tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post2196431425979911536..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: OPVs that come with lots of questions - UPDATEDGabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-12883025757518491602017-03-26T04:07:34.124+02:002017-03-26T04:07:34.124+02:00Personally I would Not Believe anything that Mr Ha...Personally I would Not Believe anything that Mr Hammond has to say..Many of their Promises about the Defence of the Nation do Not go anywhere...All the MOD does it seems is Cancel half of Everything that is Ordered..So every ship orders will finish in Single Figures..Just to Save Money..Many people on here seem to think there is going to be a Big increase in Ships in 2025...Due to a New Defence Review...Come that time this will be Delayed...And we will still have about 20 ships in our Entire Royal Navy... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10150133913480897566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-52775827133817026972014-10-21T22:01:54.087+02:002014-10-21T22:01:54.087+02:00Interesting, thank you. Besides, you helped me dis...Interesting, thank you. Besides, you helped me discover that now the written answers are shown on a separate page... i've been looking for days at the reports, missing that and wondering why there were no written answers. Sincerely, though, i preferred how it worked before...<br /><br />As for the modifications in the list, there is no shocker in it. Curious about the davits, since i believe the Amazonas use the exact same RHIBs, there probably isn't much to change. Weapons modification is actually a downgrade from the Amazonas... Interesting, but it sure does not explain the price increase, reinforcing the feeling that the money actually went into buying a way out of the TOBA, period. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-81668833647339127362014-10-21T21:24:44.334+02:002014-10-21T21:24:44.334+02:00Possibly Angus Robertson's only useful achieve...Possibly Angus Robertson's only useful achievement:<br /><br />Ministry of DefencePatrol Craft210212<br /> To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what 29 design requirements were requested by the Royal Navy for the Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessels not in the design of the initial batch of vessels.<br /> A Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne Answered on: 20 October 2014<br /> I believe that the 29 design requirements the Honourable Member refers to are the differences between the Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) and those delivered to the Brazilian Navy, which were not the same design as the initial Batch. The new requirements were:<br /><br /> 1 Watertight Integrity Modifications<br /> 2 Fire Safety Modifications<br /> 3 Enhanced firefighting facilities <br /> 4 Automatic Emergency Lights <br /> 5 Flight Deck Officer Position<br /> 6 Domestic refrigeration Modifications<br /> 7 Sewage Treatment Plant Modifications<br /> 8 Exhaust System Modifications – (No longer required)<br /> 9 Ballast Water Modifications<br /> 10 Merlin helicopter operation<br /> 11 Helicopter In-Flight Refuelling <br /> 12 Helicopter refuelling modifications<br /> 13 Changes to ship’s minimum operating temperature<br /> 14 Davit Modifications<br /> 15 Force Protection Weapon Modifications<br /> 16 Install WECDIS/WAIS<br /> 17 Install Combat Management System <br /> 18 Military communications modifications<br /> 19 Magazine Protection<br /> 20 Radio Equipment Room Modifications<br /> 21 Change lighting and domestic power voltage from 115v to 230v<br /> 22 Codification of equipment<br /> 23 Provision of life saving equipment<br /> 24 Replace navigation radars <br /> 25 Install Military GPS <br /> 26 Install flight deck landing grid<br /> 27 Fuel efficiency monitoring<br /> 28 Provide emergency communication equipment <br /> 29 Machinery Space Walkway <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09072697695662624630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-18239236003566429792014-10-16T23:04:49.269+02:002014-10-16T23:04:49.269+02:00I do think it's slightly farcical for a large ...I do think it's slightly farcical for a large competitive, commercial enterprise such as BAE to have it's whole shipbuilding division perennially locked into a symbiotic relationship with the UK, or more specifically the MOD. <br /><br />As you say it's called entrepreneurship, as a company they should be actively investing in new designs and technology and showing them off on the global market, not relying solely on government work, or worse handouts.<br /><br />I guess BAE is content to feed off of the state because they know the government is committed to keeping complex warship construction in the UK and they are the only game in town. Essentially they have the MOD over a barrel! <br /><br /> Challengernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-63734846575129886142014-10-16T15:52:13.923+02:002014-10-16T15:52:13.923+02:00You are right about UK shipbuilding in general whi...You are right about UK shipbuilding in general which was the point Gabriele made towards the end of his thought provoking post.<br />I have some experience in yacht building business and see that you need a whole raft of skills and resources to make it work. I think you need 100% commitment and dedication. When you are manufacturing for one customer like the MOD it should be easier but one needs a broader market and BAE seems to have dropped the ball by not making smaller end warships that can be adopted by other Navies not requiring First Class war fighting ships. These OPVs are a big opportunity for BAE to show they can produce a ship for smaller Navies. They should offer to fit one of the 3 with a heavier Armament (say their 57mm gun and folding hanger) to show the RN how it can be done. No big deal one would think.<br />Its called entrepreneurship. 4thwatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10461313531403813431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-24947137940831120842014-10-15T19:02:29.197+02:002014-10-15T19:02:29.197+02:00Yep, not having competition in a supposedly capita...Yep, not having competition in a supposedly capitalist, competitive market is a strange situation.<br /><br />Problem is current government policy just won't provide enough work to support two complex shipbuilding set-ups, the endless defence cuts and reductions in RN capability means the UK can barely support one! After all, with the exception of Barrow producing submarines BAE is on it's way to operating just one large 'frigate factory' on the Clyde and nothing else.<br /><br />A larger shipbuilding industry in the UK (barring some miraculous and substantial increase in government spending) would have to be competitive on the global, commercial market, something a lot easier said than done....although perhaps not impossible if the willpower and determination existed.Challengernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-3360983740545352882014-10-15T17:27:05.586+02:002014-10-15T17:27:05.586+02:00Nice Article thanks,
On the subject of the extra s...Nice Article thanks,<br />On the subject of the extra size. Broadly there are obviously the same length and beam.<br />However if you look at the bow you will see the new design encompasses much more volume than the old straight line triangle approach. You will also see that toward the top deck of the bow it has reach a nearly vertical wall face. This is bound to add a fair amount of space.<br />More critically. If you compare the “Merlin” pad, you will see it is 1 deck UP. The new batch has the helipad virtually on the level with the Rhib, whereas old Rivers it was at least 1 deck below that, and still slightly recessed. This “OLD loading deck” is now totally enclosed. If you take a look at your great freeze frame from the video, it looks to me like they have picked up (at least) 7 compartments in this zone. (This may be why they are claiming greater sea worthiness)<br />Beno<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-28437514717628681762014-10-15T16:36:29.313+02:002014-10-15T16:36:29.313+02:00Hi Gabriele,
Thanks for another interesting post.
...Hi Gabriele,<br />Thanks for another interesting post.<br />I have to agree with what most have said.<br />As always we are trying to do to much with to little.<br />I like the idea of the Khareef Class corvettes, they seem to fit the OPV standard.<br />How many Type 26 will be ordered? I my humble opinion we need at least 12, but more than likely we will get 8.<br />Keep up the good work.<br />Regards<br />PhilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-10446109178015844212014-10-15T16:33:58.596+02:002014-10-15T16:33:58.596+02:00BAE are incredibly stupid to be showing these 3 OP...BAE are incredibly stupid to be showing these 3 OPVs priced the way they are. Who in the heck is ever going to order one of their ships if they are so expensive. Are they running a Business or what?<br />They badly need a UK based ship building competitor. Like VT used to be in Portsmouth.4thwatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10461313531403813431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-38392516989376617532014-10-14T23:25:36.908+02:002014-10-14T23:25:36.908+02:00You are right about T26 numbers. There will certai...You are right about T26 numbers. There will certainly not be 12/13 and expecting any more than 8 is optimistic in today's climate. As far as the FSS is concerned, I am more concerned about numbers (requirement for 3 reduced to 2?) rather than where they are built. If building in Korea makes economic sense then we should do it.<br /><br />You are also right to question replacement of the LPDs. I am not convinced that they will be directly replaced. Maybe 3 general purpose RFA landing ships so that both the Albions and Bays can be replaced with a single design? Two operational and one in refit/reserve to keep a minimum capability alive but nothing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-60626626715594030302014-10-14T16:11:36.985+02:002014-10-14T16:11:36.985+02:00Gabriele,
You are misunderstanding me. I am sugge...Gabriele,<br /><br />You are misunderstanding me. I am suggesting MORE bulkheads are being installed, not existing ones being modified. Installing more bulkheads would require significant internal redesign.<br /><br />As for HMS Ocean, according to GlobalSecurity.org it was built to mixed commercial and military standards & has 17 major watertight compartments, in turn subdivided into smaller ones, giving a total of more than 1 000 water tight compartments in all. That is not civilian!<br /><br />Of course, I erroneously mentioned the Island-class, which, of course, had no flight deck! I meant the Castle-class.<br /><br />But your work is much appreciated, please keep it up.Keith Campbellhttp://www.engineeringnews.co.zanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-27769730933708301132014-10-14T16:09:34.760+02:002014-10-14T16:09:34.760+02:00I suspect that you are spot on the money, although...I suspect that you are spot on the money, although I doubt we'll ever get a full explanation of how much of the price is to buy out of the TOBA agreement. <br />I would suspect all of this will be in preparation for - <br />1. Type-26 numbers to be cut to 8<br />2. MARS FSS (and indeed any other future RFA vessels, should any actually be commissioned) to be built overseas (probably South Korea)<br /><br />That would then only leave decisions to be made on the Albion replacement and the MHPC which, if TOBA has been removed and Type-26 numbers reduced to just 8, will be considerably easier to fit into the remaining UK yard schedules. I would not consider the Albion replacement, btw, should one ever emerge to be a "shoe-in" for UK shipyards - an 2-3 LPAs hulls of the nature of the Mistral could probably be built in a commercial yard for the price of 1 in a BAE yard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-11408505998891101502014-10-14T13:58:05.570+02:002014-10-14T13:58:05.570+02:00I think it is the key point, sad as its implicatio...I think it is the key point, sad as its implications are. At some point, the ridiculously high price of these OPVs will have to be explained properly. <br /><br />I suspect the key is in how the TOBA agreement has been "suspended" thanks to the OPV order, and how it is expected to be replaced by other arrangements. <br />I'm starting to fear that the OPV order is so expensive not because of the ships, but because of the need to buy a way out of the TOBA contractual obligations. <br />Pulling out means NOT having to guarantee 230 million a year to british shipbuilding activities: this is very, very, very important to notice, because it basically opens the door to further REDUCTIONS in shipbuilding investments. <br /><br />What is being marketed as a protective measure for british shipbuilding might actually mask the MOD scrambling for the emergency exit, if you get what i mean. It'll have to be kept under watch, to see if it impacts, and how, the Type 26 programme. Moreover, things like MARS FSS and what will come in the longer term. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-54601606783111805832014-10-14T13:51:27.808+02:002014-10-14T13:51:27.808+02:00I doubt that there are differences of any signific...I doubt that there are differences of any significance in that sense. If there are, the RN people who doubled the price of an OPV for redesigning bulkheads must have their head examined. You build your main amphibious vessel (HMS Ocean) and your carriers to civilian standards, and then goldplate underarmed OPVs without hangar with who knows what kind of advanced survivability features? No, i really do not think so. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-42628205797621167152014-10-14T13:48:30.543+02:002014-10-14T13:48:30.543+02:00But the RFA do have very specific roles. Already t...But the RFA do have very specific roles. Already the amphibious capability is depleted by having a Bay committed full time as mothership in the gulf, and the tankers double up as "frigates" on some standing tasks. How much more can the RFA be distracted from its actual role before the T23 and T45 become "useless" because their logistic line is busy doing jobs which really are for other vessel types? <br /><br />Tankers and store ships are needed to provide fuel and stores. They can do some more than just that, of course, but they are not the solution. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-2564755137640408682014-10-14T13:20:55.939+02:002014-10-14T13:20:55.939+02:00I can only echo other comments. Over priced, and u...I can only echo other comments. Over priced, and under armed. Meanwhile we use T45's in isolation with little ASW, ASM capability and RFA's as the WI Guard Ship instead of what they are for. <br /><br />None of it really surprises me any more.Daniele Mandellinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-15204220968870122182014-10-14T02:55:18.961+02:002014-10-14T02:55:18.961+02:00Thanks for your Article.
I think you indeed rais...Thanks for your Article.<br /><br /> I think you indeed raise as many questions as answers. Seriously under gunned, no hanger and a gigantic cost.<br /> I do like the idea of adopting BAE's own 57mm gun which the USN has just fitted.<br /> For comparison, as one does, I happened to be looking at the Admiralty Hunt class escort Destroyers which cost 352000 GBP! Times have moved on of course, technology is incomparable and inflation has taken its toll but for frightening pirates I know which I would rather have! 4thwatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10461313531403813431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-60211711822746629252014-10-14T02:25:21.650+02:002014-10-14T02:25:21.650+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.4thwatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10461313531403813431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-40725307951030823932014-10-13T16:49:51.473+02:002014-10-13T16:49:51.473+02:00Why didn't we just build 3 Khareef Class corve...Why didn't we just build 3 Khareef Class corvettes, same design (ish) 10m longer, 76mm Oto Melara at the front, some could be fitted "for but not with" CAMM and SSM, fixed hanger included for a Wildcat. In 2007, 3 for Oman with a training package included was £400m. <br /><br />Forward base one in the West Indies for hurricane relief and anti drugs patrols, one in Oman for anti piracy/Gulf, (jump on the back of existing Omani maintenance structure), and one in the Falkland Islands. Pull HMS Clyde back to Gib to annoy the Spanish in their own back yard and help out in the Med with the African refugee situation. The one in the West Indies doesn't need CAMM or SSM, the one's in the Gulf/FI could have them, that would make our friends in Argentina or Iran think twice before rattling their sabres, knowing they would face a little more than 30mm or a strongly worded rebuke in the UN for any stupidity on their part.<br /><br />Also, this is the kind of ship that the world's smaller navies might be interested in. We might just be able to sell some! We could bring the unit cost down by building more, with the cachet of it being good enough for the RN. Keep the existing 3 Rivers doing what they were made for, annoying Spanish fishermen in our home waters. <br /><br />Instead, lets pay way over the odds for something that is bigger than it needs to be for fisheries protection, but can't really be put in harms way in the Gulf as it can't really defend itself. Meanwhile, we can task £1 billion AAW T45 destroyers to chase 4 men in an outboard armed with 3 AK's and an RPG 7, just in case they take so much khat they become high enough to shoot down. We do need to look at what the French do with their Floréal and La Fayette class ships. What is needed is the "Black Swan" corvette thing, with the insistence from the Admiralty that the 13 high end T26 frigates are still required. This really isn't rocket science. <br /><br />Great blog btw Gabriele, always good reports and thought provoking comments. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-40400430651739620562014-10-13T15:30:26.408+02:002014-10-13T15:30:26.408+02:00Why are these ships so much more costly than their...Why are these ships so much more costly than their export equivalents, such as the Amazonas-class? May I point to a phrase in the Jane's report – "improved watertight integrity"? To me, this suggests that the new ships will be fitted with extra bulkheads. This, in turn, will require some redesign & re-organisation of internal fittings, including piping, cable runs and airconditioning systems. I suggest that, while the new "Rivers" will be externally very similar to the Amazonas-class, they will be significantly different internally. I have seen indications (I can't put it more strongly than that) that most OPVs, worldwide, are, in terms of their hull structure, built like specialist merchant ships, not proper warships. The Jane's quote indicates that the new Rivers are likely to be, in terms of their structure, much closer to proper warships. <br />Another point: the RN has long experience of operating ships with helicopter decks but no hangars, far from home: HMS Clyde & the Island-class. For example, the Caribbean is basically an enclosed sea in which a ship is always close to land. There, a flight deck could provide very valuable assistance to shore-based helicopters (most obviously, but not exclusively, those of the US Coast Guard). In home waters, such a flight deck could provide very useful support for the Lynx helicopters of the Maritime Counter-Terrorism unit (two double flights) at RNAS Yeovilton.<br />Keith Campbellhttp://www.engineeringnews.co.zanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-86087660925702215062014-10-13T15:27:50.087+02:002014-10-13T15:27:50.087+02:00Gabriele - as ever an excellent article. Not sure...Gabriele - as ever an excellent article. Not sure I could add much more to the concerns and comments raised by this procurement. One point I do find fascinating is that no one has directly responded to what is probably the article's key observation - that made in the final paragraph around the cost charged for actually building ships in the UK.<br />The MARS tankers have been a revelation in this regard, with South Korea charging one quarter that which would have been charged by BAE for a UK build and the RFA likely to see vessels delivered on time and budget. I really do think this is a key question which we now have to face head on - we increasingly have a choice between a modern and effective navy with a sufficient number of vessels for the roles identified and continuing to build hulls in the UK. I realise that people will argue against this and say that there shouldn't have to be a choice here, but the reality on the ground is that British shipbuilding simply isn't competitive and either they reduce their costs (not going to happen) or we accept a much smaller navy for "gain" of its hulls being manufactured in the UK. I for one don't believe that the Royal Navy shjould be a make work programme for BAE and given that we have accepted that SLBM element of our nuclear deterrent can be foreign made I see little reason not to do the same with ship hulls, particularly as the more complex elements of the systems, powerplants and weapons could continue to be made in the UK. If the choice is between 1 UK made type-26 or 3 korean made type-26 then I afraid I know which I would prefer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-58193358790839834012014-10-13T14:50:46.806+02:002014-10-13T14:50:46.806+02:00If we keep them they will try to reduce T26 number...If we keep them they will try to reduce T26 numbers. <br />Sell batch 1 (or 2 if it is more worth while); make sure the new MARS have good helicopter facilities / personnel capacity and push for all 13 T26’s.<br />T26/T45 for fighting and RFA’s for other stuff, it stops the politicians getting confused / baffled.<br />PS good post as usual<br />Clive F<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-47506903733303829452014-10-13T11:25:11.279+02:002014-10-13T11:25:11.279+02:00Post Hurricane relief isn't very suited to a f...Post Hurricane relief isn't very suited to a frigate either. In the three to six months of maximum danger, there will still have to be a RFA available, if there's any serious help to be given. Still, there is some room for action. I've updated the article with some details about this, and about a possible solution to revover a permanently embarked Wildcat (which is what is likely to be available, anyway, forget the Merlin nonsense). Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-75361091775944760382014-10-13T11:22:54.849+02:002014-10-13T11:22:54.849+02:00I've decided to update the article with a shor...I've decided to update the article with a short additional part detailing how the Caribbean can be tackled, and two lines on telescopic hangars. There are problems, it is evident, but there are still opportunities, as well. <br /><br />Something, i think, must be done. There must be a capability return from all this OPV money, for it to make any sense. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-73746540598805792432014-10-13T11:21:08.628+02:002014-10-13T11:21:08.628+02:00Thank you, glad you appreciated the article.
More...Thank you, glad you appreciated the article. <br />More than the weapons fit, what horrifies me is the lack of hangar. That is just something that makes no sense. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.com