|
The world is rearming at an unprecedented pace and the RN is having a clearance sale
|
The Hunt class must be fairly old but i agree there seems to be no real defense policy, just live for the day and hope for the best.
|
I'd rather they kept all of them to deal with 'immigrants'; pity there are no personnel to crew them.
|
I wonder if Ukraine will buy some to bolster the previous purchase, totally agree about the immigration comment, if no crews why not hand them over to another Government department and remove the weapons.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11503797)
I wonder if Ukraine will buy some to bolster the previous purchase, totally agree about the immigration comment, if no crews why not hand them over to another Government department and remove the weapons.
|
Or maybe some of those poor guys who got sacked by P & O are still around and could crew them.
On reduced pay? :) |
End May ORAC I think published
HMS Westminster refit suspended and her return to service in doubt https://www.navylookout.com/hms-west...vice-in-doubt/ Unofficial naval sources say that the frigate HMS Westminster has been found to be in such a poor state that it would be difficult to justify the expense of repairs and her refit has been stopped, pending a decision on her future. Westminster was the first Type 23 to have a Life Extension refit, completed in Portsmouth in 2017. After a busy 7 years of service, mostly in European waters, in early October 2022, she arrived in Devonport and initial work began on a refit expected to last less than two years. It was intended she would become a Devonport-based ship and this work package would keep her going until around 2028-29. Westminster is the next oldest frigate (launched in 1992) after HMS Monmouth and Montrose which have already been retired. RN policy is not to comment on the material state of vessels but a spokesperson hinted at difficult choices ahead saying: “Refit programmes are constantly reviewed to balance availability against value for money. No decisions have been made about any particular unit.” Official confirmation on the fate of HMS Westminster is likely to come at the end of June when the new Defence Command Paper is published. The Secretary of State made a public plea for an extra £11 billion |
From the same report
Shephard Media reports the cost of purchasing 5 sets of 32-cell Mk41 launchers for the Type 31 frigates would be around £93M before integration. The unexpected repairs to HMS Prince of Wales are costing around £25M. Besides the headline ship and submarine building programme, the RN has a multitude of other projects underway to develop novel future capabilities, all of which demand funding. Balancing a tight budget is always a series of complex trade-offs, ie. should future capabilities be the priority or refitting an old frigate that may only serve for another few years? |
Unofficial naval sources say that the frigate HMS Westminster has been found to be in such a poor state that it would be difficult to justify the expense of repairs and her refit has been stopped, pending a decision on her future. The trouble is of course, what are the chances that such "savings" are redirected in such a manner as to compensate directly for that capability loss? Nope, didn't think so. Cooch |
the "savings" are needed elsewhere - in fact they're a drop in the ocean
|
FFS.
Four ships, two of which have not been in commission for over a decade, plus two knackered T23. The usual "expert" starts dripping..... |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 11503780)
I'd rather they kept all of them to deal with 'immigrants'; pity there are no personnel to crew them.
Not quite what you had in mind… |
"Four ships, two of which have not been in commission for over a decade, plus two knackered T23"
yes and the overall numbers continue to decline - you don't have to be an expert to see that Boffin I understand it pains you - it pains all of us . :( I'm sure you REALLY don't want to see the number of vessels in service decline. But not saying anything about it won't do any good whatsoever. Continuing to "support" the RN as it slides isn't going to help |
There is a difference between "not saying anything about it" and uninformed pearl-clutching.
Selling off life-expired ships for scrap is absolutely the correct thing to do - see ex-Bristol and ex-Walney. The two T23 are less palatable as a number drop, but that should be temporary as all T26 and T31 are now on-contract (as opposed to just "in the long-term programme". So in terms of DD/FF hull numbers that should be resolved. Ditto, the FSS - all on contract at long last. Losing the SVHO isn't great, but they were approaching end of life (perhaps more than apparent!) and there is the ability to exploit uncrewed systems and MROSS for that. The more serious issue is manpower - and specifically pinch point retention - which is a pay (and in the case of the RFA, terms and conditions issue). Plus the impact of residual ILS reductions and programme deferrals over a decade ago which mean running on old ships longer than they should have been, with consequent knock-on effects. Something which applies across all three services, particularly in engineering trades. So - had the thread been titled "What do we have to do to fix retention and how much might it cost?" - that might have been useful. |
I agree on pay and manpower - it always seems the armed forces have to be reduced to beggary and for large numbers to leave before the Govt of the day (of whatever stripe) very grudgingly coughs up a small amount.
The idea that it's cheaper to keep experienced personnel than spend a fortune trying to recruit replacements seems never to occur to them (or maybe it does....). The report into the loss of the F-35 was full of indications of people stretched to and beyond the limit, desperately cutting and filling to keep things going. 6 months in an SSBN isn't going to improve recruiting either I guess. In a perfect world the Govt would make the case for a decent financial package to pay people, and to buy AND MAINTAIN a decent set of forces - instead we stretch, and stretch and stretch......... they need to be up front and tell people that they're not going to get the pensions they want, the university places for their kids, lower inheritance taxes or new hospitals everywhere as the country needs defending properly - the primary role of any Govt, anywhere, at any time. I'm not holding my breath. |
To be fair if we have learned one thing from Ukraine, its that expensive capital hardware such as ships can be negated very easily with an inexpensive drone, or swarm of drones. The same goes for airfields - maybe the RAF needs to revert to the old RAFG concept of dispersal....if only we still had the plastic puffer jets!
|
The unexpected repairs to HMS Prince of Wales are costing around £25M |
Is the disposal of the Batch 1 Rivers expected?
|
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 11504819)
Is the disposal of the Batch 1 Rivers expected?
1. Help police post-Brexit fishing areas 2. Somehow "stop the boats" 1 is and remains valid - although whether it's actually an RN (as opposed to DEFRA) responsibility is open to question. 2 was never going to happen. |
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 11504522)
There is a difference between "not saying anything about it" and uninformed pearl-clutching.
Selling off life-expired ships for scrap is absolutely the correct thing to do - see ex-Bristol and ex-Walney. The two T23 are less palatable as a number drop, but that should be temporary as all T26 and T31 are now on-contract (as opposed to just "in the long-term programme". So in terms of DD/FF hull numbers that should be resolved. Ditto, the FSS - all on contract at long last. Losing the SVHO isn't great, but they were approaching end of life (perhaps more than apparent!) and there is the ability to exploit uncrewed systems and MROSS for that. The more serious issue is manpower - and specifically pinch point retention - which is a pay (and in the case of the RFA, terms and conditions issue). Plus the impact of residual ILS reductions and programme deferrals over a decade ago which mean running on old ships longer than they should have been, with consequent knock-on effects. Something which applies across all three services, particularly in engineering trades. So - had the thread been titled "What do we have to do to fix retention and how much might it cost?" - that might have been useful. The MCMV will find new homes within NATO, most likely up around the Baltic where their sisters are already doing good work, or maybe in the Black Sea. That capability is moving on in a different direction. Batch 1 OPVs will probably find new homes, they are already on a ‘stay of execution’ so this does not come as a surprise, but they are quite manpower heavy for constabulary roles. The T23 in question are fit for scrap and nothing else, their hulls are absolutely knackered. Surprised they pulled the SVHOs so quickly, wonder if they have a buyer for Echo, as the video only mentions Enterprise? They need to man MROSS, T31 and eventually T26, so something had to give. But they won’t solve retention until they stop treating JRs like children, particularly at LET level! |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11504736)
Why is it costing anything, you spend £3 billion and do not even get a warranty?
|
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 11504819)
Is the disposal of the Batch 1 Rivers expected?
I am not against 20 year old OPVs being sold, so long as they are replaced. The Batch 2 Rivers seem to be a big hit, so perhaps three more? They are not that expensive and offer a great High/Low mix for the RN freeing FFs and DDs from policing duties and flag waving. As for the MCMVs - technology is moving on. The hunts - if they were cars - would be the age of a MK2 Ford Escort. Still goo dbit s of kit but we are seeing vessels like RFA Stirling Castle arrive - which will the basis for future MCM ops - along with future designs of ship. The shortage of FFs is a big problem but nobody seems to be that concerned about our amphibious capabilites. We currently do not have an operational LPD. The three Bays - we did have four - are working hard - and we are using the ancient and proved not to be great at the job, RFA Argus. Just over a decade ago, the UK had a fantastic amphibious force with a dedicated LPH, two LPDs and four LSD9A)s Unless the plan is to use a QE as an LPH as cicrumstances require, this is a massive capability dowgrade. Remmeber amphibious forces are not just about beach assaults, they are just really usefule ships to have around. Also Ford Vic is old and not in the best of health I understand. Since the short sighted scrapping of her sister - this is the RN's only AOR to support two CV and whatever they all amphibious forces these days. |
"Just over a decade ago, the UK had a fantastic amphibious force with a dedicated LPH, two LPDs and four LSD9A)"
Agreed - and there never seems to have been any coherent plan to replace them - it seems the Carriers will be required to do it all |
Future Commando Force (deliberately) changed the game for amphibious vessels: forward deployment of RM units on forward deployed vessels, MRSS/Littoral Strike Ship, and yes, some deployment as part of a CSG. Not to mention RFA (and RN) recruitment and retention affecting the ability to crew the existing vessels..
Anyway for the sheer hell of it, here's RFA Mounts Bay in the vicinity of Southampton Ocean Cruise Terminal at the weekend (quality due to zoom on phone through a dirty window) https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....44bc75e1ac.jpg |
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ba6f8b416a.jpg
Lyme Bay in Falmouth in July - plus the "Argos" parked round the corner of course https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8a18c7d5b1.jpg maybe we should rent one of those cruise ships for the RN?? |
Call me old fashioned but I have always looked on all things military ( and especially how things are going in the world right now ) that you should not flog off vessels until the replacements are built, have undergone sea trials and are in service, to sell off ships with no replacements built leaves a capability gap, now I know they are oldish and the technology may be getting on, but it is better to have something that can do the job, than to have sweet F all but a pile of steel sheets stacked up at some shipyard awaiting welding together.
|
or worse a list of "aspirations" sitting in some Minister's PR file
|
Unfortunately, this represents progress.
At least, today, the RN seem to have regained control of what they do or do not want, and what to do with it. Some older readers may remember the 1991 policy whereby AMSO(RAF) controlled RN avionic assets, and decided to change the stores classification of repairable equipment to consumable, to avoid repair costs. The kit was then scrapped and never replaced. Tens of millions down the pan (or in the crusher) on SHAR nav kit alone. |
"At least, today, the RN seem to have regained control of what they do or do not want, and what to do with it."
Well not so sure - I'll bet they WANT a few more F-35's ASAP but it's not their call |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11508038)
"At least, today, the RN seem to have regained control of what they do or do not want, and what to do with it."
Well not so sure - I'll bet they WANT a few more F-35's ASAP but it's not their call As Dirty Harry Callahan said, "good man always knows his limitations"..... |
I read an interesting article (mainstream media) about the increasing length of V boat patrols, 6 months plus (in the days of the R boats it was 3 months), caused by availability of hulls, maintenance issues, spares availability, dry dock provision, etc. All stems from short sighted money saving decisions made years ago, which of course have big long term impacts (How often have we seen this).
Anyway, the article also discussed impact on morale, recruitment, retention of submariners - all of which were not good, especially in high tech specialist trades. An issue the RN seems to have little ability to tackle in the short term. |
To quote from a DT article back in June:
The Royal Navy is struggling to recruit submariners because Generation Z do not want to be cut off from their smartphones, the First Sea Lord has admitted. Speaking to The House magazine, Admiral Sir Ben Key said that while the Navy he had joined had 75,000 members, there were now about 36,000 in the service and that it was a struggle to recruit submariners. “We are effectively in a war for talent in this country – there is no great secret in that,” he said, adding that there were “very few people who have got direct experience of coming from a naval family. Whereas if you track back 100 years, a lot of people had experience of a military family or a naval family.” He said that younger recruits expected a greater level of contact with their friends and families, so that the experience of living on a submarine with limited connectivity was less attractive. He once returned home from a six-month trip to find that one of his children did not recognise him, whereas nowadays, “expectations of contact with people you love are changing… and the ability for near permanent connectivity cannot be met if you are in a submarine.” “I’m not going to sit there and say that we are awash with people,” he added. (...) “The whole objective of the submarine is not to send messages to families, it’s to do our job,” he said. He added: “Ultimately, if you’re part of the nuclear deterrent and you’re 18 years old living on your personal device, it’s very difficult if you’re used to being on Snapchat, it’s very difficult for families. “Some young recruits have had messages from girlfriends saying if you haven’t replied by next week I’m assuming you’ve left me.” |
On a more positive note the RN website published a story on Friday about preparations for building the Fleet Solid Support ships.
Work has begun revamping the world-famous Harland & Wolff yard in Belfast so it can build three new support ships for the Navy. The existing fabrication halls at the shipbuilders are being significantly enhanced to support construction of the successors to RFA Fort Victoria. Three Fleet Solid Support vessels are being ordered to replace the venerable ‘one-stop-shop’ which provides ammunition, food, dry stores and spare parts to Royal Navy warships. The new ships will be an integral part of a carrier strike group. At 40,000 tonnes and 216 metres long they will be second only to HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales in length and displacement, more than 34 metres wide, with a capacity for 9,000 square metres of stores (that’s almost the size of a football pitch). The trio – as yet unnamed – are being constructed by the Team Resolute consortium (comprising Navantia UK, Harland and Wolff and BMT) which was selected back in January by the MOD. The final assembly of all three ships will be completed at Harland & Wolff, famous for building the Titanic and her sisters and, more during WW2 and afterwards, a host of RN vessels from Flower-class corvettes through to carrier HMS Eagle. Blocks and modules for each vessel will be constructed in Belfast, plus Appledore in Devon, and Navantia’s yard in Cadiz, Spain. |
So we have to revamp a shipyard before it can build the ships we want!
How much is that adding to the final bill, and how much extra time before delivery? |
Given there was at one time a high chance the order would go abroad it would have been madness to invest given the UK's lack of competitiveness in building civil ships. It's 20 years since H&W built anything significant. The ships of last new RFA class, the Tides, were built by Daewoo in South Korea, no UK yard even bid for the order.
|
Another sop to N Ireland politics - they say it's Harland & Wolf but the original shipyard was run down to about 100 staff. The last real ship they built was about 20 years ago.
It was then bought by a small UK oil company, Infrastrata, who are run by some guys who have been very good at getting grants, subsidies etc in a number of ventures in N Ireland |
Hopefully the end product(s) will not be the maritime equivalent of a DeLorean. ;)
Hmm, but on the other hand... |
welllll...... it looked good........................
and starred in a movie |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 11507850)
Arse, my good man, ARSE.
The other is a donkey sort of thing. Bum would complicate matters further for the cousins. |
Original topic appears to have been exhausted, and the thread derail is wandering further afield. Closed.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.