pete_mcfarlane Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 It was semi-seriously suggested in the Lords about 10 years ago that the best solution to the Afghanistan problem was to use enhanced radiation weapons to deny use of the border passes leading out of the country, and then leave them to it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said: deny use of the border passes Were any Lords chanting "build the wall"? How silly. The division of "Pashtunistan" (aka the Durand Line) or perhaps more accurately Sir Mortimer Durand's folly, is just one of many colonial geopolitical legacies that reaches down from history to make lives miserable every single day. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said: Were any Lords chanting "build the wall"? How silly. This is the Lords, so they'd be copying Hadrian (or Antonine) rather than The Donald, when it came to wall building. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 28 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28 10 hours ago, J. S. Bach said: And the F4 Phantom! Wasn't that the other way around, a naval aircraft which migrated to land? There's a long tradition of naval aircraft making excellent land based machines. Being designed for the rigors of carrier operation means they're built tough and to operate in harsh environments. Examples include the F18 Hornet, A7 Corsair and A4 Skyhawk. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 28 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28 5 hours ago, burgundy said: The dynamics are quite complicated. If you buy cheap, it usually means that you buy from the US, with the advantage that it gives you standardisation. You are, however, stepping onto an escalator, as the US is pretty good at product improvement and the cheapest way to get support is to stay in step. You are therefore pretty much committed to following the US lead and may incur costs that you had not intended. The US is also sometimes inclined to give you an "export version", which is not quite the same as theirs. If you support your own industry, it creates jobs and technology (which always goes down well with politicians and voters), but it also gives you greater freedom of action. In the event of a Trump presidency, with the threat of leaving Europe to its own devices, that may suddenly become a rather important issue. Best wishes Eric I knew a few RN people that advocated buying US for this reason. I'd emphasise their position was nuanced in that they identified some systems and technologies that the UK did very well and which should be supported, but others less so or where they considered arguments for aligning with the US compelling. Their main argument was less about affordability up front but through life support and upgrades to keep equipment current. A lot of British and European gear is superb when delivered but they then struggle to invest the necessary funding to keep up with advances, whereas although a lot of US gear might not be the best, it gets constant upgrades and something which might seem unimpressive today could be much better than the shinier alternatives ten years down the line. 3 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium J. S. Bach Posted January 28 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28 2 hours ago, jjb1970 said: Wasn't that the other way around, a naval aircraft which migrated to land? There's a long tradition of naval aircraft making excellent land based machines. Being designed for the rigors of carrier operation means they're built tough and to operate in harsh environments. Examples include the F18 Hornet, A7 Corsair and A4 Skyhawk. As I recall, the then SecDef McNamara wanted a joint Navy/Air Farce plane. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 28 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28 7 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said: It was semi-seriously suggested in the Lords about 10 years ago that the best solution to the Afghanistan problem was to use enhanced radiation weapons to deny use of the border passes leading out of the country, and then leave them to it. That's one of those barking ideas that goes around. The first time I read it was the same basic idea to stop infiltration into Israel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Quote Houthis attack British-linked tanker Marlin Luanda in Gulf of Aden A tanker with links to the UK was on fire for several hours in the Gulf of Aden after being hit by a missile fired by the Houthis. The Iran-backed movement, based in Yemen, said it targeted the Marlin Luanda on Friday in response to "American-British aggression". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68110358 Rescued by the Indian Navy Quote The Indian Navy led by the INS Visakhapatnam was among the first rescue team to respond to the stricken Marlin Luanda after it was hit by a missile fired by the Houthis. It was reportedly on fire for a lengthy amount of time, by some accounts over six hours, before the blaze was extinguished by the Indian Navy. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/british-oil-tanker-carrying-russian-naphta-fire-red-sea-after-houthi-missile-strike Quote INS Visakhapatnam is the lead ship and the first of the Visakhapatnam-class stealth guided-missile destroyers of the Indian Navy. The ship, commissioned on 21 November 2021, is one of the largest destroyers in service with the Indian Navy. The keel of Visakhapatnam was laid down on 12 October 2013 and she was launched on 20 April 2015 at Mazagon Dock Limited of Mumbai. This was made under Make In India initiative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Visakhapatnam_(D66) Oct 2013 to Apr 2015 is impressively fast? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 8 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said: Oct 2013 to Apr 2015 is impressively fast? But what state was it in when launched? IIRC their recent aircraft carrier was launched as pretty much an empty shell with no island or machinery. This one seems to have taken them over 5 years to commission, which suggests it was launched in a similar condition. Edited January 28 by pete_mcfarlane 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Launching warships in little more than a hull and basic superstructure is quite common. The superstructure, armament, engines, electrical fittings, and so much more that I cannot think of it all at the moment is done in fitting out docks. 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 30 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30 It's very common in commercial shipbuilding. Shipbuilders in high cost countries like Norway will often build the hull in a lower cost country and tow it to Norway (for example) to be fitted out and for higher value work. 1 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 i see the black sea fleet have lost another ship to the none existent Ukrainian navy maybe time to start a shrinking black sea fleet thread ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Liverpool are having a new Mersey ferry built. Originally the hull'n'superstructure was to be built elsewhere and towed to Cammel Lairds in Birkenhead to be fitted out. The latest wheeze is to have the whole lot done at Lairds... On a smaller scale, when my parents were getting a narrowboat many (many) years ago, the options were much the same. Hull'n'superstructure, with windows and doors, with engine, fully fitted. It allowed you to get the boat at the level where you felt comfortable at being to complete it. 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 2 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2 If Britain was serious about re-entering shipbuilding we would need to seriously modernise our yards, not just in terms of hardware but also management and working practices. One of the problems is we don't build enough ships to rebuild the expertise we had up until the 70's. The most sensible thing to do would be to do what Korea and China did, bring in experts to provide the expertise we don't have and to train locals, in this case it'd be us going to Korea or China to attract talent. 6 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 2 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2 A few years ago the government pushed a 'merger' of the VT and BAE yards to create a national warship building champion and to try and create a builder with sufficient work from MoD orders to be attractive on an ongoing basis. It wasn't a bad idea (though Portsmouth lost out despite VT tending to be better regarded) but they almost immediately started whinging about a monopoly position and issuing pork barrel contracts to any yard with somewhere to weld a few steel plates and so returned back to the scenario of yards fighting over scraps that couldn't sustain all of them from the MoD. 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 23 hours ago, jjb1970 said: If Britain was serious about re-entering shipbuilding we would need to seriously modernise our yards, not just in terms of hardware but also management and working practices. One of the problems is we don't build enough ships to rebuild the expertise we had up until the 70's. The most sensible thing to do would be to do what Korea and China did, bring in experts to provide the expertise we don't have and to train locals, in this case it'd be us going to Korea or China to attract talent. Can't imagine you'd have much success trying to re-onshore expertise from China.... There's also the not-so-small matter that our government (and these days, that means any likely government) would rather be accused of molesting choirboys in public lavatories, than on concentrating on training the existing local population. I've seen this done in places like Azerbaijzn and Kazakhstan and I know the level of application and focus needed to produce meaningful results. We could do it; after all, we built the Selby coalfields and developed the North Sea with, by modern standards virtually nil migrant Labour, but now? Not so much.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 20 hours ago, jjb1970 said: A few years ago the government pushed a 'merger' of the VT and BAE yards to create a national warship building champion and to try and create a builder with sufficient work from MoD orders to be attractive on an ongoing basis. It wasn't a bad idea (though Portsmouth lost out despite VT tending to be better regarded) but they almost immediately started whinging about a monopoly position and issuing pork barrel contracts to any yard with somewhere to weld a few steel plates and so returned back to the scenario of yards fighting over scraps that couldn't sustain all of them from the MoD. Well, exactly. The Dutch have established a dominant position in wind farm construction, dredging and land reclamation because their government wished it to happen. The Germans and Danes have done the same for generating power. The Germans, French and Danes for power transmission. The French for onshore power generation - look at the quite disgraceful deal the British government signed with EDF. A few years ago I was working on an MoD jetty which sourced its piles from Turkey and Poland; the Poles having nationalised their shipyards for the purpose. Draw any conclusion you wish from this. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Meanwhile I see we are sending HMS Prince of Wales to the Gulf with no planes. Haven't I heard this before somewhere? Hope it isn't accompanied by HMS Repulse, assuming the name is still in commission... 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 On 27/01/2024 at 14:15, jjb1970 said: There tends to be a pendulum effect of veering between buy at home and buy overseas because the home made stuff isn't very good (assisted by Roger Ford's seventh law) For reference, the full set: Quote First Law ‘Never assume railways are rational organisations’ Second Law ‘You can’t have too many spanners’ Third Law ‘Always mistrust schedules based on the seasons’ Fourth Law ‘When in doubt – build a demonstrator’ Fifth Law ‘Any change to a prototype will be for the worst’ Sixth Law ‘Don’t engage in joint ventures with the French’ Seventh Law ‘The attractiveness of technology is directly proportional to the square of the distance of its factory of origin from London’ Eighth Law ‘Nothing works out of the box’ Ninth Law ‘Do not try to solve physical design shortcomings with software’ Tenth Law ‘If something has to be claimed as declared “world-beating” it almost certainly isn’t’ Eleventh Law ‘A claim that “safety is our first priority” or “safety is paramount” usually follows an event that proves it isn’t’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ford_(journalist) 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundy Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) First law of project management - " sh1t happens". Best wishes Eric Edited February 3 by burgundy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 On 02/02/2024 at 07:54, jjb1970 said: in this case it'd be us going to Korea or China to attract talent. Oh the irony! (Scott Lithgow etc) Quote International Transfer of Tacit Knowledge: The Transmission of Shipbuilding Skills from Scotland to South Korea in the Early 1970s ~ This article presents and analyzes another important means of knowledge transfer: the acquisition of tacit knowledge in the form of shipbuilding skills, including shipyard processes and operations. This transfer was mainly accomplished through the “import” of foreign managers and the dispatch abroad of South Korean employees. One important element, which we investigate in detail, was the Korean personnel that HHI sent in 1972 to the Scott Lithgow shipyards in Scotland to observe and learn. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-society/article/abs/international-transfer-of-tacit-knowledge-the-transmission-of-shipbuilding-skills-from-scotland-to-south-korea-in-the-early-1970s/FA897DE6FC34C0FD0C03F41A6F0A1BE4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 3 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3 The Korean's still demonstrate a genuine appreciation of what British ship building experts did for them in the 70's. Later on they did something similar with Norwegian experts in LNG. Spending time in their yards is simultaneously impressive and a bit depressing. Impressive because of the efficiency of everything and commitment to getting it right, depressing because it just highlights the vast gulf between us now. And they're under intense pressure themselves from China (who in turn are feeling heat from emerging shipbuilding nations like Vietnam), the Korean yards have been through a terrible few years financially. 1 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 3 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3 Something I found commendable about the Korean yards is they're not interested in variation orders. In much of Europe suppliers pretty much rely on a steady stream of variation orders, there's a culture of bidding low and then making it back on variations. The culture in the Korean yards is that the interruption to their production processes far outweighs the value of a variation. They build what is agreed in the contract and their view is it's better to build the ship and modify it after delivery if that's what the customer wants. Design capacity and building halls and docks are too valuable to tie up with variation order work, it is shocking to anyone steeped in the variation order culture. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 56 minutes ago, jjb1970 said: The culture in the Korean yards is that the interruption to their production processes far outweighs the value of a variation. Which reminds me of time I spent with GEC Traction in Preston. Where production was continually interrupted by variations that had been sold and promised (to boost short-term sales and profits). The end result was everything was delivered late, with massive waste of time and materials. Because of the design variations, earlier production runs of components became stock-piles of unwanted material that would eventually get scrapped. Oh, and the late delivery often triggered penalty clauses in the contracts, which meant the value of all that work was reduced anyway. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 4 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 4 Well, that went well: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/britain-s-flagship-35bn-aircraft-carrier-hms-queen-elizabeth-pulled-off-major-nato-drill-due-to-mechanical-fault/ar-BB1hKr4a 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now