The Shrunken Royal Navy

[jjb1970]

The MT30 is a good engine, although RR screwed up a bit by making it too powerful. It was intended to be a 30MW engine (hence the "30" in the name) but they ended up overshooting significantly. Ordinarily you might say that was a good job but the 30MW rating was defined on the basis of that being a nice sweet spot for naval GTs. 

 

Personally I'm not a fan of the mech-drive arrangement of the T26, the same arrangement is used on a few other frigates such as the FREMM. Gearing a single engine onto twin screws seems to combine the worst of both worlds, the single failure vulnerability of one engine, the weight and expense of a large gearbox and without the hydrodynamic benefits of single screw. Gearing twin engines onto a single shaft makes a lot of sense, doing it the other way around isn't ideal.

[Barry O]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting.  Presumably the 'marinised' Trent is not suffering from the problems of the airborne Trent 1000 version on which fan blades are having to be replaced far more frequently than their planned life due to cracking and corrosion?

It wont be flying at high altitude so should be fine.

Baz

[KeithMacdonald]

On 15/09/2019 at 11:24, clachnaharry said:

Portsmouth looked deserted yesterday. I could only see two Type 45s,  one Type 23, one River and two Hunts. No RFA  at all. I guess it means most of the navy is deployed.

 

 

Last time I went past Devonport Plymouth (four weeks ago), it looks similarly deserted. 

 

The only two big RN ships in port were the two Amphibious Warfare Albion class. L14 HMS Abion and L15 HMS Bulwark.

I'm told that both are being mothballed to keep HMS Queen Elizabeth fully funded and crewed.

 

The biggest offensive ship in Devonport was not RN, it was the FGS Baden-Wurttemberg (F222).

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

27 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Last time I went past Devonport Plymouth (four weeks ago), it looks similarly deserted. 

 

The only two big RN ships in port were the two Amphibious Warfare Albion class. L14 HMS Abion and L15 HMS Bulwark.

I'm told that both are being mothballed to keep HMS Queen Elizabeth fully funded and crewed.

 

The biggest offensive ship in Devonport was not RN, it was the FGS Baden-Wurttemberg (F222).

 

 

 

 

The normal past situation with 'Albion' and 'Bulwark' was that one has been in commission while the other is in long refit/reserve with crew, particularly technical officers and ratings, and various components transferring between the two.  Thus currently 'Bulwark' is basically in refit/reserve while 'Albion' is currently in commission.    With 'Prince of Wales' approaching commissioning there will undoubtedly be manpower problems covering both the big carriers plus one of the Albion class vessels so it seems quite possible that they will both effectively be going into reserve/extended maintenance.  Does that possibly mean that PoW will therefore be operating more as a helicopter carrier/floating RM base than as a fully fledged aircraft carrier?

 

Quite to what extent a QE class carrier would be able to operate as an assault ship must be open to question as it would need a considerable complement of large helicopters to achieve the vehicle etc lift capability of the LCDs?

[jjb1970]

The idea of being able to use one of the two QEC carriers as a LPH commando carrier was one of the arguments in favour of building the second Hull. HMS Ocean needed to be replaced or the capability abandoned and although it seems complete overkill in many respects building the second carrier as an alternative wasn't a completely daft idea. Buying a second hand USN LPHD would have been unaffordable in terms of operating costs and designing a new LPH would have added time, would not have been that cheap and delivered a much less capable ship. Or we could have bought a Spanish or French design but neither are particularly well regarded. 

[Legend]

On 28/09/2019 at 16:44, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting.  Presumably the 'marinised' Trent is not suffering from the problems of the airborne Trent 1000 version on which fan blades are having to be replaced far more frequently than their planned life due to cracking and corrosion?

 

Its based on the Trent 800 not Trent 1000 block b and c, which are the engines with fan blade problems

[WessexEclectic]

On 28/09/2019 at 23:04, Barry O said:

It wont be flying at high altitude so should be fine.

Baz

 

Still higher than a "Bucc", 'though....

[duncan]

a "bucc", the british version of an ekranoplan  

[Ohmisterporter]

Save the Royal Navy has this article about the RN's ASW initiatives. 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/royal-navy-begins-initiative-to-maintain-its-anti-submarine-edge/

 

[Ohmisterporter]

From Save the Royal Navy comes this piece on the decision to operate the F-35B VSTOL version rather than go for the more expensive cats and traps. 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/cats-traps-and-claptrap-why-the-royal-navys-new-aircraft-carriers-operate-vstol-aircraft/

[Mike Storey]

9 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

From Save the Royal Navy comes this piece on the decision to operate the F-35B VSTOL version rather than go for the more expensive cats and traps. 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/cats-traps-and-claptrap-why-the-royal-navys-new-aircraft-carriers-operate-vstol-aircraft/

 

Very interesting, including the comments section. Many thanks.

[Ohmisterporter]

Save the Royal Navy has this article about the recent decision to suspend the selection process for building the Fleet Solid Support Ships. Looks like somebody has realised that there is more to buying defence equipment than going for the lowest price. Hope this is of interest.

 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-has-the-royal-navys-fleet-solid-support-ship-competition-been-suspended/

 

[Barry O]

Lummy someone has finally (sort of) said these are strategic .. so no OJEC required.... perhaps we can sort out some of the other OJECd items before we have no defence industry left!

baz

[Mike Storey]

Some hope for Appledore again, albeit building fishing boats.......

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/06/devons-appledore-shipyard-close-to-reopening

[Kingzance]

I welcome the hope that both Appledore and H&W May re-open and that Ferguson’s has been given a stay of execution but I fear that political interference and civil service incompetence may simply result in all this coming round again. The support base for shipbuilding has been steadily destroyed by successive government’s policies such as placing orders for equipment abroad and thereby supporting foreign steel makers thus cutting our own production and moving the emissions caused elsewhere. The Treasury of course likes that because it can levy VAT on imported materials whereas internal production for strategic needs could be exempt. The QE were way over budget, the Type 43’s spend too much time unavailable (partly through manpower admittedly), the Astutes are massively late etc. demonstrating failures in MoD control. As for restricting tendering to the U.K., I wonder how that will be allowed under a LibDem government or coalition as this would not accord with EU rules? As our fishing fleet is almost non-existent and much of it owned by other European interests to get round quotas, one wonders who may order boats from Appledore.

[Mike Storey]

1 minute ago, Kingzance said:

I welcome the hope that both Appledore and H&W May re-open and that Ferguson’s has been given a stay of execution but I fear that political interference and civil service incompetence may simply result in all this coming round again. The support base for shipbuilding has been steadily destroyed by successive government’s policies such as placing orders for equipment abroad and thereby supporting foreign steel makers thus cutting our own production and moving the emissions caused elsewhere. The Treasury of course likes that because it can levy VAT on imported materials whereas internal production for strategic needs could be exempt. The QE were way over budget, the Type 43’s spend too much time unavailable (partly through manpower admittedly), the Astutes are massively late etc. demonstrating failures in MoD control. As for restricting tendering to the U.K., I wonder how that will be allowed under a LibDem government or coalition as this would not accord with EU rules? As our fishing fleet is almost non-existent and much of it owned by other European interests to get round quotas, one wonders who may order boats from Appledore.

 

The order is potentially from the Faroe Islands, and it is HMG who are negotiating it.

 

 

[Fenman]

1 hour ago, Kingzance said:

...

As for restricting tendering to the U.K., I wonder how that will be allowed under a LibDem government or coalition as this would not accord with EU rules? 

...

 

That's simply not true: there is an exemption to the single market for national security, which seemingly every other European country takes advantage of. The UK, for reasons of economic ideology, fetishises "The Market" and so insists on competitive tendering for military equipment that, in other EU countries, would be tendered with national restrictions.

 

Like much else to do with the EU, British politicians make dumb decisions of their own volition, and then blame "Europe" for the consequences of their own incompetence/ ideology.

 

Paul 

[Barry O]

1 hour ago, Kingzance said:

 The Treasury of course likes that because it can levy VAT on imported materials whereas internal production for strategic needs could be exempt. The QE were way over budget, the Type 43’s spend too much time unavailable (partly through manpower admittedly), the Astutes are massively late etc. demonstrating failures in MoD control. As for restricting tendering to the U.K., I wonder how that will be allowed under a LibDem government or coalition as this would not accord with EU rules? 

Wrong.. the way imported items are sourced means for most European items the Treasury can't put any VAT levy on it all (but sourcing stuff from America say means nice trips out to the manufacturers etc by various Civil Servants.

 

Type 43s were late due to the interference of the Civil Servants and the Royal Navy. Ditto the Astutes (as an example the Captain of HMS Astute demanded a "Bentley" car seat..removed one of the heads to stop people using it (it was attached to his berth) etc And also note Boats 1 to 3 are very different to the next batch...

 

The EU do not force the UK to OJEC strategically important systems.. Until this latest Government statement the Civil Servants were not really made aware of what as "Strategic Asset" was.. now they do then..no more OJEC...

 

Baz

Edited November 12, 2019 by Barry O

[Kingzance]

1 hour ago, Fenman said:

 

That's simply not true: there is an exemption to the single market for national security, which seemingly every other European country takes advantage of. The UK, for reasons of economic ideology, fetishises "The Market" and so insists on competitive tendering for military equipment that, in other EU countries, would be tendered with national restrictions.

 

Like much else to do with the EU, British politicians make dumb decisions of their own volition, and then blame "Europe" for the consequences of their own incompetence/ ideology.

 

Paul 

I'm afraid that recent events show that it IS true Paul. Yes, it is the fault of dumb politicians and equally Europhile civil servants but the UK could have bought lorries for the British Army made in Britain, it chose not to do so and helped the demise of truck making here. More recently could have delayed the ordering of four fleet replenishment tankers until yards could accommodate their construction but again, no, that order was placed with South Korea. It promised to build a factory in South Wales to use steel from UK manufacturers to build replacement armoured vehicles and then reneged on that by placing the order with a Spanish company using steel from Sweden to build a vehicle to an Italian design. As you say, it is British politicians and civil servants making those decisions but they are far more keen on being good Europeans than looking after the UK. Germany or France would not be placing such contracts outside their own countries.

[Kingzance]

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

Type 43s were late due to the interference of the Civil Servants and the Royal Navy. Ditto the Astutes (as an example the Captain of HMS Astute demanded a "Bentley" car seat..removed one of the heads to stop people using it (it was attached to his berth) etc And also note Boats 1 to 3 are very different to the next batch...

 

The EU do not force the UK to OJEC strategically important systems.. Until this latest Government statement the Civil Servants were not really made aware of what as "Strategic Asset" was.. now they do then..no more OJEC...

 

Baz

The latest RFA tankers were ordered from South Korea and HM Treasury claimed VAT was due on some or all of that order according to articles in "Save the navy" - articles that have been posted on here. As for the civil servants using OJEC as an excuse to place orders beyond these shores, why have the Whitehall mandarins endlessly allowing that to proliferate unless they are so staunchly pro-Europe at the expense of the UK's own manufacturing? Let's face it, it is those mandarins who determine what politicians are allowed to do in most cases.

 

As to Captains and Admirals causing delays, obviously that happens and should not. If it was possible to strip a captain of his command for the misuse of a Ford Galaxy, delaying the construction of a warship or causing cost over-runs should be a dismissible offence! I am sure that Air Marshals and Generals similarly attempt to get their way but we don't here of that.

[burgundy]

4 hours ago, Kingzance said:

I welcome the hope that both Appledore and H&W May re-open and that Ferguson’s has been given a stay of execution but I fear that political interference and civil service incompetence may simply result in all this coming round again. The support base for shipbuilding has been steadily destroyed by successive government’s policies such as placing orders for equipment abroad and thereby supporting foreign steel makers thus cutting our own production and moving the emissions caused elsewhere. The Treasury of course likes that because it can levy VAT on imported materials whereas internal production for strategic needs could be exempt. The QE were way over budget, the Type 43’s spend too much time unavailable (partly through manpower admittedly), the Astutes are massively late etc. demonstrating failures in MoD control. As for restricting tendering to the U.K., I wonder how that will be allowed under a LibDem government or coalition as this would not accord with EU rules? As our fishing fleet is almost non-existent and much of it owned by other European interests to get round quotas, one wonders who may order boats from Appledore.

I assume that you have read the various iterations of "Defence Industrial Strategy" which are available on the internet? This is an analysis of how defence capability is to be sourced, written by civil servants, with input from industry and endorsed by politicians. More energetic MinDPs (e.g. Lord Drayson) have made positive inputs of their own.

Sector by sector (and they are all different), it looks at the strategic capabilities that we need to keep on-shore, and the relative cost and benefit of doing so. Shipbuilding and armoured vehicles tend to attract the most attention, as both describe areas in which the UK's domestic requirements struggle to support an indigenous capability. We have long since accepted that fast jets are not something that we can afford to do nationally. 

In the maritime area, we established arrangements with the remaining shipbuilding industry that kept it in being - but at the cost of maintaining its marching army whatever the immediate need for ships. I am pretty sure that if I looked back through this and the previous thread on the subject, I would quickly find comments about the excessive cost of UK ships. Simply, that is one consequence of supporting a monopoly on-shore supplier, where that is seen to be strategically essential. Wicked and lazy civil servants, military personnel and colleagues in industry will have worked extremely hard to create a programme that tried to make the best of that shipbuilding capacity - which sometimes has survived the pressures of budgets, politics and medium sized wars having to be fought.  

Damned if you pay to maintain a strategic on-shore capability. Damned if you don't.

Best wishes

Eric     

Edited November 12, 2019 by burgundy

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, Kingzance said:

 As for the civil servants using OJEC as an excuse to place orders beyond these shores, why have the Whitehall mandarins endlessly allowing that to proliferate unless they are so staunchly pro-Europe at the expense of the UK's own manufacturing? Let's face it, it is those mandarins who determine what politicians are allowed to do in most cases. 

 

As a minor point of detail, OJEC is not so much an excuse as a legal obligation; there are legal sanctions if you choose to ignore it. 

Previous UK governments (of both complexions) have been great enthusiasts for OJEC as a means to open bidding opportunities in Europe to UK industry - with considerable success. Competitive tender provides the benefit of diversity of solution as much as pressure on price. 

Best wishes

Eric  

[Barry O]

Hi Eric,

 

but the latest Government move has meant that the "Strategic" door has been wedged wide open.. probably as the South Korean ships were late, not fit for purpose and the Shipyards made it difficult for the Navy/MoD to do any changes without severe time and money costs being imposed.

 

As the UK Land Sector industry has been destroyed by the "OJEC" or nothing approach let us hope this latest shift in policy to what seems to me as a true holistic approach may see more export orders for our yards..strangely enough buying from overseas means we don't make any money on future orders of the object bought... clearly not delivering good value to the UK Tax Payer.

 

Which EU Countries have been found wanting in this area? Not France or Germany our two largest defence competitors in Europe....

 

Baz

[Barry O]

1 hour ago, Kingzance said:

The latest RFA tankers were ordered from South Korea and HM Treasury claimed VAT was due on some or all of that order according to articles in "Save the navy" - articles that have been posted on here. As for the civil servants using OJEC as an excuse to place orders beyond these shores, why have the Whitehall mandarins endlessly allowing that to proliferate unless they are so staunchly pro-Europe at the expense of the UK's own manufacturing? Let's face it, it is those mandarins who determine what politicians are allowed to do in most cases.

 

As to Captains and Admirals causing delays, obviously that happens and should not. If it was possible to strip a captain of his command for the misuse of a Ford Galaxy, delaying the construction of a warship or causing cost over-runs should be a dismissible offence! I am sure that Air Marshals and Generals similarly attempt to get their way but we don't here of that.

So the Treasury charge VAT on something they are buying.. then claim it back....off themselves....

 

As I have been in the front line of this for a number of years (although not as long as Burgundy) there are lots of reasons why people want to buy from abroad.

 

Trying to nail someone for cost over runs....I had a very thorough going over by the National Audit Office .. to my face they told me 95% of all delays were due to the Army and DPA ..there written report gave 100% of the blame to Industry

 

baz

[polybear]

4 hours ago, Kingzance said:

As for the civil servants using OJEC as an excuse to place orders beyond these shores, why have the Whitehall mandarins endlessly allowing that to proliferate unless they are so staunchly pro-Europe at the expense of the UK's own manufacturing?

 

Easy.  Regular jollies to foreign shores (As it's been mentioned above, and as an example, I've worked in South Korea three times - two of which were this years;  nice place and friendly people - loved it).  Great for overtime and travel time too, with a shed load of BA Air Miles in Business Class.  No brainer.  Cynical?  Nope....

(p.s. I'm not a Civil Servant...!!)