Concerns about the RN's new Assault Ships

[SteveO]

Quotes from Richard Beedall's excellent website Navy Matters
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html

Although the ships now finally proudly fly the white ensign, outstanding concerns remains their build quality. So much rework has been required, and so many defects were identified by crew members during acceptance testing and contractor trials, that wags refer to them as "the ships that were built twice".

While the shipyard had most of the necessary facilities, its staff was largely unprepared for the challenges of building modern warships. The construction work was allegedly very disorganised because the management at Barrow simply did not have the necessary project skills and experience, and the workforce was also inadequately skilled and unmotivated – the later not helped by the knowledge that many of them were likely to be made redundant when the ships completed. The ships were finally delivered about 19 months later than planned, and costs had ballooned to about £790 million (excluding a loss made by BAE Systems).

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED SUSTAINED MILITARY MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY!

[Victor]

Originally Posted by SteveO

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED SUSTAINED MILITARY MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY!

This is why very few countries in the future will be able to produce large military platforms. It not only takes wads of cash to build these things but also takes large wads to retain the corporate competence to build them later. Ask the British about the troubles they are having maintaining the requisite level of SSN and SSBN manufacturing capabilities, for e.g.

[SteveO]

How hard does it have to be?

The RN wants to operate 20-30 escorts, each with a service life of 20-30 years, so the obvious solution would be to build 1 a year.
The same applies to subs, carriers, amphibs and RFA ships. 1 sub and 1 RFA every 2 years and 1 carrier or amphib every 5 years.

This would bring about stable employment, skills retention, better build quality and stable and predictable costs.

[Ja Worsley]

My personal thoughts are that the RN is loosing focus on it's main objective (that of protecting the Queens vast empire). I had heard that there is a movement growning over there about a push for England to become a republic, The RN is reflecting this in it's actions and policy more and more these days. No longer does the RN sail the great oceans protecting it's land in far distant places, these days they are lucky to leave their ports to hop across the channel. Yes there are exceptions, but the government of England is so worried about how much money they are spending and where the next lot is coming from that they seem to be forgetting their main doctrine. This is just my humble oppinion.

[SteveO]

Ja Worsley

The RN knows what its job is, but it keeps getting less and less money and resources to do it with. The only vast empire in the UK is the civil service and as for England becoming a republic the only people who want that are the ones who want more politicians and civil servants.

[Jonesy]

Steve is exactly right on all counts there. The UK republican movement is a very, very quiet one. If anything the future of the monarchy is looking far steadier than it has at any time for the past few generations. A photogenic and unattached future King William is every tabloid toads wet dream. That will ensure very poor coverage of any anti-monarchy sentiment in the UK media and, as we saw over Iraq, the general populace tends to react solely on what its told by the media.

On the more important issue, the Royal Navy, the plans have been put in place, in the 98 SDR, to reorient the fleet towards expeditionary warfare. The CVF's, the new Astute SSNs, the T45's, the revitalisation of our Amphibious and Sealift capabilities and the heavy focus on netcentric warfighting are all the key systems to delivering a very comprehensive rapid deployment all-arms force. The problem, and this is highlighted by the issue of the Albion titling the thread, is that the MoD is being forced, by the treasury, to try and get it all on the cheap.

Look at the price for two state-of-the-art 20k ton LPD's - £790 million for both!. Hell the PLAN paid more than that to finish off a pair of half built Sovremenny's and as Richard Beedall's site states 'The £790 million figure is believed to be the total cost to the MOD of the LPD(R) capability include design and development costs, landing craft, and all command, control and communications systems ordered under separate contracts.'

I recall the mess that was found when HMS Ocean went into operational service. They found that the osmosis plant couldn't provide enough potable water for the ships needs and had to add another unit - now that is a serious design screwup. Certainly a lot more significant than a few bent bulkheads and some shabby welding on the pipework, but, it was sorted out and the ship has performed sterling service. Bulwark put into A&P (Cammell Lairds) a few weeks back for pre-delivery painting and I've heard nothing bad said about her condition from anyone at the yard. From the outside she looked pretty good when she sailed.


Bulwark in the Mersey (photo credit: Philip Parker, Mersey Shipping)

As to what you were saying about needing to build ships year on year Steve, well, historically that has been quite the case. These are the laid-down dates of major warships over the past 20 years:

1980: 1 Type22-2 (HMS Beaver F93), 2 Type42 (HMS Edinburgh D97, HMS York D98) 1 T-Class SSN (HMS Turbulent S87)

1981: 1 T-Class SSN (HMS Tireless S88)

1982: 1 Type22-2 (HMS Brave F94), 1 T-Class SSN (HMS Torbay S90)

1983: 1 Type22-2 (HMS London F95), 1 Type22-3 (HMS Cornwall F99)

1984: 2 Type22-2 (HMS Sheffield F96, HMS Coventry F98), 1 Type22-3 (HMS Cumberland F85)

1985: 1 Type22-3 (HMS Campbeltown F86), 1 Type23 (HMS Norfolk F230), 1 T-Class SSN (HMS Trenchant S91)

1986: 1 Type22-3 (HMS Chatham F87), 1 1 T-Class SSN (HMS Talent S92), 1 V-Class SSBN (HMS Vanguard S28)

1987: 3 Type23 (HMS Argyll F231, HMS Lancaster F229, HMS Marlborough F233), 1 T-Class SSN (HMS Triumph S93), 1 V-Class SSBN (HMS Victorious S29)

1988: 1 Type23 (HMS Iron Duke F234)

1989: 2 Type23 (HMS Monmouth F235, HMS Montrose F236)

1991: 2 Type23 (HMS Westminster F237, HMS Northhumberland F238), 1 V-Class SSBN (HMS Vigilant S30)

1992: 2 Type23 (HMS Richmond F239, HMS Somerset F82)

1993: 2 Type23 (HMS Grafton F80, HMS Sutherland F81)

1994: 1 O-Class LPH (HMS Ocean L12)

1995:

1996:

1997: 1 Type23 (HMS Kent F78)

1998: 1 Type23 (HMS Portland F79)

1999: 1 Type23 (HMS StAlbans F83)

So apart from the period starting from the mid-90's the UK shipbuilding industry did quite well out of the MoD. The mid-90's should have seen the Horizon AAW escort build program coming through which would have seen 12 hulls on order to keep the work up but, obviously, that didnt transpire. Now, you can blame the government for that one if you want, but, to my way of thinking the blame lies just the other side of la manche for that fiasco.

Now we're in the situation we are because Type45 had to be developed independently and that development time unavoidably meant a delay in work going through to the yards. Even worse with T45, Astute and the carriers all building on or around the same kind of timelines we are going to end up with a yard and funding crunch. Projects that were scheduled to be resourced and paid for seperately will have to, somehow, be built and paid for in one big lump. Time to raid the piggy-bank again?!

[Scooter]

Funny the politicians never get it? They don't save money they just provide less for more!

[Ja Worsley]

What the pollies want is less money coming out of their coffers and more going into theirs, running a countries defence force is the biggest waste of money in their eyes, you can't profit from it at all!

I would hate to see it, but I know it's coming, the day when all the countries defences are undertaken by Contract groups, companies employed to look after a country.

[SteveO]

Jonesy/Scooter/Ja Worsley

Good points all round, politicians need to realise that the defence budget is a insurance policy and you either get full coverage or gamble with lives. The only saving that can be made is a no claims bonus.

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by SteveO

Jonesy/Scooter/Ja Worsley

Good points all round, politicians need to realise that the defence budget is a insurance policy and you either get full coverage or gamble with lives. The only saving that can be made is a no claims bonus.

Its really counter productive when you think about it? It costs the taxpayer more, offers less in the budget for social programs, leaves many out of work, and as Steve stated puts your troops at risk! You know the old saying "pay me now or pay me later" with politicians its "pay me now and I'll pay everyone else later"

[Phil Foster]

Rant mode on

I'll tell you what though. For the first time I am seeing the general public voice genuine concern about the lack of funding for our forces. Whats more its not even as if they are waiting for a disaster to happen in order to open their eyes to the danger. People are dying as a direct result of this governments underfunding of the military and what do they do? Well Geoff Hoon denies any responsibility! You heard me. The DEFENCE SECRETARY of the UK denies responsibility for the safety and adequate funding of the British military. Next we will hear Tony Blair deny responsibility for the Prime Ministerial conduct of the incumbent administration. Gordon Brown will deny responsibility for the budget and Blunket will deny responsibility for the police. OI! HOON! If you are listening you are THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE! It is your job, you wanted it, you are responsible for it. If you are not then I do not want to see so much as another ha'penny going from my pay packet into yours. If you cannot do the job you have been given, which you can't, get another one.

Rant mode off