Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Another quick comment - I think people are confusing budgets with policy. Everyone does budgets on an annual basis (a consequence of the seasonal agricultural cycle around which everything revolved until the start of the Industrial Revolution - i.e. the vast majority of human history. Even the Sumerians kept annual accounts - they invented writing for the purpose).
In practical terms, that has proven to be the best way of doing it. Once you get into multi-year budgets, you need to build in more and more contingency for future unknowns, until the budget becomes a collection of ifs, whats and maybes, that ends up being revisited and adjusted every year anyway. The reality is that everything beyond a year is a forecast (another word for a guess). Even annual budgets sometimes have to be re-visited within the year, when exceptional events occur (2008-2009 springs to mind).
Long-term spending plans are set through plans or policies, such as the NSS, which is a 30-year plan - it allocates no specific figures for spending beyond the short-term (T31) because we don't know what the future will bring in economic terms, we can only look at what we consider to be most likely. A policy sets out what the Government wants to achieve in terms of objectives. The budget allocated to achieving those objectives will be calculated in more detail closer to the time when the consequences of economic growth, inflation and a hundred an one other factors are known.

@ Jake - your post has crossed with mine.
Jake1992 wrote:For one there is no written British constitution
That doesn't mean there isn't one, though (and large parts of it are written down - just not in one document)
Jake1992 wrote:ultermitly the final say lays with the PM and the chancellor. It is they who on the end decides who gets what
No - its a decision of Cabinet. Of course the PM and Chancellor have a great deal of influence in Cabinet, but it is a collective decision of them all. Neither the PM or Chancellor get everything their own way.
Jake1992 wrote:Parliamentary approval is all but a given due to the fact the the sitting government of the day will hold a majority in one way or another and will whip the budget through
On the day, yes. But by then a great deal of work will have gone into reviewing the policy that the budget is there to enable. That is the function of Parliamentary committees. Most of that work is not public (as in the Chamber or even in formal committee). Back-bench MPs get a lot of say behind the scenes (the Whips function works goes both ways)
Jake1992 wrote:Eg if the MOD for example could of been allowed to spend like this say
Year 1 - £3bn
Year 2 - £3bn
Year 3 - £2bn
Year 4 - £1bn
Year 5 -£1bn

Instead of
Year 1 - £2bn
Year 2 - £2bn
Year 3 - £2bn
And so on
Or the MOD allocates the money in that way out of it's annual budget of £38b. Once again, the Treasury doesn't care about the individual project. It cares about the fact that it has to provide $3.16b per month to the MOD. Have you ever considered that the Treasury has started interfering because the MOD is mismanaging it's budget? It has a long history of failed projects and wasted finances.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Jake1992 wrote:ultermitly the final say lays with the PM and the chancellor. It is they who on the end decides who gets what
No - its a decision of Cabinet. Of course the PM and Chancellor have a great deal of influence in Cabinet, but it is a collective decision of them all. Neither the PM or Chancellor get everything their own way.
Jake1992 wrote:Parliamentary approval is all but a given due to the fact the the sitting government of the day will hold a majority in one way or another and will whip the budget through
On the day, yes. But by then a great deal of work will have gone into reviewing the policy that the budget is there to enable. That is the function of Parliamentary committees. Most of that work is not public (as in the Chamber or even in formal committee). Back-bench MPs get a lot of say behind the scenes (the Whips function works goes both ways)
Jake1992 wrote:Eg if the MOD for example could of been allowed to spend like this say
Year 1 - £3bn
Year 2 - £3bn
Year 3 - £2bn
Year 4 - £1bn
Year 5 -£1bn

Instead of
Year 1 - £2bn
Year 2 - £2bn
Year 3 - £2bn
And so on
Or the MOD allocates the money in that way out of it's annual budget of £38b. Once again, the Treasury doesn't care about the individual project. It cares about the fact that it has to provide $3.16b per month to the MOD. Have you ever considered that the Treasury has started interfering because the MOD is mismanaging it's budget? It has a long history of failed projects and wasted finances.[/quote]

I rather see the treasury set a mutli annual equipment budget for the MOD ideally over 10 years to allow the MOD to be able to better structure its equipment purchases and contracts instead of having there hands tied by a yearly budget ( but I do understand 10 years may be difficult due to it spanning2 parliaments )

The articals I read in regard to treasury interference mentioned upset coming from the health and education departments not the MOD at the time. Like I say these were a few years ago under Osborns time but still it could very well set out a presaden

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

indeid wrote: I think the delegation is about £400m on equipment from memory.
Now that thru-life costs are the mandatory yard stick, the above is less than what it sounds.
- e.g. Ron just informed us that it stands for 1/11th of the (10 yr, rather than thru-life) cost for 500 MIVs
- so you can, as a grown up, go and buy 500/11 armoured vehicles; a quantity that would only cover niche uses/ purposes
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by indeid »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Now that thru-life costs are the mandatory yard stick, the above is less than what it sounds.
- e.g. Ron just informed us that it stands for 1/11th of the (10 yr, rather than thru-life) cost for 500 MIVs
- so you can, as a grown up, go and buy 500/11 armoured vehicles; a quantity that would only cover niche uses/ purposes
Don’t forget you are talking at programme not contract level. If the MIV programme line is funded at Cat A level, then Cat A it is. You can’t bypass the process by trying to let multiple contracts, at Cat B level, for the same high level requirement.

If you are trying to go single source then, regardless of value, I think you also have to go through the Single Source Regulations Office.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I was trying to demonstrate how low the threshold is (not recommending contracting practices).

Out of interest, why do you think the Head of the said office recently resigned?
- the proportion of single sourcing, of the total, is so high that the use of the office had turned into rubber stamping
- the above is my interpretation (obviously, it has not been committed to print anywhere)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The priority systems is not worth the paper it is written on. You mentioned MIV as a Cat A programme but at the moment even the decision on what platform is not going to be made until the last quarter of 2019.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: CL says the ships will be completed on the Mersey and Babcocks says Rosyth.
Ships will be completed... build vs. fitting out? Have they been specific about that aspect?
Ron5 wrote: That was the Bae proposal i.e. place a contract for all 8 and they'll be delivered earlier and save at least half a billion.
I have sympathy for the managers/ project leads at BAE, when the simplest solution "does not sell" with the customer, and instead all kinds of acrobatics are then entered into
Ron5 wrote:Those gifted mathematicians among us can figure out that leads to a RN escort fleet of between 12 and 15.
Tomorrow morning's R4 News quiz, pre-released here:
- as that one in two years has now been revised to 1+1 in every three years, how much does the end result (12-15) go up by?
shark bait wrote:. Long term the MOD looses out.
- no doubt about it; a repeat of the Astutes story
- for the carriers, RAND was commissioned to prove that 37% concurrency in build would produce the cheapest unit price
- something of the kind was (despite the overall prgrm delay?) achieved - for a batch of 2!
It is a no-brainer that for a longer batch it is easier to work towards that "optimum"
I'm always in admiration at those clever folks that can chop up a long post into smaller soundbites. I've tried a couple times and it takes me forever.

Anyhoo, you are correct, fitting out the Type 31's by Bae has not been specifically ruled out by Babcocks or CL. Yet I don't really think that's their plan. It would seem to add a lot of unnecessary cost into their bids.

Your 1+1 question is only relevant if you consider the Type 31 program will actually produce a frigate :D

On the carriers, one Gordon Brown, whose memory must make all Brits shudder, ordered the slowing of the carrier build to lower annual costs after the financial crisis. It's been estimated that added a cool billion to the overall build. Not by me I might add. Having written this, I may have missed your point. Sorry.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:2) there presumably is a need to keep BAE/the Clyde busy until the T45 replacement in ca. 2039. I believe the slow pace of build for the T26 class is partly to stretch out the order to keep the shipyard busy until work starts on the T45 replacement.
Well yes and no. Certainly it's part of the Treasury mindset and HMG did terminate TOBA as a condition of Bae signing the initial Type 26 order.

On the other hand, more warships could be built at a much lower overall cost in the same period of time. So if you look at the entire period and not just one year at a time, the UK could get better defense (more warships) for less money AND the shipyard has a much more competitive offering for exports. Good for UK PLC.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy, now official government policy, has a different approach: build the ships quickly and economically with the idea they would only serve for 15 years or so before being sold on to other Navies. Monies from those sales plus the avoidance of very expensive mid life refits, is put toward to cost of brand new replacements.

Personally, I think by far the worse option is the one that has been selected. The Treasury doesn't understand either defense or industry and doesn't care about their ignorance.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
dmereifield wrote: 2) there presumably is a need to keep BAE/the Clyde busy until the T45 replacement in ca. 2039. I believe the slow pace of build for the T26 class is partly to stretch out the order to keep the shipyard busy until work starts on the T45 replacement.
A weighty argument (every Greek tragedy has deux ex machina in it... and this might be the part in ours that is not so easily visible)
... which nicely takes me back to my hobby horse: the primary driver for the size growth of the T-26 hull is/ has been?
Me, me, me, MEE SIRRRRR!!

It's because they want to use the Type 26 as a basis for the Type 45 replacement.

Amirite????

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote: That was the Bae proposal i.e. place a contract for all 8 and they'll be delivered earlier and save at least half a billion.
The funding profile won't be a secret, both in terms of committed and uncommitted lines. Bae could put a 'buy one get one free' sign up if they propose something so far outside the designated funding within a overheated EPP, it could never be taken up.

The profile shouldn't have changed from Main Gate. If this is a change and timelines have been extended either the RN has had to take money out in the early years to help fund here and now issues, moving the money back, or haven't managed to spend the in year cash up to now and have had to slip costs. Beyond the money there is a political interest in keeping something going on in those yards.

Be interesting to see how obsolescence management is going to be done, with such a long build time and the use of in service equipment.
Apart from the last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying. Bae made the offer of a reduced overall program cost if all 8 were ordered at once during the period the MoD and Bae were negotiating the Type 26 contract. I can only assume that occurred before maingate which I think is the decision point to commit actual money.

But then again, the UK system is so weird, I can't claim to understand it. I read the entire Defense Committee session on the Boxer program and I was left with a violent headache. I didn't know who was the bigger idiot: the committee members asking stupid questions, the manufacturers giving stupid answers to the stupid questions, or me for reading it.

Reminded me of the recent US hearings with the Facebook guy. Same level of drivel.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Yeah, Bae should be scouring the world for customers for their nuclear submarines & their 70k ton carriers. Must be dozens out there.
They have the accumulated design libraries of all the companies that they have swallowed up over the years. VT brought in a whole range of lighter frigates and patrol craft designs that could have been developed (the Rivers and the Vita/ Super Vita range are both VT designs). Have they done any market research, to find out what potential clients might want? What marketting have they done? Where is the library of concepts that Damen or Lurssen or even little old BMT have available? Why did it take an RN competition for them to (reluctantly) trot out the three concepts that they have for developing River-based designs. Where is the consultancy to assist smaller countries with developing their own ship-building capabilities, using license built designs? Many industries recycle older products into new markets (car manufacturers and the record industry spring to mind). Generically, it's called "exploiting your back catalogue". It is not an unusual concept.
Ron5 wrote:As for investing more in their frigate shipyards, that really makes a lot of sense.
To a commercially-minded company, investment to reduce future overheads and to make yourself a more desirable business partner always makes sense. BAE Shipbuilding is not commercially minded.
Ron5 wrote:Plus a National Strategy that says the order for Type 31's should go to any company but Bae.
Because BAE is not trusted to bring two first-of-class vessels into commission at the same time. No single ship-builder has ever done that before and BAE Shipbuilding has not demonstrated any particular ability to be different in that respect. Perhaps if they had spent some of the fallow years building light frigates, or even just project managing builds, for third parties, they would be getting the T31 project as well. After all, they were supposed to be investing in that sort of skill and capability.
Ron5 wrote:Truth is, any sucker is welcome to buy the frigate business from Bae. Please form an orderly line.
Have they offered it for sale? I doubt they are that keen to give up a monopoly position that brings in £230m a year, even if you do nothing. What do you think that money was supposed to be for, if not modernising their facilities and maintaining skill sets? It was couched as a "minimum order value per year" deal to avoid falling foul of the EU's rules on state subsidy of private enterprises, but it was still a subsidy (and we still got over-charged for the B2 Rivers - another "hidden" subsidy).
Another post chopper! Argggh I feel so dumb.

1. If Vospers had the right designs and the right prices, they would still be in business building warships.

2. Another commentator here thinks Bae does too much pushing of slides, you want it to do more. Truth is that Bae is a world wide marketer of warships. Go to any naval exhibition and look at their stand. It will be there offering their range of products. If you stand and listen, you will find that every potential buyer will ask "has the RN or USN bought it?". If the answer is no, 99% walk away.

3. Even so, Bae hasn't been in the least reluctant in developing and pursuing sales opportunities for their corvette design. Just because you haven't heard, doesn't mean it's not happening. For example, a variant was designed and presented for the recent Colombian requirement. Did you know that?

4. You are not a businessman. Investing in a market segment that has a gloomy future is really, really, stupid. Colloquially it's called throwing good money after bad.

5. The "same company can't commission two warships at the same time" is utter bollox. SJP was instructed to deliver a strategy that produced a competitor to Bae. He delivered.

6. What is the profit level of Bae's surface warship building business? Turnover means jackshit. If you don't know, check the government/treasury rules on how much a manufacturer can make on defense contracts. It's enforced by Bae having to show the Treasury all its internal accounting. Nobody, just nobody, will get rich off UK defense contracts. One hiccup and all your profit margin is swallowed up. Look how many businesses have gone to the wall. Bae only survived because of the US. It only stays in the warship business to keep its customer onside for more profitable work elsewhere.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Pseudo wrote:
shark bait wrote:No. Budgets work on yearly cycles, each year the treasury need to show a decline in the deficit, so projects get stretched out to make the annual spend lower.
That's it in a nutshell. The government only really cares about annual cost because the government is funded annually. It doesn't really matter to them if stretching out a project increases the overall cost as long as the annual cost is within budget. It's a pretty rubbish short-termist way of dealing with government spending and longer term planning would be preferable. However, the unpredictability of global events make that difficult, particularly when you're trying to eliminate a structural deficit.
It's the dishonesty of it all that sticks in my craw. Rather than say: we're reducing defense spending to fix the deficit i.e. something that people can understand, why the lies and spin? Why all the crap about the phony 2% spending?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:The Treasury does not get involved in the administration of each department's budget - that is up to the Minister responsible and the departmental civil service. So yes - spending the MOD budget is entirely the responsibility of the MOD - no-one else.
Nope.

[edited: please ignore, Indeid answered this a whole lot better ;-) ]

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

To those that wish to believe that the Treasury gently assists in developing budgets before kindly handing over the dosh and standing aside, I'll ask one question:

Why did the Treasury commission the National Shipbuilding Strategy?

Why did they lay down the rules, the scope, and select the author?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:ordered the slowing of the carrier build to lower annual costs after the financial crisis. It's been estimated that added a cool billion to the overall build. Not by me I might add. Having written this, I may have missed your point. Sorry.
No need, as that is the other side of the story: after all the good planning, the savings were thrown away. I had the Bn in mind, but did not remember a source for it, so decided not to quote it.
Ron5 wrote:and HMG did terminate TOBA as a condition of Bae signing the initial Type 26 order.
as they should have, as the sole purpose of TOBA was to build " a bridge" to that point in time... and in 2009 it was not clear n what year the point would be reached.
Ron5 wrote:Monies from those sales plus the avoidance of very expensive mid life refits, is put toward to cost of brand new replacements.
The first monies are piddly, but the second category has been a major money waster (and has produced the "hulls crisis" that we are now facing).
Ron5 wrote:It's because they want to use the Type 26 as a basis for the Type 45 replacement.
Quite happy for you, too, to take a ride on my "hobby horse" :D . I could name several people, from several fora, who have dissed the idea with gusto... years roll by, and "the fog" obstructing the visibility for the way ahead starts to clear.
Ron5 wrote:But then again, the UK system is so weird, I can't claim to understand it
Ron, we are in the same boat :)
Ron5 wrote:a variant was designed and presented for the recent Colombian requirement. Did you know that?
Did the BMT hull/ Saab-based fit-out win? The sources are mainly in Spanish, so I did not follow it through... just noted that the BMT catalogue had been landed on far shores.
Ron5 wrote: SJP was instructed to deliver a strategy that produced a competitor to Bae. He delivered.
Good man!
Ron5 wrote: It's enforced by Bae having to show the Treasury all its internal accounting. Nobody, just nobody, will get rich off UK defense contracts.
That's called Open Book. And, yes, the idea is to provide world-class solutions, and then get rich on exports (not on the back of the UK tax payer).
Ron5 wrote:It's the dishonesty of it all that sticks in my raw.
I quite agree. As I have said before, it is a cunning plan to hone future Kremnologists (as the current budgets do not support more than one person in jobs with such designation).
Ron5 wrote:Why did they lay down the rules, the scope, and select the author?
Because continuing "our" ways was rapidly leading to a ship-building sector that is world-leading in designing cruise liners, but when it comes to physical outputs, we might manage a few yachts
- a bit like what happened with AFVs ;) ...(the biggest domestic player is an ATV specialist)
- if I translate into management mumbo-jambo, it was time to look at the whole shipbuilding & off-shore sector as an ecosystem, and see what better linkages between the military and civil sectors could do to enhance its vitality/ sustainability. I raise a pint to "not-another-TOBA"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Rambo
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Rambo »

Do we believe that the T31 will be withdrawn from RN after 15 years service? I doubt it. I can see them being too relied upon due to low escort numbers and then the T31 replacement won't be forthcoming as money will be tied up in other projects such as T45 / Astute replacement etc.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

The idea is to sell them off early to support more building. If they can make that work its a nice idea.

There are tonnes of years willing to sell cheap gun boats filled with government subsidies. The UK will not compete on that ground, but maybe it could by selling quality used commissioned RN vessels, that sounds like a much better USP to me.
@LandSharkUK

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by indeid »

shark bait wrote:The idea is to sell them off early to support more building. If they can make that work its a nice idea.

There are tonnes of years willing to sell cheap gun boats filled with government subsidies. The UK will not compete on that ground, but maybe it could by selling quality used commissioned RN vessels, that sounds like a much better USP to me.
Not got a great track record, I’m sure someone made money on the sale of decommissioned RN escorts in the early 2000’s, doubt it was the government or MOD though.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: time to look at the whole shipbuilding & off-shore sector as an ecosystem, and see what better linkages between the military and civil sectors could do to enhance its vitality/ sustainability.
Imagine the productivity uplift if there was efficient dove tailing with a civilian UK yard, pumping out ships like these " the shipyard’s firm order book will consist of three 99,500gt Mein Schiff vessels for TUI Cruises, two 180,000gt ships for Costa Cruises and two 180,000gt ships for Carnival Cruise Line" one every 8 months, with a work force of one and a half thousand.
- a hull is a hull; except if it is a block of a hull (to be assembled elsewhere)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
shark bait wrote:No. Budgets work on yearly cycles, each year the treasury need to show a decline in the deficit, so projects get stretched out to make the annual spend lower.
That's it in a nutshell. The government only really cares about annual cost because the government is funded annually. It doesn't really matter to them if stretching out a project increases the overall cost as long as the annual cost is within budget. It's a pretty rubbish short-termist way of dealing with government spending and longer term planning would be preferable. However, the unpredictability of global events make that difficult, particularly when you're trying to eliminate a structural deficit.
It's the dishonesty of it all that sticks in my raw. Rather than say: we're reducing defense spending to fix the deficit i.e. something that people can understand, why the lies and spin? Why all the crap about the phony 2% spending?
It's entirely about keeping up appearances, but it's so transparent that it doesn't take Onslow, Daisy and Rose showing up in a knackered Ford Cortina to see through it. The loading of costs in to the defence budget to reach the 2% threshold demonstrates that amply. But it's the natural party of government don't ya know. Strong on defence as long as you forget the 1957 defence white paper, the 1981 defence white Paper and the 2010 SDSR. Remember the Falklands, Thatcher and Churchill but don't mention Suez, Chamberlain, Halifax or Eden. ;)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The programming of UK warship building gets "stick" endlessly - and for good reason, at times. The designs less so - with the T31 being the exception, taking on the "impotent" mantle from the make-work, stop-gap OPVs.

However, when The MoD published in December 2017 its refresh of defence industrial policy, the purpose of the defence effort was characterised, according to RUSI, as:

Delivering wider economic and international value and national security objectives.
Help UK industry to be internationally competitive, innovative and secure.
Make it easy to do business with the MoD.

Are there (yet) any other embodiments of that than the "evil twins" i.e. the NSS as a declaration of intent and the T31 Prgrm as its concrete test run?
- a good start, I would say. As we are now only in April, just in the second running quarter of a year (from the "on yr blocks"...)

The end-state in capability terms for the first 5 T31s (i.e. what they will be used for, and what it implies for their [initial] military fit-out) is also well articulated. May be, come the summer, we can look forward to similar rationales for other prgrms (be they in the EP as it currently stands, or not)?
- I hope so, as money does not grow on trees, the road for year on year cuts of everything else than kit has been reached - and, due to some mega prgrms shifting into gear, we are still to see the proportion of equipment spending peaking, as a percentage of the defence total spend.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by indeid »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I was trying to demonstrate how low the threshold is (not recommending contracting practices).

Out of interest, why do you think the Head of the said office recently resigned?
- the proportion of single sourcing, of the total, is so high that the use of the office had turned into rubber stamping
- the above is my interpretation (obviously, it has not been committed to print anywhere)
No idea, if anything I would say that they have scratched the surface of an area that neither the MOD or industry would like too much oversight of. After all I’m sure that requirements have never been needlessly written in such a way to try and show single source was the only option. Or that high/middle ranking individuals just happen to end up working for the company that got their contract.

A lot of single sourcing at lower costs is without doubt value for money, but I suspect that it is more frustration at being cold shouldered in their job.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

indeid wrote:HMT are part of the approvals process at the investment decision points on all Category A projects. Anything Category B or below is within the MOD delegated authority, although HMT can change that from project to project and have its say.

I think the delegation is about £400m on equipment from memory.

They certainly have a scrutiny role and the budgets and profiles are agreed, along with things like the key requirements. Keep true to all that and no issue, once you get into review note territory I have no doubt their interest increases.
It's part of the Treasury's remit to ensure that money is being spent in a legally appropriate way. They have to ensure that no payment is "ultra vires" and also that the Government is getting "value for money" (in Government terms, that means "getting what was agreed for the money"), as well as ensuring that due process is observed. I guess that could be regarded as interfering, though most would agree that it is probably a reasonable safeguard for public expenditure. Particularly in light of previous MOD issues.
But they do not, however, decree that a department spends its money in any specific way. How a budget is utilised is decided by the Department (a Department will however, get audited on it, and it will have a large book of rules and procedures that govern how that money is spent - a great deal of which will have been written by the Treasury - again, is that "interference", or safeguarding public money?).
The "constant build rate" issues have much more to do with using defence budget money to prop up a defence industrial strategy, than to do with the Treasury mandating that money must be spent at a constant rate.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: I think T31e shall better be more smaller, to be on the largest end of heavy corvettes. Mission bay is particularly unpopular for export, neither long range/endurance. Export customers can just ban mission bays amidship, and fill VLS there. Also, "looking fighty" is very important for export, as well.
I agree with a lot of your analysis Donald especially concerning the export potential of Corvettes but do RN really need a class of Corvettes or Frigates?

Going by previous history the obvious answer is Frigates but if RN is moving towards a forward basing strategy to offset the movement of resources towards enabling Carrier Strike just maybe shorter range heavily armed Corvettes may work. If not, it would be asking RN to have 5 heavy corvettes that they don't want or need.

My question would be, if you were to design the perfect export oriented heavy corvette that you described above, what would the spec look like and are you confident 5 such vessels could be built for £1.25bn?
Thanks. My proposal is not much far from Leander, a ~120m ship with ~3500t FLD. Also, the original Venator 110 (in 3 years ago), when it was more narrow, with the 117m length and 3500t FLD. Actually, I prefer a bit smaller option, say, 110m length and ~3300t FLD.

This is the typical size of light frigate we saw in 1990s. M-class, MEKO-200 class and so on. So, they can go blue water "so-so" conveniently.
- As a (relatively) narrow ship, it can obtain 25 kt+ speed with the propulsion of Khareef, 2x 9200kW diesels.
- For export, it must be able to be heavily armed. Because it is one-rank larger than heavy corvette, it must have "add one" to a heavy corvette, (i.e. Khareef) which has a 57/76 mm gun, 12-16 CAMM, and a few 30mm canons.
- The "add one" will be either 16-cell Mk 41 VLS with large SSM, or 16-tubes of canistered SSMs, or option to carry Aster 15/30 in place of CAMM.
- These "add ones" can be accommodated amidship. In case of Leander, where the mission bay is located. No need for mission bay in export. Even I doubt the need for RN. (*1)
- Also, long range is not good. Being forward based, the RN can also live with shorter range. How about 4500nm @ 15kts/28 days?

*1: not saying RN fleet as a whole do not need the mission bay. Just saying, T31e do not need to have it.

Overall, I am just looking for a stretched Khareef, a bit shorter than Leander, with reduced mission bay area. Not both 2 ISO containers and 2 ORCs, but only one of them. Make it simple, much more similar the Khareef, to make the design more reusable.
Jake1992 wrote:Eg if the MOD for example could of been allowed to spend like this say
Year 1 - £3bn
Year 2 - £3bn
Year 3 - £2bn
Year 4 - £1bn
Year 5 -£1bn

Instead of
Year 1 - £2bn
Year 2 - £2bn
Year 3 - £2bn
And so on

They could of saved money for the same out come

It was more a point to forced yearly budgeted by the treasurey instead of multi annual budgets are cost the MOD and tax payers more
I understand your point. But, there is not "£3bn" in the Year-1. Treasury does not have a big strong room full of money. Annual cash flow is the reality. If there is not cash to flow in, you are just bankrupt, or just shut-down as we see in USA. If RN really wants the £3bn in the Year-1, they shall just have a debt. And then, the "£1bn" in Year-5 will simply disappear because of the interest of the debt.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Overall, I am just looking for a stretched Khareef, a bit shorter than Leander, with reduced mission bay area. Not both 2 ISO containers and 2 ORCs, but only one of them. Make it simple, much more similar the Khareef, to make the design more reusable.
Thanks, that should achievable for £250m a hull. I suspect current planning is very much in line with your proposal. In my opinion it's the foward basing element of the equation that most people have missed. The Kareef/Leander concept would be well suited to forward basing unlike the T26 which would I suspect, create a lot more headaches logistically.

Post Reply