The shrinking Royal Navy

[Ozexpatriate]

"HMS Queen Elizabeth moored next to the RAF accommodation ship that will accompany her when the RAF F35s are embarked"

I don't think there will be nearly enough F35s to fill that thing with pilot and flight crew.

 

By the sound of things there's probably enough room for the RAF to use this delightful vessel (presuming they need an accommodation ship).

[jjb1970]

I'd like to hear that nice Sharkey Ward's opinion of the RAF.......

[Ohmisterporter]

From the UK Defence Journal is this interesting item.

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-construction-use-65-foreign-steel/

[TomE]

From the UK Defence Journal is this interesting item.

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-construction-use-65-foreign-steel/

 

 

 

So 35% by weight, but 50% by value. It could have been much worse. 

 

At the end of the day, if British companies are unable to supply the type of steel required then it doesn't leave BAE with much choice but to go elsewhere. 

 

Tom.  

[Arthur]

 

This is probably not dissimilar to the unwillingness of manufacturers to supply bespoke items on defence contracts that will amount to tens of units rather than hundreds, just not worth the investment.

 

From the article it would seem that the issue is the supply of 'thin' plate rolled to certain sizes (width is generally the limiting factor) and flatness to specification and tolerance. So, seemingly not a problem with making the steel to the required specification, but in rolling it.

 

If this is a plate specification not generally required commercially then it should come as no surprise that we don't have a mill capable of rolling it.

 

As this contract looks like it's calling for around 2600 tons of non UK sourced steel per ship, that's 7800 tons in total. Even if all of that was steel to this specification it's not a lot if it requires the investment in a new rolling mill or significant modifications to an existing mill. You would expect a large mill, like a plate mill, to roll hundreds of thousands of tons over it's lifetime to be viable.

 

Investing in a new mill to roll just a few thousand tons is going to make it very expensive steel.

 

Clearly, these musings are based on the limited amount of information in the article.

Whether the original specification could reasonably have been framed to encompass UK steel rolling capacity is another question.

 

In a similar vein I recall at the time the works at Redcar was facing closure calls were made to ensure that the research vessel (RRS Sir David Attenborough) then being planned should be made purely of British steel to give the works a lifeline. The ship will weigh 15000 tons, even if all steel, that would have kept the Redcar blast furnace busy for 36 hours.

 

These are tiny volumes in bulk steel making.

 

.

[jjb1970]

I hear this story is front page news in today’s Daily Mirror, it must indeed by a story of the utmost importance to be the main story in such an august publication.

 

As Arthur points out, although the quantities of steel involved look huge to a normal person used to thinking in terms of kilograms or a handful of tons, in terms of steel output it is next to nothing. Certainly not enough to justify a plant investing in new equipment to manufacture a specialised product unless they were confident in finding sufficient demand for the products after they complete the T26 work. If they were then presumably they’d already be making the investment, the fact they’re not indicates they see it as a one off order which cannot justify expensive investment to accommodate.

 

A point not fully realised is the costs associated with meeting the traceability and QC requirements for this type of steel. When people consider the assurance process to approve the design, inspect work, do tests, issue approvals etc (all of which costs a lot of money) it is not really very well-known even in class societies and shipyards that the most lucrative part of that whole process (by a long way) for a class society is approving the basic steel to be used in construction.

[Arthur]

 

The Admiralty held a strong influence on UK steelmaking practice between around 1880 and 1960. They specified steel produced by the open hearth process believing it, with some justification, superior to that produced by the Bessemer process. This belief persuaded many other users to follow suit, if it's good enough for the Admiraty....

 

As a consequence, despite it's more widespread use on the continent, the Bessemer process all but died out in this country, having a minor resurrection post 1935.

 

In truth, Bessemer steel was eminently suitable for a great many applications, and more cheaply, if not for those demanding the tightest specifications.

.

[jjb1970]

Steel is a splendid material, it may be a rather prosaic material and the old kid on the block but in many ways it remains unsurpassed for many applications, having good tensile strength and toughness, excellent fatigue resistance and an elastic limit, it's relatively easy to work and is relatively low cost. If you go for the more expensive formulations you can get extremely high strength allowing you to use very thin gauges so that the built structure can be competitive weight wise with more exotic alternatives, and you can get excellent corrosion resistance (admittedly the attribute of being easy to work tends to evaporate with these ultra high strength and corrosion resistant alloys). Overall, no other material comes close to steel if you are building ships or engines.

[TomE]

 

Tom.

[burgundy]

Interestingly, I understand the the unit cost of the F35B is now lower than that of Tyhoon when you take into account R&D costs of the latter.

 

Tom.

A slightly different view of the costs of the F35, if you believe today's Times. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that this story is any better informed than most other stuff that appears in the press.

Once you buy a piece of US equipment, you get on a treadmill of rolling upgrades, where the pace is set by the US. If you fall behind for any reason, catching up (or remaining in splendid isolation at a different standard to the rest of the fleet) can become more expensive still. On the other hand, the US is generally pretty good at product improvement and keeping its equipment up to date.

Prices can be almost anything you care to make them. Manufacturers tend to talk about UPCs (unit production costs) which may be something like the flyaway cost of a bare aircraft. MOD tends to talk about through life costs, which will cover all the costs associated with turning a piece of kit into a usable military capability (which would include support, infrastructure, personnel, training, etc., based on usage for a reasonable in-service lifespan). The results  - and the conclusions that you might reach - may be rather different. Without some definition of what is included, most figures that appear in the press are not very informative.   

I am not sure what light is shed by comparing the cost of Typhoon, including R&D sunk costs, to F35 without the equivalent cost, when I understand that the UK has contributed significantly as a partner nation to the R&D of that project.

Best wishes

Eric      

[jjb1970]

A few years ago a senior RAN officer told me candidly that the reason they would rather avoid European complex weapons was that their experience was that regardless of how good European systems initially were they tended to wither on the vine as a result of inadequate through life upgrades to keep them current whereas US missiles, radar, fighter aircraft etc received constant development and upgrades which export customers could generally piggyback. Mind you, it doesn't always work out like that, the RAN Super Sea Sprites were a disaster and Australia went to Europe for their attack helicopters.

[TomE]

A slightly different view of the costs of the F35, if you believe today's Times. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that this story is any better informed than most other stuff that appears in the press.

Once you buy a piece of US equipment, you get on a treadmill of rolling upgrades, where the pace is set by the US. If you fall behind for any reason, catching up (or remaining in splendid isolation at a different standard to the rest of the fleet) can become more expensive still. On the other hand, the US is generally pretty good at product improvement and keeping its equipment up to date.

Prices can be almost anything you care to make them. Manufacturers tend to talk about UPCs (unit production costs) which may be something like the flyaway cost of a bare aircraft. MOD tends to talk about through life costs, which will cover all the costs associated with turning a piece of kit into a usable military capability (which would include support, infrastructure, personnel, training, etc., based on usage for a reasonable in-service lifespan). The results  - and the conclusions that you might reach - may be rather different. Without some definition of what is included, most figures that appear in the press are not very informative.   

I am not sure what light is shed by comparing the cost of Typhoon, including R&D sunk costs, to F35 without the equivalent cost, when I understand that the UK has contributed significantly as a partner nation to the R&D of that project.

Best wishes

Eric      

 

 

To be more specific on costing, according to a National Audit Office report the 'assessment, development, production and upgrade costs' to the UK of the Typhoon project were eventually around £22 billion. The cost of the jets themselves ended up being £15 billion for the 190 the MOD ordered from all three 'tranches', so a total programme cost of £37 billion. That gives each of the 190 jets a price tag of around £194.7 million. 

 

The F35 is slightly more difficult to cost, as the price varies depending on which batch the jets are ordered from, some batches being cheaper than others depending on numbers ordered. However the UK has contributed approximately £1.9 billion to the F35 design & development costs, and the average cost of the 17 jets confirmed ordered so far is around £70 million each, so if we extend that to the proposed order of 138 jets plus program contribution, that's £83.7 million per jet. 

 

Of course that price could rise, or it could fall, depending on currency & order numbers. We must also bear in mind the F35 benefits from significantly higher order numbers for the program, well over 3000 aircraft vs the 500 odd orders thus far for Typhoon. 

 

Tom. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by TomE

[Barry O]

Re through life costs make up a large part of any equipment procurement decision. With USA companies The UK MoD are happy to sign up to these. With UK and other companies they are not.
From personal experience the Challenger 2 Precision Gunnery Training Equipment had a planned 7 year update cycle. MoD managed it after 20 years as they always believe it was better to potentially re-tender work of that nature so the money was used elsewhere - it would have been better value for money to have signed up to planned upgrades at contract start.


In USA supplied systems they are more readily amenable to not compete such work.

Baz

edited to get rid of my pudgy finger typos

Edited July 18, 2017 by Barry O

[duncan]

Interesting that, according to the government, warships can't be built outside the UK (Scottish independence), but the steel can come from abroad 

[Legend]

Interesting that, according to the government, warships can't be built outside the UK (Scottish independence), but the steel can come from abroad

 

I'd suggest that the art of building a warship is completely different from that of steel, although I regret some of it is coming from abroad . I'm not decrying the art of making steel, but at the end of the day it's a lump of metal. A warship is a complex piece of machinery, some of it maybe classified, that requires commissioning, I can't see that being commissioned outside the UK. Of course had it come to Independence there are yards south of the border that could do the work.

 

I've written before I'm not greatly keen on the BAe monopoly , as I think it gives poor value . Might be time to open it up with the Type 31

[Fat Controller]

The Admiralty held a strong influence on UK steelmaking practice between around 1880 and 1960. They specified steel produced by the open hearth process believing it, with some justification, superior to that produced by the Bessemer process. This belief persuaded many other users to follow suit, if it's good enough for the Admiraty....

 

As a consequence, despite it's more widespread use on the continent, the Bessemer process all but died out in this country, having a minor resurrection post 1935.

 

In truth, Bessemer steel was eminently suitable for a great many applications, and more cheaply, if not for those demanding the tightest specifications.

.

Perhaps ironically, given who was to be Britain's most significant military adversary for much of the 20th century, the open-hearth process was developed by a German, Wilhelm Siemens, albeit at a plant in Swansea.

[jamie92208]

This may have been said before but the rules about what can and cannot be built in the home country is all to do with the EU tendering rules. We are allowed to declare that certain items can only be built in the home country for reasons of national security and obviously warships are one of them. Everything else has to be advertised in the EU Journal. The argument about Scotland is that if it becomes independent then we would not be allowed to place an order there without advertising it throughout the rest of the EU, so it has to be built in what remains of the UK.

 

Jamie

[jjb1970]

If papers like the Mirror knew enough to realise just how much foreign equipment is installed on our warships they'd probably start foaming at the mouth over the betrayal of British workers. Fortunately most of it is unimportant stuff like the engines, navigation systems etc.

[Barry O]

engines in a lot are from the UK -- who now also own MTU so can supply diesels as well..

 

Legend.. we don't build enough warships to have a multiple supplier approach - it makes no economic sense. If we had a large navy ordering 2 or three ships a year (and I mean destroyers sized ships) then we could potentially have multiple suppliers. 

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

True, RR own MTU, but the MTU 4000 engines heading for T26 won't be built in the UK, nor were the Wartsila diesels in the QEC.

[billbedford]

This may have been said before but the rules about what can and cannot be built in the home country is all to do with the EU tendering rules. 

 

 

Wasn't always true. The six counties of Northern Ireland are a province of Great Britain largely because various right wing luminaries decided that ships for the Royal Navy couldn't possibly be built in, what was soon to be, a foreign country.

[TomE]

True, RR own MTU, but the MTU 4000 engines heading for T26 won't be built in the UK, nor were the Wartsila diesels in the QEC.

The MT30 gas turbines for both QE & Type 26 are built in Derby though, on the same production line as the Trent 800.

 

Tom.

[jjb1970]

For steel enthusiasts this may be of interest:

 

http://www.gastechevent.com/sites/default/files/20170405-Jiwon-Yu-POSCO.pdf

[jjb1970]

The MT30 gas turbines for both QE & Type 26 are built in Derby though, on the same production line as the Trent 800.

 

Tom.

Indeed the MT30 is British. Unfortunately the diesels (which power these ships for most of their lives, in fact I wonder why T26 has a GT when everybody keeps saying it'll never be used) are and I think people might be disappointed at just how reliant we are on overseas sourced critical equipment in warships.

[jjb1970]

Is the Marine Trent made in Derby? I thought they were made in Bristol, Bristol is the home of their marine GT unit.