Rosyth is another potential contender but I believe Govan/Scotstoun, Cammell Laird, Appledore and Barrow is the optimum mix but that's only my opinion. The important element is supporting the 4 yards with a reliable drumbeat of work. The individual locations are less important at this stage.SW1 wrote:But if that’s the model you wanted to follow why wouldn’t you follow the carrier build and assemble your ships at roysth when you’ve invested in the assembly process there and have yards around the uk bid to build blocks.
Absolutely, but how many countries could make a good job of making a vessel as complex as a T26 without the costs spiralling? Looks at the costs in Australia and Canada, it requires a massive investment.It would potentially help you exports too because why would anyone looking for such a ship want it built in the uk?
Most countries now want to assembly designs in there own country, is that not one reason why France has developed the integrated mast and control room module initially on gowind and now expanded it for FTI. They keep the high tech, large IP content module in France and ship to the hull being built in the customers country.
Take New Zeland for example, any new frigates For RNZN are going to have to be built elsewhere. Australia may offer to build 2x Hunter Class for ~£1.6bn but what if the UK could offer a more cost effective alternative. What if the UK could offer a more basic Type 26 variant with a unit price between £500m and £600m? That would be 2x Frigates for £1.2bn or maybe 3x for ~£1.6bn.
Setting up a throughly efficient production line is the key and then the more we build the cheaper they will get.
Thanks Donald, you have made some really interesting points, I will give them some thought and get back to you.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Thanks a lot for comprehensive documentation. Helps a lot.
100% Agreed.Lord Jim wrote:The Key to everything is the T-26 programme and not the T-31e
Agreed, after the success of the T26 design sweeping the board in the foreign competitions to not invest further would be unforgivable.Lord Jim wrote:BAe need to have confidence of continued orders form the UK Government if it is to be willing to invest in its facilities and workforce. This can only be done by having the T-26 produced under a drumbeat style programme and having the existing programme brought back up to the speed BAE offered originally
Again agreed, any cost of implementing an industrial strategy in the UK's naval shipbuilding sector does not necessarily have to come directly from RN's budget. It would have many wider socio-economic benefits and therefore may warrant funding from a number of Government departments.Lord Jim wrote:This will involve money up front but this could or should come from other government departments as it is really a case of supporting industry.
Why?Lord Jim wrote:There is the option of having blocks built in other yards, but, as has been pointed out by the Defence Select Committee we need to retain a yard able to refit the carriers, so Scotland must remain our prime shipyard location.
Rosyth is not the only option for dry docking the QE's and the MP for Kirkcaldy is no longer PM. Rosyth is an important facility but not all QE refit's will require a dry dock, in fact most probably won't.
Why does all of the UK's naval shipbuilding capacity have to be in Scotland's central belt? What is your reasoning behind that assertion?
Completly disagree but I accept this is a widely held view and is very much in line with HMG's current policy. Unfortunately it's politically impossible and a Labour administration would reverse it immediately so if we want continuity in UK naval shipbuilding it will to be agreed on a cross party basis.Lord Jim wrote:Other types of vessel that are not true warships should still be put out to international tender unless the work is required to maintain the above. Under this I would include all RFA platforms and even the future MHPC, with the possibility of hulls being built overseas and fitted out in the UK.