Future Surface Combatant Programme

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by soleil, Jul 3, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Anyone else fed up being pissed around regarding will they/won't they with programmes and budgets?!

    First we don't have enough in the budget to continue the nuclear det or the carriers, next we're on the verge of striking fresh deals? Where does the wool end? 8O
  2. If we'd have got the full 18, plus the full T45 order...

    We can but dream!
  3. To be honest the longer the FSC stays under the radar the more likely it is we will get them, at the moment we need to keep the brown and sky blue's noses out of our proc programmes. It's a bit worrying that it is thought we will get less than 18 though, that could end up leaving us with less than 20 escorts total. This is not good given that some will be in deep maintenance and others will be fulfilling standing commitments, leaving around 12 to protect all our HVUs. The way things are going we could end up in the ridiculous position of being able to deploy more HVUs (if you include things like Argus and other essential RFAs) than we have screens for!
  4. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    The figure that never gets visible (no doubt for good OPSEC reasons) is how many of what do we have that are in commission and fully worked up. I suspect that a sizeable proportion of the ships listed in MoD press releases are not fit to lie in the line.

    But then we always used to have a comet's tail of Old Ming that was pretty much good for nothing, leave alone the stuff in Fountain Lake.
  5. I strongly suspect this is political spin to satisfy core Labour voters and/or commercial spin to support company share prices.

    When I left Abbey Wood just over a year ago the FSC project team was miniscule (I think about 4 people) with many many concept issues still to be sorted before the project could get to the Initial Gate stage that would allow the process to start of assessing the options properly and deciding on the final design that you could go to contract on. Compared with Type 45 which took 4 years from pulling out of CNGF to commencing build work in 2003, the big difference is that there simply isn't the basis for a detailed design to place a contract on - saying "build me something based on T45 and we'll decide what to put on it later" won't work but I wouldn't put it past the politicians to try and make that their "policy".
  6. Given that it's a trade publication is it out of the question that it's a contract for Concept or Assessment work?

    As I recall the spend should be about 20% of total budget in the CA steps of the CADMID cycle.
  7. Possibly so but the whole slant of the article is shipbuilding/steel cutting rather than design.
  8. Fair, although I found it quite content free in general, a bit of a puff piece to remind people that they still exist.

  9. Austere T45, leave off the high end PAAMS, use a cheaper radar, big gun, Mk41 VLS, job done. Commonality across the Fleet in spares and training with commensurate savings - Job done.

Share This Page