Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 09:45 Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83
Rosyth: T31 followed by T32 plus all CVF refits
H&W Belfast: FSS followed by Amphibs and Wave/Point replacements
H&W Appledore: All Survey, OPV and Patrol vessels
Barrow: All Subs
Cammell Laird: RFA refit work
Uhmm, I am not so optimistic.

Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83; this will mean very inefficient 2 years drumbeat to continue. For what? Why paying higher than needed, just to distribute works elsewhere? No one will be happy.
Rosyth: T31 followed by T32 plus all CVF refits : This means no build works after 2032 or so. Rosyth will be reduced to yet another "repair/maintenance yard". No one will be happy.
H&W Belfast: FSS followed by Amphibs and Wave/Point replacements : 3 FSS, 6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides. Building 17 "big but relatively simple merchant type" hulls, which will be in service for 35+ years. Two years drumbeat of "big but relatively simple merchant type" hulls? Very inefficient.
H&W Appledore: All Survey, OPV and Patrol vessels : 1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels. 14 ships in 30 years rotation? Very inefficient.
Barrow: All Subs: Known to be very inefficient.
Cammell Laird: RFA refit work : Good, but do not forget AandP.

In conclusion, UK shipbuilding will collapse again around 2035-2040.


If me, I will:

Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83, and T32. Even some blocks of "3 FSS, 6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides". Compete on "1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels" with Rosyth.
Rosyth: T31 followed by "6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides.", and many blocks of "3 FSS". Compete on "1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels" with Clyde.
H&W Belfast: 3 FSS and nothing more. Try for merchant ship order.
H&W Appledore: Nothing more. Try for merchant ship order.
Barrow: All Subs: Known to be very inefficient, but need to keep it. Can XLUUV be also built there?
Cammell Laird and A&P: RFA refit work and some blocks from Clyde and Rosyth.

At least, sustainable.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 10:45
If me, I will:

Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83, and T32. Even some blocks of "3 FSS, 6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides". Compete on "1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels" with Rosyth.
Rosyth: T31 followed by "6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides.", and many blocks of "3 FSS". Compete on "1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels" with Clyde.
H&W Belfast: 3 FSS and nothing more. Try for merchant ship order.
H&W Appledore: Nothing more. Try for merchant ship order.
Barrow: All Subs: Known to be very inefficient, but need to keep it. Can XLUUV be also built there?
Cammell Laird and A&P: RFA refit work and some blocks from Clyde and Rosyth.

At least, sustainable.
I don't really see this black hole and in any case noone in British government worries about a theoretical problem in 20 years time

- Based on a 2 year drumbeat from 2026 the last T26 will be delivered in 2040, by which time T83 will be well underway so that's the Clyde sorted
- Bulwark and Albion are planned OSD of 2033/34 so that's H&W busy building amphibs in the mid 2030s - likely with blocks from all over the place
- There's a host of smaller craft that Appledore could build - Police launches, Border Patrol craft, River B1 replacement. The Clyde is overkill for small ships witness River B2 cost
- RFA refits and blocks should go on keeping CL/A&P busy
- The only question is the Rosyth frigate factory - if t32 is long grassed then Babcocks will need too find something to fill the gap but knowing them they're already on it

Everything's a compromise

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 10:45 In conclusion, UK shipbuilding will collapse again around 2035-2040.
Too pessimistic IMO.

The one aspect your analysis consistently misses is UK political reality. Shipbuilding in the UK is massively inefficient but due to political reasons it has to remain that way. The megayard concept is clearly the holy grail for efficiency but it’s politically toxic and won’t happen in the foreseeable future.

A few possibilities to consider:

Govan/Scotstoun: T26/T83, possibly T32? Maybe
Rosyth:T31/T32 and perhaps a massive order to rebuild the Ukrainian Navy. Will Ukraine want to build vessels in Kherson/Mykolayiv in the near future? No chance.
H&W Belfast: FSS, Amphibs, Wave, Point and Tide replacements is enough.
H&W Appledore: Small craft specialist moving into small unmanned surface vessels. Lots of opportunities at home and abroad.
Barrow: All Subs and make it more efficient by ordering more. DS already looking into sub/surface balance. Manufacturing XLUUVS seems perfectly possible.
Cammell Laird and A&P: All other yards can bid for refit work and/or blocks.

Due to the political considerations I think HMGs plan is as good as can be expected.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
SD67wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Sorry, for me, it all looks very depressing = no great future...

If you are a young potent engineer, will you devote your life on such an inefficient industry? The industry may go around for a decade, but I will be forced to find new job around 2035-2040. This is real threat, because we know what happened to Swan hunter, and then on Appledore and Belfast. It will surely repeat.

As such, at least, I will not join these industry. Of course, I am an engineer in Japan and not working for ship building (but on complex something) (also I am not so young), and thus my "depressing" feeling has no impact on UK.

But, why not make it more attractive?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 Next you will be telling us every bit of f35 needs to be built in the UK :crazy:

We need to be able to assembly, integrate and test major equipment purchases across the services in the UK not build every last bit. That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.

If we ensure as much of the systems as we can is digital in nature that allows the services themselves to modify them to best suit there needs and share data between themselves like app develops in the commercial world.
This seems to make little sense.

If I've read this correctly it says that the UK could (for example) choose to buy the American F-22 follow on and then replace its engines, radar, weapons, and sensing systems with UK sourced systems before the RAF further modifies the package to meet their unique requirements.

For ships, replace F-22 in the example above with Arleigh Burke and RAF with RN.

Apart from the suggestion being utterly mad, what would be the point?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 19:15
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.
What are the high end areas of the FSS that 'we' are focussing on? Why even build them in the UK at all? Just get whatever DSME is called now to bash them out like the Tides then at least A&P and Cammell Laird will have some ongoing work rectifying the faults.
If DSME is still in business, I'm not sure they are, they wouldn't touch this with a very long barge pole. It was pretty much a disaster for them.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 10:14 I agree I see a lot of Spanish coming and going in Belfast over the next few years and the only way this can work is for there to be on going work with a British workforce taking over as they are trained
I'm sure Navantia will be very motivated to train up a future competitor (eyes roll).

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 10:45
Poiuytrewq wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 09:45 Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83
Rosyth: T31 followed by T32 plus all CVF refits
H&W Belfast: FSS followed by Amphibs and Wave/Point replacements
H&W Appledore: All Survey, OPV and Patrol vessels
Barrow: All Subs
Cammell Laird: RFA refit work
Uhmm, I am not so optimistic.

Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83; this will mean very inefficient 2 years drumbeat to continue. For what? Why paying higher than needed, just to distribute works elsewhere? No one will be happy.
Rosyth: T31 followed by T32 plus all CVF refits : This means no build works after 2032 or so. Rosyth will be reduced to yet another "repair/maintenance yard". No one will be happy.
H&W Belfast: FSS followed by Amphibs and Wave/Point replacements : 3 FSS, 6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides. Building 17 "big but relatively simple merchant type" hulls, which will be in service for 35+ years. Two years drumbeat of "big but relatively simple merchant type" hulls? Very inefficient.
H&W Appledore: All Survey, OPV and Patrol vessels : 1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels. 14 ships in 30 years rotation? Very inefficient.
Barrow: All Subs: Known to be very inefficient.
Cammell Laird: RFA refit work : Good, but do not forget AandP.

In conclusion, UK shipbuilding will collapse again around 2035-2040.


If me, I will:

Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83, and T32. Even some blocks of "3 FSS, 6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides". Compete on "1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels" with Rosyth.
Rosyth: T31 followed by "6 Amphib, 4 Points, 0 Waves, and then 4 Tides.", and many blocks of "3 FSS". Compete on "1 Survey, 8 or 5 OPVs, 0 Patrol vessels" with Clyde.
H&W Belfast: 3 FSS and nothing more. Try for merchant ship order.
H&W Appledore: Nothing more. Try for merchant ship order.
Barrow: All Subs: Known to be very inefficient, but need to keep it. Can XLUUV be also built there?
Cammell Laird and A&P: RFA refit work and some blocks from Clyde and Rosyth.

At least, sustainable.
Everyone seems sanguine about the total loss of future competition.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:27
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 Next you will be telling us every bit of f35 needs to be built in the UK :crazy:

We need to be able to assembly, integrate and test major equipment purchases across the services in the UK not build every last bit. That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.

If we ensure as much of the systems as we can is digital in nature that allows the services themselves to modify them to best suit there needs and share data between themselves like app develops in the commercial world.
This seems to make little sense.

If I've read this correctly it says that the UK could (for example) choose to buy the American F-22 follow on and then replace its engines, radar, weapons, and sensing systems with UK sourced systems before the RAF further modifies the package to meet their unique requirements.

For ships, replace F-22 in the example above with Arleigh Burke and RAF with RN.

Apart from the suggestion being utterly mad, what would be the point?

That would be correct. It’s not mad at all. It’s about selecting areas that you value as your National industry that you invest in what you consider important for your sovereignty capabilities in that you can change and integrate what you wish and ensure it fits with with your logistical and training pipelines not a myriad of different systems.


It’s why for example the Americans are buying the fremm frigate and adding aegis radar, mark 41 standard missiles and not buying aster missiles, sylver launcher and APAR radar.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:39 Everyone seems sanguine about the total loss of future competition.
Doesn't matter.

Even if many were to be stood-up again by splitting orders now, some of those will be bankrupt and disappear because of lack of follow on order. So, anyway, there will be not many ship builders available for competition in future, for sure. :thumbup:

Stand up and scrap. Just continue inefficient exercise or balance it.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:35
Tempest414 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 10:14 I agree I see a lot of Spanish coming and going in Belfast over the next few years and the only way this can work is for there to be on going work with a British workforce taking over as they are trained
I'm sure Navantia will be very motivated to train up a future competitor (eyes roll).
I am sure they could be very motivated to secure a chunk of 20 years of ship building in a UK yard ( eyes roll) if they got it right

Lets face it BAE has Yards all over the place

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:29
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 19:15
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.
What are the high end areas of the FSS that 'we' are focussing on? Why even build them in the UK at all? Just get whatever DSME is called now to bash them out like the Tides then at least A&P and Cammell Laird will have some ongoing work rectifying the faults.
If DSME is still in business, I'm not sure they are, they wouldn't touch this with a very long barge pole. It was pretty much a disaster for them.
My suggestion of going back to DSME was meant to be sarcastic, but I must remember sarcasm and irony don't always translate to forum posts. If the tides could be described as a disaster for DSME it was very much self inflicted as the company descended into bankruptcy.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
RichardIC

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:50
Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:27
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 Next you will be telling us every bit of f35 needs to be built in the UK :crazy:

We need to be able to assembly, integrate and test major equipment purchases across the services in the UK not build every last bit. That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.

If we ensure as much of the systems as we can is digital in nature that allows the services themselves to modify them to best suit there needs and share data between themselves like app develops in the commercial world.
This seems to make little sense.

If I've read this correctly it says that the UK could (for example) choose to buy the American F-22 follow on and then replace its engines, radar, weapons, and sensing systems with UK sourced systems before the RAF further modifies the package to meet their unique requirements.

For ships, replace F-22 in the example above with Arleigh Burke and RAF with RN.

Apart from the suggestion being utterly mad, what would be the point?

That would be correct. It’s not mad at all. It’s about selecting areas that you value as your National industry that you invest in what you consider important for your sovereignty capabilities in that you can change and integrate what you wish and ensure it fits with with your logistical and training pipelines not a myriad of different systems.


It’s why for example the Americans are buying the fremm frigate and adding aegis radar, mark 41 standard missiles and not buying aster missiles, sylver launcher and APAR radar.
But for the americans it is an issue of scale and standardisation if you already have 100 odd vessels with Aegis, Mk41 and Standard missiles why would you choose anything else. The RN with 6 and 8 and 5 vessels with a mix of fits?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 18:16
SW1 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:50
Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:27
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 Next you will be telling us every bit of f35 needs to be built in the UK :crazy:

We need to be able to assembly, integrate and test major equipment purchases across the services in the UK not build every last bit. That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.

If we ensure as much of the systems as we can is digital in nature that allows the services themselves to modify them to best suit there needs and share data between themselves like app develops in the commercial world.
This seems to make little sense.

If I've read this correctly it says that the UK could (for example) choose to buy the American F-22 follow on and then replace its engines, radar, weapons, and sensing systems with UK sourced systems before the RAF further modifies the package to meet their unique requirements.

For ships, replace F-22 in the example above with Arleigh Burke and RAF with RN.

Apart from the suggestion being utterly mad, what would be the point?

That would be correct. It’s not mad at all. It’s about selecting areas that you value as your National industry that you invest in what you consider important for your sovereignty capabilities in that you can change and integrate what you wish and ensure it fits with with your logistical and training pipelines not a myriad of different systems.


It’s why for example the Americans are buying the fremm frigate and adding aegis radar, mark 41 standard missiles and not buying aster missiles, sylver launcher and APAR radar.
But for the americans it is an issue of scale and standardisation if you already have 100 odd vessels with Aegis, Mk41 and Standard missiles why would you choose anything else. The RN with 6 and 8 and 5 vessels with a mix of fits?

But that is sort of the point it you have 20 odd vessels in the navy, similar radar in them all, same missiles in them all, same command system in them all. Suddenly all your training is on the same systems, all your personnel can be moved around easier, all your support systems are the same.

I would argue the smaller you are the more important it becomes to standardise not less. I also suggest if you specialise in specific areas you get better results for the money spent and more likely to deliver programs that you start.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

Well lets just give up completely then and buy completed Constellation class frigates from the US, all nice and standard

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 15:07
Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:29
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 19:15
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.
What are the high end areas of the FSS that 'we' are focussing on? Why even build them in the UK at all? Just get whatever DSME is called now to bash them out like the Tides then at least A&P and Cammell Laird will have some ongoing work rectifying the faults.
If DSME is still in business, I'm not sure they are, they wouldn't touch this with a very long barge pole. It was pretty much a disaster for them.
My suggestion of going back to DSME was meant to be sarcastic, but I must remember sarcasm and irony don't always translate to forum posts. If the tides could be described as a disaster for DSME it was very much self inflicted as the company descended into bankruptcy.
Sorry, the sarcasm flew right over my head.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:50
Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:27
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 Next you will be telling us every bit of f35 needs to be built in the UK :crazy:

We need to be able to assembly, integrate and test major equipment purchases across the services in the UK not build every last bit. That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.

If we ensure as much of the systems as we can is digital in nature that allows the services themselves to modify them to best suit there needs and share data between themselves like app develops in the commercial world.
This seems to make little sense.

If I've read this correctly it says that the UK could (for example) choose to buy the American F-22 follow on and then replace its engines, radar, weapons, and sensing systems with UK sourced systems before the RAF further modifies the package to meet their unique requirements.

For ships, replace F-22 in the example above with Arleigh Burke and RAF with RN.

Apart from the suggestion being utterly mad, what would be the point?

That would be correct. It’s not mad at all. It’s about selecting areas that you value as your National industry that you invest in what you consider important for your sovereignty capabilities in that you can change and integrate what you wish and ensure it fits with with your logistical and training pipelines not a myriad of different systems.


It’s why for example the Americans are buying the fremm frigate and adding aegis radar, mark 41 standard missiles and not buying aster missiles, sylver launcher and APAR radar.
That is sooooo not why FREMM was chosen as the design base for the Constellations.

Two things make your idea totally mad are firstly, even if the foreign OEM allows the UK's to replace engines etc., the cost of so doing is prohibitive and the military benefits minimal. See Apache AH1's.

Secondly, the UK's engine, radar, weapons & sensor providers would quickly wither and die on the vine without a UK platform manufacturer selecting their products. They need a home market provided by a home platform supplier. I cannot come up with any country that has successfully done what you suggest to any significant degree.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:11
SW1 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:50
Ron5 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:27
SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 17:12 Next you will be telling us every bit of f35 needs to be built in the UK :crazy:

We need to be able to assembly, integrate and test major equipment purchases across the services in the UK not build every last bit. That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.

If we ensure as much of the systems as we can is digital in nature that allows the services themselves to modify them to best suit there needs and share data between themselves like app develops in the commercial world.
This seems to make little sense.

If I've read this correctly it says that the UK could (for example) choose to buy the American F-22 follow on and then replace its engines, radar, weapons, and sensing systems with UK sourced systems before the RAF further modifies the package to meet their unique requirements.

For ships, replace F-22 in the example above with Arleigh Burke and RAF with RN.

Apart from the suggestion being utterly mad, what would be the point?

That would be correct. It’s not mad at all. It’s about selecting areas that you value as your National industry that you invest in what you consider important for your sovereignty capabilities in that you can change and integrate what you wish and ensure it fits with with your logistical and training pipelines not a myriad of different systems.


It’s why for example the Americans are buying the fremm frigate and adding aegis radar, mark 41 standard missiles and not buying aster missiles, sylver launcher and APAR radar.
That is sooooo not why FREMM was chosen as the design base for the Constellations.

Two things make your idea totally mad are firstly, even if the foreign OEM allows the UK's to replace engines etc., the cost of so doing is prohibitive and the military benefits minimal. See Apache AH1's.

Secondly, the UK's engine, radar, weapons & sensor providers would quickly wither and die on the vine without a UK platform manufacturer selecting their products. They need a home market provided by a home platform supplier. I cannot come up with any country that has successfully done what you suggest to any significant degree.
It’s not why fremm was selected but when it was selected it is why they swapped out the afore mentioned equipment instead of what was already installed.

If you insist but uk Apache fitted with rr engines operated better in Afghanistan. Not to mention the leonardo DAS system on uk helicopters including the new Apache, EWOS is considered a critically sovereignty issue.

Israel would probably disagree with you there.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Israel defense is basically funded by the US and gets all kind of special arrangements. The UK does not have that.

Apache AH1 was a political decision to buy votes at Westlands and RR and was disastrously expensive. Not repeated.

The Constellations are a lousy example of your argument. The US doesn't focus it's investment in a few industries and then buy foreign platforms to re-equip. They being built in the US by US workers.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:43
The Constellations are a lousy example of your argument. The US doesn't focus it's investment in a few industries and then buy foreign platforms to re-equip. They being built in the US by US workers.
No it isn’t. The US spends more money than is sensible on defence so it can do whatever it wants. No one else has such luxury even if they act like they do.

The constellation class is a gd example of exactly my argument of what to do, license build a design and integrate it with systems developed in your our country.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 15:17
Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:43
The Constellations are a lousy example of your argument. The US doesn't focus it's investment in a few industries and then buy foreign platforms to re-equip. They being built in the US by US workers.
No it isn’t. The US spends more money than is sensible on defence so it can do whatever it wants. No one else has such luxury even if they act like they do.

The constellation class is a gd example of exactly my argument of what to do, license build a design and integrate it with systems developed in your our country.
But how much of a licensed design is it? Isn't it longer, higher displacement, different upper works, different CMS and radar, and different armament how much FREMM is left?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Isn't the core FREMM still there. Yes, there have been major changes to the design but wasn't it designed so that the vessel could be radically altered whilst retaining its core. Yes, the USN's Constellation is a far greater alteration than the differences between the Italian and French FREMM. It is probably an example of GFE being provided on a drastic scale, but if it works and the USN get a class of ships it needs then the design has worked. The T-31 is another example. The current export customers have significantly changed the ships design, but the core remains the same. Hopefully we may do something with the T-26 core design when we are looking for future escorts. It should be big enough and has many of the capabilities already designed in the RN would like. Saying that though, the RN might do better to develop the T-31 hull in future as it is a proven adaptable design so should have a reduced risk. As for the FSS, it is a shame they were not ordered at the same time a the relevant Oilers. It may have been possible then for both classes to have a sense of commonality, sharing the basic hull design as well as engines, sensors and other electronics and so on.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
SW1

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 22:07 Isn't the core FREMM still there. Yes, there have been major changes to the design but wasn't it designed so that the vessel could be radically altered whilst retaining its core. Yes, the USN's Constellation is a far greater alteration than the differences between the Italian and French FREMM. It is probably an example of GFE being provided on a drastic scale, but if it works and the USN get a class of ships it needs then the design has worked. The T-31 is another example. The current export customers have significantly changed the ships design, but the core remains the same. Hopefully we may do something with the T-26 core design when we are looking for future escorts. It should be big enough and has many of the capabilities already designed in the RN would like. Saying that though, the RN might do better to develop the T-31 hull in future as it is a proven adaptable design so should have a reduced risk. As for the FSS, it is a shame they were not ordered at the same time a the relevant Oilers. It may have been possible then for both classes to have a sense of commonality, sharing the basic hull design as well as engines, sensors and other electronics and so on.
The IH variants are a lot closer to the 'mother' design than the constellation.

Regards FSS they do share a lot with the Tides they are both BMT designs. Nanantia will do the detail design so the bulkheads, hatches, wir and pip runs may be different compared to DSME practice. As they are a different class bigger diffrences than a Yarrows or Swan Hunter T23.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 15:17
Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:43
The Constellations are a lousy example of your argument. The US doesn't focus it's investment in a few industries and then buy foreign platforms to re-equip. They being built in the US by US workers.
No it isn’t. The US spends more money than is sensible on defence so it can do whatever it wants. No one else has such luxury even if they act like they do.

The constellation class is a gd example of exactly my argument of what to do, license build a design and integrate it with systems developed in your our country.
You've switched your argument mid stream. You first maintained the UK shouldn't build "each last bit" but buy the platform built elsewhere and refit with UK engines etc.

Now you are saying build every last bit in the UK but buy the design from somebody else. Still mad as a box of frogs but now a different box.

I'm done with this.

PS The US spends more money than is sensible on defence. ??? Oh really. Jeesh.

Post Reply