Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Sir John Parker's National Shipbuilding Strategy

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ipbuilding_Strategy_report-FINAL-20161103.pdf

Of course the actual strategy will be the MoD's response to his proposals, due in the spring.

Makes for interesting reading though.

In particular a Keynesian argument that the current £1.4 billion spent (2014-15) actually results in £1.5 billion value added to UK industry and maintains 25,000 jobs in those awful places that aren't London. Indeed he advocates £200m more spent and asks that the actual economic benefits are weighed without even a glance at military necessity or capability.

The T31e should be optimised and configurable primarily for export. Andrew would operate them but should be willing to have them sold from under their feet. He goes as far as to suggest that a couple of hulls should be 'for but not withs' which could therefore be a configurable shop window.

Individual blocks a la aircraft carrier alliance should be parcelled out for serial and parallel construction at UK shipyards, also that BaeS should not be left with two frigate programmes due to increased risk.

Basically the Venator 110 catalogue with some management structure and speak as far as I can tell.
 
I commented in the T26 thread a while back that BAE was taking the piss. They had the government over a barrel on pricing and my view was that either the government nationalised the maritime arm (rarely a good thing), or they allowed rival contractors to bid for programmes. It seems the report came to the same conclusion.

I do have two questions though:

1) will BAE be part of the T31 "Alliance"?
2) What meaningful work is intended for the Clyde yards after T26?

I worry that without a drumbeat of ship build and new designs (T45 replacement?), we might see the same thing that happened with Astute (and with the USN surface ship orders) repeat itself.
 
1) will BAE be part of the T31 "Alliance"?

Certainly in part. It mentions that only BAE could fit the combat system, which is I imagine proprietary. Also design support and could bid for blocks if they have spare capacity.

He doesn't explicitly say that BAEs takes the piss, but it's the impression you are left with. Which does make you wonder whether they'd be competitive for blocks or outfitting.

2) What meaningful work is intended for the Clyde yards after T26?

Type 45 replacement maybe? No mention of future programs other than the next 30 years of warship construction should be mapped out.
 
Parker's begging bowl letter.

I imagine he has enough intelligence to realise that the UK's strategic needs are not like anybody else's and is therefore being cynical in asking for an 'export' frigate which by definition will be no use to us.
 
But a stretched River would meet our strategic needs?

Optimistically a few export orders might mean what we are offered something less crap, certainly cheaper.

Do requirements for export and our own really differ that much? Surely they'd be likely to be operating in someone else's back yard more often than not?
 
Certainly in part. It mentions that only BAE could fit the combat system, which is I imagine proprietary. Also design support and could bid for blocks if they have spare capacity.

He doesn't explicitly say that BAEs takes the piss, but it's the impression you are left with. Which does make you wonder whether they'd be competitive for blocks or outfitting.



Type 45 replacement maybe? No mention of future programs other than the next 30 years of warship construction should be mapped out.

Thanks. Any idea about the OSD for the T45? They are new ships but I agree the programme looks a bit thin after T26.

Perhaps we should take a leaf from the French book and start selling/scrapping relatively new ships to keep yards viable and design skills current? There seems to be a pretty large market out there for second hand warships.
 
Rivers are not pukka warships. They are only fit for 'constabulary' tasks. The RN has been had before with cheapos that were not fit for purpose - Types 14 & 21 come to mind.
 
That's basically what he recommends..

Establish the economical life of a warship and sell them to build new. No expensive refits, after which we tend to scrap ships anyway it appears.

Or sell from existing ships or the order book for OPVs or Type 31s.

Bit like the French did with their FREMM that went to Egypt despite the crew training on her.

Rivers are not pukka warships. They are only fit for 'constabulary' tasks. The RN has been had before with cheapos that were not fit for purpose - Types 14 & 21 come to mind.

Well that was BAEs offering for the Type 31, either that or one of the Omani Corvettes that was based upon the River.

Would they even have the capacity to build those until their work on the Type 26s finishes?
 
The argument seems to be that the RN needs to stop striving for the 100% solution on everything, and accept a 90% a solution. That extra 10% can easily double the cost.

We're in the same trap the Germans got in with their Tiger tanks. They could destroy 4 Sherman's for the cost of one Tiger, but a Tiger cost 6 times more.


T26 will cost well north of £1 Billion each. It's unaffordable to bu frigates at that cost that will spend 95% of their time doing exactly the same work a £400 million frigate will do. We're buying Rolls Royces to go to the shops.

T 31 Vs T26?
Cut down version of the same sonar
Cut down version of the same combat system
Same radar
Same gun
Same AAW missile with less silos
Space for a smaller Mk41 VLS

You'd want the T26 for guarding the carriers with its extra capacity, but for most tasks, a T31 is plenty good enough.
 
Top