Plans to build the second batch of Type 26 Frigates on the Clyde has been confirmed by the UK Government.
Baroness Goldie, a Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, stated earlier this month:
“In November 2015 the Strategic Defence and Security Review confirmed that eight Type 26 frigates would be manufactured. In 2016 the Demonstration Phase for the Type 26 frigates was extended to June 2017. A contract for the manufacture of the first batch of three Type 26 frigates was awarded to BAE Systems in June 2017. All three ships of the first batch of Type 26 frigates are currently in build in Govan, with the first Type 26 frigate (HMS GLASGOW) expected to be in service with the Royal Navy in 2027.
The procurement of the Batch 2 (Ships 4-8) Type 26 frigates was confirmed in 2021 and will be subject to a separate approval and contract, which is expected to be awarded early in the 2020s. The dates for the construction of each ship, and its price, will be set during commercial negotiations with BAES. The in-service dates for the Batch 2 ships will be determined and approved when the programme achieves its main investment decision point.”
The Ministry of Defence also recently confirmed that resources have been allocated for the next batch of five Type 26 Frigates to be ordered on the Clyde.
Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers and recent Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Type 45s first batch order was for three vessels for example.
Last year, the next batch of Type 26 Frigate propulsion motors were ordered. At the same time Nadia Savage, director of the Type 26 programme, was quoted as saying:
“We will enter into the negotiation phase in the next 18 to 20 months. As we progress through the maturity of the design, it allows us to commit to the next batch and the timeframe around them.”
The Type 26 Frigates will be named Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, Edinburgh and London.
Work recently started on ship 3 of 8, you can read more about that by clicking here.
Lets hope the new First Sea Lord keeps to his promise and ensures that these warships are fitted with an effective AShM and Stingray torpedo tubes
It is strange that the frigates are not planned to operate torpedo tubes or ASROC.
Not strange at all. Standard practice to leave royal navy ships without the weapons they need.
The practice isn’t exclusive to the navy either…
Yes but even by RN standards this is low. An anti submarine frigate with the only anti submarine capability being the helicopter.
The thinking behind the torpedo tubes is that if ur close enough to launch a smaller torpedo from the ship your already dead by the sub ur launching at. Now is there a call for 21inch 2+ ton torpedoes on a frigate if the sensors can target for it. Not for me to answer. I would rather fund 2 torpedo launching aircraft per ship instead tubes on the boat.
Well I think that its crazy for an anti-sub escort frigate to go in harms way without Stingray tubes. So much of this sort of thinking rests on our anticipating “what our opponent will do” Putting Stigray on our frigates complicates the tactical issue of any attacking sub with designs on a convoy..Apparently the frigates dont even have depth charges anymore
Why does it take so long to build a warship? Is it the lack of skilled manpower, or the ‘drip feeding’ of money?
The latter is my understanding. Spreading the cost out over time.
Hi Tom,
It is a bit of both to be honest. Gapped capabilities in the frontline mean lost capabilities in industry as people loose their jobs and factories / yards close. It seems many in government / military circles have little or no idea about how to maintain an industrial capability.
The yards on the Clyde have a long term build programme with the T26’s, but the project is being constrained by the Treasury spending restrictions. This in turn means that BAE Systems cannot justify lots of skilled people, training courses, apprenticeships etc in the same number that might be possible if the yards were pushed to their physical capacity. So the building capability remains pretty thin – just like the frontline units.
All very sad and given Russia’s aggressive behaviours of late – increasingly dangerous I’d say.
Cheers CR
So with the ‘drip feeding’, they are actually spending money from the 2020, 2021,2022,2023 up to 2027 defence budgets, rather than “here’s £500m or whatever up front cost, to build one ship a year?
Basically, yes Tom,
As with all big projects there will be stage payments which are only paid when certain contracted conditions are met, but there will also be an agreed timescale associated with those stages. So the projest can only proceed as the money becomes available.
Cheers CR
Spot on!
Ironically, £2Bn of the money set aside was used for five T31. At one side, MOD is slowing down the build rate of top-tier escorts “because of lack of cash flow”, but there is another £2Bn cash flow spent on T31 within the same time frame…
It is not solely because of treasury, it is also RN who made this inefficiency. RN refused to accept “frigate” number less than 13, and invented a “T31 GP frigate”, frigate-level large hull with corvette-level light armaments. It is good that RN kept 19 escort myth, but it is one of the direct cause of T26’s very slow build rate and inefficiency. Not saying good or bad, but that was the RN’s decision.
Shall not forget the RN “lack of decision” on 2011-12, not preparing a plan-B GP frigate before T26 came out to be late on 2013. It resulted on 5 River B2s. Now River B2 has so-so reputation. But I think it must have been a “3 larger GP frigate (or sloop)”, and I’m sure it would have had similar or even better reputation.
In fairness River B2 is about the size of a lot of navies ‘frigates’
Treasury wouldn’t fund the uplift needed for 13 No T26.
There is also the Parker input of selling off cheaper ships more often.
But more importantly this: it broke the BAE stranglehold on warship construction and that everything cost £1Bn.
This has also lead to fixed prices builds of cheaper ships.
Why classes of 5 x ships B2 and T31 make sense I have no ideas as the old models were based on the economics of 8 ship classes for training etc.
Scotland is part of the UK it would be grossly unfair to punish Scots workers for what may or not happen in the future. If that does change then i’m sure plans will change but until then work should go to whoever is best placed to do it.
Agreed.
CR
Also agree. Just because the SNP were seen as the best political party for the Scottish Parliament by the percentage of the population that voted for them does not translate into they all share a fully independent country view point.
Perhaps you should be asking what have the other political parties done so wrong to have a very minor party 40 years ago become the power holder.
Unfair?…they keep voting the separatists into power, thinking they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
At best or worst the SNP speak for half the people of Scotland. Punishing all Scots for the actions of half is unfair.
And yet a minority of English and Welsh put Brexit through and not only punish ordinary Brits but continues to damage the UK reputation.
The majority voted to leave,get over brexit its done,finished.ffs
Unfortunately it will never be done It has devided a country and it will always be so unfortunately. I think we can all agree that on balance it’s been a bit painful and we are yet to see the brexit dividend we have certainly demonstrably lost more than we gained at the moment but in 20-30 years we may see something.
Just on the Covid vaccine alone the UK has proven we are better off out of the EU, On finance London has retained the number one city for investment and banking with the nearest European city being 9th. And though UK energy prices are rocketing, they are still lower than Europes. And then we see the EU Unity VANISH over the Ukrainian crisis.
TRIPE!!! LOL Brexiteers still can’t see the wood for the trees!! You wait until we feel the pain of loosing European investment into our local communities (parks, sport’s facilities, community centres and deprived area rejuvenation) because the UK government didn’t spend that sort of money before joining the EU and it certainly won’t replace the money we’ve lost penny for penny!!! Unfortunately it’s the people who voted for brexit in these areas that will suffer the most!!! The turkeys have voted for Christmas again!!!
You clearly dont know anything about EU politics or finance. WHERE do you think gets the money from to give to communities??? It comes from the £14 billion a year we give the EU, they take a chunk then send a bit back to the UK for schemes. Outside of the EU the money remains in the UK.
London has yet again been rated as the number one place for investment, finance and banking, the nearest EU member state came ninth.
And YES the UK DID spend billions investing in the UK before we joined the area in the post WW2 rebuilding programs through schemes like the Teesside Develoopment Corporation, and the campaign to replace outdated steam locomotives with modern diesel locomotives, the investment in nuclear power and multiple other schemes.
How can you say we wont replace the money we lost pound for pound when we are no longer giving them £14 billion a year for nothing in return, investments are pouring into the UK, companies moving here FROM the EU, We are signing Trade deals that the remainers said would not happen, we are about to join the CPTPP alliance, AUKUS is coming on nicely as is negotiations in CANZUK.
Now what happened to the Remainer promises of 10 million unemployed, Civil war in Europe, the Banks leaving the UK, Investments in the UK stopping, the Pound becoming worthless, The UK unable to get essential medicines, Nissan leaving the UK, UK not being able to export, Food shortages etc and all the other BS put out by remainers.
Lets move on, You say the people in Brexit areas will suffer the most, We Sir, I live in Teesside and this is a list of recent investrments and programs just in this area, and they have NOTHING to do with the EU.
£20 million 750 jobs Wind Turbine factory in the old Redcar steelworks, with a further 1,500 in the local supply chain
£100 million to redevelop old Redcar Steel Works site itself.
£40 million to buy back Teesside Airport plus land for 350 Exec houses.
£85 million Sedgefield NETPARK phase 3 expansion.
£34.8 million Quorn foods expansion in Billingham and Stokesley
£4 million Film studio in Hartlepool, govt grant
£6 million expansion of rail museum at Shildon
£ 82million New Hitachi train factory in Aycliffe in 2015, plus another £8.5 million in 2020
£15 million New Asda warehouse in Wynyard
£23.9 million to refurbish Thornaby Town centre.
£21.9 million to refurbish Middlesbrough Town centre.
£16.5m Future High Street Fund for Stockton on tees
£3 million for Hydrogen Transport hub on Teesside
£4.5m Project Adder to reduce drug deaths in Middlesbrough for health and policing.
£105 million for Darlington Railway station and track improvements.
£44 million for Middlesbrough station upgrades
£52 million for Net Zero Teesside (NZT) a Carbon capture program at Teesworks
Freeport status plus funding for Tees port and Teesside airport.
750 plus Civil Service and Treasury jobs in Darlington in new treasury campus
750 jobs Department for International Trade (DIT) has confirmed it will establish an HQ to Darlington.
200 culture department Government jobs moving to Darlington announced Feb 22
£39 million to improve the A689 in Hartlepool.
BP has announced plans to create the UK’s largest ‘blue’ hydrogen plant on Teesside.
Three Amazon distribution centres, Darlington and Bowburn and one coming at Wynyard .
Spennymoor Industrial Estate now full with new businesses
Global aviation company Willis Asset management 20 jobs in aircraft maintenance at Tees airport.
Cobham Aviation Services UK announce 25% increase in staff like pilots, engineers etc.
Peak Resources is to develop a rare earth processing plant at Wilton 150 jobs
It will take a while yes, but equally we haven’t seen the sky fall in, fire and biblical level plague and floods that the remainers and sceptics were throwing about! Not much has changed atm, but the parts which have I don’t see as us having lost more than we have gained. But time will tell, as ever.
Well said my friend!! Brexit up to this point has been nothing short of a disaster!!
Above you say Brexit voting areas will be worse off after leaving the EU. This is what has happened in the last couple of years in Teesside, WITHOUT the EU
£20 million 750 jobs Wind Turbine factory in the old Redcar steelworks, with a further 1,500 in the local supply chain
£100 million to redevelop old Redcar Steel Works site itself.
£40 million to buy back Teesside Airport plus land for 350 Exec houses.
£85 million Sedgefield NETPARK phase 3 expansion.
£34.8 million Quorn foods expansion in Billingham and Stokesley
£4 million Film studio in Hartlepool, govt grant
£6 million expansion of rail museum at Shildon
£ 82million New Hitachi train factory in Aycliffe in 2015, plus another £8.5 million in 2020
£15 million New Asda warehouse in Wynyard
£23.9 million to refurbish Thornaby Town centre.
£21.9 million to refurbish Middlesbrough Town centre.
£16.5m Future High Street Fund for Stockton on tees
£3 million for Hydrogen Transport hub on Teesside
£4.5m Project Adder to reduce drug deaths in Middlesbrough for health and policing.
£105 million for Darlington Railway station and track improvements.
£44 million for Middlesbrough station upgrades
£52 million for Net Zero Teesside (NZT) a Carbon capture program at Teesworks
Freeport status plus funding for Tees port and Teesside airport.
750 plus Civil Service and Treasury jobs in Darlington in new treasury campus
750 jobs Department for International Trade (DIT) has confirmed it will establish an HQ to Darlington.
200 culture department Government jobs moving to Darlington announced Feb 22
£39 million to improve the A689 in Hartlepool.
BP has announced plans to create the UK’s largest ‘blue’ hydrogen plant on Teesside.
Three Amazon distribution centres, Darlington and Bowburn and one coming at Wynyard .
Spennymoor Industrial Estate now full with new businesses
Global aviation company Willis Asset management 20 jobs in aircraft maintenance at Tees airport.
Cobham Aviation Services UK announce 25% increase in staff like pilots, engineers etc.
Peak Resources is to develop a rare earth processing plant at Wilton 150 jobs
Brexit benefits are all around you Paul! Are you blind?
👍👍👍🇬🇧🇬🇧
Only 37% of the electorate voted Leave. As with the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, this wasn’t a clear enough mandate for such a major decision.
We didn’t so much ‘Leave’ as were ‘Pushed Out’…the EU didn’t actually want us to stay if we were going to prevent closer EU integration. Of course they couldn’t actually come out and say that in public…
You cannot count those who decided not to vote; they were happy with whatever the outcome was. There was a majority vote to leave, from those who voted and the decision was implimented; that is how democracy works. It was a UK wide vote, as the UK was the EU member, not the individual countries, that make up the UK.
Too true!!!
The rest either CHOSE not to vote, or were not old enough to vote. Every Brit who wanted a say had the opportunity, And LEAVE won.
You really cannot allocate out the votes not used in the voting process…you have to ignore them.Number of votes for something versus number of votes against something is usually the only way to gain the authority to pursue particular courses of action. More people should vote……
A minority that (A) outnumbered the majority then, and (B) has proven itself we are better off out.
👍
👍👍
Nobody likes a sore loser. Grow up.
One can only hope you are equally pithy should the Scots gain their freedom.
And where did you get your Mathematics degree?.
Punishing England by trying to bribe the scots is equally unfair
Its nearer to a third.
That’s the kind of policy you see in Hong Kong. Not sure it’s working there so doubt it will work in Scotland.
C’mon man, the public vote for them for the reason that they are better at governing than the same old same old. That’s all it is. Plenty of Scots cherish their British identity.
Even when the Republic was part of the Union, they were only pushed over the edge by the delay of the Home Rule Bill and the heaviness of the authorities in the Easter Rising.
A modern UK needs to be less England and London centred. That’s all the problem is here.
I’m from the north of England and why HS2 has not been continued to Scotland is disgusting. This whole country needs root and branch reform. That’s all we are asking for as a nation.
Indifference pushed the Americans to rebel and it pushed the Irish to rebel. The politicians and authorities that be, cannot keep their heads in the sand forever.
Beautifully put 👌👍
That’s an interesting take, thanks for making me think about it Robert. The Oirish independence was fairly obvious but I hadn’t considered the American independence as a comparison. As a ‘sweaty’ I’m still not sold on independence but that’s more from pragmatism than ideology. Probably my age and comfort levels too and that does play a part in a big decision like this.
I must admit though that I can’t stick the SNP, absolute Nanny Staters, while I’m not ideological about independence, I am about the SNP. They’re just not very good at running things.
Lol mate surely for a Governing party “running things” should be high on their “able to do list” 👍
To be fair, that’s not just the SNP. The current Westminster lot have seemed a little distracted of late. I’m pretty sure that people from several other countries can point out the flaws in their governments too. I think we’re all let down by our various political classes. 😞
Agreed mate, pretty dismal bunch of elected and desperate to be elected head sheds we have at the moment!
Well said sir.
Couldn’t agree more. Although I live and work in the south east, I have family in south Wales and the north east of England and the level of governmental neglect for anything that isn’t London financial sector is borderline criminal.
It hasn’t been continued to the East Midlands properly or the North-East, either.
Spot on
By your logic any region that voted to remain in the EU should be cut from any government funding just because they voted differently from the people voted into power
Yes I sympathise with Bill but nothing would ensure independence sooner than taking that action. As and when that happens I suspect it will take a good decade to implement and one presumes that time will involve the move south though I suspect it will take more than ten years. However I do feel as much planning as possible in the meantime to prepare for that and give as much sub-work as possible to other yards helping to retain potential skills and facilities. I suspect as happened with my ancestors many of those workers will move south as and when that event occurs to help the skills factors but the expense whenever it happens will be substantial and disruption inevitable. If we had properly planned for warship production 30 years back maybe a better balance would have been created for this eventuality but back then the only motivation was to keep as much industry and jobs there considering how much was closing down.
It has a lot to do with Gordon Browns decisions. He wanted as much work in his constituency as possible. Rosyth. To be fair that’s kinda the job of an MP plus if he hadn’t drawn the contract for QE’s as he did they or at least PoW would have been cancelled by those …….. Cameron and Osborne so I don’t begrudge him.
The current situation with only Scottish warship build yards was set in stone when the UK government allowed BAE Systems to take over VT Shipbuilding allowing BAE to close Portsmouth Naval build facilities and move all future builds to Glasgow. VT spent over £60M building a modern build facility with destroyer capability which is now effectively redundant.
I agreed as well, David!
👍
I don’t care where in the UK they’re built. Just that they are built.
Particualry as we need to get on with the National Ship Building strategy.
The other thing to bear in mind is that this is why H&W Belfast and Appledor are essential is that they provide the skeleton of a plan B which can be pointed to on the back burner.
Belfast is attractive as it has massive dry docks in place and a large site albeit with no great skilled labour force. It is a deprived area so the investment will be welcomed by all sides.
Don’t be too surprised to see a shed similar or bigger than the existing and proposed ones in Scotland appear at Belfast. Spending £250m to build a facility there with a state of the art plate line is peanuts to create a credible fallback and a facility to build things like the Solid Support Ships etc as the Scottish yards are rammed for at least a decade to come.
Absolutely. Plus a serious limit on the size of the Fleet is the size of the shipbuilding industry. With the current industrial capacity it would be difficult to expand the fleet even if the money was made available. An increase in the capacity of shipbuilding would be important even if they weren’t directly involved with building UK warships.
Exactly.
Adding the T31 frigate sheds and plate line is an important first step in that direction.
Doing the skeleton at Belfast is the next step.
Yeah but we need HMG to step up to the plate with hard cash. There’s cut throat competition for shipbuilding out there and they will need backing to survive. Being outside the EU gives them the freedom to do that but it only matters if they actually use it.
MoD procurement provides the limit at the moment. BAES could double production on the Clyde
In the latest ten year plan, they have a little under £10bn put aside for surface ship procurement this decade.
For BAES they expect to pay £6.25 bn for batch 2 of the Type 26 alone and are still paying for batch 1. At Rosyth we’d expect Type 32 to be at least as expensive as Type 31, which they are also still paying for, so about £1.5 bn. There’s £1.6 bn on the Fleet Solid Support Ships There’s really not a lot left over for MRSS, MROSS, National Flagship, minehunters etc.
So I don’t expect to see very much progress on the National Shipbuilding initiative unless they defer or bring the costs down on Type 26. Or maybe they can find a magic money tree.
Double ? Where did you see that ?
They offered to build the T26s at one a year. As they built T23s at Scotstoun faster than that, and BAES have both Scotstoun and Govan, I think that’s believable. They are currently building at a rate of one every two years. Hence double.
Thanks.
I’m led to believe they only went to Scotland as part of a bribe to try and keep Scotland in the union, if true its utterly wrong.
You’re at least partly right but I think the decisive reason was Rosyth being in Browns constituency. I’m sure the SNP winning there first Scots parliament election was part it but all politicians first priority is their own future.
This is the government restating their intention to procure the second batch, which is always reasuring, but they need to get the orders in or the ships will be delayed.
They’ve had plenty of time to negotiate the terms of the second batch since HMS Glasgow was laid down, but I sense that they have left it all to the last minute – never a good strategy for a long term, expensive project.
When will the MoD learn? Never it seems.
Cheers CR
Maybe to let the T31 situation sink in for a bit so that BAE were softened up for the negotiations as they were no longer the only option in town?
Hi SB,
I’d love to think the MoD could be that clever, but frankly I’m struggling to compute the idea. Na, it just doesn’t compute 🙂
Cheers CR
Just tell yourself it was bound to happen eventually ! Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakerspeare etc 😁
👍
Here’s my guesstimate timings for deliveries if all continues on par:
Batch 1: 2025, 2026, 2028
Batch 2: 2030/31, 2032/33, 2034/35, 2036/37, 2038/39.
Hence Lord West’s suggestion that the final one wouldn’t come into service until 2041.
The MoD were given extra budget and it’s possible they’ll choose to use some on the Type 26s. It would be a terrific place to do it. An extra billion or so up front would drop the price of the second batch from about £6.25bn to about £4.5bn, and could give deliveries at
Batch 2: 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033.
but I think the contract would have been signed and announced by now. Without extra money, the other thing they could do is pause the batch 2 build, nevertheless paying money ahead of time to build a reserve. This would have a similar effect, but much later.
Batch 2: 2032/33, 2033/34, 2034/35, 2035/36, 2036/37.
The contract would still have to be signed early, as prepayment and potential refunds would have to be agreed. But the build wouldn’t start up again until 2027/28. This would allow Govan to build something else in the interim, such as the MRSS. The issue with this last option is that although it would still save £1.75bn, that wouldn’t be realized until the end of the decade. Few politicians would be willing to take the pain now and pass the glory to their successor.
I think the exact opposite. Flood Scotland with jobs associated with the UK military, whether that is civilian work or directly as soldiers, sailors etc. People are far less likely to vote for independence knowing all those jobs will disappear and the workers themselves may feel a sense of British pride working for the military.
No amount of money will erase 300yrs of continuing, never ending grudge & grievance towards the English.
and is it justified or just the scots being grumpy?
It wasn’t all that long ago the Scots were more British than anyone. Very enthusiastic Empire builders too.
As I read it it was a case of starve or move to America because of the clearances , or become mercenaries in a loose sense of the word by fighting for the king.
Or the other way around if this forum is anything to go by.
I speak as I find. As an Englishman when visiting Scotland I have never experienced anything other than welcome and hospitality.
The SNP detest the Tories but that’s because they have diametrically opposing views of how a society should work.
The steps hewn by hobbits on the way down to the RMP bar several levels below Edinbugh Castle were downright lethal; and concussion inducing when I needed to surface for air at stupid O’clock.
🤫
🙄
When I was posted to Scotland after a few months my wife and kids moved back to England because of the non stop abuse we got from the natives
Well, sorry to hear that. Can only speak as I find. Can you say where you were posted?
Totally agree
I have always had the same experience. The middle of 2 opposing views takes us to the centre which pleases most.
They hated us before the Act of Union in 1707, and they only asked to join the UK because they had bankrupted Scotland when they tried to create a Scots Empire in central America. 300 years of English money going north has not changed that hostility, as I experienced when post to Fort George some years ago
“They hated us before the Act of Union in 1707, and they only asked to join the UK because they had bankrupted Scotland when they tried to create a Scots Empire in central America. 300 years of English money going north has not changed that hostility, as I experienced when post to Fort George some years ago”.
That is brilliant, so the wee tadgers that were calling you an “English prick” or whatever were basing their dislike on some pre Act of Union sense of frustration because of a Scottish desire for empire like the other European powers….. That is some insightful wee schemies/chavs/neds. Fair play to them for their innate sense of grievance. 😂😂😂
I’m not saying there isn’t an anti English vibe at times, despite being a Jock, I’ve got a crap Jock accent and have experienced it occasionally in the past, I’ve also seen English mates get it. Saying that, there can be a siege mentality, an English mate who was (and still is) a pretty big lad was telling me about how the girls in Greggs were ignoring him because he was English and carried on talking before serving him. I did ask how they knew he was English if they hadn’t even gotten round to serving him ???? He’d already made his mind up about it though.
Dickish behaviour is dickish behaviour, most UK nationals in the ‘wrong’ part of the country will have experienced some kind of prejudice. Whether that’s English in Scotland or Wales, Scots, Welsh or NI’s in England, even ‘Norverners’ in the South or vice versa. Basically, unless its OTT then its a bit ‘snowflakey’ to moan about what was considered banter back in the day. Its also generally not a patch on what some genuine minorities will have gone through.
My uncle and his family moved to Edinburgh decades ago and left after a few years, his experience was just as you describe. I live in Edinburgh now and have done for six years. I haven’t once experienced such behaviour and I’ve spent a lot of time on the islands (I found the weefrees to be exceptionally friendly) . That being said when I speak I’m obviously from the North of England, that helps, and I don’t tend to hang out in the North of the city which seems to have a lot more Yes stickers.
It is though obvious that simmering behind the SNP is resentment of England, they just can’t say it out loud. The question is why do the SNP remain in power – basically its because of anti-Westminster sentiment which unites most people from about Derby upwards and Birmingham Westwards. The SNP are pretty rubbish at administering the state and the legacy parties aren’t that bad, so there’s no really strong reason other than as a perpetual protest vote.
The thing to remember is that Britain was always highly decentralised and the common law system outlawed things by exception only – so for most of those 300 years a Brit could spend much of their life without ever running into the British state. During and after the war business was nationalised, decision making centralised and a we embraced a more socialised form of government. The irony is, Scots typically proclaim, though I doubt this is true, they are progressive and more left wing, often affirming nationalisation and interventionist political and economic agendas but this is the antithesis of regional government and subsidiarity. So, what they actually want is probably the cause of the very thing that annoys them so much.
We could solve this easily by two things: move to a federal system of government, returning most domestics powers to the regions. Secondly, by diminishing the role of Prime Minister and shifting residual powers and decision making to the cabinet and parliament.
And the continued Scottish bashing just creates new issues. Funny the Scottish never moan so much when something is built elsewhere in the U.K.
Scotland does not own the shipyards. They are owned by BAe amongst others. It’s not the Scottish people’s fault that they saw Scottish yards as the best to use. They were under no obligation to do so. This always seems to be forgotten. The fact politics always mentions Scotland getting a great deal is part of the problem. Scotland must be grateful for being allowed to bash steel and put systems purchased from suppliers around the U.K. and world. The whole cost of the frigates is not spent in the shipyard. Most of it is wages which get reinvested in the economy.
101%
Isn’t that already what’s happened there’s the radar sensor jobs at Leonardo and the armed forces so prominent a part of the Army as well as the ship building and support businesses. Can’t do more as things stand. I do wonder how much considering so much is run by public companies will move south or how much pressure will put on them to do so and how much compensation needed.
I’ve not seen any stats but I suspect there is indeed a disproportionate number of military jobs in Scotland, which I’m happy about and would like to see extended.
There was an article on here a while back showing the distribution of defence jobs. Scotland is about average for the UK.
They’ll go where there customer tells them to go. Might take a while to relocate everything but it would happen and a lot quicker than the SNP thinks.
Geography plays its part in the dispersal. Raf needed for Russia from the north. Faslane being in perhaps the best location for SSBNs in the U.K. I’m sure the north of England and Wales feel the same about troops numbers around Salisbury plain area and Portsmouth and Devonport.
Part of it is history of bases and part where assess are best placed.
Yeah and also who the enemy was at any given time. Spain = Plymouth. France = Portsmouth. Germany = Scapa Flow and that’s just the Navy.
So BRIBE a country that comes clearly across as rampantly Anglophobic to stay in the UK, No I cannot agree with that at all.
The other year we had the incident of the German ship FGS Sachsen have a missile explode during a launch in front of the bridge resulting in a new paint job. From what I can see, the British bridge uses a lot more glass than the Germans, so would I be correct in assuming that the Type 26 bridge would be more vulnerable than the German one if push comes to shove. Reason I mention this is I came across this picture yesterday of the Japanese Destroyer Maya and couldn’t help but notice how they have used less glass for their bridge:
https://i.postimg.cc/NfLVZ48T/FLXKp-FXa-QAw-XX1a.jpg
There is glass and there is glass.
The only glass that is perfect for a warship is no glass at all!
But wine in plastic is just not the same, some glass is soo much more important.
A touch of class?
Interesting. The JDF ship looks a much higher bridge too. We here little about protective qualities of basic structure now ship armour is supposedly obsolete. Are there any blast/shrapnel/small arms protections on our ships?
Glass can be surprisingly ballistically resistant: if it is the right type!
The “Bridge” is higher on Maya class and Kongo class JMSDF ships because of the Aegis phased array panels with all the required power and computational components. This raised the bridge. Whereas UK is actually at forefront of radar technology and Artisan and Sampson radars are equally capable with much less footprint on the hull. Sampson is ptobably superior to Aegis whereas Artisan slightly less so but much much cheaper and lighter.
Thanks Mr bell. Ah, of course the phased array radar. Didn’t occur to me. Just thought about misfires from the fore silo & thought that height gives more space away from any resulting blast.
Aegis is a combat management system and not a radar. All Arleigh Burke’s (ABs) currently use the SPY-1D radar. This is a passive electronically scanned array (PESA) and is phenomenally powerful It will be replaced with the SPY-6 radar. This combines both an S-band and X-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars into a scalable module. The Flight III ABs are supposed to be getting the new radar first.
However, there is a problem with the older Flight I and IIs. The SPY-6 array weighs more. So only the Flight IIIs can handle the weight of the full size array. The older ABs will be getting the SPY-6, but using less modules. This will effectively reduce the detection range. Therefore, only the Flight IIIs will have an eco-atmospheric capability with SM3.
The T45’s and QE carriers S1850M is comparable with the SPY-1D. Both are PESA radars and have a similar detection range and performance. The Sampson is an AESA system, its detection range is less than the S1850M, but has a significantly better target resolution, faster scan rate, greater operating bandwidth, can differentiate and track a greater number of targets simultaneously, is harder to jam or spoof and perhaps most significantly, will detect sea skimming missiles a lot earlier than an AB equipped with either SPY-1D or SPY-6 radars. Oh yes, it will also quite happily detect and track hypersonic objects.
Its worth comparing ABs, T45 and T23 when alongside. Even a T23 radar is a lot higher than the top of an ABs panels giving it a better radar horizon.
I was working on a batch 1 AB a few weeks ago… Down in the machinery spaces its like being on a B3 T42/22! I was looking at the drive train which is GTs into gearboxes and out to a CPP prop and was mentally comparing it to the T23/T45/T26 solution. I almost said the Senior Chief I was working with “Oh…How quaint!”
“ Oh yes, it will also quite happily detect and track hypersonic objects.”
Based on my understanding, there are significant differences and challenges in tracking a hypersonic target on a ballistic trajectory and one that’s maneuvering violently, often times below the radar horizon of surface radars. The latter being the primary challenge presented by the new class of hypersonic weapons being developed.
No not really. Older traditional mechanically scanned and even some PESA radars use a timing technique called range gating. This is where the radar will take an initial velocity measurement of the target then take another measurement and calculate the time difference between the two. It will then keep measuring the targets between two points to see if it slows down, speeds up, stays constant etc. With older radars, the range gate technique can be fooled, especially if the target can slow down or speed up outside the parameters of the range gate. A very high powered volume search radar may have a maximum speed range whereby any object traveling faster than say Mach 10 is ignored, otherwise it will be constantly detecting satellites and other space objects.
With modern digital radars. they still use a variation of the range gating technique, but instead of measuring the object between two points, it can use 100s, 1000s or more. This is because they are software driven, so instead of filtering out these Mach 10+ oddities they can be bracketed and monitored by a separate channel. When the BAe blurb states that Sampson can track over a 1000 objects. This is how its done. Each object is given an individual track file, which gets constantly updated. You do need serious computing power and signal processing to achieve this. As each object will use a considerable amount of processing resources. Hence why Sampson’s processing use blade servers which is on par with a small super computer.
The other point to make is that no matter what man made object is designed to fly fast. It won’t out accelerate a radar pulse, that is travelling at the speed of light (in the atmosphere). Unless we prove Einstein wrong and it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light!
For a hypersonic glide vehicle travelling initially around Mach 10. A radar like Sampson will have no difficulties illuminating it. If the object starts to manoeuvre, it will start to degrade its speed (unpowered remember). The second pulse from Sampson will hit it. Sampson will recognize that it has moved and based on its earlier data update the track file. No matter how the glide vehicle manoeuvres it will be constantly illuminated and tracked.
The problem comes with the missile interception. These glide vehicles are designed to fly above 200,000ft. This is higher than the majority of air defences missiles are designed to intercept. But also below the altitude of exo-atmospheric missiles like the SM3. Hence why China made the statement saying they are impervious to interception. However, Raytheon have stated that the SM6 will have no issues intercepting a hypersonic glide vehicle. Which is a bold statement. However, the SM6 is getting a major upgrade. Where its rocket booster is being increased in diameter. The additional shove and extra fuel, will allow it to reach 200,000ft and then some.
As a hypersonic glide vehicle reaches its apogee, it will do porpoising manoeuvres to extend its range. By doing this it will start losing its speed. As it starts diving onto its target and entering denser atmosphere. The denser air will create more drag, and it will bleed off speed. As its unpowered the speed will bleed off quite quickly dropping from Mach 10 to just over Mach 5 by the time it reaches sea level. This is due to the wedge shape hypersonic objects use due to the shock cone interactions. As it gets lower and slower makes it easier to intercept. The glide vehicle’s manoeuvres will not be violent or erratic, this is due to the vehicles velocity. As it tries to move away from its trajectory, the velocity vector will change which induces the g-loading. The faster an object goes the higher the acceleration it incurs away from its initial direction of travel. Therefore, its manoeuvring will be quite sedate.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I’m far from an expert on the topic but I think there are a couple things you are overlooking. Even after the weapon slows down due to atmospheric drag, we’re still talking incredible speeds and in the case of a hypersonic cruise missile, in theory it can maneuver around and between the gaps in radar coverage and come from a direction completely unexpected as is the case with a traditional cruise missile.
More significantly imo, is that the speed of hypersonic is what grabs the headlines but I believe their ability to stay hidden beneath the radar horizon is what really makes them challenging. As can be seen in the graphic I found on, a hypersonic weapon(Depending on the specific weapon) should be able to get much closer to a target before it is detected and with its tremendous speed will create a situation where defensive systems have much shorter time to react. This is the reason the US military is rushing to develop systems like the HBTSS which essentially is a system of low-earth orbit IR satellites that can detect and track a hypersonic weapon as soon as it is fired as ground based radars simply do not give enough time to react to a hypersonic weapon attack.
There are so many inaccuracies with that graphic. A ballistic missile’s re-entry vehicle will re-enter the atmosphere at speeds around Mach 10. As it gets lower it slows down due to the increasing density of the air. Some have a limited ability to reposition themselves which will slow them down further. They will hit the ground at speeds ranging from Mach 4 to Mach 6, depending on the body’s design.
A “one piece” ballistic missile like Scud, has a speed when it reaches apogee of Mach 3.5. As it falls it actually gains speed and will hit the ground near Mach 4. But this also depends on the version of Scud. The longer ranged versions can reach a higher altitude, so have a higher terminal speed. A Scud stays within the Earth’s atmosphere.
The graphic for the hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) operating height is incorrect, as it shows it at 100,000ft. This puts it in the engagement zones for S400, THAAD and SM6. The whole idea of HGV is that they fly above the maximum engagement height of most missile systems, i.e. greater than 150,000ft. At these heights the HGV can skip across the atmosphere to gain range. Missiles like the SM3 are really space vehicles that can only engage targets outside the atmosphere at 200,000ft plus. This narrow height window is where HGVs will operate as they are between the high altitude missile systems maximum engagement height and the exo-atmospheric missiles minimum engagement height.
Using a low earth orbit satellite is a good idea for spotting and tracking HGVs due to their operating height. As not only should they be able to detect and track the launch missile’s boost phase, but also track the progression of a HGV as it skips over the atmosphere. Each skip interaction will cause a massive heat blossom. So a thermal camera/imaging infrared sensor will be able to track it.
An airborne early warning radar will also be able to detect and track HGVs. However, for 500km plus range you really need to use an upper UHF or L-band radar. As this gives the best compromise for range, power and antenna size that can be packaged in an aircraft. They could also look at putting the UHF/S-band radar in a high altitude airship. This would be the best option, as spaced based radars suffer a lot from atmospheric attenuation when looking down. So they are only really good for detect and tracking pretty big objects or objects that are a lot closer to the satellite. By using a high altitude airship, will get a better overall performance for both look up and look down searches.
There is a belief that hypersonic cruise missiles can follow the same path as a subsonic or even a supersonic one. This is true in part. But there is a massive caveat with how they operate. To operate at low level say 100m. It is now flying through very dense viscous air. This causes a lot of drag, which must be overcome by thrust. Therefore to create the thrust, you need to use a lot of fuel. So yes, it is possible to go at hypersonic speeds at low level, but it literally eats through the available fuel, meaning range is pretty short.
Then there’s the issue of body heating which is caused by the transfer of kinetic energy to the gas (air) surrounding the body. At Mach 5 flying along at sea level the air temperature is just under 1000C. A lot of surface to missiles that hit Mach 4.5 use an ablative coating on the noise and leading edges to cope with the heat at low level. But once you get to and past Mach 5 the air behaves differently. The generated shock cones are much stronger and cause a rapid transfer of thermal energy into the body. Designers try to counter this by using a wide flat nose profile instead of a point. This not only splits the shock cone, but also means there’s more surface area that can be cooled using active cooling. Once you reach Mach 7, the amount of energy transfer (temperatures of 2000C and above) into the surrounding gas is so violent, it literally strips electrons from atoms creating ions. These ions become charged and will form a plasma. The denser the air the thicker the plasma. So at low level the majority of the missile will be covered by plasma. Will its sensors be able to see the target through a plasma sheath?
There’s also the small issue of powering a missile to these speeds. A rocket will accelerate it past Mach 1 preferably Mach 1.5, where a Ramjet can take over. The Ramjet uses a throat to slow the air down so that the mixed fuel and air can burn. With careful design this can be extended to Mach 5, even Mach 6. But it becomes less and less efficient the further it gets past Mach 4.5, as not enough air can get past the throat. Which is where a Scramjet (supersonic ramjet) comes in. This is similar to a Ramjet, but uses a much slimmer throat or no throat at all and does not significantly slow down the incoming air. It uses a screen in the combustor to make sure the fuel/air mixture keeps burning and is not blown out. However, it is very susceptible to flame outs due to incoming air pressure fluctuations caused by air pockets etc. A Scramjet can power a missile to Mach 10. But, the air being rammed through the inlet at supersonic and hypersonic speeds gets a massive jump in its temperature. So again, the engine’s performance gets worse the faster it goes, due to the decreasing temperature differential between the inlet and outlet, hence Reaction Engines pre-cooler.
To reduce these affects, particularly for a Scramjet powered missile. They are flown at a cruise height greater than 80,000ft. At these heights there’s next to no pressure fluctuations caused by weather. The air is thinner so there’s less thermal heating on the body, which requires less thermal protection and therefore unnecessary additional weight. There is less air, so there is less drag, but enough to power the engine. The inlet air starts off cooler, so there’s a greater temperature differential for better efficiency.
A hypersonic cruise missile flying at 80,000ft, could theoretically be detected by a T45’s Sampson radar 670km (416 miles) away. If it is travelling at Mach 10 which is 11,927kph or 3,313 m/s. The ship will have just over 200 seconds (3 and bit minutes) from its detection to its impact, to make a decision and launch a Sea Viper at it.#
Hypersonic weapons are a threat and must be treated seriously. The problem is that current weapons technology needs to catch up. As our opponents have spotted a gap in our defences and are trying to exploit it. A counter will be developed just like AEW is to cruise missiles.
I wouldn’t say that there are more windows. I would say the windows are a little bigger, with a recessed bridge, with a lip from the front bulkhead.
Yes more glass but look at the blast deflection angle of the walk around rail. It’s clearly designed to deflect blast away from the windows excellent design.
Its really thick and strong laminated glass so its not a massive issue. If you ever get to the point where you are firing missiles for real the bridge crew is remarkably small anyway…around half a dozen people…and they dont need to be there anyway as you have secondary steering and blind pilotage from the OPS room.
AM-III is a new glass from China ( well its a transparent Amorphous carbon material with a structured lattice of carbon molecules, so it’s a sort of cross between an industrial man made diamond and glass). It’s got 113 GPA in the vickers hardness test, which is harder than most diamonds and 10 times harder than mild steel. It should make a ballistic window 20 to 100 times more effective that any present ballistic glass.
It is even more wizard is it’s a semi conductor due to its crystal Lattice. That is just fssking amazing a transparent hard as armour plate semiconductor….the applications are endless. From having a light bulb that’s nothing more than a blob of armour, armour glass that can have Thermal conductive/cooling effects or thermal energy conversion attributable ( its like….. glow in the dark, see through anti ballistic and anti direct energy weapon armour).
shame its Chinese.
Maybe the UK should build the Australian ones, because their changes are making a mess of things according their own review published late last year.
Why would we take on some else’s mess when we are perfectly capable of making our own mess? Come on, where’s patriotism? Our money, our mess! 🙂
Cheers CR
Maybe that’s where the Army types in charge of Ajax have ended up ! No don’t worry i’m sure they’re still here !
I’m thinking the RN are on the right track with T83. The RAN seem to want to make Hunter an Arleigh Burke. No doubt they will get there eventually but if you are going to do that its surely better to start with a new bigger hull, no?
Anychance we could squeeze a 9th and 10th out of the contract? Unit price must have come down with Australia and Canada ordering the same vessel.
Let’s order not 5, but 7 T26 as batch 2. Happy to cut £1.6Bn from “still to be funded” T32 program.
After all the initial cost has been payed, “additional” T26 will not cost £1Bn a pop. But, if we keep the number to 5 hulls, the build rate will be kept slow even though the learning curve make the man-hours smaller and smaller. Additional hull will make use of the “surplus” man powers = hence, must cost less.
If it is Russia and China, what RN needs is Type-26 (a bit up-armed), than a derivative of T31 or else.
Any money to be spent to up-arm T31 could do the same, or even better, on T26. T26 has already much better CMS and ESM/ECMs than T31, with much much quiet hull. T26 even has a mission bay.
26 and 31/32 are designed for very different jobs. 26 as top of the line carrier ASW escort and 31 and maybe 32 for GP in lower threat duties like Gulf etc. Otherwise there’d be nothing in between 26 and River batch 2’s
Fair point. But now, RN will have five T31. If it is Gulf, why need more?
5 lower-end, lightly armed T31 will provide “2 always deployed” and “1 more in high readiness” (such as FRE). Lightly equipped means less training and maintenance, directly resulting in longer sea-going days.
I’m not sure yet another 5 such level of assets (T32) is better than 2 or 3 top tier escorts, these days.
The RN have said in the review that the 5 type 31s will be sent to the Far East with the OPVs. Eke this out with 2 CSGs – yes Radakin has said they want two wings operating – 8 type 26s, 5 type 32s, 6 type 45s. Not forgetting the future 83s. That’s a serious amount of punch for a little country. These ships are all heavier than anything we’ve had before. Even the 31s are heavier than the 23s and 42s.
Are we really planning to send all 5 T31s to the Far East? I was thinking roughly 1 to replace Montrose in the Gulf, 1 to the ‘Far East and 1 FRE with 2 in training/refit at any point in time.
T31 will eventually replace Lancaster which is going to replace Montrose this year
Thx. I lose track. Is Montrose to be decommissioned?
Apparently…but you never know…
Bare metal respray in 2017, Artisan, Ceptor, diesels, galley…The Greeks went with the French proposal. Makes sense to get our money’s worth? If we can muster the crew why not send her to Gib to help out HMS Trent. The Gulf of Guinea is about to welcome the Chinese fishing fleet to add to the pirates.
The 32’s are all guesswork as far as what there armament and sensor fit will be. Assuming they use the same hull as 31’s you could add a towed array and have a reasonable ASW capability. They would not be at the level of 26’s but right now the only ships anywhere that come close are 23’s. Then you add the great unknowable of drones. As to quality versus quantity i’ve changed my mind on that more than once and will do in the future whether the current crises in Ukraine changes the debate we’ll have to wait and see.
Thanks. “quality versus quantity” shall also be considered in view of man-power.
Clearly, 2 or 3 T26 needs less man-power than 5 T32. We all know “actual” RN escort number (not in extended readiness) was limited by man-power not even money.
Now it is “temporary” good (because of COVID recession?), but RN/RFA has many assets awaiting man-power (Bulwark, Wave etc), and still the cause of “short of man power” was not resolved. I guess it will continue to be an issue.
Current threat is an enduring one, lasting for decades. So, new asset discussion must be based on longer view, I think…
Yeah but the most positive thing about the RN right now is the recruitment situation. Add the reforms to crewing hopefully delivering and we could see significant improvement to ship availability. Working out future threats and how to combat them is way out of my league. Thank god !
Definately need more ASW frigates. We’re an island trading nation with loads of essential imports yet we seem to be engineering our own downfall. Russian DDG was dropping devices across the entrance to the Clyde/Faslane in 2018. T26 are expensive, but so much more is leaving the country vulnerable.
I couldn’t agree with you more! In 1800, 1914 and 1939, the country’s biggest threat was to its overseas trade/imports. That saw rationing of everything for many, many years. 1916 and 1943 were both close-run things with respect to the German subs cutting off the effective supply of the Islands.
Maybe we should remember that this island nation needs the ability to import everything in times of war?
The problem with that approach is that a separate Scotland becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. It’s a case of don’t panic Capt Mainwaring.
That’s the SNP policy already.
If these Batch 2 Ships are built away from Scottish Yards where do you suggest they are built ?.
Devonport, Portsmouth, Barrow in Furness??
Good luck with that. There’s no shipyard capacity there. Probably get 1 for the same budget. But at least I can put a big made in England sticker on it.
I find your attitude distasteful in posts and can only imagine if you got a hard time in Scotland it was for your Scottish hating views. Most have a great time in Scotland as proved by return tourist numbers etc etc. It comes across as if Scotland is a lower race to the mighty English and that view should not go unchallenged. We are all part of the U.K. 1 country. If or when that changes let’s get along and be nice.
This is bad news. First steel on HMS Belfast was cut last year, two years after Cardiff. Not having a firm date for the contract yet suggests HMS Sheffield will not have steel cut this year, even though Glasgow is nearly ready to float off.
If this means more delays because the MoD can’t figure out where the money is coming from, and slows down production of the second batch like the first, it will costs the country another half a billion pounds.
Someone needs to kick the MoD now. There are cheaper ways to move expenses down the road than slowing the drumbeat.
I think it will be at least 2030 before we are near time for another referendum and then another 5 years minimum before any split could occur meanwhile many ships will have been built. Shipyards in other regions should get funding in my opinion but I suspect that smaller drone ships might provide income in other areas of the UK. Forget the SNP they are irrelevant so far as defence is concerned.
Given how long it took to get Brexit sorted, I imagine any Scottish less than amicable divorce would take decades to sort out.
We stick the boot in often enough. Let’s give the MOD some kudos for this announcement. They are trying to assuage anxiety about whether the order will be cut or cancelled?
This was a written non-answer to Lord West of Spithead, not a voluntary announcement. They have to answer parliamentary questions. They don’t get kudos.
🥴
Well, at least they are doing the budgetting part of the job.
And let me quote the last part of the question to show why I’m worried.
“…whether they expect the last of the eight ships in that class will enter service in 2041.”
The MoD have an opportunity to speed batch 2, clawing back some wasted money. The question they dodged was whether we can expect the second batch at the same glacial speed as the first. if they can’t even say it’s expected sooner, it probably will be as late into service as Lord west expects.
I understand. But I have some sympathy. Funds are not unlimited. They are being cagey. It’s all above my pay grade. Maybe Radakin would prefer to spend the money on Mk41s and FASC missiles or 5 Type 32s with UUVs?
The slower the build, the more expensive the ships. Halving the speed like this adds 40% to the cost. Perhaps throwing billions away unneccesarily is why funds are so limited.
These days this is below Adm Radakin’s pay grade.
Being a ground pounder with little navy experience I was just wondering if these ships will function in warm water or will the bloody things only work in the Atlantic
Please note that these are not English warships but UK warships and should Scotland gain independence then some of these warships will revert to Scottish control.
8% of the UK live in Scotland. Will they be asking for the front or the back 2/3 of a ship?
Most likely done by tonnage but in all honesty I’d expect Scotland to give up vast parts of any claim to hardware for geo reasons, first Scotland won’t have the treaties in place to operate sensitive equipment (mainly US) and secondly they won’t need most of it so can be used for concessions as part of wider negotiations.
I’d say maybe a couple T31 and River class to form a core force but beyond that the rest would be up for negotiation.
Front preferably. Has the pointy shooty bits
No one has called them English warships! And if we did separate yes Scotland would maintain a certain number of assets, but let’s not pretend they will all be high end platforms. Scotland will still have an equally mutual defence policy with rUK, very little will change aside that, for a future Scottish navy you are seeing it being a coast guard type formation, possibly modelled on ROI? The RN will maintain patrols and tasks around UK as per normal (same for the RAF)! It’s not on anyone’s (grown ups) interest to leave Scotland as a defence liability. But, then the big question is, recruitment, but that’s another subject altogether.
I would hope that defence would be shared for a while after. Scotland would have a lot to gain from remaining within the current U.K. defence structure as would the rest of the U.K. countries.
I really believe that another vote will not happen for 20 years if at all.
If the U.K. government can pull its socks up and stop being so embarrassing that would help take the wind out the sails a bit.
The statistics say there hasn’t been a big swing for independence. I would put a vote a 60% needed to leave. I would also do that for any major change. 50% is not enough in my view
Keep in mind that all referendums are advisory in the UK, there’s no need to add stipulations. Better to set out a reference on independence with a confirmation vote on the back of it, the key lesson of Brexit surely.
That’s questionable.
As a matter of practice for many years – since WW2 afaics – Referenda have been taken as binding. There have been scores of them.
(Personally I thought the court decision that made the ‘advisory’ determination read like something out of Rumpole, and was about 60-70 years behind reality.) ‘
Nope, last independence referendum and Brexit were both advisory, there’s no legal mechanism to make the government carry out the action which is why it isn’t binding.
The ROI model is terrible and frankly laughable. For context if an independent Scotland spent 1.5% of GDP on defence that’s £2.4Bil, or around 3 times what ROI spends.
If you model their force on similar sized countries with similar GDP per capita, mainly Finland and New Zealand but also with cues taken from Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands , you can get an idea. With a strong maritime focus iScotland could operate a decent force, 3-6 OPV/MCMV plus 3-4 frigates. That’s not even ambitious and is enough to operate in local waters which is all that would be required of a defensive type force.
I often think people forget the vast resources the submarine, LPD and carrier forces require to maintain compared to lower intensity operations of the smaller vessels.
Why stress about something that’s not going to happen 🤷🏻♂️
No, they will have been built for the RN, who need them all.
I wonder how much of the Batch 2 frigates is already pre ordered. If the gear boxes are preordered which is a very complicated part of any warship build then as such speed of production could be increased.
As for the issue of building them in Scotland due to the SNP, there is or should be a concern. However moving the production South would give the SNP weapons to use against the Union. I do think though that possibly a Batch 3 or a new combat ship possibly something like the Damen Corossover which could fulfill the MRSS concept be built somewhere else in the UK thereby having build capability if the SNP ever won a independence referendum.
My idea for getting more T26 hulls is do a slight redesign for air defence role to immediately start replacing the Type 45 destroyer. Call the new ships Type 46 fit them with the Type 45 radar (Upgraded samson), the Slyver 70 VLS or Mk41 VLS for the PAAMS 30/45T anti-air missiles. Keep the PAAM missile count same as in Type 45 and while keeping the current Type 26 silo count for a total of 72 silos if I have my count right. These larger batch 2 T26 now labelled T46 or T27 can be ordered as follow-ons in an accelerated timeline for delivery in the mid 2030s when the T45s start need replacing or expensive refits
So no real major change to T26 just a little more room to handle the Air defence components. Now for existing Type 45 due to their problems keep them in a Home fleet for the North Atlantic while using the newer proposed Type 46 with the carrier expeditionary force with the T26. I would man this Home fleet of T45 with mainly reservist, by stationing one in Ulster, One in Scotland, One in Wales. The other 2 vessels are broken for spares.
Now then take the time to develop the Type 83 into a large 15,000 cruiser arsenal ship with anti ballistic missile and long range cruise missile land attack capabilities to match and defeat the Chinese Type 55 and Russian Slave classes when the Type 83 is part of the carrier support group or out hunting alone. 6 of these in the late 2030-40s would do.
For the Type 31 and 32 i would do a batch 2 Type 31 this time outfitted with a few more VLS tubes and a tow array sonar. Add 3 more of this.
Finally I would go for a Batch 3 rivers, 99mm covered hanger for small helicopter or drones, but now armed more as sub hunter corvettes and add them to the Home fleet and constabulary patrol roles. For these River B3 add 3 while up arming the B2.
I know it cost money but based on my plan I can see
1. A follow oorder for say 5 additional enhanced T26/27 – 46 destroyers coming in at about aGBP 1 billion each ( economies of scale through bulk ordering)over a 10-12 year accelerated buy plan (BAE can use Davenport to build these units)
2. Basing and manning plan for 4 retained T45 will free up at least half the existing personnel for the new enhanced T26
3. Additional T31 with enhanced capability should add no more than GBP100 million per unit to the existing price and they can come on line in the 2030s
4. The Batch 3 Rivers I estimate should cost no more than GBP250 million per unit. BAE can build these in Belfast and again have deliveries by the mid 2030s.
By my estimation you are looking at GBP additional spend for new kit in a 10-15 year window of approximately GBP7.5 billion. Some of this money can be clawed back by quicker withdrawal of T23 and thus saving on upgrades, similarly with the Type 45 PIPs while pushing back Type 83 into 2040s with mature new technologies. Off course more ships will require more personnel thus increase in operating expenses, but that is inevitable if the UK wants or needs a larger fleet.
But you’ve not factored in operating costs, large surface combatants cost £15-20mil per year plus crew costs, the they’ll require more support which means we’d need more RFA vessels. My only challenge would be, what are the life cycle costs?
By that token then should Scottish taxpayers stop getting s bill for their share of defence spending?
Better question is where do you think the shop building would be moved too? Not other yards in the UK are setup for construction of T26 and the RN can’t afford for delays based upon speculation of what might happen in the future.
When they leave the Scots should no longer be required to pay for new defence spending, But they will already be busy rerpaying their share of the UKs national debt before they leave.
I would suggest Barrow in Furness as one option, and Devonport as another, But TBH I dont know as I’m no expert on military ship building.
I am advised that most UK naval procurement is already obsolete before its launched so a delay to build a suitable structure or reopen some of the old shipyards in the north east appears reasonable to me as it wont make much difference.
But I strongly believe that a country whose democratically elected government is openly hostile to the UK and blatently anglophobic should not be rewarded or bribed.
Is this the part where I have to point out Scotland’s share of the national debt is actually quite small? And even if it has a debt so what, no country in the world has zero debt, it’s part of having a functioning economy and banking system.
Barrow doesn’t have the capacity and no where in the north east has build a warship in decades, there’s insufficient skills and infrastructure. The reality would be hull construction would likely continue in Glasgow with fitting out moved to Portsmouth.
And before you suggest it all gets moved, I’m fairly certain BAE will have clauses in there which would only cost Westminster more in penalties for changing anything mid contract.
Scotland is still part of the UK, your rhetoric only serves to bolster Nationalists, until you realise that there’s nothing you can say in support of the Union that will convince people staying is a better option.
Well said. The Scottish bashing only serves to give Scottish people a reason to feel they are not welcome anymore and bring others to add to the bashing. Very sad situation. If Scotland does leave it will soon all be Newcastle and Yorkshire’s fault that get the abuse.
So where would you have them built?
Let’s hope they are already talking about batch 2 and batch 3 being full spectrum ASW/AAW assets as well and placing forward order for a further 2 batches of 4. Giving us 18 T26 to replace the 19 T23/45
The timing is about right and it requires the mid ship cells to be quad packed and a better radar
Perhaps we could elongate by addin a new mid section but that would need to be carefully considered and I guess the extended version would be a T83
Who’s going to crew all these vessels? How will the RN pay for all that upkeep for a vastly increased surface fleet? You’re looking at around £15mil per year per ship, that adds up really quickly and doesn’t include crew costs. In your example we’d have 18 T26 plus 5 T31 and potentially 5 T32 plus T83, we’d probably need to increase RN manpower by 20% to make that happen.
Better argument would be to ensure T26 and T31 are properly fitted out with the tools for the jobs they’ll be asked to carry out.
Its not a vast increase at all – there are 19 escorts now with c.240 crew the proposed crews of the T26 are between 120-160.
Additionally the first sea lord is on record last week stating a target of 24 escorts in the near term and the T31 are paid out of the 5 cancelled T23 replacements.
What I would say is that we do need to increase the manpower of the RN by 20% to ensure it becomes a good place to work and not somewhere that wears people out over time.
Fit out of T26 is already pretty comprehensive, just need the missiles to go in the silos.
We have the money in defence – it is poorly spent. Ordering more now will allow BAES to invest in the yard and bring the total cost of the ships down as the slow rate of production is a massive cost element. This has been proven time and again where the sunken costs of building these things need to be spread across as many hulls as possible to bring the cost down dramatically.
While I see where you’re coming from, I believe the very opposite, if anything, it’s the exact reason why we should build in Scotland. Show the very reason why it’s good to be in the UK.
That said, it would be prudent to have the yards in Liverpool, Belfast or Devonport building one or two of No. 9/10 (yes, increase the number by at least two more, or, could we have 16+ of these very handy platforms) to ensure the knowledge is spread around our manufacturing base.
Well done for playing right into the Nationalist hands. Might I politely remind you that the SNP is NOT Scotland as much as Sturgeon thinks she is.
We need more frigates for the navy,we need to rearm as we did in the 1930s, Russia and China are going to be a problem in the future
Do we have to bring politics into every ship building announcement, I struggle to stay optimistic as It is at the state of our military and the spin put on things.
OK back to why we are here.
Will the last T26 completion coincidence with the T83 start or is there possibility another 2 Frigates could be built?
Always possible, would depend on the state of funding at the time and other fleet requirements, for instance subs, carrier refits etc.
If T83 was to based off the T26 hull to reduce development costs that would also be a way of getting either increased frigate or destroyer numbers.
From Lancashire, I’m annoyed that 4 ships are named after Scottish cities , Cardiff, and Belfast- which might leave the UK in their lifetimes- but none after the northwest’s Liverpool or Manchester!
That’s such a non issue, I think it’s more relevant to celebrate the return of Belfast, Edinburgh, London, Newcastle and especially Sheffield to the fleet. All those names are linked to RN vessels that served the nation proud in the past, that’s why the Ship Names and Badged committee selected the ones they did.
I’m not being too serious here. Main naming issue for me is that we should have another Ark rather than Prince of Wales.
But then,I like Duke of York too due to James II’s contribution to the RN, North Cape, and Andrew’s service in the Falklands. Not gonna happen now.
Definitely should have had Ark Royal, seems like a major oversight.
Buttering up the next monarch. But should’ve been Ark
They need to build some more !
I’m OK with the Celtic 4- as long as we also get Bristol, Coventry, Gloucester, Liverpool, Manchester, Plymouth,,Southampton, and York!
Blackpool?
Don’t care who builds them, Charley and the chocolate factory umpa fucking lumpas, as long as they are built and brought into service on time with the kit they are supposed to be fitted with!
They will, A 5in gun that will probably never be used in anger and 24 empty Mk41s?
At the risk of creating more tension than the Ukraine / Russian issue, if the north did depart would there be a ‘UK’ ? Don’t think the ‘Great Britain’ label could be used either given thats basically the big island. A whole renaming rebranding exercise would be required.
Not only is there no space or capability available in a timely manner anywhere else, and the morality of punishing Scottish workers like that, but that would possibly drive *more* support for independence.
We don’t need to be giving the SNP more ammunition.
Now, future projects, like the Type 83, talks of moving that away from Scotland if they vote for independence would be a good idea.
I just wish they would bring the build time down to 5 years/ vessel instead of 10 years/ vessel so that we could then start on the T83’s to help relive the pressure on the T45’s or better still give the T83’s to Belfast so we could build 3 vessels types at the same time as we still have the T32’s/T31 batch two along with the RFA vessels and the replacements for the LPD’s to keep the dock yards working for the foreseeable future. It is only my opinion but we need to get as many ships under construction as possible now so that in the late 2020’s early 2030’s we have a credible naval force. As soon as the government changes if they are not already under construction it is a good possibility that a new Labour government will decimate any out standing orders so we need to get them on the slips now or at least in the life time of this government.
This is where having the two production lines (type T26 and T31) will come in handy for negations. I’m sure BAE will need to hold in their mind that if it’s to expensive they could loss a couple of hulls the the T31 production line.
Once is was take our escort or nothing, now it’s will that to expensive, we will divert a couple of hulls to your completion.
The private sector and the market only works if it has realistic competition. If not it’s utterly destructive and you should move the industry to the public sector.
But that’s where the U.K. shipyards, workforce and infrastructure are.
It would also be counter productive for the union as it would:
1) alienate all the unionists in those communities, likely turning them to yes for independence voters.
2)be sending a message to the rest of Scotland that the U.K. government has given up on the Union.
3) show the U.K. government as unfair and bias against Scottish interests.
finally it would cost a fortune to set up the new yards and skill up a new workforce. As well as delay the production of the new frigates when we desperately need them.
All in All a Geopolitical version of shooting yourself in the head. Putin would love the idea.
The holy trinity of projects is on time, within cost and to spec. The issue here is what will “on time” be? What will “within cost” be? What will “to spec” be?
If a project runs 10 years over, everyone complains, but if the project is planned to come in ten years late, everyone calmly makes their peace with it.
If you throw away £3bn on Ajax because it’s a piece of rubbish, everybody is scandalised, but if you successfully throw away £3bn on a series of ships because you planned to pay that much over the odds, everyone seems grateful.
I care if “on time” is defined to be by 2041, as Lord West believes. I also care if they cost billions more than they should. At least the spec of the Type 26 appears reasonable.
Competition can’t eliminate a problem when the fault lies with the purchaser. It’s our money and our defence, and we have to hold the government to account, because nobody else will.
Hopefully, there’s something positive in this for the UK?
US DoD seeks more industry competition16 FEBRUARY 2022
“Although consolidation has, in some cases, led to improvements in corporate efficiency, product quality, or internal costs, too much market concentration can negatively impact competition by providing the remaining companies with greater market power to potentially foreclose on competitors, reduce customer choices, limit innovation, and charge higher prices to DoD,” the report says.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/us-dod-seeks-more-industry-competition
Why can’t one of the new ship’s be named Portsmouth
what a disgusting comment to make and just shows how tiny minded the unionistsbare.
Why should Scotland be a hostile country to its neighbour.
I think Bill Mason you should go away and grow up a bit more before you make comments like this.