Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

multi user facility at Rosyth based on the Osborne model

Was that part of some larger plan? The first time I sight the term
- or is a reference to the 'frigate factory' that was then paired down to a £100 mln in improving the existing facilities?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Don't forget the RN has 11 sets of 2087. 3 additional sets have been purchased for the first 3 T26. Otherwise they'd have had to cannibalise the 8 x T23 ASW's whilst they were still in service.

Sometime the jumps, from clicking on a notification are random. And ended up with this old one.
- when the new kit for the first three was ordered, 2087 sets were conspicuously missing; have they been added later?
- there are none spare from the originals as even the training set has 'taken to sea'

[SD67]

multi user facility at Rosyth based on the Osborne model

Was that part of some larger plan? The first time I sight the term
- or is a reference to the 'frigate factory' that was then paired down to a £100 mln in improving the existing facilities?

No there's no grand plan, I'm referring to Osborne, South Australia where BAE are of course building Hunter, and right next door Naval Group will be building the Attack class (Baracuda shortfin). The facility is owned by the OZ government and they lease it to the two Primes. At the end of the contract they can lease it to someone else. The two operators share certain infrastructure, even I believe some training facilities, and subbies can go back and forth between them.

[ArmChairCivvy]

referring to Osborne, South Australia where BAE are of course building Hunter,

Yes, that is a good model. Just like the only US tank (not AFVs, more broadly) tank factory.

As for Osborne, I seem to remember that they sliced the maintenance and repairs facilities off, to an on-the-side going concern - that can be reintegrated if there will be no further mega-projects.

[RichardIC]

Economically Belfast is very much like Barrow

What? How? Now or historically?

Less than 200 people work at H&W. 10,000 work for BAE in Barrow which has a population less than 20 per cent the size of Belfast.

If you mean they both used to be major shipbuilding towns, yes, but there hasn't been a ship built in Belfast for 20 years. The skills have gone. You don't click your fingers and get a skilled workforce.

[Timmymagic]

Don't forget the RN has 11 sets of 2087. 3 additional sets have been purchased for the first 3 T26. Otherwise they'd have had to cannibalise the 8 x T23 ASW's whilst they were still in service.

Sometime the jumps, from clicking on a notification are random. And ended up with this old one.
- when the new kit for the first three was ordered, 2087 sets were conspicuously missing; have they been added later?
- there are none spare from the originals as even the training set has 'taken to sea'

- The 3 additional sets were ordered in 2017.
- No idea on how many training sets, engineering systems or manufacturer test systems there are. There are certainly aspects of the system in place at the Venturer training facility on the CLyde, but to what extent I don't know. You would presume that Thales would have a couple of reference systems at their 2 facilities as well.

[Poiuytrewq]

I was pretty much depressed,

Keep the faith Donald

- BAE Clyde: going on with T26, T32 and T83 (if T83 be a T45 equivalent-sized ship with 6 hulls, T32 may be able to go elsewhere. If not, without T32, I'm afraid T83 will be the last high-end escort to be built in UK).

This is the reason why the T83 should be a T26 Batch2 and not a 3 or 4 ship class of 12000t destroyers. I cannot see any reason why the T45's replacements need to be that big. The T32 should be built at Rosyth.

- BAE maintaining Submarine manufacturing centre of excellence at Barrow. (as is)

We agree!

- Babcock Rosyth: working on T31, and then Echo/Enterprise replacements?, and then (up to) 6 MRSS,

Rosyth should concentrate on the T31 and then the T32. When the T32's are complete, start to sell off the T31's and start on the T33's.

- Cammell Laird: can do FSS (I see no problem there, what is the problem?), and then contributing to MRSS blocks, and then .... what?

Harland & Wolff (Appledore): build 6 missile boats, and if no further order, just close it.

I believe H&W and CL need to work together as the UK's commercial shipping prime manufacturers. Plenty of work to keep them going.
- FSS
-Wave replacements
-MRSS
-Tide replacements


Appledore also has a bright future if HMG were to back it.
-Missile boats for Ukraine
-RB1 replacements
-Multi-role survey vessels(s) Echo/Enterprise replacements
-Border Force cutters
-Fishery protection vessels
- New and emerging drones and offboard systems

All of this perfectly viable if HMG were to support it. Due to the ever present risk of Scottish independence a widely distributed shipbuilding sector is strategically important at this time. If Scotland voted for Independence tomorrow where would would QE and PWLS dry dock if not Belfast?

Sometimes commercial considerations are not the most important things to consider. UK National Security is paramount.

[Poiuytrewq]

If you mean they both used to be major shipbuilding towns, yes, but there hasn't been a ship built in Belfast for 20 years. The skills have gone. You don't click your fingers and get a skilled workforce.

True but you also don't preserve the Union by sending 10,000 jobs to Barrow and NONE to Belfast.

Safeguarding the 500 jobs at Thales was a good start but more needs to be done. Shipbuilding in the UK should not be a Scottish monopoly.

[Tempest414]

As a side note if the Scots vote out anytime in the next 10 years what would they need to from a navy and what could it look like for me a good balance would be

2 x Type 31
2 x River B'2
1 x Echo class
1 x Bay class
1 x Wave class

[RichardIC]

True but you also don't preserve the Union by sending 10,000 jobs to Barrow and NONE to Belfast.

Safeguarding the 500 jobs at Thales was a good start but more needs to be done. Shipbuilding in the UK should not be a Scottish monopoly.

But you're talking about H&W that is owned by a tiny loss-making company. They are clearly ambitious for the yard but that doesn't change the fact that employing people in large numbers needs financial mass which they don't have. You need the workforce before you get the orders.

I suspect what you actually want is a pseudo nationalisation along Naval Group lines.

[Lord Jim]

As a side note if the Scots vote out anytime in the next 10 years what would they need to from a navy and what could it look like for me a good balance would be

2 x Type 31
2 x River B'2
1 x Echo class
1 x Bay class
1 x Wave class

No chance to begin with. They can have the B'1 Rivers and Echo and a Wave. If the want anything else they can either pay for it of wait for it to leave RN service.

[Caribbean]

As a side note if the Scots vote out anytime in the next 10 years what would they need to from a navy and what could it look like for me a good balance would be

2 x Type 31
2 x River B'2
1 x Echo class
1 x Bay class
1 x Wave class

What they want is (will get?)
2 x frigates (T23?)
2 x OPV (RB1)
4 x minehunters (4 x Sandown/Hunt)
4-6 Inshore Patrol (P2000?)
Support ships (will graciously share with the UK's fleet, initially)

Edit: Forgot that they also want some sort of command ship

[ArmChairCivvy]

have the B'1 Rivers and Echo and a Wave

Do you think the others would venture far enough to need a... fleet tanker?

[RichardIC]

Looking at this long list, I was pretty much depressed, because I thought "it is totally impossible to sustain all of them for a few decades".

The problem is the opposite initially Donald. There just isn't enough capacity anywhere for the long list. H&W (any site) hasn't built a ship in years and the workforce is, Cammell Laird has built one in a decade and it nearly sent them to the wall. It's just been making redundancies.

Harland & Wolff (Appledore): build 6 missile boats, and if no further order, just close it.


- Harland & Wolff (Belfast): no idea. very much no idea. Wind business? Oil rig? Or, just let it close...

I'm still not sure the Ukraine thing is real.

Offshore is where H&W are looking at expanding. They've just won their most significant contract which is for windfarm work, but most of that is going to be carried out at one of their newly acquired Scottish sites rather than Belfast or Appledore.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Keep the faith Donald

Thanks
I will keep my standpoint, and it is anyway good to have healthy counter-arguments, like you

- BAE Clyde: going on with T26, T32 and T83 (if T83 be a T45 equivalent-sized ship with 6 hulls, T32 may be able to go elsewhere. If not, without T32, I'm afraid T83 will be the last high-end escort to be built in UK).

This is the reason why the T83 should be a T26 Batch2 and not a 3 or 4 ship class of 12000t destroyers. I cannot see any reason why the T45's replacements need to be that big.

I agree you are self-consistent here and thus convincing.

- Babcock Rosyth: working on T31, and then Echo/Enterprise replacements?, and then (up to) 6 MRSS,

Rosyth should concentrate on the T31 and then the T32. When the T32's are complete, start to sell off the T31's and start on the T33's.

Self consistent here that you say UK need T33 (and then T34?), to keep the "second escort builder". Even if these T3X series are to be built very slowly, say 1 hull per 2 years, we need at least 15-18 T3X in total. With T31 build pace of 1 per year, we need 30-36 of them!!

I think this is simply impossible, the reason I was "depressed".

I believe H&W and CL need to work together as the UK's commercial shipping prime manufacturers. Plenty of work to keep them going.
- FSS
-Wave replacements
-MRSS
-Tide replacements

I think this list far from plenty... 3 FSS, 2 Waves (hopefully), 6 MRSS (hopefully). Tide replacements are 30-35 years away (See how long "Rovers" were used). 11 ships at most (and not surprised to see only 9 or even less) in 30-35 years... Not even enough to keep a single shipyard. The two shipyards will be needed to "share" those work, block by block. Far from being efficient = no hope for getting merchant ship orders. Keeping these two yards for the purpose of keeping them?

Appledore also has a bright future if HMG were to back it.
-Missile boats for Ukraine
-RB1 replacements
-Multi-role survey vessels(s) Echo/Enterprise replacements
-Border Force cutters
-Fishery protection vessels
- New and emerging drones and offboard systems

RB1 replacement might not be there (and actually, I think ordering something in-between T26 and T83 will be needed to save the day).
Why not send Echo/Enterprise replacements to CL and make them center-of-excellence for mid/large ship?

All of this perfectly viable if HMG were to support it. Due to the ever present risk of Scottish independence a widely distributed shipbuilding sector is strategically important at this time. If Scotland voted for Independence tomorrow where would would QE and PWLS dry dock if not Belfast?

Why not invest on CL? How about Phalmouth?

Sometimes commercial considerations are not the most important things to consider. UK National Security is paramount.

Growing CL perfectly matches UK National Security as well as commercial considerations. This is my point.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The problem is the opposite initially Donald. There just isn't enough capacity anywhere for the long list. H&W (any site) hasn't built a ship in years and the workforce is, Cammell Laird has built one in a decade and it nearly sent them to the wall. It's just been making redundancies.

Not sure what you mean. If those ships were ordered a few years ago, CL will be already happily building them, with well-trained work force thanks to RSS SD Attenborough. It may even invest on new building, or even improving their dry-docks.

And, apparent lack of capacity (in short term) comes from the simple fact that, such a "rush" in shipbuild cannot be sustained. No one would have been invested a lot in an industry, no good worker will join an industry, which would bankrupt 10 years later. This is why now there seems to be apparent lack of capacity.

Without sustained orders, good enough to keep 6 shipyards, there is no hope in future. For me, the long-term order list is not even enough to sustain 4 yards: Clyde, Rosyth, Barrow and (I prefer) Cammell Laird. Making it smaller will just make them less efficient, less investment, less power to develop something new, and less change to survive in long term.

PS For Financial sector, building-up a new industry, sell it, and then let it bankrupt is the easiest way to earn short term money. In all of these issue, financial sector gets payed. But, for Industry sector, long term investments, especially on its man-power, technology and infrastructure is the key.

[tomuk]

Nonsense. Peel Ports are a predominantly logistics company that operate ports long term. Shipbuilding fits logically within their portfolio.
It involves ports and logistics. They're not a property developer. The idea that swanky waterside apartments are going to go up in Birkenhead or Falmouth is ludicrous.

Peel Ports are one part of Peel Group. Peel are a property development company and have been for years. They built the Trafford Centre and MediaCity at Salford on land which was part of the Manchester Ship Canal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peel_Group

In March 2016 Peel Land and Property, which lies at the heart of the Peel Group, announced plans to deliver over 30,000 residential units across its Strategic Waters sites which could bring a total investment value of £4.5 billion over the next 30 years.

It is Peel's vision to regenerate and transform former industrial sites on dockland, canal and river banks into attractive and sustainable waterfront living locations that will bring new infrastructure, public realm and environmental improvements. The mixed use schemes will also feature commercial, retail, educational and leisure opportunities:

Liverpool Waters: 10,000 new homes
Wirral Waters: 13,500 new homes
Glasgow Harbour: 1,400 new homes
Trafford Waters: 3,000
Chatham Waters: 1,000
MediaCityUK: 2,000
Manchester Waters: 2,000

[Poiuytrewq]

healthy counter-arguments

Respectful and healthy debate is the name of the game. If we all agreed what would we debate

Even if these T3X series are to be built very slowly, say 1 hull per 2 years, we need at least 15-18 T3X in total. With T31 build pace of 1 per year, we need 30-36 of them!!

Here you have hit the nail on the head. If HMG want a thriving shipbuilding industry in the UK and a second escort builder permanently then there is a choice to be made.

1. Double the size of the escort fleet
OR
2. Sell the GP escorts at the 15 year point.

Its unrealistic to think that the T26's and T45/T83's would be sold in such a time frame but perfectly reasonable to suggest that the T31's and T32's could be sold at the 15 year point.

After the initial T31 surge a T32 followed by a T33 every 18 months would keep the drumbeat ticking over nicely. To avoid a bump initially the T31's would need to be sold annually after around 12 years service. This would be a big change for HMT to agree to but I suspect a thorough cost benefit analysis would validate it.

I think this list far from plenty

That's depends on how long each vessel is retained for. The FSS are complex vessels and should be retained for 20+ years but the Oilers are low tech and could be moved on within the T31/T32 time frame of around 15 years.

RB1 replacement might not be there (and actually, I think ordering something in-between T26 and T83 will be needed to save the day).

If that's the case something has gone badly wrong again.

Another compelling argument for a T26 Batch2 to replace the T45's. Concentrate on the spiral development and keep churning them out like sausages.

Growing CL perfectly matches UK National Security as well as commercial considerations. This is my point.

From a commercial standpoint turning CL into a UK mega-yard making all non escort naval vessels makes complete sense. H&W Belfast and Appledore could be closed and all Escorts could be built on the Clyde in a state of the art Frigate factory. Rosyth could become a super efficient refit facility for everything up to and including QE and PWlS. Great...Job Done.

But how long before HMG slows build rates to keep the two mega yards on tickover? Where is the incentive for these yards to keep costs under control? RN will lose.

How long before HMG says we will just buy 4 or 5 border force cutters from Damen because the yards are too busy and we need them in a hurry?

How long before one or two of the MRSS have to be built by Navantia because of industrial action at Cammell Laird due the Unions thinking they have the government over a barrel as there is no other UK competition?

Basing all of the escort manufacturing on the Clyde hasn't provided value for money for the taxpayer or given RN what is required. Prices have escalated substantially and efficiency has not dramatically improved. I think it is entirely possible that a mega-yard based around CL would end up in the same place given time.

[tomuk]

Cammell Laird, Birkenhead


https://www.clbh.co.uk/facilities
*Note the land to the of the left construction hall is up for sale as a business park.

Harland & Wolff Belfast

https://www.harland-wolff.com/facilities/belfast/

[ArmChairCivvy]

Basing all of the escort manufacturing on the Clyde hasn't provided value for money for the taxpayer or given RN what is required. Prices have escalated substantially and efficiency has not dramatically improved.

Yep

1. Double the size of the escort fleet
OR
2. Sell the GP escorts at the 15 year point.

Its unrealistic to think that the T26's and T45/T83's would be sold in such a time frame but perfectly reasonable to suggest that the T31's and T32's could be sold at the 15 year point.

Incorporate the last statement as constraint, Point 2 as a target, run equation for "hulls", attach unit costs ( depend on the military fitting-out level, drastically) AND do this before the IR implementation paper is due to be published: for the Army, at least, has shifted from 'before the summer' to 'during'

AND as the IR was a stovepiped job (contrary to its name), we are now in the integration stage, ie. how to divide the aggregate between the services
... SO, that deliverable cannot be finished before the slowest (the Army?) has come to an acceptable mix of their target capabilities as well as which of those (as deliverables) fall into the four years for which budget certainty is being sought. THIS is really simple as in the modelling we would have have to use end-to-end dependencies, something that NASA implemented for their projects IN THE 1970's.
- of course Boris will mess it all up by going for an election two-years prematurely, to benefit from any 'bounce' that has been created in the later stages of dealing with the bigger calamities (seen from the voters' perspective, as opposed to the level of defence spending)

Another compelling argument for a T26 Batch2 to replace the T45's. Concentrate on the spiral development and keep churning them out like sausages.

On that argument, very much agreed

[RichardIC]

From a commercial standpoint turning CL into a UK mega-yard making all non escort naval vessels makes complete sense. H&W Belfast and Appledore could be closed and all Escorts could be built on the Clyde in a state of the art Frigate factory. Rosyth could become a super efficient refit facility for everything up to and including QE and PWlS. Great...Job Done.

But how long before HMG slows build rates to keep the two mega yards on tickover? Where is the incentive for these yards to keep costs under control? RN will lose.

You've gone from playing fantasy fleets to fantasy shipyards. This may work and may work nicely if you nationalised shipbuilding again. That is what you actually want.

From a commercial standpoint turning Cammell Laird into a UK mega yard doesn't make commercial sense currently for one very simple reason. Cammell Laird is a commercial entity. And it doesn't have the capital for the required investment. They nearly went out of business over losses on Sir David Attenborough and they're making redundancies.

And turning the Clyde into a state of the art frigate factory doesn't work because BAE are constrained by the hopelessly inefficient two site system and the Scottish Government wants both sites to stay open, and they don't want a super efficient frigate factory, they want to carry on the grievance mongering about how Scottish shipbuilding is being undermined by the UK government. Sorry to let reality get in the way again but they've just won another election, even though without an overall majority.

What you want is an "ideal world" nationalisation, and not having to worry about local/regional/national politics and the fact that the people who run shipyards (BAE/Babcock/CL) are answerable primarily to their shareholders and not HMG nor loftier ideals of national security and pan-UK industrial harmony.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What you want is nationalisation, and not having to worry about local/regional/national politics and the fact that the people who run shipyards (BAE/Babcock/CL) are answerable primarily to their shareholders and not HMG nor loftier ideals of national security and pan-UK industrial harmony.

Take the Danish/ Dutch model: build the hulls/ sections anywhere, but do 100% of military fitting out in a navy controlled yard... upgrades and passing "modules" around, between ships would get turbocharged and in themselves bring over-the -life efficiencies

For 10 years 'every expert' - retired people, who have not seen the industry change from T-Fords - have been dead against this... what say you Should we continue 'jocking as usual'...

[Poiuytrewq]

This may work and may work nicely if you nationalised shipbuilding again. That is what you actually want.

No

I want UK shipbuilding to get get organised not nationalised.

From a commercial standpoint turning Cammell Laird into a UK mega yard doesn't make commercial sense currently for one very simple reason. Cammell Laird is a commercial entity. And it doesn't have the capital for the required investment.

Big statement. If the Scotland votes for separation expect Cammell Laird to upscale in a hurry. Then we can test your "doesn't have the required capital" theory.

And turning the Clyde into a state of the art frigate factory doesn't work because BAE are constrained by the hopelessly inefficient two site system and the Scottish Government wants both sites to stay open, and they don't want a super efficient frigate factory, they want to carry on the grievance mongering about how Scottish shipbuilding is being undermined by the UK government. Sorry to let reality get in the way again but they've just won another election, even though without an overall majority.

All the more reason to build the Frigate Factory then

What you want is an "ideal world" nationalisation

Again no

Thanks anyway.

[RichardIC]

I want UK shipbuilding to get get organised not nationalised.

And I want to be 6' 3".

Big statement. If the Scotland votes for separation expect Cammell Laird to upscale in a hurry. Then we can test your "doesn't have the required capital" theory.

Not under current ownership. They nearly went bust for the sake of £35 million. Fact. I presume you're basing this on the recent post by Jim. If you have anything else feel free to share.

All the more reason to build the Frigate Factory then

Who? who build?

Again no
Thanks anyway.

You're welcome. Hope it helped.

Y'know, lets see what the refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy looks like. But if it's anything like the Integrated Review and the Defence Command Paper it will be hugely disappointing.

[Tempest414]

Y'know, lets see what the refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy looks like. But if it's anything like the Integrated Review and the Defence Command Paper it will be hugely disappointing.

Yep if it fails to out line a clear list of ships to be replaced in a time frame that is workable with a budget to match then we should hang those who wasted the tree the paper came from

in the the time frame 2020 to 2050 there is

8 x type 26
5 x type 31
5 x type 32
6 x type 83
3 x SSS
on order or planned and

2 x LPD
3 x Bay class
3 x Survey ships
10 + P-2000
2 x Wave class

to be replaced