Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

If the UK want 2 builders of warships then it has to start looking at a fleet of 38 ships tire 1 built over 30 years tire 2 built over 20 years = cheap

8 AAW destroyers
10 ASW frigates
10 GP frigates
10 MHPC / Sloops

As the current fleet of Escorts , OPV's , MCMV's plus Scott & Enterprise stands that 38 this will happen anyway as the world becomes more disputed

A 3rd yard could get on with building RFA / Amphib fleet set at 14 ships over 28 years

5 x Tankers
3 x SSS
6 x Amphib's

[donald_of_tokyo]

If the UK want 2 builders of warships then it has to start looking at a fleet of 38 ships tire 1 built over 30 years tire 2 built over 20 years = cheap

8 AAW destroyers
10 ASW frigates
10 GP frigates
10 MHPC / Sloops

As the current fleet of Escorts , OPV's , MCMV's plus Scott & Enterprise stands that 38 this will happen anyway as the world becomes more disputed

A 3rd yard could get on with building RFA / Amphib fleet set at 14 ships over 28 years

5 x Tankers
3 x SSS
6 x Amphib's

Bu, but, in this case, there is no competition?

To make this work, all the 3 builders must have mixed order capability. Not only Clyde, but also Rosyth and Belfast or Mersyside must be able to bid for Type83. Virtually, impossible. Or, you need to share all types of ship orders between the 3-4 yards so that they all can be trained. This will be VERY expensive.

I think there is Zero hope to keep pure competition, logically.

[tomuk]

I'm not sure why we have gone down the rabbit hole of discussing competition. The reality of the situation is that there just isn't enough capability in UK naval shipbuilding to allow it or for that matter the level of orders to support it whatever the automatons of procurement procedure at Main building or Abbeywood may say.

We have two companies who can be viable primes BAE and Babcock
We have two and a bit design offices with varying competencies
We have four shipyard companies again with varying resource and capabilities

The 'ecosystem' isn't strong or diverse enough to cope with competition.
T32 needs to be going to Babcock in 2-3 years at the most and T83 needs to go to BAE now to sustain the design office.

[Repulse]

I'm not sure why we have gone down the rabbit hole of discussing competition. The reality of the situation is that there just isn't enough capability in UK naval shipbuilding to allow it or for that matter the level of orders to support it whatever the automatons of procurement procedure at Main building or Abbeywood may say.

We have two companies who can be viable primes BAE and Babcock
We have two and a bit design offices with varying competencies
We have four shipyard companies again with varying resource and capabilities

The 'ecosystem' isn't strong or diverse enough to cope with competition.
T32 needs to be going to Babcock in 2-3 years at the most and T83 needs to go to BAE now to sustain the design office.

Sorry, but bollocks - BAE could have enough capability to sustain a 24 FF/DD fleet - we’ve gone down the rabbit hole where the status quo isn’t sustainable

[tomuk]

I'm not sure why we have gone down the rabbit hole of discussing competition. The reality of the situation is that there just isn't enough capability in UK naval shipbuilding to allow it or for that matter the level of orders to support it whatever the automatons of procurement procedure at Main building or Abbeywood may say.

We have two companies who can be viable primes BAE and Babcock
We have two and a bit design offices with varying competencies
We have four shipyard companies again with varying resource and capabilities

The 'ecosystem' isn't strong or diverse enough to cope with competition.
T32 needs to be going to Babcock in 2-3 years at the most and T83 needs to go to BAE now to sustain the design office.

Sorry, but bollocks - BAE could have enough capability to sustain a 24 FF/DD fleet - we’ve gone down the rabbit hole where the status quo isn’t sustainable

What are you on about? Where have I said BAE don't have the capability?

For there to be competition there needs to be enough orders to spread around and enough competency within the industry that you can receive more than one viable bid.

If you have a competition for T32 and Babcock lose Rosyth is out of business? If you have a competition for T83 are Babcock competent enough to put in a rival bid to BAE for such a complex ship?

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm not sure why we have gone down the rabbit hole of discussing competition. The reality of the situation is that there just isn't enough capability in UK naval shipbuilding to allow it or for that matter the level of orders to support it whatever the automatons of procurement procedure at Main building or Abbeywood may say.

We have two companies who can be viable primes BAE and Babcock
We have two and a bit design offices with varying competencies
We have four shipyard companies again with varying resource and capabilities

The 'ecosystem' isn't strong or diverse enough to cope with competition.
T32 needs to be going to Babcock in 2-3 years at the most and T83 needs to go to BAE now to sustain the design office.

Thanks, I agree to your point that there can be no competition in UK military ship building industry. (I guess Repulse-san is misunderstanding your point?).

Even though there are Babcock and BAES, there is no hope pure competition can take place. HMG must continue supporting BOTH shipyards. I even think MOD must contract a TOBA for 2050s.

There are two distinct problems.

1: BAES has barely enough order to survive after T26 build end (steelwork totally ends at ~2033) until T26-replacement start (delivery will start at ~2055, steelwork start around ~2050) for build, even with assuming 6-hulls of T83. I personally think a stop-gap T26 order (hull-9) is very much needed...

2: Babcock CANNOT be a pure "T3X" builder. No enough order. So, they MUST also be a big ship builder (FSSS (part of), MRSS). In other words, timing of T32 order must be balanced with those of MRSS order. The two shall not come at the same time. Rosyth needs BOTH to survive.

Belfast H&W? There is no way both Rosyth and Belfast can survive in this field. If Babcock survive as a MOD ship builder, H&W Belfast will fail. If Belfast succeeds, Rostyh with be gone. Simple.

[SD67]

Donald, Rosyth is primarily a marine engineering support base for the North Sea oil and gas industry. Babcock leveraged some of those skills to start a frigate business. But it’s a small part of the site. To put this in perspective 20 BILLION £ are going to be spent decommissioning oil rigs over the next decade. Unlike defence this money is legally required to be spent and is already funded - the cash is already in the bank. Rosyth does not need to be “kept alive” in the way you’re thinking. If there’s a lean patch they will likely end up building a few blocks for H&W.
Rosyth will also be needed for planned or unplanned (as n now) work on the carriers.
H&W makes perfect sense as a large RFA Integration point once they scale up the workforce.
The Clyde on the other had is a different matter if I were a gambling man Id say BAE/MOD will use that gap to gut the place and rebuild it from the ground up likely consolidated on 1 yard

[SD67]

Oh there’s also a big expansion in offshore wind planned plus eventually 21 nuclear subs that need to be dismantled. Rosyth is not going to run out of work anytime soon

[Tempest414]

If the UK want 2 builders of warships then it has to start looking at a fleet of 38 ships tire 1 built over 30 years tire 2 built over 20 years = cheap

8 AAW destroyers
10 ASW frigates
10 GP frigates
10 MHPC / Sloops

As the current fleet of Escorts , OPV's , MCMV's plus Scott & Enterprise stands that 38 this will happen anyway as the world becomes more disputed

A 3rd yard could get on with building RFA / Amphib fleet set at 14 ships over 28 years

5 x Tankers
3 x SSS
6 x Amphib's

Bu, but, in this case, there is no competition?

To make this work, all the 3 builders must have mixed order capability. Not only Clyde, but also Rosyth and Belfast or Mersyside must be able to bid for Type83. Virtually, impossible. Or, you need to share all types of ship orders between the 3-4 yards so that they all can be trained. This will be VERY expensive.

I think there is Zero hope to keep pure competition, logically.

Ho dear boy there is no real competition just the faint whiff of the idea no real competition can take place on anything above type 32 and even then not really as BAE will still have its hands full of type 26 and H&W have there's full of SSS so who is going to invest in yet another yard when a newly developed yard is coming to the end of a run

the Idea of competition in real terms is Babcocks will build type 32 however BAE and H&W will bid with concepts using CL and Appledore as there build yards telling Babcocks to keep it real or they could lose it and the process repeats with type 83 and MRSS

[SD67]

Yes. Babcock don’t have the design depth to build a front line frigate and BAE are too high cost to build an RFA or OPV, it’s not real competition.

[Tempest414]

Yes. Babcock don’t have the design depth to build a front line frigate and BAE are too high cost to build an RFA or OPV, it’s not real competition.

Quite but H&W along with Navantia or Babcocks buying in a design could build Type 83 but only BAE can design and build T-83 so the other two will bid with concepts to keep BAE honest

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald, Rosyth is primarily a marine engineering support base for the North Sea oil and gas industry. Babcock leveraged some of those skills to start a frigate business. But it’s a small part of the site. To put this in perspective 20 BILLION £ are going to be spent decommissioning oil rigs over the next decade. Unlike defence this money is legally required to be spent and is already funded - the cash is already in the bank. Rosyth does not need to be “kept alive” in the way you’re thinking. If there’s a lean patch they will likely end up building a few blocks for H&W.
Rosyth will also be needed for planned or unplanned (as n now) work on the carriers.
H&W makes perfect sense as a large RFA Integration point once they scale up the workforce.
The Clyde on the other had is a different matter if I were a gambling man Id say BAE/MOD will use that gap to gut the place and rebuild it from the ground up likely consolidated on 1 yard

So you mean "an engineering support base for the North Sea oil and gas industry" can build T3X whenever they like?

Not sure.... If so, MOD shall better order T32 from BAES or H&W, leave Rosyth go away from ship building, because anytime Babcock can raise hands for T3X (as a "competitor"). In other words, canceling T32 will NOT destroy ship building industry.

I do not think so. Accumulating orders for ship building in BAES and Rosyth (or H&W) will enable establishing healthy man-power education process, gaining experience, attracting young engineers, and put the yard in stronger position for buying equipment from off-the-shelf (because they can promise future order). As continuous order flow is there, the yard can invest on more efficient but initial cost high equipment. These are all essential to build ship cheap.

BAES, Rosyth, H&W and Cammel Laird are all in short of ship building order, making them all very inefficient (in worlds standard, even in European standard). They cannot compete in the market and hence relying on MODs money.

[SD67]

Donald let's agree to disagree. FYI other activities performed by Babcock prior to taking on T31 are :

- assembly of the aircraft carriers and significant % of fabrication for them
- build of 4 OPVs for the Irish navy
- deep maintenance on UK nuclear submarines
- support and maintenance if Canadian Upholder class submarines
- JV ship repair facility in Oman
- Sustainment of RAN ANZAC frigates
- Ship repair refit in NZ
- LIFEX on type 23s at Devonport

I think they may have gleaned a little bit about ship building amongst the above activity. And yes I know many of these are not at Rosyth but people move around. There are many ex-Clyde people at Barrow, I even saw a few Portsmouth people there. There are a bunch of south australians working in the Clyde right now. In staffing up T31 Babcocks will have been calling people in from their operations at Canada, Australia, Devonport etc. It really is not a big step compared to what they've done in the past. And welding is welding.

[NickC]

Yes. Babcock don’t have the design depth to build a front line frigate and BAE are too high cost to build an RFA or OPV, it’s not real competition.

Quite but H&W along with Navantia or Babcocks buying in a design could build Type 83 but only BAE can design and build T-83 so the other two will bid with concepts to keep BAE honest

NavyLookout

N-a-B
Reply to Duker
5 days ago
F8cking hell. Have you been on a course??!!
Hilarious. How much effort do you think it takes to produce a Product Definition Model – which is partly what you’re referring to? That is exactly the approach followed by T26.
The extension to individual ships is what’s referred to as digital twins. You can do all sorts with them once in service. Perfectly valid
What it doesn’t do is give you the intelligence and understanding to get the principal characteristics right. There’s a reason T26 took so long in design and over detailing stuff is a huge part of it. How do you think they spent £165M on T26 design nd still needed another £800m plus? Cast of thousands playing CAD games, rather than making decisions.
ETA : I’m well aware the £800m figure included long lead equipment purchases, primarily gearboxes and one or two other things. But north of three figure millions were spent in finishing the design.

From <https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-32 ... -it-began/>

After reading the above post by N-a-B i personally wouldn't let BAE within a barge pole of the T83 design.

PS When totalling T26 costs not many include the £165 million

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald let's agree to disagree. FYI other activities performed by Babcock prior to taking on T31 are :

- assembly of the aircraft carriers and significant % of fabrication for them
- build of 4 OPVs for the Irish navy
- deep maintenance on UK nuclear submarines
- support and maintenance if Canadian Upholder class submarines
- JV ship repair facility in Oman
- Sustainment of RAN ANZAC frigates
- Ship repair refit in NZ
- LIFEX on type 23s at Devonport

I think they may have gleaned a little bit about ship building amongst the above activity. And yes I know many of these are not at Rosyth but people move around. There are many ex-Clyde people at Barrow, I even saw a few Portsmouth people there. There are a bunch of south australians working in the Clyde right now. In staffing up T31 Babcocks will have been calling people in from their operations at Canada, Australia, Devonport etc. It really is not a big step compared to what they've done in the past. And welding is welding.

Thanks, but sorry, where are we disagreeing? I wanted to make it clear, before disagreeing. All your points are just fact, I have no surprise on the list. Then ...

item-1: Can an offshore industry suddenly join the escort building?

item-2: if item-1 is yes, we do not need to give T32/T3X contract to Babcock, because they can bid for T3X anytime they want. Even no need for MRSS. Just let it be an offshore industry.

item-3a: in line with item-2, "T32 ordering sooner or later" is not a problem. MOD can wait for the budget to be prepared, because Rosyth does not need it.

item-3b: in line with item-3a, I think MOD shall order T32 from BAES, to earn the design team and make Clyde efficiency much higher so that T83 build can be smoother.

item-4: if item-1 is no, we need to keep the shipbuilding activity in Rosyth. Then, I think there is no hope for large enough order of T3X series, so Rosyth must get "large ship orders" like MRSS. This means HMG need to carefully align the orders of T32, MRSS, and other ships.

item-5: In line with item-4, I cannot see any possibility that H&W and Rosyth both survive as a ship builder.

So, where are we disagreeing? (Sorry to bother you...). Just for clarity...

[SD67]

Donald let's agree to disagree. FYI other activities performed by Babcock prior to taking on T31 are :

- assembly of the aircraft carriers and significant % of fabrication for them
- build of 4 OPVs for the Irish navy
- deep maintenance on UK nuclear submarines
- support and maintenance if Canadian Upholder class submarines
- JV ship repair facility in Oman
- Sustainment of RAN ANZAC frigates
- Ship repair refit in NZ
- LIFEX on type 23s at Devonport

I think they may have gleaned a little bit about ship building amongst the above activity. And yes I know many of these are not at Rosyth but people move around. There are many ex-Clyde people at Barrow, I even saw a few Portsmouth people there. There are a bunch of south australians working in the Clyde right now. In staffing up T31 Babcocks will have been calling people in from their operations at Canada, Australia, Devonport etc. It really is not a big step compared to what they've done in the past. And welding is welding.

Thanks, but sorry, where are we disagreeing? I wanted to make it clear, before disagreeing. All your points are just fact, I have no surprise on the list. Then ...

item-1: Can an offshore industry suddenly join the escort building?

item-2: if item-1 is yes, we do not need to give T32/T3X contract to Babcock, because they can bid for T3X anytime they want. Even no need for MRSS. Just let it be an offshore industry.

item-3a: in line with item-2, "T32 ordering sooner or later" is not a problem. MOD can wait for the budget to be prepared, because Rosyth does not need it.

item-3b: in line with item-3a, I think MOD shall order T32 from BAES, to earn the design team and make Clyde efficiency much higher so that T83 build can be smoother.

item-4: if item-1 is no, we need to keep the shipbuilding activity in Rosyth. Then, I think there is no hope for large enough order of T3X series, so Rosyth must get "large ship orders" like MRSS. This means HMG need to carefully align the orders of T32, MRSS, and other ships.

item-5: In line with item-4, I cannot see any possibility that H&W and Rosyth both survive as a ship builder.

So, where are we disagreeing? (Sorry to bother you...). Just for clarity...

Ah I understand better your point now. Yes agreed no real need to sustain Babcock because they do so much other stuff.
The reason to give T32 to Babcock not BAES is that BAES will cost twice as much. They have inherently higher overheads, better pay and conditions, stronger unions more of a "civil service" type culture. Their OPVs cost twice the going rate.

[Ron5]

The 'ecosystem' isn't strong or diverse enough to cope with competition.

Tell that to the Treasury!!

[Ron5]

If you have a competition for T83 are Babcock competent enough to put in a rival bid to BAE for such a complex ship?

Lack of competency doesn't stop the MoD/Treasury. Long list of incompetent winners and competent losers e.g. Ajax.

Jury's out on FSS but the competent team UK had a god awful design and one fewer ships.

The one bright spot in UK procurement has zero competition, one manufacturer, and produces world beaters: Complex Weapons Program established in 2010.

[Ron5]

Id say BAE/MOD will use that gap to gut the place and rebuild it from the ground up likely consolidated on 1 yard

Bae won't lift a finger or spend a penny on rebuilding facilities without a firm order. Been burnt too many times.

[Ron5]

If the UK want 2 builders of warships then it has to start looking at a fleet of 38 ships tire 1 built over 30 years tire 2 built over 20 years = cheap

8 AAW destroyers
10 ASW frigates
10 GP frigates
10 MHPC / Sloops

As the current fleet of Escorts , OPV's , MCMV's plus Scott & Enterprise stands that 38 this will happen anyway as the world becomes more disputed

A 3rd yard could get on with building RFA / Amphib fleet set at 14 ships over 28 years

5 x Tankers
3 x SSS
6 x Amphib's

Bu, but, in this case, there is no competition?

To make this work, all the 3 builders must have mixed order capability. Not only Clyde, but also Rosyth and Belfast or Mersyside must be able to bid for Type83. Virtually, impossible. Or, you need to share all types of ship orders between the 3-4 yards so that they all can be trained. This will be VERY expensive.

I think there is Zero hope to keep pure competition, logically.

Ho dear boy there is no real competition just the faint whiff of the idea no real competition can take place on anything above type 32 and even then not really as BAE will still have its hands full of type 26 and H&W have there's full of SSS so who is going to invest in yet another yard when a newly developed yard is coming to the end of a run

the Idea of competition in real terms is Babcocks will build type 32 however BAE and H&W will bid with concepts using CL and Appledore as there build yards telling Babcocks to keep it real or they could lose it and the process repeats with type 83 and MRSS

Your cynicism warms my heart

[Ron5]

After reading the above post by N-a-B i personally wouldn't let BAE within a barge pole of the T83 design.

You clearly don't understand N-a-B's comments. Neither have you heard that type T26 design has been licensed to both Canada & Australia and will tug along hundreds of millions in UK exports.

But hey ho, keep shitting on Bae and UK defence. We all love a troll.

[Ron5]

Their OPVs cost twice the going rate.

The OPV's were provided under TOBA so this is not a fair comment.

Now go look at the Astutes, Type 26, and CVF, and compare their costs to their equivalents built in the US and you'll find the UK costs are considerably lower. You could also compare T26 costs with Canada and Australia.

Hard to compare in Europe because the French ships are so much lower in capability.

[SD67]

Their OPVs cost twice the going rate.

The OPV's were provided under TOBA so this is not a fair comment.

Now go look at the Astutes, Type 26, and CVF, and compare their costs to their equivalents built in the US and you'll find the UK costs are considerably lower. You could also compare T26 costs with Canada and Australia.

Hard to compare in Europe because the French ships are so much lower in capability.

That's kind of my point - in top end ships BAE are competitive. RFAs and simple frigates less so. Their processes are geared towards the top end. TOBA was a symptom not a cause.

I'm actually happy with where we are. A high end frigate / destroyer complex on the Clyde, Aldi frigates in Rosyth including some exports here and there, big RFAs in Belfast in partnership with Navantia, subs at Barrow. All the players have different strengths.

[Ron5]

Their OPVs cost twice the going rate.

The OPV's were provided under TOBA so this is not a fair comment.

Now go look at the Astutes, Type 26, and CVF, and compare their costs to their equivalents built in the US and you'll find the UK costs are considerably lower. You could also compare T26 costs with Canada and Australia.

Hard to compare in Europe because the French ships are so much lower in capability.

That's kind of my point - in top end ships BAE are competitive. RFAs and simple frigates less so. Their processes are geared towards the top end. TOBA was a symptom not a cause.

I'm actually happy with where we are. A high end frigate / destroyer complex on the Clyde, Aldi frigates in Rosyth including some exports here and there, big RFAs in Belfast in partnership with Navantia, subs at Barrow. All the players have different strengths.

[SD67]

Id say BAE/MOD will use that gap to gut the place and rebuild it from the ground up likely consolidated on 1 yard

Bae won't lift a finger or spend a penny on rebuilding facilities without a firm order. Been burnt too many times.

At a guess I'd say it would be costed into the T83 program the same way Barrow's expansion is costed into Dreadnought.