The shrinking Royal Navy

[jamie92208]

There is a book called "The Battleship Builders" that goes into detail about how we built the Grand Fleet in WW1 and the fleet that we had in WW2.  It examines both the technical aspects of how we did it and the political and financial aspects of the pre WW1 arms race.   I can't remember the exact figures but we put a very large percentage of GDP into building up the navy.  The other aspect is that between the wars, despite the strained economics the government spent a large amount of money ensuring that certain strategic capabilities were maintained.  The one I can remember was that of Armour plate and I think heavy gun barrel construction.    

 

From what I know about the current situation, we very nearly lost the ability to build nuclear subs and had to spend a lot of money learning that skill.   It worries me that other such skills may be lost.

 

Jamie

 

PS the book is now in a certain large barn.

[Barry O]

Completely spot on Jamie. However, I guess no-one has declared we are in an arms race, quite yet? I would guess that such a climate would speed things up, as it did then. I seem to recall that rather less was built for the RN between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and 1895? (apart from a brief arms race with those damned Russkies in the 1850's.)

 

The issue is, could we ramp up anymore, if needed? Given the complications of modern naval systems, how much notice would we need, against how much would we have, and what would we need, for what situation?

 

A good start would be to give the ships we have got, or are about to get, the necessary defensive firepower needed. With all my naval warfare qualifications, bought from Trump University (I am engaged in seeking a refund - fret not), I simply do not understand why we are not building more of those thingies that go under the water, instead of on top of it? We seem to be able to knock those off PDQ. if asked.

The Astute Class has taken an awfully long time to build. Normally the oat builds would speed up as the class progresses but they haven't as yet.. there are several reasons for this...

[Mike Storey]

There is a book called "The Battleship Builders" that goes into detail about how we built the Grand Fleet in WW1 and the fleet that we had in WW2.  It examines both the technical aspects of how we did it and the political and financial aspects of the pre WW1 arms race.   I can't remember the exact figures but we put a very large percentage of GDP into building up the navy.  The other aspect is that between the wars, despite the strained economics the government spent a large amount of money ensuring that certain strategic capabilities were maintained.  The one I can remember was that of Armour plate and I think heavy gun barrel construction.    

 

From what I know about the current situation, we very nearly lost the ability to build nuclear subs and had to spend a lot of money learning that skill.   It worries me that other such skills may be lost.

 

Jamie

 

PS the book is now in a certain large barn.

 

Mildew exists here Jamie, mildew........

[2750Papyrus]

Completely spot on Jamie. However, I guess no-one has declared we are in an arms race, quite yet? I would guess that such a climate would speed things up, as it did then. I seem to recall that rather less was built for the RN between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and 1895? (apart from a brief arms race with those damned Russkies in the 1850's.)

 

The issue is, could we ramp up anymore, if needed? Given the complications of modern naval systems, how much notice would we need, against how much would we have, and what would we need, for what situation?

 

A good start would be to give the ships we have got, or are about to get, the necessary defensive firepower needed. With all my naval warfare qualifications, bought from Trump University (I am engaged in seeking a refund - fret not), I simply do not understand why we are not building more of those thingies that go under the water, instead of on top of it? We seem to be able to knock those off PDQ. if asked.

 

It's not just about hardware, there is also a major problem with regard to crewing the limited number of ships that do exist.  Ten years ago a former CPO told me that ships sailed with up to 30% less complement than they were designed for, and a number of ships have been taken out of service because they cannot be crewed. 

 

25 years ago, following the break-up of the Warsaw Pact, there was a demand for a "peace dividend" because of the perceived reduced threat.  Maybe we now need a "Peace Investment" due to the apparent increased threat?  Increasing recruitment and retention programmes would, in the short term, enable existing ships to be retained and fully crewed. Similarly, I would have thought F35 procurement could be accelerated fairly easily so that the carriers could operate the air groups they were designed for.  Increasing the ship build programme is probably more difficult politically/financially

[Keith George]

Well, given the BBC2 program was billed as 9 years in the making they seem to have forgotten the first 7.5 years, but interesting non the less. 

 

Tom. 

 

The big question is, will the kernow D6xx take longer to enter service than HMS Queen Elizqbeth.?  

[Ozexpatriate]

There is a book called "The Battleship Builders" that goes into detail about how we built the Grand Fleet in WW1 and the fleet that we had in WW2.  It examines both the technical aspects of how we did it and the political and financial aspects of the pre WW1 arms race.

...I believe we also have more admirals than ships .

 Interestingly enough, Churchill's decision (at the urging of the recently retired Jackie Fisher) to switch the Royal Navy from coal to oil was primarily motivated by a staffing problem. Oil fired ships did not require stokers, dramatically reducing the necessary complement required. Historically of course, in the days of sail we all know the stories of the press gangs.

 

It would seem that staffing the Royal Navy at a level to address serious combat has never been easy whatever our rose-tinted rear view spectacles suggest..

[jjb1970]

Jackie Fisher's real achievement was in some ways too subtle for many. He is remembered for initiating the all big gun capital ship revolution and his legendary feuds with Beresford, half the Royal Navy and British political establishment and his particularly fertile mind and receptiveness to technical innovation and quite rightly considered the greatest administrator the RN ever had. However the real achievement of his administrative genius is not really appreciated, it wasn't so much for technical innovation per se, or his man power reforms or his reorientation of the RN to be ready to fight in home waters but rather the fact that he managed to do what most administrators and civil servants of our age today would consider to be impossible - he reduced the naval estimates significantly whilst simultaneously achieving a massive increase in the effectiveness of the fleet. His ruthless disposal of old ships, manpower reforms and technical modernisation managed to achieve the holy grail of administrators - making something better at the same time as making it cheaper. The arms race with Germany undid his cost savings, but without his efficiencies and reforms the cost to Britain of the arms race would have been far more ruinous.

[Barry O]

Astute Class has a smaller crew than the T Class boats they replace.

 

baz

[jamie92208]

 Interestingly enough, Churchill's decision (at the urging of the recently retired Jackie Fisher) to switch the Royal Navy from coal to oil was primarily motivated by a staffing problem. Oil fired ships did not require stokers, dramatically reducing the necessary complement required. Historically of course, in the days of sail we all know the stories of the press gangs.

 

It would seem that staffing the Royal Navy at a level to address serious combat has never been easy whatever our rose-tinted rear view spectacles suggest..

 

And to provide the oil he bought into the Anglo Persian Oil Company which IIRC had a German sales subsidiary called British Petroleum.

 

Jamie

[62613]

And to provide the oil he bought into the Anglo Persian Oil Company which IIRC had a German sales subsidiary called British Petroleum.

 

Jamie

Not quite. Churchill urged the government to buy a 50% stake in the newly-formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1912, with the right to appoint two directors to the board. In the event the government appointees were as sinecures for retired civil servants, and so on. At least that's what it used to say in the front of my BP diary (when all their employees were given one).

[jamie92208]

Not quite. Churchill urged the government to buy a 50% stake in the newly-formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1912, with the right to appoint two directors to the board. In the event the government appointees were as sinecures for retired civil servants, and so on. At least that's what it used to say in the front of my BP diary (when all their employees were given one).

 

Thanks.  I couldn't remember the percentage.   I spent 8 months working for BP in 71 doing a sort of gap year at Sunbury on Thames.   

 

Jamie

[peach james]

# of persons required on a warship is really only dependent on the damage control prospective of the country that built it, at least until you get to aircraft carriers.

 

Since most combat systems are wooden (can't be changed physically by crew), you don't need that many weapons tech's onboard.  Since CODOG is the usual propulsion method, and the GT's are a box (put fuel in one end, get HP out the other), you don't need that many Mar Eng.  Leaves you with combat crew, and those are #'s heavy at least on RCN ships to provide lots of training chances.  Once Vampire, Vampire, Decreasing Range, Constant Bearing, then as long as you are prepared to let a LS do their job without micro-mis-managing them, then they can use the track ball and engage as well as the MS and the PO can...

 

Its only in low intensity stuff that a large crew is really helpful- after an exocet hit, or a harpoon, Mk 48, (or Shipwreck, ect...) then it doesn't matter how many crew you had on a FF sized ship, they are all having a rough day.  Just remember to dog the watertight doors, as your end MAY float !

 

 

James

[manna]

# of persons required on a warship is really only dependent on the damage control prospective of the country that built it, at least until you get to aircraft carriers.

 

Since most combat systems are wooden (can't be changed physically by crew), you don't need that many weapons tech's onboard.  Since CODOG is the usual propulsion method, and the GT's are a box (put fuel in one end, get HP out the other), you don't need that many Mar Eng.  Leaves you with combat crew, and those are #'s heavy at least on RCN ships to provide lots of training chances.  Once Vampire, Vampire, Decreasing Range, Constant Bearing, then as long as you are prepared to let a LS do their job without micro-mis-managing them, then they can use the track ball and engage as well as the MS and the PO can...

 

Its only in low intensity stuff that a large crew is really helpful- after an exocet hit, or a harpoon, Mk 48, (or Shipwreck, ect...) then it doesn't matter how many crew you had on a FF sized ship, they are all having a rough day.  Just remember to dog the watertight doors, as your end MAY float !

 

 

James

G'Day Folks

 

HMAS Torrens, Torpedo target..............it worked.

 

manna

[Ohmisterporter]

From Save the royal navy blog is this article about the faults on HMS Forth that are being rectified under warranty. Some interesting stuff here: bolt heads being broken off and glued back in place among them. Not a new problem; this goes back to the days of sail when long bolts went through the ribs and bolted planks onto the frame. Unscrupulous shipyard owners "allegedly" would save money by only using a short bolt driven into the wood on each side. With thousands of bolts being used the savings could be substantial. There is no way of confirming how many ships and their crews were lost due to this corrupt practice but there were many reports of substandard bolts being discovered and replaced at the Navy's expense and total denial on the part of the builders.

A second concern for me is how can a self respecting tradesman do something like that? I spent most of my working life in engineering companies in inspection and quality engineering and found all sorts of dodges that probably cost the culprit more in time than if they had done the job properly in the first place. And for my efforts I was know as "That pedantic bastard". Just do the job right first time.

 

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/storm-in-a-teacup-a-setback-for-the-royal-navys-newest-ship-hms-forth/

Edited May 3, 2018 by Ohmisterporter

[jjb1970]

Welcome to the world of shipbuilding..... To be honest the yard building these doesn't have the best reputation.

[The Stationmaster]

Is HMS Forth the only RN vessel to have three bridges?

[pete_mcfarlane]

Perhaps the glued on bolts could be saved, put in a frame, and presented to Wee Jimmie Krankie next time she's demanding that everything is built on the Clyde? 

[JeremyC]

From Save the royal navy blog is this article about the faults on HMS Forth that are being rectified under warranty. Some interesting stuff here: bolt heads being broken off and glued back in place among them. Not a new problem; this goes back to the days of sail when long bolts went through the ribs and bolted planks onto the frame. Unscrupulous shipyard owners "allegedly" would save money by only using a short bolt driven into the wood on each side. With thousands of bolts being used the savings could be substantial. There is no way of confirming how many ships and their crews were lost due to this corrupt practice but there were many reports of substandard bolts being discovered and replaced at the Navy's expense and total denial on the part of the builders.

A second concern for me is how can a self respecting tradesman do something like that? I spent most of my working life in engineering companies in inspection and quality engineering and found all sorts of dodges that probably cost the culprit more in time than if they had done the job properly in the first place. And for my efforts I was know as "That pedantic bastard". Just do the job right first time.

 

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/storm-in-a-teacup-a-setback-for-the-royal-navys-newest-ship-hms-forth/

If they are on piece work some tradesmen don't care about the quality of the work and will take short cuts to make more money if they can get away with it. When I was a engineering cadet in the early 1970s there were stories about some yards where it was the practice for welders to put in a root weld, lay some welding rods on top and put a capping weld over the lot.

[Bon Accord]

Perhaps the glued on bolts could be saved, put in a frame, and presented to Wee Jimmie Krankie next time she's demanding that everything is built on the Clyde? 

 

Well bearing in mind she's been the Govan constituency MSP for nearly 20 years I doubt it'd go down particularly well with her constituents if she didn't.

[Bon Accord]

If they are on piece work some tradesmen don't care about the quality of the work and will take short cuts to make more money if they can get away with it. When I was a engineering cadet in the early 1970s there were stories about some yards where it was the practice for welders to put in a root weld, lay some welding rods on top and put a capping weld over the lot.

 

The good ship British Spirit (last ship built by Scott-Lithgow) was riddled with exactly that kind of stuff, hardly surprising though considering the workers knew their time was up so why should they care. She was very much an old ship well before her time, as were here sisters - the book is waiting to be written on that class.

It was exactly the same story with the last two ships built by Harland and Wolff, I sailed in both as well as their four German built sisters and the difference between both sets was pretty stark. The Belfast ships were always the happiest of the 6 oddly enough.

Swan Hunters didn't particularly cover themselves in glory latterly either, as for Haverton Hill....

Old fashioned yards, old fashioned equipment, no real meaningful investment and expansion and no future for the workers beyond the next newbuild - it's no surprise what goes on. However I suppose it's worth remembering that some pretty shoddy stuff goes on in nearly every shipyard everywhere on the planet, the only difference is the type of management and quality control in place.

[62613]

 

 no future for the workers beyond the next newbuild

 

I remember watching a programme on Clydeside shipbuilding, and Jimmy Reid (remember him?) said just that; once you'd done your part of the job, unless there was another one started, you were out of work - a bit like contractors in engineering today

[polybear]

If they are on piece work some tradesmen don't care about the quality of the work and will take short cuts to make more money if they can get away with it. When I was a engineering cadet in the early 1970s there were stories about some yards where it was the practice for welders to put in a root weld, lay some welding rods on top and put a capping weld over the lot.

 

My first boss used to work at Vickers at Barrow In Furness.  They had an ex-RN Conventional sub come in for scrapping; the wrong side of 20+ years old.  The man from Lloyds Insurance took one look and said "no chance" re: insurance to cover sailing down to the scrappies (south wales?).  They sweet-talked him, so to cover his ar5e he asked for some x-rays to be done.  One of which showed up a bl00dy great WW tap stuffed into the joint where two sections of the pressurised hull were welded together....

They recon the welder forgot to wind the current back down for the first weld, and as a consequence blew a hole in the joint.  Knowing he'd be in serious sh1t if he owned up he promptly stuffed a suitable object in the joint in the hole and welded over the top sharpish.

The Lloyds man "done his nut", but saw sense when Vickers pointed out that if it was going to let go then it would've years ago....

[TomE]

I notice last week that out of the 5 Type 45's that are currently crewed, 4 were out at sea at the same time. Must be the highest rate of activity for the type for a long time and hopefully signals that the propulsion unit troubles are coming to an end. 

 

Tom. 

[Bon Accord]

 no future for the workers beyond the next newbuild

 

I remember watching a programme on Clydeside shipbuilding, and Jimmy Reid (remember him?) said just that; once you'd done your part of the job, unless there was another one started, you were out of work - a bit like contractors in engineering today

 

Things were pretty grim then in shipbuilding and in all honesty I can't see them having improved much. Some are trying though. I was in Greenock recently and was chatting to some Ferguson's old hands in the pub one night and they reckon that with regard to working conditions it's like night and day with the new owner compared to the previous incumbents, the latter can't take much flak for that however as they kept the yard going out of sheer benevolence than anything else and lost a lot of money in the process. The new owner has very deep pockets and the wholescale remodelling of the yard and modern facilities being built bear testament to it.

As for Jimmy Reid, I didn't have much truck with some of his politics but I still have the greatest respect for the man and what he achieved, as did many.

[jjb1970]

I think it is worth remembering some of the horror stories of British (and European) ship yards when we read some of the stories that float around about Chinese ship yards. Not that I'm oblivious to the issues with Chinese ship yards (I suspect I'm more familiar with some of them than most) but there is more than an element of pots calling kettles black in some of the stories.