in the RAF, and to a lesser extent ordinary infantry and big armoured vehicles in the army. The world of warfare has moved on, and the days when wars were won or lost on the size and capability of the RN have gone. Sure the RN plays an essential part in our overall capability, but nowhere near as essential as that part was in the past. This is no failing on the part of the RN, just a reflection of the changing shape of global warfare, particularly the massive shift as a consequence of the asymmetric threats we now face.

tony draper
7th Nov 2013, 10:20
Of course if Scotland becomes independent they are going to need their own Navy.
:)

MagnusP
7th Nov 2013, 10:59
Nah, just a decent border force to stop the hordes of southerners who want to move to a better land! :E

tony draper
7th Nov 2013, 11:12
You could always rebuild the Wall but you will have to get your redcoats to to keep toot in the other direction(South),hmmm, problem is it is in our territory but I'm sure we can come to some arrangement rentwise.
:rolleyes:

Alloa Akbar
7th Nov 2013, 11:34
VP - Cheers for elborating, and yes you are right, we don't need vast fleets or big bombers, a more versatile, mobile and agile force is appropriate.

On the original topic, I agree, I think the "It was just to placate the Jocks" argument is a bit too convenient for some.

sitigeltfel
7th Nov 2013, 11:43
Given the Scotland vote is pretty much a done deal, I think its safe to say that this was purely a commercial decision. Its not like they needed to buy Scottish more No votes, it it?

Salmond was probably secretly hoping that Clydebank would be culled so that he could try to salvage some more badly needed votes for his flagging "Yes" campaign.

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 12:52
...quite a few Tory back-benchers too, if recent press reports are to be believed.