Bae Systems

The current Private Eye has an interesting article "Up the Creek" and a letter "All at Sea" featuring Type 45 Destroyers.

Worth reading.

 

I'm fairly certain you mean Type 45 as a story of scandal involving the Type 42s would be very very very very ............. very old news.

 

This is the online summary:
"UP THE CREEK
More on the expensive fiasco of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers, built by BAE Systems and whose faulty electrics can turn them in to lame ducks. "

I think the full article is only available in print.

 

From post #4
"...[Devonport]...already home to the frigate repair sheds that could be extended to fit the Type 45 destroyers (which, after all, were permanently based there until being shifted to Portsmouth, as demanded by BAE systems)

Eh? WTF?

 

When were the Type 45s based in Guzz?
Damn @Ballistic , you got there first!

 

Is it tot time?

 

I'd quit while your behind Billy, and buy a newspaper that has journalists that do their research. If you find such a newspaper let me know as I've never found one.

 

Or seek out the recent thread where informed posters, those with some idea and experience of what is wrong, why it's wrong and who is to blame share their perspective.

There is a fair bit of ill informed sheiss in the Private Eye article. Disappointing.

 

Is Billy Q the latest incarnation of Norm?

 

Think you may find that had we acquired twelve ships, some would have been based in Guzz.

Pompey would not have been able to resource and berth twelve T45s, even having six afloat causes no end of snags.

levers

 

Errrmm - kinda losing the plot here. I thought that the "scandal" was focused on the unreliability of the electrical propulsion system (braced for incoming from the Engineers) which is to be rectified at the tax payers expense rather than BAE shareholders. If BMW released a car with a faulty alternator then they would issue a recall at their expense.

 

BAE held the warranty for the ships as a standard one year clause. The seven major equipment subcontractors had their own arrangements. BAE did discharge the warranty claims to the book and fixed the shit which broke within that year from Acceptance off Contract (i.e. when they arrived at Pompey) to In Service Date (when they are ready for OST), whereby the Contract For Availability terms kicked in.

It may be trendy for all to boot BAE around the floor for the failings of the T45s, but the mob got what they asked for. Take into consideration the design changes and iterative updates during the six ship contract and I would vouch that BAE didn't do much wrong. When the MoD faff about and faff the prime contractor about (and dick the training of matelots about) then you get what you see. T45s are hugely complex, maintenance hungry beasts, and assuming they'd be fault-free (as it was) was being optimistic.

It's not wrong to say that during the last ten years, what the navy wanted with it's new, sparkly destroyer and it's sailors who man them has been ridiculously vague.

levers

 

And there was me thinking a T45 starts a refit this year not 2019.....

That article, like many, is written with an agenda but isn't wholly reflective of fact.

 

What might have been with 12 T45 aside looking at Portsmouth berths today there is sufficient for 6 T45 and more space will be available when some decommissioned platforms are moved.

 

I think there is probably a reasonable amount of room for dispute on both sides. I had to resolve a number of issues on T45s because of some asinine design and procurement decisions by BAE. It's far from a one sided issue.

 

Is FLJ still in use ? , can remember 6 county class berthed there on one occasion plus Bristol early 70's , t'other 2 county's were in dock.

 

T45 draws a lot more than a County.

And then there's 'services'. FLJ is effectively a shithole jetty. Much of the alongside services are either condemned or not working.

Things have moved on (and downwards) in 40 years, Stirlin. The government doesn't own and pay for the dockyards ... ahem, naval bases for a start.

levers

 

I think the article is alluding to the fixing of the recurrent propulsion problems.

That issue is up for grabs

levers