Des Browne announces review of Naval bases
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Des Browne announces review of Naval bases
Defence Secretary announces review of UK Naval Bases
18 Sep 06
A review of UK Naval Bases has been launched by The Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, today 18 September 2006.
The in-depth review of Naval Base infrastructure requirements will form part of the Defence Industrial Strategy, published in December 2005, which aims at ensuring the Armed Forces are provided with the equipment that they require, on time, and at best value for money.
Defence Secretary, Des Browne said:
"The Defence Industrial Strategy set out a challenge to the UK maritime industry to reduce its overheads and invest in the facilities and skills needed to meet the demands of the Royal Navy's future warship programme.
"The same challenges apply to the Naval Bases as we look to the future. The Naval Bases exist to support the Royal Navys Front Line. They are complex and expensive organisations. We need to ensure that their capacity is no more and no less than we need to support the needs of the Fleet now and in the years to come."
Announcing the review of Naval Bases he continued;
"The aim of the review is to ensure that we have the right Naval Base Infrastructure to meet the needs of the future Fleet. The review will assess future requirements and examine a range of options, including some that could lead to radical reductions in overheads and Naval Base capacity."
The recommendations from the review, which will be undertaken by the Defence Logistics Organisation, are expected to be finalised in Spring 2007.
MOD has consulted the Trade Unions, and while it is too early to predict the impact on jobs, the Department will continue to engage with them and other stakeholders as the review is taken forward. Final decisions on the recommendations from the review will be subject to full Trade Union consultation.
18 Sep 06
A review of UK Naval Bases has been launched by The Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, today 18 September 2006.
The in-depth review of Naval Base infrastructure requirements will form part of the Defence Industrial Strategy, published in December 2005, which aims at ensuring the Armed Forces are provided with the equipment that they require, on time, and at best value for money.
Defence Secretary, Des Browne said:
"The Defence Industrial Strategy set out a challenge to the UK maritime industry to reduce its overheads and invest in the facilities and skills needed to meet the demands of the Royal Navy's future warship programme.
"The same challenges apply to the Naval Bases as we look to the future. The Naval Bases exist to support the Royal Navys Front Line. They are complex and expensive organisations. We need to ensure that their capacity is no more and no less than we need to support the needs of the Fleet now and in the years to come."
Announcing the review of Naval Bases he continued;
"The aim of the review is to ensure that we have the right Naval Base Infrastructure to meet the needs of the future Fleet. The review will assess future requirements and examine a range of options, including some that could lead to radical reductions in overheads and Naval Base capacity."
The recommendations from the review, which will be undertaken by the Defence Logistics Organisation, are expected to be finalised in Spring 2007.
MOD has consulted the Trade Unions, and while it is too early to predict the impact on jobs, the Department will continue to engage with them and other stakeholders as the review is taken forward. Final decisions on the recommendations from the review will be subject to full Trade Union consultation.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been rumoured for months that NuLabour was going to take a swing with the axe again in September, and I suppose this must be it. I hope to God someone realises that we can't maintain an effective military without a surge capability. To fail to protect ourselves against future, unseen threats is foolish and it's done us no good in the past.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be one ship in the "modernised" Fleet.
HMS Blair.
An aircraft carrier some 500 miles long supporting many US air wings. There are plans to fit two guns fore and aft, at Lands End and John O'Groats.
HMS Blair.
An aircraft carrier some 500 miles long supporting many US air wings. There are plans to fit two guns fore and aft, at Lands End and John O'Groats.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So first they cut the base's then having no deep water ports to put them in they chop the carriers.....
Mind you, with a Navy that's fast heading to only have two rowing boats and a leaky canoe in the Home Fleet what do they need the base's for???
Bets are on, come 5 years the Survival Eqpt Section at the secret wiltshire air base will have more floaty stuff than the senior sevice... Sea Dart fit a 10 man liferaft? ... is 'CinC Home Fleet' going to be re-titled 'CinC Training Pool Fleet'
Mind you, with a Navy that's fast heading to only have two rowing boats and a leaky canoe in the Home Fleet what do they need the base's for???
Bets are on, come 5 years the Survival Eqpt Section at the secret wiltshire air base will have more floaty stuff than the senior sevice... Sea Dart fit a 10 man liferaft? ... is 'CinC Home Fleet' going to be re-titled 'CinC Training Pool Fleet'
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recommendations should be interesting, as we have been aware of some proposals that have been floating around for some time. The study will, I think, be a formalisation of these ideas rather than a long-term study into the Bases.
They used to say that we could never shut Chatham as it was an historical and important Naval Base......
Stand by for massive cuts, sell-offs of real estate, and watch for the real reason that Project Prime was cut off in it's, er, prime. Not only at the water-side bases, but those that are not perceived to be uniform-manned essential for front-line support (Sultan.....) More relocations into the Labour heartlands and contracting in of lots of support work.....
They used to say that we could never shut Chatham as it was an historical and important Naval Base......
Stand by for massive cuts, sell-offs of real estate, and watch for the real reason that Project Prime was cut off in it's, er, prime. Not only at the water-side bases, but those that are not perceived to be uniform-manned essential for front-line support (Sultan.....) More relocations into the Labour heartlands and contracting in of lots of support work.....
Guys, lets put this in perspective.
Do we really need the UK level of capability of 3 bases, which between them can maintain a fleet twice, if not three times our current size? Do we want to spend FLEETS budget on a) maintaing grey hulled messengers of death at sea or b) reparing yet another listed building that needs to be maintained in a dockyard?
The RN's business is about being at sea, lets bring Pompey down to a minor presence, make Devonport the surface flotilla stronghold and leave it at that. I'd much rather see money spent on ships and not sh*thouses...
Do we really need the UK level of capability of 3 bases, which between them can maintain a fleet twice, if not three times our current size? Do we want to spend FLEETS budget on a) maintaing grey hulled messengers of death at sea or b) reparing yet another listed building that needs to be maintained in a dockyard?
The RN's business is about being at sea, lets bring Pompey down to a minor presence, make Devonport the surface flotilla stronghold and leave it at that. I'd much rather see money spent on ships and not sh*thouses...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please tell me you're joking. Devonport is, without a doubt, the most miserable hell hole I've served in or around in some 20 messes and two services. Take a major surface unit, around twice the size of Ocean through the Guz in, at night? No thanks. It's bad enough in almost anything larger than a P2000, never mind being a right hassle to dredge out next to Pompey...with it's easy connection to civilisation and all that entails.
Guz is at the end of the line.
Guz is at the end of the line.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote " Aims at ensuring the Armed Forces are provided with the equipment that they require, on time and at the best value for money"
Ha! Ha! Tell that to the lads in AFG, smegma
Ha! Ha! Tell that to the lads in AFG, smegma
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We certainly need to chop a dockyard. The current template was due to support the Fleet before numerous cuts were made. We have kept open our support facilities not because they offer the support we need - but to keep civilians in jobs.
Therefore the very hard pressed defence budget is being pressed harder, essentially because we are employing people for the government that we shouldn't have to.
Two ways out of this as far as i am concerned. Either close a dock yard or get someone else to pay for the privelege of keeping it open. If we don't have the teeth, why on earth should we pay so much for the tail?
Therefore the very hard pressed defence budget is being pressed harder, essentially because we are employing people for the government that we shouldn't have to.
Two ways out of this as far as i am concerned. Either close a dock yard or get someone else to pay for the privelege of keeping it open. If we don't have the teeth, why on earth should we pay so much for the tail?
It'll be an "interesting" outcome whatever happens. Just have the horrible suspicion it'll end up as usual making conclusions on the wrong assumptions.
Faslane will probably stay as is, if only because of the bomber infrastructure, which leaves a straight Pompey vs Guz fight. You might think it's a re-run of the Nott review of 81, but hold some horses here.
Pompey plus points : big enough jetties to take CVF, big enough jetties to take T45, only UHAF certified to handle Aster. Proximity to Coll / Sultan, VT/BAe presence (marginal plus point!) and plenty of large docks
Pompey negatives : Needs dredging, lots of historic buildings
Guz positives : Nuclear refit facilities, proximity to exercise areas, proximity to Raleigh, amphibs in proximity to Royals
Guz negatives : Very poor navigable approach (CVF will never get up there and Smeaton Pass is a limiting factor), very difficult to berth ammunitioned ships near Defiance / SSN, Frigate refit complex too small for T45 (and FSC if we ever get it), only one large dock usable for surface ships
Might be a closer run thing than people think, including the possibility that all surface ship refit work goes to Pompey, leaving Guz with Subs only.
Faslane will probably stay as is, if only because of the bomber infrastructure, which leaves a straight Pompey vs Guz fight. You might think it's a re-run of the Nott review of 81, but hold some horses here.
Pompey plus points : big enough jetties to take CVF, big enough jetties to take T45, only UHAF certified to handle Aster. Proximity to Coll / Sultan, VT/BAe presence (marginal plus point!) and plenty of large docks
Pompey negatives : Needs dredging, lots of historic buildings
Guz positives : Nuclear refit facilities, proximity to exercise areas, proximity to Raleigh, amphibs in proximity to Royals
Guz negatives : Very poor navigable approach (CVF will never get up there and Smeaton Pass is a limiting factor), very difficult to berth ammunitioned ships near Defiance / SSN, Frigate refit complex too small for T45 (and FSC if we ever get it), only one large dock usable for surface ships
Might be a closer run thing than people think, including the possibility that all surface ship refit work goes to Pompey, leaving Guz with Subs only.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sultan question is - whether it remains on it's current site! Rumour control has it moving up country to become properly tri-service in that the roads of Gosport are unable to take tracked vehicles that the Army want to put in there as well. Sourced from Flag****e and RN sources, plus some other top level local stuff as well. Collingwood is pretty safe, I understand.
We can never say that a Base is safe - Chatham was shut down amid a massive outcry, but we don't actually miss it now! Dolphin has become Fort Blockhouse, no pain there either - and remember HMS Cambridge?! Between Pompey and Guzz, the plus and minus points are pretty moot, as the money generated from removal of one will pay for improvements and enhancements to the other. The CVF question can be avoided by berthing off, as the US Carriers do. Whilst not the easiest method of managing a ship, it's certainly possible to run with ships company ashore, minimal manning at sea and boat transfer routines.
We can never say that a Base is safe - Chatham was shut down amid a massive outcry, but we don't actually miss it now! Dolphin has become Fort Blockhouse, no pain there either - and remember HMS Cambridge?! Between Pompey and Guzz, the plus and minus points are pretty moot, as the money generated from removal of one will pay for improvements and enhancements to the other. The CVF question can be avoided by berthing off, as the US Carriers do. Whilst not the easiest method of managing a ship, it's certainly possible to run with ships company ashore, minimal manning at sea and boat transfer routines.
Agree with most apart from the berthing off idea. The US carriers do it over here as they're just visiting and all you're transferring is pax, F44 and gash which can be tendered / lightered. Don't think you'd find the same at Norfolk, North Island or Bremerton.......
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing would surprise me these days though. If the Government can now, so many years after the event, admit they may have made a little mistake with Iraq, what would stop them deciding that they had found a viable option, ordering us to carry on, and the admitting later it was a bit of a cock up. Which would be a little late once McCarthy and Stone had finished bussing the pensioners into the nice new retirement flats of "Pompey Mews."
Even on the Ark during the building up to GW XXXXVVII, we stayed at sea for around 100 days with no real problems in logistics. Big wokka-wokka, big landing area.......
Even on the Ark during the building up to GW XXXXVVII, we stayed at sea for around 100 days with no real problems in logistics. Big wokka-wokka, big landing area.......
[quote=PompeySailor;2860101]Nothing would surprise me these days though. If the Government can now, so many years after the event, admit they may have made a little mistake with Iraq, what would stop them deciding that they had found a viable option, ordering us to carry on, and the admitting later it was a bit of a cock up. Which would be a little late once McCarthy and Stone had finished bussing the pensioners into the nice new retirement flats of "Pompey Mews."
With you there mate - thats the problem with these exercises, conclusions made on sh1te assumptions and do the pollies have to live with the assumptions......
Anyway, in an attempt to lift the gloom, it's International Talk like a Pirate Day today, let's all practice saying
"hang that scurvy dog Browne from the yard and let the sun bleach his bones - ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!
With you there mate - thats the problem with these exercises, conclusions made on sh1te assumptions and do the pollies have to live with the assumptions......
Anyway, in an attempt to lift the gloom, it's International Talk like a Pirate Day today, let's all practice saying
"hang that scurvy dog Browne from the yard and let the sun bleach his bones - ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 55
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just watched him using a lot of 'politic speak' during his speech this morning.
Significant comment, tucked away..."we'll look at the here and now, rather than the challenges of tomorrow"
So confirmed, future projects are going to get the chop to pay for current operations!
Significant comment, tucked away..."we'll look at the here and now, rather than the challenges of tomorrow"
So confirmed, future projects are going to get the chop to pay for current operations!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Bin Guz. Agree with the earlier posts. Keep the nuc refitting complex. We simply do not have enough ships to warrant two major bases on the south coast. IMHO Guz should have been junked a long time ago and Portland kept.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that this will not necessarily be a "needs of the Service" review. This will also have to meet political requirements, and as such they will need to consider damage to infrastructure, job creation, unemployment, and they will be careful about the voters in the area as well.
Hedging bets on Portsmouth being decimated but not lost completely, Devonport becoming the main port, Scotland achieving protected status, and some of the shore units being amalgamated/relocated. This is being carried out in line with an internal functional review that will change the way we look anyway with regards to training, perceptions of front line/support roles, and contracting out work that we cannot financially justify remaining uniformed (of course, when you want it done out of hours, the justification changes!)
May not give us what we want, but will not be drastic enough to damage the politicos if it goes pear shaped, and will give them enough kudos for saving jobs when the next election rolls around.
Hedging bets on Portsmouth being decimated but not lost completely, Devonport becoming the main port, Scotland achieving protected status, and some of the shore units being amalgamated/relocated. This is being carried out in line with an internal functional review that will change the way we look anyway with regards to training, perceptions of front line/support roles, and contracting out work that we cannot financially justify remaining uniformed (of course, when you want it done out of hours, the justification changes!)
May not give us what we want, but will not be drastic enough to damage the politicos if it goes pear shaped, and will give them enough kudos for saving jobs when the next election rolls around.