Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Roders96]

Does that price include the Gantry Crane that fits inside? But anyhow lot less than Bae wanting the Government to fork out 200 mill.

The BAE proposal was for a lot more than a big empty shed to keep the rain out.

By the way, the UK government/tax payer is paying for the Rosyth shed in just the same fashion.

This is complete and utter horse manure. If they were - BAE would have built it.

200m comes in at 2.03% of the (9.87bn) T26 programme.

The t26 contract was open book so the treasury could see the line for infrastructure improvement cost and said that had to be removed.

The t31, on the other hand, was not open book so babcocks cost structure is not known to either the MOD or the Treasury but it does include the cost of building the 31 million pound shed. Babcocks is no more a charity than BAE despite the bullshit posted above.

Any sources for your highly sensitive information?

[Poiuytrewq]

The BAE “Frigate Factory” in Osborne South Australia cost the Ozzie taxpayer 550m AUD, which is about 300m£.

The facility at Osborne is truly impressive and much more capable than what Babcock are proposing at Rosyth.

Babcocks intentions are clear, what I want to know now is, are BAE now going to construct the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all? The current mood music is positive.

[ArmChairCivvy]

construct the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all? The current mood music is positive.

Why would they? Most companies would push for productivity gains, but they have the T26s in the bag
... and Ron says that T4(x) cannot be tailored, to fit the bill??
If true (and he seems to be the unofficial BAES press office), then we won't see a frigate/ destroyer factory going up

I am still waiting to hear those arguments/ supporting evidence, beyond the one-liners he specialises in.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why would they?

Exactly, that's the bit we won't know until the IR is released.

[Jake1992]

construct the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all? The current mood music is positive.

Why would they? Most companies would push for productivity gains, but they have the T26s in the bag
... and Ron says that T4(x) cannot be tailored, to fit the bill??
If true (and he seems to be the unofficial BAES press office), then we won't see a frigate/ destroyer factory going up

I am still waiting to hear those arguments/ supporting evidence, beyond the one-liners he specialises in.

Can I ask what he means by T4X can’t be tailored to fit the bill ?

To be fair I can see the true reason for not building the frigate factory out of their own pocket being more to do with the build rate and soon to be axed garentied payments.

If the build the FF it would only to speed up build rate but if that happens and HMG don’t order any extra vessel then what ? There will be a gap between T4X and T26 replacement and unlike now they won’t get any RB2 style orders to fill that gap.

[ArmChairCivvy]

OPVs are not escorts - they can't even escort themselves - but as this is a general news item (50% policy) I'll put it here:
Two vessels will be deployed at sea with two on standby in case EU fishing boats enter EEZ
- from turbot wars, on a plate, we enter the 'Cod Wars' again

What could be more ridiculous, except that out news outlets have taken the wk end 'off' and Reuters BENGALURU is the one keeping us a jour

[Roders96]

construct the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all? The current mood music is positive.

Why would they? Most companies would push for productivity gains, but they have the T26s in the bag
... and Ron says that T4(x) cannot be tailored, to fit the bill??
If true (and he seems to be the unofficial BAES press office), then we won't see a frigate/ destroyer factory going up

I am still waiting to hear those arguments/ supporting evidence, beyond the one-liners he specialises in.

Can I ask what he means by T4X can’t be tailored to fit the bill ?

To be fair I can see the true reason for not building the frigate factory out of their own pocket being more to do with the build rate and soon to be axed garentied payments.

If the build the FF it would only to speed up build rate but if that happens and HMG don’t order any extra vessel then what ? There will be a gap between T4X and T26 replacement and unlike now they won’t get any RB2 style orders to fill that gap.

The guaranteed payments means there's so incentive for them to do anything but sit there and let it roll in.

There would be efficiency gains from building the FF, especially if there's more modern (and versatile) tooling involved, so I'm not sure I agree it would only be to speed up the build rate.

More to reduce the cost of production.

But BAE would never want to be competitive, would they..

[Jake1992]

construct the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all? The current mood music is positive.

Why would they? Most companies would push for productivity gains, but they have the T26s in the bag
... and Ron says that T4(x) cannot be tailored, to fit the bill??
If true (and he seems to be the unofficial BAES press office), then we won't see a frigate/ destroyer factory going up

I am still waiting to hear those arguments/ supporting evidence, beyond the one-liners he specialises in.

Can I ask what he means by T4X can’t be tailored to fit the bill ?

To be fair I can see the true reason for not building the frigate factory out of their own pocket being more to do with the build rate and soon to be axed garentied payments.

If the build the FF it would only to speed up build rate but if that happens and HMG don’t order any extra vessel then what ? There will be a gap between T4X and T26 replacement and unlike now they won’t get any RB2 style orders to fill that gap.

The guaranteed payments means there's so incentive for them to do anything but sit there and let it roll in.

There would be efficiency gains from building the FF, especially if there's more modern (and versatile) tooling involved, so I'm not sure I agree it would only be to speed up the build rate.

More to reduce the cost of production.

But BAE would never want to be competitive, would they..

I agree it would be more efficient and cost effective but why would they want to build the vessel faster if there is a large gap at the end where they have not work from HMG.

I can completely see a reason for it if say HMG said we’ll order X number more T26s or T4Xs if you build the FF but if not all well see is speed up in the build rate to only end up with famine and feast set up again.

[ArmChairCivvy]

why would they want to build the vessel faster if there is a large gap at the end

Well...

The guaranteed payments means

They have already stopped *the TOBA*

The whole TOBA was about creating space (time wise) to set up a World Class operation
- whatever T4(x) will be called, well the proof of the pudding is in eating it... and competition has arrived, whether the BAES press office likes it - most likely, not

[Roders96]

It's a certainty they'll get more T26.

[Jake1992]

It's a certainty they'll get more T26.

It close to a certainty they’ll get the remaining 5 ( nothing is certain until the contract is signed ) but what I meant was more beyond the 8 planned.

Look at it this way if we are getting only 8 T26 and 6 T4X then the build rate needs to be stretched out to leave no gaps in build until T26 replacement build starts this means an artificial slow down in build rate. The reasoning behind building the FF is to make the build more efficient which means needing to let the build go at its natural rate to achieve this, if this was done that pain in the ass gap appears unless HMG order more T26s / T4Xs so with out the guaranty of more orders why would BAE build the FF especially at their own cost.

[ArmChairCivvy]

more beyond the 8 planned.

Enter a Shakespeare character (and all of this is so recent that no skull-duggery required): the eight - or not the eigth... that is the question;

means needing to let the build go at its natural rate

or - until Ron has produced his evidence that the AAW derivative cannot ' fit the hull' in any shape or form - dove tail the two variants in the scheduling of the production

This is so difficult, so difficult
... unless the order goes somewhere else

[Pseudo]

construct the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all? The current mood music is positive.

Why would they? Most companies would push for productivity gains, but they have the T26s in the bag
... and Ron says that T4(x) cannot be tailored, to fit the bill??
If true (and he seems to be the unofficial BAES press office), then we won't see a frigate/ destroyer factory going up

I am still waiting to hear those arguments/ supporting evidence, beyond the one-liners he specialises in.

Surely the point of building a frigate factory would be to increase the production rate and overall costs, but since the government has agreed a lackadaisical production schedule and there's little to no chance of any country able to buy the T26 not building them themselves there doesn't seem much incentive for BAe to build the a frigate factory on the Clyde. However, if they do have a reason to do that then it's because they're concerned that a successful and on-budget Type 31 build by Babcock might threaten their monopoly on front line escorts.

[Tempest414]

Babcocks have taken a 31 million pound punt and built a build hall that can take a 140 meter ship which is great for type 31 and maybe Type 32 but it will not be any good for type 4X with type 26 and 45 at 150+ meters and we could see the Future type 4X hitting 160 meters plus. We need to remember that if Scotland falls out of the UK all escort building will need to move south. And any new build halls should be 200 by 80 meters to allow for anything from a 100 meter OPV to a 180 meter Cruiser to be built

Edit; funny Team 31 have spent 31 million to build type 31 . And built a 140 meter building to build A-140

[ArmChairCivvy]

Was wondering abt that, too

will not be any good for type 4X with type 26 and 45 at 150+ meters and we could see the Future type 4X hitting 160 meters plus

... then again, you can open the doors at both ends and have some tarpaulins 'blowing in the wind'

[Scimitar54]

Or build in two halves and join together outside!

[Lord Jim]

Or agree to split work anything up to 140m or T-32 goes to Babcock, anything larger BAe, as prime contractors. Only joking of course.

[Roders96]

Babcocks have taken a 31 million pound punt and built a build hall that can take a 140 meter ship which is great for type 31 and maybe Type 32 but it will not be any good for type 4X with type 26 and 45 at 150+ meters and we could see the Future type 4X hitting 160 meters plus. We need to remember that if Scotland falls out of the UK all escort building will need to move south. And any new build halls should be 200 by 80 meters to allow for anything from a 100 meter OPV to a 180 meter Cruiser to be built

Edit; funny Team 31 have spent 31 million to build type 31 . And built a 140 meter building to build A-140

Definitely designed for the headlines

Or agree to split work anything up to 140m or T-32 goes to Babcock, anything larger BAe, as prime contractors. Only joking of course.

At first read I felt like you'd shot my dog.

[Jensy]

Was wondering abt that, too

will not be any good for type 4X with type 26 and 45 at 150+ meters and we could see the Future type 4X hitting 160 meters plus

... then again, you can open the doors at both ends and have some tarpaulins 'blowing in the wind'

According to the documents Babcock submitted in the planning stage, the new shed is 160m long, by 60m wide and 40m high. The doors are each 24m wide by 27.7m high ..

I'd imagine you could build a ship a great deal longer than the Type 31 with little issue, by either:

- Going with ACC's tent as above;

- Attaching the bow or stern sections outdoors (there's a 300m dry dock with a goliath crane next door);

- Or, aternatively (considering the shed doors have collapsible columns between them), there's space for a 165m+ ship to be built slightly diagonally and indoors, a bit like how Appledore built HMS Scott. Though manoeuvring the completed ship to a semi-submersible barge might be challenging.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Shed is shed.
"Frigate factory" includes everything, steel work, electric shop, all system to actually built a ship.

Comparing £200M frigate factory with £31M shed is pointless, I think.

[SKB]

Its a smaller shed than the bigger and ready-existing 200m x 60m shed in Portsmouth, which had its T26 and T31 work stolen to appease the Scots in their 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum.

[Roders96]

Might the reason alot of the kit you guys say is needed (past what has been announced), hasn't been announced... because it is already there?

The place did build the carriers after all.

[SKB]

The place did build the carriers after all.

No. BAE Portsmouth, BAE Govan, A&P Tyne, Appledore and Cammel Laird built the ACA QEC blocks. Babcock Rosyth assembled them into one, along with sponsons and ramps built by Babcock Rosyth.


(ACA/QEClassCarriers) 30th May 2012

A massive 6,000 tonne section of HMS Queen Elizabeth (LB02) leaves the construction yard in Portsmouth to begin its 500 mile journey to the assembly site in Rosyth.

(ACA/QEClassCarriers) 30th May 2012

Part of the lower stern section of HMS Queen Elizabeth starting the move from Portsmouth to Rosyth on April 22. the section arrived in Fife on May 3.

(ACA/QEClassCarriers) 7th February 2013

On February 6 the forward island of HMS Queen Elizabeth left the build hall and was loaded onto a specialist barge for the journey to the Rosyth assembly site.

[Roders96]

So.. they built the carrier's?

Much in the same way a bricklayer builds a house?

By putting blocks together?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Going with ACC's tent

Nice to have someone else on the inside, rather than the rough weather pissing in, from the outside

Babcock Rosyth assembled the ACA carrier blocks together.

... so they have never built a 'proper ship'