No timetable' for eight Clyde frigates

A defence minister has refused to say when the next generation of Royal Navy warships will be built. Eight Type 26 frigates are due to be built on the Clyde, but the UK government has not announced a timescale for the project. Harriet Baldwin faced calls from SNP and Labour MPs to confirm a time-frame for cutting steel on the frigates.
But she said it would be "inappropriate" to do so as negotiations continue.

Work had originally been due to start this year, but SNP defence spokesman Brendan O'Hara predicted during a Commons debate on Tuesday that construction of the ships would not start until at least the summer of next year. He also said the delays could be in part blamed on the economic impact of Brexit, as well as the government committing too much of its procurement budget to renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent. Mr O'Hara told MPs: "It would be an unforgivable betrayal of the Clyde workers if they were the ones that had to pay the price of Brexit, but also the price of Trident."

In reply, Ms Baldwin told the Westminster Hall debate: "The timing of the award of the build contract and the build schedule itself are key components of the ongoing commercial negotiations between the Government and BAE Systems. "We are negotiating a deal that aims to optimise the requirements of the Royal Navy in terms of the capability the ships will deliver, to achieve value for money for defence and the taxpayer, and to deliver a build schedule that drives performance. These negotiations are continuing, so I am not this afternoon in a position to give a specific date as to when an agreement will be reached. To protect the commercial interests of the Ministry of Defence, disclosing any such detail would be inappropriate at this time."

Under questioning from the SNP's Chris Stephens, Ms Baldwin confirmed the national ship building strategy will report by the time of the Autumn Statement on 23 November, which could reveal fresh information about plans for the Type 26 frigates. Ms Baldwin also resisted calls to disclose further reasons behind delays and cuts to the project.

The project has already been cut from 13 to eight new ships, while a target to start cutting steel in May has been delayed indefinitely.

Tory MP Bob Stewart, a former British Army officer, said: "I don't think we need the minister to answer that - the answer is we had no money. "That's why we had to cut down the number of Type 26 ships. We did not have the money, and we actually had to cut our means to suit our coat."

SNP MP Martin Docherty-Hughes said the delays left Scotland and the United Kingdom "dangerously under-defended", adding it was a "tale of under-investment and neglect".

Tuesday's "debate" on T26 in Westminster Hall, if anyone can be bothered.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...6FrigatesClyde

The game of chicken continues......

Watch the F-35B execute a vertical landing in rough waters with complete ease

As for the Type 26, steel cutting will start next year. However the Type 23 will remain the frigate force for years, worked hard in both peace and war. Therefore it must be supported, and that includes supporting things like Sea Wolf in ships that still have it. Remember some ships (eg Monmouth) have only recently recieved the upgraded version and will have it for years, and deploy into harms way.

F-35B shipboard trials also reported on RN website.

I'm sure that under an independent Scottish government, they would have a huge fleet and tie fighters for air defence

ImageGear said: "I am coming to the firm opinion that an ever larger percentage of politicians, business leaders and civil servants are determined to move this great country of ours towards a non-aligned or neutral state."
My question would be: what's wrong with non-aligned? Has alignment with America these last twenty years done anything for our interests? What interest did the people of Britain have in who ruled Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria? American/global oil companies had a great interest in three of those countries - but that's all - since these global corporations control so many American, British, EU politicians, and since stupid do-gooders like David Owen and others were in their pay, then we were dragged into all these wars with our taxpayers footing the bill for these companies interests. I think breaking the ties with America and NATO would be in our best interests. We then defend ourselves and our only ties are to the Old Commonwealth. We sign as many trade deals as we can and we pay for the level of defence of these islands that we deem in our interests. In my view than means we have a strong Navy and Air Force and an army oriented to defending Britain - not interfering in other people's countries - however with emphasis on SAS and RMC particularly.

Sounding out the Senior Service - BBC News

Not many firms can offer a job guarantee for at least 19 years. But BAE Systems on the Clyde isn't just any firm. It's the monopoly supplier of complex warships to the Royal Navy. So when Defence Secretary Michael Fallon arrives in Govan one Friday morning in November, bringing good news about shipyard orders, he's spending big, and long term.
Eight complex frigates will be built, known as the Type 26. He's committing to orders for some of the equipment they will need.

He's talking about the announcement "securing hundreds of jobs, and hundreds more jobs in the supply chain". But perhaps he's under-selling all this a tad. The yards currently have around 2,700 workers. And a recent study by economists at the Fraser of Allander Institute concluded that it supports 4,900 workers. Surely this announcement is securing thousands of jobs?

Or is it? There's quite a lot in this announcement that's not clear. Here are some of the things Mr Fallon is not saying...

The contract between the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems hasn't yet been signed. There are details to be finalised. The announcement has been about an "agreement in principle". The price tag is being left very vague. We were led to believe such an announcement on cutting steel (the ceremonial around laying down the first part of a hull) would only follow conclusion of such a deal. In the media, we've been put on alert for such an announcement over recent months, only to be stood down.

To keep the yards busy-ish until the Type 26 work can start and then ramp up, there are to be a further two Offshore Patrol Vessels built, in addition to the three which have been under construction since the aircraft carriers were floated off to Rosyth in Fife. But those contracts aren't finalised either, and won't be until at least next month.
Image copyright PA Image caption Defence Secretary Michael Fallon was in Govan to announce the shipyard orders Mr Fallon is not committing to build the other five replacements for ageing frigates. The Type 31 is in a very early stage of development. It should be lighter, cheaper, perhaps faster and not specialised, as the Type 26 will be, in anti-submarine warfare.

Even if the Ministry of Defence does place orders for those five, it's not committing to do so at the Clyde yards. It is in "pole position," we're told. That's a long way from the end of the contract tendering race, and a long way from a guarantee. And a hint was dropped about building modules of each future ship in different places. That is how the carriers have been built and assembled in Fife, but that was because they are so big. It makes less sense in building a frigate.

That is despite the most recent defence review concluding that all complex warship building should, in future, be on the Clyde, at the twinned Govan and Scotstoun yards. That is why they shut down the shipyard in Portsmouth, to rationalise capacity for the longer-term, with these new frigates in mind.

All 13 replacement frigates were to be Clyde-built, we were told. But now, er, not so much. A new National Shipbuilding Strategy was ordered in spring, led by industrialist Sir John Parker. It is due for publication around the time of the autumn statement, which is only three weeks away. I'd watch out for some potentially unpalatable messages; about the Clyde having a monopoly on Royal Navy shipbuilding capacity while Scottish independence remains a live issue: and about the question of whether the Royal Navy has to commit to its complex ships being built in Britain. Other, strategically significant defence equipment doesn't get that level of protection.

That issue is being raised by trade unions, who are pointing to the question mark now over the Rosyth dockyard capacity in Fife, where the aircraft carriers are currently being assembled, but where the "drumbeat" of work doesn't look like it has much of a future. They want to see Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships built in Scotland and reckon the Scottish workforce could be put to work on them.

But the Ministry of Defence put the last support ship contract out to tender internationally, and they're currently being built in South Korea for £450m. The 'oilers' or replenishment ships for ship-to-ship fuel supplies should have been delivered in spring this year, and in service by the end of next month, with three more following at six-monthly intervals.
By summer, the first of them, Tidespring, was delayed in sea trials. It's now running around eight months behind schedule.
But the Ministry of Defence is confident that all four ships will be deployed by 2018, and that the cost of that delay is being met by the Koreans. Take note: BAE Systems.

A question that I have been considering for a while is where will the Aircraft Carriers have their refits?
Will Rosyth be kept open with a skilled workforce just to do the re fits of the QECs, a very expensive option but where else can the refits be done?
Thee might be an argument for the frigates to be built at Rosyth so that the skill base to refit the carriers is maintained. Still no competition etc...

Royalist?

When my non-aligned nations' trade is threatened by another belligerent super state, or they harbour my enemies while cut and thrust attacks are made on our home soil. We will need to respond.

In these situations we do not need "someone to stand in the gap", we need to be able to exorcise the cancer at the root.

Switzerland may be non-aligned and neutral and as a nation have virtually no natural resources, or sea trade. Therefore their neutral position is fairly secure. Sweden on the other hand is a very different proposition. Massive natural resources and extensive sea trade means that should the other Baltic states be "Annexed", their security and trade will be totally compromised.

Home Defence anyone?

Imagegear

Rosyth is simply not capable of building ships. It is assembling the carriers from large blocks built elsewhere - not an insignificant effort - but a long way from building a ship. There are no major steel production / fabrication facilities and no suitably sized undercover build shed. The crane is a red-herring - nice to have only if you can build large highly outfitted units. You can build units at large facilities round the country and assemble them in Rosyth for something like carrier where there is no alternative. You can't do that cost-effectively for something like a frigate.

It was used for assembly as it was the biggest available dock in a live facility in the country. Refits may stay there - or go elsewhere in UK - Birkenhead and Belfast have suitable docks, as does the Tyne at a push.

Short version is that you can do a lot afloat with UW engineering these days. A Class docking every six years or so, isn't a major drama.

Heathrow Harry
Would those Korean built RFA be the ones with the under powered engines as specified by UK Gov. I was told by a procurement manager for HMG that the Koreans advised HMG that engines were too small for vessels but were told to go ahead, but are NOW being subject to having new engines fitted. I was also told about the mattresses fitted to the new carriers which do not meet RN standards for fire rating, but which are being ordered for the carriers under BAe, but will have to be dumped before the RN will accept the ships and new more inflammable and expensive mattresses are provided from DOD funds. Procurement of most defence equipment in this country is a bad joke. Buy it off the shelf from where ever makes the best, or what you need can afford, and do a deal on kit assembly if you need to keep UK jobs. I would still like to know why we do not build Merchant ships as Germany/Sweden/Finland do to mention other none islands in northern Europe !


Regards
Mr Mac

That dit on the Korean tankers is gash. The issues with the ships do not involve re-engining....

And buying off the shelf has resulted in bae mattresses...

Jimlad 1
Being involved with BAe but not working for them, their take is that nobody seems to know in the services what they want, and always want something bespoke be it ship /plane or AFV. Also as everything on a contract can be specified you would think that some one in the DOD could work out a mattress spec. If they can not, lets get rid of DOD and just set a teenager on with a modern version of Top Trumps and let them procure items but with standard specification, not the overly complex systems which we seem to try and invent (usually badly and expensively).


Not a boffin
The source claimed to be an RFA Captain who had been to the ship yard, and as I was on a flight from Soul I have no reason not to disbelieve him. As I have a cousin who is also a skipper in MN he seemed to be the real deal as they say, when discussing ships and engines. But if you say gash then not knowing your source of info you maybe right but he was very convincing.


Regards
Mr Mac

from Hansard....

Douglas Chapman: [51473]
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the principal technical faults are that have
led to the delay of the transfer of the RFA Tidespring to the UK for customisation and
capability assessment trials until 2017.
Harriett Baldwin:
Delays in finalising elements of electrical design and the installation of Multi-Cable
Transit insulation in accordance with new legislative regulations resulted in some
adjustments in the build schedule. These issues have now been resolved and Tidespring
is expected to arrive in the UK in early 2017 to begin UK customisation and capability
assessment trials.
Notwithstanding these issues, which are not unusual for any First of Class ship, build of
the remaining ships in the Class is progressing well and we remain confident that all
four tankers will be in service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary by the end of 2018, as
planned.

Nowt to do with donks. Plenty to do with fire protection.

"our only ties are to the Old Commonwealth"

This is a mad fallacy peddled by people who need to get out more

Have you ever talked to Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians? No way they see us as a major player ....................................... and it's even worse if you talk to Indians South AFricans and Singaporeans - we're totally irrelevant

"I would still like to know why we do not build Merchant ships as Germany/Sweden/Finland do to mention other none islands in northern Europe !"

how much tax do you want to pay as a subsidy??

HMG gave up on large scale engineering 40 years ago (and who can blame them...) we make a lot more money acting as a conduit for dodgy cash from overseas........

"we need to be able to exorcise the cancer at the root"

As in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, N Ireland................... every one a winner!!!

Heathrow Harry,

You spout drivel. I talk to a lot of Indians and Singaporeans, all on trade and business related matters, and I can assure you that they do NOT think that we are anywhere near irrelevant.
The same applies to many nationalities, and if anything Brexit has just increased the importance of UK in their eyes.

HH

Well if you only see intervention in those countries in terms of total success or total failure, I can see how you would come to your opinion. However, in this day and age, wars are no longer fought to an easily definable victory or defeat.

Rather actions are fought to deny an enemy the opportunity to impress their brand of political or religious ideology onto a defensively weaker population or nation through indoctrination and terrorism.

When terrorists are allowed to infiltrate the national population, they will expand their activities much more effectively to further their ultimate goals. Whether that be to create a caliphate, an authoritarian or military government, or a dictatorship.

We will never countenance the UK being infiltrated to that extent, therefore, in cooperation with other countries, we will intervene at the source to prevent such an outcome.

One further comment:

Actions being fought on a small scale to deny freedom of movement to an insidious enemy have occurred throughout history from the dawn of time.

The UK will be required to continue this posture for as long as we remain a democratic nation state.

Imagegear