Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Royal Navy Type 31

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    In terms of ship building, outside of the SSN/SSBN, what's US origin? The missile systems, Sonar systems, Radar Systems, engines aren't.
    In terms of high end assets the AH64 and F35 come to mind.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by danno View Post
      In terms of high end assets the AH64 and F35 come to mind.
      And those are related to ship building how? The UK never built something like the AH64 so there was no industrial base to protect there, and they've been doing part builds/joint projects since what the Tornado? Those aren't "historic" areas. Where as the Ship building is rightly or not.

      Comment


      • May I thus take it that the obsession with homemade hulls is down to nostalgia/sentimentality and industrial protectionism?

        Comment


        • The day Britain no longer builds ships for the RN is the day it ceases to be a power of any kind and retreats to join the ranks of Belgium and Portugal.
          The British Army is an afterthought. Historically, merely a bullet fired by the royal navy. It has often purchased major equipment abroad, as has the RAF. The fact that the UK no longer has a tank worthy of the name is, however, a matter of some embarrassment. The RAF has a history of purchasing foreign aircraft and UK industry is in fact directly involved in the development of the F35. Yet the decline of the aviation industry is a palpable sign of decline.
          Remove shipbuilding, and there is nothing left.
          If you buy your defence from abroad, you are not a power. You are a power's customer.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
            The day Britain no longer builds ships for the RN is the day it ceases to be a power of any kind and retreats to join the ranks of Belgium and Portugal.
            The British Army is an afterthought. Historically, merely a bullet fired by the royal navy. It has often purchased major equipment abroad, as has the RAF. The fact that the UK no longer has a tank worthy of the name is, however, a matter of some embarrassment. The RAF has a history of purchasing foreign aircraft and UK industry is in fact directly involved in the development of the F35. Yet the decline of the aviation industry is a palpable sign of decline.
            Remove shipbuilding, and there is nothing left.
            If you buy your defence from abroad, you are not a power. You are a power's customer.
            Exactly right. The critical input to a rapid decline is the high cost of war fighting over the past, almost 30 years. That coupled with political bean counters taking fright at high unit costs in Defence Capital spending, coupled with hasty decisions, like terminating the capacity of the RN to project airpower. This has resulted in a dependence on others to assist, although the lucky geographical position of Cyprus close to Syria and Iraq is an example of the benefit of a large CVN elsewhere. You cannot be lucky as to location all the time. Overall I think world wide deployment for the RN surface elements is gone and it will become a reaction force requiring friendly supports and ports.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by danno View Post
              May I thus take it that the obsession with homemade hulls is down to nostalgia/sentimentality and industrial protectionism?
              no, you can't.

              it is down to military protectionism and a realistic understanding of the strengths of the UK economy and industrial base. we accept that we aren't going to get foreign orders for our ships/designs because the only people who either want or can afford the kind of high end warfighting capabilities we require in our ships have their own warship building capabilities and wish to preserve them for the same strategic reasons that we do. in aviation however we meet two different realities - which is why we can safely purchace military aircraft from overseas in a way that we can't do with warship building: firstly that the UK has a sufficient military, civilian and space (the UK has the third largest space sector in the world..) aerospace industry to be able to cope quite happily wth not getting every MOD order thats going, and secondly that the development/design/build of (for example) a new fast jet is a process so buttock-clenchingly expensive, with a good chance of very limited overseas sales to help spread costs (for the same reasons as with our warships), that its simply not something an economy of the UK's size should do except in the gravest emergency.

              with regards to the F-35 purchace, you'll note that around 15% of every F-35 (not every F35 the UK buys, or every F-35B sold...) is built by a UK company, primarily in the UK, and a majority of that 15% is in the most technologically advanced warfighting elements of the F-35. the materials science and fabrication, for example, of the F-35's exterior surface (the stealthy stuff...) is BAES property, not LM or any other US company. that knowledge is used in other UK systems like the StormShadow ALCM and Tiranis, and may well play a 50% role in the proposed joint UK-Japanese 6th Gen fighter currently being discussed - with Japan actively seeking the UK as its prefered partner...

              Comment


              • A credible parallel view would put it down to aspirations to be a world power and a realistic understanding of the weaknesses of the UK economy and industrial base. It is not credible to insist (at some expense) on retaining welding and cutting skills when it may be possible to assemble F35s in the UK much the same as the AH64. The skills so nutured would be vastly more relevant, useful and a far greater addition to the technological capability of the economy.
                The input of BAE into the F35 project is a fine example of where the UK should be in as many aspects of weapon R & D as it is the effective creation & use of leading technology that will define a countries economy and hence its ability to equip its defence forces.
                A ship is a weapon platform and it the weapon & sensor fit that that defines its combat role rather than the shipyard of origin . It is getting difficult to avoid reaching a somewhat inescapable conclusion that vanity may also be at play.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by danno View Post
                  ...It is getting difficult to avoid reaching a somewhat inescapable conclusion that vanity may also be at play.
                  Alternatively, psychology is at play - that you are a 'power' because people think you are a power, and if one of the things that makes them think that is that you are one of the few countries that builds its own warships, then building your own warships makes you a power.

                  Being 'a 'power' isn't a vanity thing, its a vital strategic asset - if people think you are a power to be reckoned with, they are less likely than otherwise to go out of their way to offend you, and indeed go out of their way to avoid offending you.

                  In 1982 Argentina believed that for all the top trump statistics - 20 SSN's, 2 aircraft carriers, 40 escorts and 50 intercontinental nuclear strike bombers - the UK was not a power. That was a judgement based on psychology alone, nothing whatsoever to do with capability - psychology starts, ends and forestalls wars, that makes it important.

                  Comment


                  • Comeback Verlohme, all is forgiven.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by danno View Post
                      A credible parallel view would put it down to aspirations to be a world power and a realistic understanding of the weaknesses of the UK economy and industrial base. It is not credible to insist (at some expense) on retaining welding and cutting skills when it may be possible to assemble F35s in the UK much the same as the AH64. The skills so nutured would be vastly more relevant, useful and a far greater addition to the technological capability of the economy.
                      The input of BAE into the F35 project is a fine example of where the UK should be in as many aspects of weapon R & D as it is the effective creation & use of leading technology that will define a countries economy and hence its ability to equip its defence forces.
                      A ship is a weapon platform and it the weapon & sensor fit that that defines its combat role rather than the shipyard of origin . It is getting difficult to avoid reaching a somewhat inescapable conclusion that vanity may also be at play.
                      It's about more than welding and cutting skills, the UK does after have a ship-building industry even without warships. It is very much about strategic assets. These do not have a place on an accountant's spreadsheet; indeed accountants and economists may be fundamentally ill-equipped to understand the very concept. But they are real. Consider the setback to the Russian navy of the cancelled Mistral sale. Russia could not construct ships of this class and the lead time to developing the skills to do so was considered unacceptable, so they went to France. France then cancelled the deal. There you have a tangible example of the strategic loss involved in not having the capability to produce the ships you want.
                      Someone, somewhere in the power structures of a country that has worldwide interests, needs to consider how those interests can be maintained.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                        It's about more than welding and cutting skills, the UK does after have a ship-building industry even without warships. It is very much about strategic assets. These do not have a place on an accountant's spreadsheet; indeed accountants and economists may be fundamentally ill-equipped to understand the very concept. But they are real. Consider the setback to the Russian navy of the cancelled Mistral sale. Russia could not construct ships of this class and the lead time to developing the skills to do so was considered unacceptable, so they went to France. France then cancelled the deal. There you have a tangible example of the strategic loss involved in not having the capability to produce the ships you want.
                        Someone, somewhere in the power structures of a country that has worldwide interests, needs to consider how those interests can be maintained.
                        So you steal someone elses ship building industry, i mean invade crim...i mean liberate the crimean peninsula.
                        "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
                        "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                          It's about more than welding and cutting skills, the UK does after have a ship-building industry even without warships. It is very much about strategic assets. These do not have a place on an accountant's spreadsheet; indeed accountants and economists may be fundamentally ill-equipped to understand the very concept. But they are real. Consider the setback to the Russian navy of the cancelled Mistral sale. Russia could not construct ships of this class and the lead time to developing the skills to do so was considered unacceptable, so they went to France. France then cancelled the deal. There you have a tangible example of the strategic loss involved in not having the capability to produce the ships you want.
                          Someone, somewhere in the power structures of a country that has worldwide interests, needs to consider how those interests can be maintained.
                          There is the nub of fighting/defence forces readiness and availability. You are ultimately in the hands of often divergent politicians troubled by balancing books and solve spending problems by deletion or omitting "expensive" kit. " Easy Company" last night was an example of poorly kitted frontline troops under attack for 55 days by the Taliban and eventually relieved by the good offices , and transport of their Taliban enemy, who must have recognised bravery when they saw it. Always follow Order of Battle with fully equipped troops and NOT ad hoc arrangements to suit expediency and it will be all right on the night philosophies.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by morpheus View Post
                            So you steal someone elses ship building industry, i mean invade crim...i mean liberate the crimean peninsula.
                            The deal was cancelled because of the invasion.
                            And a bloody good thing too. Ukraine's most important shipyards are outside the Crimea and Russian control. So far.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                              It's about more than welding and cutting skills, the UK does after have a ship-building industry even without warships. It is very much about strategic assets. These do not have a place on an accountant's spreadsheet; indeed accountants and economists may be fundamentally ill-equipped to understand the very concept. But they are real. Consider the setback to the Russian navy of the cancelled Mistral sale. Russia could not construct ships of this class and the lead time to developing the skills to do so was considered unacceptable, so they went to France. France then cancelled the deal. There you have a tangible example of the strategic loss involved in not having the capability to produce the ships you want.
                              Someone, somewhere in the power structures of a country that has worldwide interests, needs to consider how those interests can be maintained.
                              I've tried to explain this to danno before...but he keeps coming back to the 'sure its only bits of steel and a bit of welding chesnut'.
                              'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                                It's about more than welding and cutting skills, the UK does after have a ship-building industry even without warships. It is very much about strategic assets. These do not have a place on an accountant's spreadsheet; indeed accountants and economists may be fundamentally ill-equipped to understand the very concept. But they are real. Consider the setback to the Russian navy of the cancelled Mistral sale. Russia could not construct ships of this class and the lead time to developing the skills to do so was considered unacceptable, so they went to France. France then cancelled the deal. There you have a tangible example of the strategic loss involved in not having the capability to produce the ships you want.
                                Someone, somewhere in the power structures of a country that has worldwide interests, needs to consider how those interests can be maintained.
                                Are you suggesting Russia is bereft of any meaningful warship construction capability/capacity/competence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X