National Shipbuilding Strategy

Contains threads on equipment developed by the UK defence and aerospace industry, but not in service with the British Armed Forces.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

"HMS Argyll got CAMM and was the first to get the LIFE-EX metal bashing and obsolescence removal process.

HMS Richmond, going into refit this year, should be the first to also get the new MTU diesels."

- Argyll being the first one to go, makes sense

Something I have been repeating here for the last couple of years came up loud and clear in what jonas linked to, above:

"Q27 Chair: So what you are saying—and this is a critical point—is that unless we start building the Type 31e frigates in parallel with the Type 26s, there is little chance of not reducing below our existing figure of 13 frigates all told. That, I must say, fits in with the projections I have seen and it follows from that, therefore, that we have to consider the best way of building two classes of frigates in parallel, rather than in succession.

Sir John Parker: Correct."

And to finish off, a warning shot over the bow, for those looking for the "easy way out of the dilemma" and just to meet political commiments made:

"If we are going to take on the competition, we need to have the very best modern design, which takes care of the export market. If we decide not to do that, you can widen the camera lens on to different designs, including looking at extending our existing OPV. That is, in my view, quite a long way from a modern tailor-made export with all the options in it that you would need. "
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Another one from the minutes linked by jonas:

"I deliberately put in the report the timescale to build $1-billion cruise ships. They are using exactly the same approach, by the way. They are building all the engine rooms in east Germany—a series of ships, one after another. They are building the bows and sterns in Poland. They are building blocks in Finland and bringing it all together in Germany. That is all through the power of digital engineering defining things down to the last nut and bolt.

Q41 Jack Lopresti: Does that increase capacity or competition?

Sir John Parker: The first thing it does for the individual yard is massively reduce the cycle time of build. You want to reduce the cycle time of build to occupy the lowest period of the higher overhead facility, which is the integrator. By distributing lower overhead facilities, you can create a more competitive outturn."

The ex-naval architects on TD, abt 5 yrs back, took great exception with me (bordering on vitriol and abusing my intelligence, ie. ability to construct further from known and verified facts) when I was saying exactly that above, even using the same observed examples to support the argument: Distribute the metal bashing and have one Naval Fitting-Out Yard ... and if it still cannot be made to work, then - in extremis - nationalise that part of the value chain.
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6113
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
Pitcairn Island

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by shark bait »

Not surprisingly the guy talks a lot of sense, its a real shame he has no power.

Glad he highlights the need for parallel build, its the only way this shit show makes sense.

Also glad he's talking down a push for a River-Class+, and routinely stating the the commercial industries design and deliver new ships much quicker than the defense industries, there are certainly lessons to be learned.
@LandSharkUK


dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2665
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Has liked: 55 times
Been liked: 52 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by dmereifield »

Just sae this in the summary doc:

"Defence will take account of wider factors (including the impact on UK prosperity) when making procurement decisions. "

Hopefully this isn't just lip service, and a meaningful mechanism of including UK industrial \economic benefits will be included in the procurement process which will give UK shipbuilders a leg up for the SSS builds

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

And this:
"Warship build will be via competition between UK shipyards with international partners encouraged to
work with them "
- from Babcock to VARD
- from VARD... to the main company of the Group
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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7655
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 80 times
Been liked: 218 times
England

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by SKB »

I bet some of the blocks for T31e (export market) get built in Korea to make the T31e cheap.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Worthwhile to look at Annex A:

All first 21 SJP recommendations accepted (with some further work on Governance noted; to ensure
grip of the shipbuilding enterprise, driving
pace into acquisition).
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

bring in external expertise at different levels
The Client Board Non-Executive Director, the Programme Strategy Team and the Project Team’s ”Client Friend”
to help with the capability/ cost trade-offs, and thereby drive value (not just cost "out").

Everything to ship-shape in the next 5 yrs; from then on, plain sailing for another 25:
We have shared a public, indicative version of the 30 year Master Plan which will provide Industry
with the strategic direction for long term planning.

We have set out the key ship procurements in the next five years: Type 26, Type 31e and the Fleet
Solid Support ships.
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A shared decision point for closely related capability and such capacity:
Landing Platform
Dock (LPD)
Landing Ship Docking
Auxilliary (LSDA)
in this example, in 2033/34

Also related drum beats will be coordinated, 2 T26s to every 3 T31s (for how long?)
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Advertise/ make visible the "differentiators" for winning naval export deals,
" Industry should consider combining their
Maritime Design and Combat Systems Engineering resources
into separate subsidiary Companies"
and
find money in the back of the sofa by starting to think more laterally;
" for [other]
duties, such as minesweeping through using frigate or offshore
patrol vessel platforms to host capabilities, including unmanned
vehicles, rather than procuring bespoke ships"
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Not surprising, but on the 30-yr plan the only categories without a decision point out to 2047 are
- ASW
- OPV
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Looks like the nets were cast quite wide and afar in quality assuring what the NSS was going to say about design and requirements management (this happened in June):
IMPROVING THE SHIP DESIGN PROCESSES

Designing a new class of Frigate, Destroyer OPV or MCM platform is a complex process with a variety of verticals to consider. Taking into account all the specifications a new class needs to possess and might have to adapt in the future requires a unique and refined skill set. This group of presentations will provide stakeholders the opportunity to learn about the latest techniques, technology and tailored packages being used in warship design.


Procurement model and ship design
in the Finnish SQ 2020 Corvette project

Operational requirements that have prompted the need for the new Corvettes
Specifications analysis to avoid unnecessary delays in production
Incorporating civilian expertise into the Naval shipbuilding process

Commander Jon Von Weissenberg, Project Manager 2020, Finnish Navy


Italian FREMM: how a versatile warship design can answer different operational needs

Italian FREMM frigate that are suitable for several missions types
Top level standards in both military and civilian attributes
Proven ability to host different Combat System solutions on a single basic platform

Stefano Ferraris, Head of Technical Support, International Business Unit, Naval Vessel Division, FINCANTIERI S.p.A


Complexity of the warship design process

Incorporating necessary systems in Italy’s future surface programs
Priorities for the multifunctional battleship that were established in the ship design review
Opportunities to incorporate specialist intelligence in the design process

Commander Andrea Manfredini, Head of the Hydrodynamics Section, Italian Navy

ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS DURING THE DESIGN PHASE

Propulsion systems are one of the early considerations in designing a platform. Recent high profile failures in this area are cause for concern. Manoeuvrability and speed will be key assets when undertaking maritime security operations therefore it is imperative systems are implemented that are adaptable in future upgrades. These presentations will explore the issues and potential solutions.


Factoring propulsion reliability and performance in
new designs

Developing the optimum superstructure and propulsion system
Shortfalls in previous systems that have hindered operational activities
Assessment of commercial products suitable for future procurement initiatives

Commander Phil Bradshaw, Director Naval Engineering, Marine Engineering Branch Head, Royal New Zealand Navy


Power & propulsion for future naval surface vessels

Focussing on the underlying criteria for power and propulsion design in support of missions
Designing systems to be sensitive to evolving threats in order to maintain military relevance for longer
Innovation and synergy of power systems and large mechanical prime movers

Mr William Edge, Senior Marine Engineer, Rolls-Royce


The challenges facing Naval architects such as new solutions for new requirements

Leveraging commercial and military research into new designs
Blending new technologies and requirements with extant standards and design rules
Growing the engineering and naval architect skill base in government and industry

Professor Catriona Savage, Professor of Naval Architecture, University College London


Chairman’s Summary

Rear Admiral Steve Brunton CBE, Former Director Ship Acquisition, UK MoD DE&S

Propulsion & power and the Italian FREMM "for versatility" got "two votes", which must be a reflection of where there is greatest concern for getting the T31 2test run" of the NSS proc process right
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by Ron5 »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:I think this is relevant ...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... EU-divorce
It is. The lobby group is in full swing (the Greeks of course all came here) and
"Speaking on the eve of International Shipping Week Mr Dingle, also chairman of Carnival which operates cruises for P&O, added: “The UK is a highly resilient maritime centre. We’ve recently undertaken a survey of 100 maritime leaders – CEOs and chairmen of businesses within the sector – and 62 per cent said they would be likely or very likely to choose the UK as a base for new business.

“Bearing in mind this is a highly competitive world with aggressive Asian rivals, I think this is a very good number.”

Tomorrow’s talks between maritime industry leaders, Theresa May and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox will focus on Government investment and competitive tax rules."
now it is all about tax (and state aid; the article mentions that Greece is no good as it is bound by EU rules).

P&O operates a world-class cruise ship design centre in the UK (and a hugely profitable property portfolio of their old fame in Central London) but have they had anything at all built in Britain in the last few decades?
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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7655
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 80 times
Been liked: 218 times
England

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by SKB »


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7655
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 80 times
Been liked: 218 times
England

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by SKB »

Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, spoke at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) Naval Technology Zone on 12 September 2017.

Read full speech: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ology-zone

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 15 times
United States of America

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by sunstersun »


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by Ron5 »


User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 73 times
Been liked: 110 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by Poiuytrewq »

A National strategy that builds your Nations ships in your own Nation?

What a good idea!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Wasn't there a review of the NSS on the go over the summer; anything heard?

If you take the announced T31 dates at face value, then there will be a gap from them (2028) until the late 2030s when the RN will need to replace the Type 45 destroyers and deliver a new amphibious solution/ ship mix

So, roll on from 2028 and we have a confirmed order for 3 Type 26 frigates ONE of which will even have been delivered by that time and construction of three nuclear attack submarines and the next generation of four Ballistic Missile Submarines (off the top of my head I don't have the delivery dates for the first ones of each type, ie. will they be out of the way... but the capacity for building boats is quite separate from the surface fleet, anyway).

Therefore, is the dragging of the feet with the further orders for T26 any wonder against this big picture? How do you otherwise cross the "next valley of death"... except by deploying the "e" trick?
- the only question is whether the T45 replacements (augmenting the AAW numbers, initially?) will be brought forward
- mind you, what are the Danes kitting out their frigates with? ABM and all... Not in this budget cycle, but in the next
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, a deep silence so nothing heard then "Wasn't there [going to be?] a review of the NSS on the go over the summer; anything heard?"

Will try again as the other key document is the EP and the 2016-26 edition stated in its summary that
"15. Cost estimates for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, the largest non-nuclear procurement project in the Plan, could not reflect fully decisions made in the Review. The Review made significant changes, including the introduction of a new class of frigate to replace part of the Type 26 requirement. The Department’s re-costing and rescheduling of the Type 26 project, together with the development of the new frigate design"

and by now the T31 has its own line item (stretching to at least a year more than any published source might show; but let's assume the total holds).
- what if anything can be inferred from the time profile of funds for "surface fleet" beyond the number that the order for the first 3 of T26s, combined with the above and now defined £1.5 bln, represents?
- my recollection is that as an immediate effect of the referenced Review, almost half a bn disappeared from the early years of T26 (but then the cacophony around the T31 line item missing altogether helped to lose track of any revisions to the overall - surface fleet - plan) in the later years... not very late as the 10-yr horizon only takes us to the first T-26 having been commissioned and all (first? 5) T-31s 'launched'.
... hence I was trying to track down NSS updates (a more sketchy, but 30-yr horizon offered there, at least in the original version; might not 'survive' in any updates or a follow-up report, though)
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Though the 2019 EP is not far away, as for its publishing, had to go for the answer to this
"The Department’s re-costing and rescheduling of the Type 26 project" from 2016
and picked up this from the latest (2018)
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equip ... 8-2028.png
which, in my eyes, clearly shows why the commissioning of the first T26 has been pushed incredibly far into the future
- the largest non-nuclear project is used as a balancing item in the EP in its overall plus vs. being in minus over the coming years
- and the biggest gap is in the years immediately ahead and will only start to reduce from 2022/23 onwards
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)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 73 times
Been liked: 47 times
United Kingdom

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by bobp »

Excellent read ACC wondered if you saw this report that mentions T26 batch 2 order should be confirmed next year.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... eport.html

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: National Shipbuilding Strategy

Post by Ron5 »

"slipped slightly"????

A mere two years that all!

By the way, in one of the DSEI articles it was mentioned SJP's update on the NSS has been delivered some time ago but HMG were keeping it secret. Gosh I wonder why.

Post Reply