Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Enigmatically]

I was thinking something the same with the cost of design and R&D and the need for more complex designs maybe the UK should invest in making say BMT the UK design house with yards given programs due to capacity with yards also having overseas project teams to help overseas yards with building UK designs

How many warship designs has BMT sold?

Since you ask, it was BMT's design for QEC that was built, not BAEs. Remember the twin islands?

They were part of Thales' bid team that won, and they carried on with a major role throughout.

I'm sure others have been, but that one was

[Scimitar54]

The real problem is; Too small a navy and not enough orders being placed for a (RN/MOD owned) design, that could be competed for by various yards/companies. That is the only realistic way to drive down costs and reduce timescales whilst preserving the capability to increase production capacity/delivery, if and when required. The strategic folly of intentionally concentrating construction of a specific type of Warship at a single geographic location also beggars belief. Eggs and Baskets are very relevant here. The same also goes for basing arrangements as well if defence is to be taken seriously.

[Lord Jim]

Bring back the Royal Navy Shipyards I say.

[Tempest414]

How many warship designs has BMT sold?

One needs to look at where BTM started

But more to the point my thinking is we need a independent Naval design house with yard allocated work

[Ron5]

Some of the blocks were built at Rosyth by Babcocks

Sponsons right? There weren't any Rosyth facilities for anything complicated. The fact remains that the carriers were assembled in Rosyth, not built. Folks may have forgotten but Babcock's did not win the contract to build the carriers. It was a consortium lead by Bae.

The same way that Babcock's sold that the T31's would be built all around the UK and just assembled in Scotland. Well not so much anymore. Will any part of the T31's be built elsewhere?

Ooh Ron, now you are digging yourself a hole:
Sponsons were built at Rosyth, but so were some centre sections. And bow sections in Appledore
It is true that Babcocks did not win the contract to build the carriers, but technically neither did BAE. Thales won the design competition in almost every respect. However for political reasons at the time (some allege because Chirac had snubbed Blair the week before) it was felt that they couldn't award the whole contract to Thales. There were several machinations before it ended up as a largely BAE led consortium.

As for no Rosyth facilities for anything complicated, I'm not sure what you mean. I can't immediately think of anything missing at Rosyth that was present at Portsmouth or on the Clyde for example. We could get into a debate about who delivered the best quality but it would be a sterile debate, as far as I can remember every yard thought they were the best and the others rubbish - and that applies as much within companies as across them. And I'm afraid I will have to sit on my hands if asked my own opinion

Ooooh now you're re-writing history to bolster your argument. Must be an academic.

Back in the real world, the most complex CVF blocks were built by Bae away from Rosyth. Facilities light and with an inexperineced workforce Babcock's just welded up some "easy" boxes on the Rosyth quayside.

There was a bunch of facilities present then at Portsmouth that were not at Rosyth. A panel line for one that's only just been installed for the Type 31's. Yes, facilities were present on the Clyde but that's Bae not Babcock's. And we're talking Babcock's here and if they had all the required facilities at Rosyth, why are they busily building a complex to build the T31's? You don't buy and build what you already have, do you?

I'm not rising to your red herrings of who providing the best quality or that Thales could have built them but politics got in the way, or any other such nonsense. I'm merely pointing out that Babcock's has never built a warship. They may have convinced the press and MP's that they have on the basis of the CVF's being assembled at Rosyth but that's baloney. As is the attempt to claim the Babcock's inherited that ability through buying Appledore. That's baloney too.

All in fun

I wasn't trying to make any argument or case, merely trying to point out some inaccuracies in what you wrote. And I'm not re-writing history, merely saying what I saw with my own eyes (not from either set of company fluff pieces). I have no axe to grind for BAE, Babcock or Thales for that matter. Clearly BAE have far more experience, but there is no need to downplay the contribution Babcock made.

Fair enough.

The whole "anyone but Bae" and general UK antipathy toward one of the UK's flagship companies, sticks in my craw and makes me overreact on occasion.

[Ron5]

I was thinking something the same with the cost of design and R&D and the need for more complex designs maybe the UK should invest in making say BMT the UK design house with yards given programs due to capacity with yards also having overseas project teams to help overseas yards with building UK designs

How many warship designs has BMT sold?

Since you ask, it was BMT's design for QEC that was built, not BAEs. Remember the twin islands?

They were part of Thales' bid team that won, and they carried on with a major role throughout.

I'm sure others have been, but that one was

So one then? and BMT didn't exactly do the whole ship design on their ownsome did they

[Lord Jim]

Babcock would be a good place to start for a design house. Aren't they competing for the new South Korean Carrier as part of a partnership, and didn't they have a substantial role in the latest South Korean SS and are continuing this with the next generation which will be the largest SS in service.

Speaking of that, we could always build a few similarly capable SS for the Royal Navy, they would have the range to be very useful and can now with AIP and Lithium batteries sustain a reasonable underwater speed. Now that I have probably relit an old argument I shall depart.

[Caribbean]

Well, the RN is effectively looking at reintroducing the “SSK”. They are starting up the trials as we speak.The difference is that the new SSK’s will be unmanned.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

That's a nice way of saying effing stupid.

Cries in Leander...

[NickC]

Not sure if true but NavyRecognition reporting 14th June Pakistan buying Albatros NG (CAMM-ER) for its Karachi shipyard build of Turkish Aselsan MILGEM corvettes.

If true think may be bad news as would expect full details/specs of the CAMM-ER seeker to be in the hands of the Chinese for them to fine tune their jammers, Pakistan has very close relations with China, in effect a client state?, MILGEM said to have 16 of the Chinese LY-80/HQ-16 AA missiles fitted so not sure why need for Albatros NG unless replacing the Chinese missile?

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/na ... ystem.html

[tomuk]

Not sure if true but NavyRecognition reporting 14th June Pakistan buying Albatros NG (CAMM-ER) for its Karachi shipyard build of Turkish Aselsan MILGEM corvettes.

If true think may be bad news as would expect full details/specs of the CAMM-ER seeker to be in the hands of the Chinese for them to fine tune their jammers, Pakistan has very close relations with China, in effect a client state?, MILGEM said to have 16 of the Chinese LY-80/HQ-16 AA missiles fitted so not sure why need for Albatros NG unless replacing the Chinese missile?

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/na ... ystem.html

An interesting development. The basis of the story appears to be a press release by the Pakistan Navy of the steel cutting ceremony for the fourth corvette in Karachi (Turkey are building two and Pakistan are building two). In previous cgi/models of the corvettes a VLS is depicted capable of firing the Chinese HQ16. However at the recent ceremony the officials are pictured sat in front of a large poster depicting the corvette fitted with two sets of mushroom launchers.

So is this the unknown international order?

[Jensy]

However at the recent ceremony the officials are pictured sat in front of a large poster depicting the corvette fitted with two sets of mushroom launchers.

(Assuming that's the graphic in the Navy Recognition link)

Though they look vaguely like the mushroom launchers, featured in some post-2010 Type 26 CGIs from BAE, they are in two clusters of eight cells.

The MBDA launchers are six cells per launcher. Not definitive either way as they were apparently previously seeking a 16-cell VLS, so it could just be an old/outdated graphic.

[Lord Jim]

Maybe we should start looking as export versions of equipment to be sold to nations with strong links to China, make it competitive to what China can offer, but lower spec. that we would use and with a different band of frequencies and so on to developing direct counter measures would be difficult. And on the quiet insist that examples of the latest Chinese hardware and sub systems that they have been provided with. Obviously bring the price down as a result and offer other incentives. We must stop allowing China to increase its R&D rate by giving it access to out technology! They are experts at reverse engineering almost anything, just look at the 1000s of 4x4 clones or the new Seahawk/Blackhawk clones entering service. We spend £Bns developing new equipment and then China copies it and in the case of Russian equipment improves it.

[tomuk]

However at the recent ceremony the officials are pictured sat in front of a large poster depicting the corvette fitted with two sets of mushroom launchers.

(Assuming that's the graphic in the Navy Recognition link)

Though they look vaguely like the mushroom launchers, featured in some post-2010 Type 26 CGIs from BAE, they are in two clusters of eight cells.

The MBDA launchers are six cells per launcher. Not definitive either way as they were apparently previously seeking a 16-cell VLS, so it could just be an old/outdated graphic.

The picture in the Navy Recognition is one of the old images from 2018 showing the Chinese VLS. The recent ceremony in Karachi has mushrooms.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... nah-class/

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting that this is Babcock not BAE.



Still Super Vita's or something else now?

To be built where?

Anyone know?

[Jensy]

Interesting that this is Babcock not BAE.

I wonder if this might go some way to explaining Babcock's involvement. They run the Sandown refit facility and will likely oversee the delivery of these two vessels:



Beyond that I don't believe Babcock have ever offered a fast attack craft or small missile corvette. (Indeed as has been pointed out, Type 31 is their first complete warship build, since losing their Appledore yard and workforce).

I remember rather irritated comments by the Defence Sec to the Select Committee that he had sniffed out an opportunity for export only to be told that the industrial side couldn't deliver.

I wonder if that was in relation to BAE and the Super Vitas for Ukraine. Perhaps that deal is either no longer going ahead or has changed significantly in scope and scale.

Ukraine seem rather more desperate for inshore and fast attack craft than something the size of a Type 31 for now. They were looking at some Turkish Corvettes not long ago.

[RichardIC]

Interesting that this is Babcock not BAE.

Suspect Babcock relates more to the development of naval base facilities than shipbuilding.

The Memorandum provides for joint UK-Ukraine design and build of warships, construction of two Naval Bases.

https://www.facebook.com/ukinukraine

[Jensy]

Further details below:

https://www.babcockinternational.com/ne ... abilities/

Sounds like quite a coup for UK shipbuilding. Though the proof will be in the pudding..

The programme includes the enhancement of capabilities on existing naval platforms, the delivery of new platforms, including fast attack missile craft, a modern frigate capability, shipborne armaments and the training of naval personnel. It also involves working together to regenerate Ukrainian shipyards by developing, implementing and completing a Shipyard Regeneration Plan.

[Poiuytrewq]

Pulled across...

Just wondering if a few episodes like this will urge the mod /RN to fill them extra silos

Where does this leave the T31?

If relatively simple FONOPs result in such incidents with increasing regularity, is the T31 Frigate as proposed (12 CAMM, 57mm/40mm) now effectively obsolete before it has even entered service?

With the T45's and T26's busy with the CSG and TAPS it will be the T31's conducting such FONOPs on a regular basis.

Is this RN's way of gently suggesting to HMT that the T31's really need to be upgraded to a credible Frigate level?

[SW1]

Exactly we’re it is.

How would it change anything. A few planes fly over and a coast guard vessels sailed around a bit.

[Poiuytrewq]

How would it change anything. A few planes fly over and a coast guard vessels sailed around a bit.

In which case why arm RN vessels at all? Where is the duty of care to the crew?

Putting underarmed vessels into a contested area or potential flashpoint is negligent. Defender is capable of handling such a situation very well but a T31 would be a very different proposition in such a situation.

Luckily the T31 has plenty of growth margin if a reappraisal is required.

[SW1]

How would it change anything. A few planes fly over and a coast guard vessels sailed around a bit.

In which case why arm RN vessels at all? Where is the duty of care to the crew?

Putting underarmed vessels into a contested area or potential flashpoint is negligent. Defender is capable of handling such a situation very well but a T31 would be a very different proposition in such a situation.

Luckily the T31 has plenty of growth margin if a reappraisal is required.

T31 is not underarmed. A fully capable air and surface defence capability and full suit of radar and combat management systems. More than capable of handling itself in any such situation.

HMS Westminster sail to war in Libya with 4 missiles.

[RichardIC]

HMS Trent was in Odessa just over a month ago and seems to have survived.

[dmereifield]

It won't be 12 CAMM, remember...

[Poiuytrewq]

HMS Westminster sail to war in Libya with 4 missiles.

Is that to be applauded?