Portsmouth or Plymouth dockyards to close...?

FlagWagger said:
I heard that similar cost-cutting was undertaken on T42s with Batch 1 & 2 being cut-down cost-reduced versions before the bean counters conceded defeat and allowed Batch 3 to be built which met all the origianl design requirements.
Actually, quite true. The Type 82 (Bristol, et al) was to be the primary platform for both Ikara and BAE Seadart systems (itself based on the American Talos system)

When the Labour Government of 1966 decided to scrap the proposed light carrier, bang went it's escort ships (the Bristol, plus her three sister, but we were lumbered with an already bought and paid for Seadart and Ikara legacy. Simple solution - build smaller ships, house the dart in them (hence they are effectively 'back to front' in design on 42s and up forward, so they could manage a Wasp with fight deck ops back aft) and match up the recently tested (on HMS Exmouth) COGOG propulsion design (this is pre-1973 energy crisis)

No room to house Ikara - stick it on the Leanders (what the **** use it was, anyway). The original 'Town Class' (taking the name from the original Type 82s) was indeed the stretched version. Never mind this 'broad margin' shit spun post Corporate - the lies that they were redesigning 42s with room enough to fit Exocet and Seawolf (the Argentines have fitted Exocet to Hercules, since). They came in at over £21 million per hull, which was ludicrously over budget and to cut the maximum amount out, they chopped 46 feet out of the forward hull, naroowed the beam to length ratio and Sheffield rolled out of the yard in 1973 at an announced £19 million. It took her three years of trials to get things right, and it was apparent through the first six batch ones and the minor upgraded batch twos that the platform, as an air capable weapons launch facility, was hideously poor in a sea state over five. So they halted Manchester's build and 'stretched' her, incorporating subsequent modifications in later 42s which made every single one of the last four built different in some significant way. All of the later ships suffered from hull cracking in some ways, hence the swages, and all 42s have their own structural fun and games package, largely due to the hideous amount of mods and alterations incorporated to keep them 'current'.

They have fucked about with many things on the remaining 42s, Phalanx in odd places, BMARC, new propulsion proposals (even the Argentinians have lengthened the flightdeck and built a huge hanger on the ARA Hecules (the Santissima Trinidad sits alongside in Argentina just as nature intended, however) but they are still ******* good ships, strong, durable (if horrendously obsolete) and, until this ****'s nest of a government had their say, dependable.

Levers
 

UncleAlbert

War Hero
Got to agree Levers but we are not talkin ships we are talking bases and if the two southern bases are to become one it will be decided by the accountants.

…………
 

safewalrus

War Hero
Guess we could always close them both and reopen Portland! cost a lot but who cares 'tis only taxpayers money anyway (so thinks the mighty politician), plus the other thought 'we'll be out of office by the time it's all in place so we can blame the other lot anyway' springs to mind!
 
We'll finish up with 2 carriers and just enough DD/FFs to screen them. That package should fit neatly in to one and a half Bases. The added advantage is that, once the valuable bits of Pompey are sold off, the Fleet will be incapable of expansion. Old Labour disarmament by stealth.
 

SailbadTheSinner

Lantern Swinger
FlagWagger said:
Booty_Cdt_Sgt said:
3% is still a drop in the Ocean but we need our Forces back at pre-SDR size, when we still had around 50 Frigates and Destroyers, yes our new ships may be twice as capable, but they cannot be in two place at once. Something Governments do not understand.
What concerns me is with the emphasis on littoral and amphibious warfare, all the money is being invested in LPD and CV type platforms at the expense of the DD/FF platforms that provide the escort force (not to mention the provision of organic air defence for the assault force).
It is is all down to risk

Are our potential enemies likely to interdict such a force with submarines and/or combat aircraft?

That's why the Sea Harriers wree paid off = can't afford them so we'll take the risk

Fine as long as we pick a fight with an incompetent or inadequately resourced nation. The assumption I suspect is that if we take on anyone better we'll be there with the Septics.

We are slowly turning into a Navy with niche capabilities
 

lesbryan

War Hero
My opinion (for what its worth ) is that it will be portsmouth that goes except for whale island and the small part around the victory|. plymouth has got the covered docks for the subs etc ||
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
Les

Guzz's covered docks are for DD/FF and they are already too small for the T45. DML are currently trying to build superyachts in them. There are no covered docks for subs at all except the Faslane & Barrow shiplifts.
 

lesbryan

War Hero
I was thinking more of the subs which they were realy built for i know the tridant are a bit big and i think are goiing to be done at vickers where they were built but the smaller hunter killers ||
 

stumpy

War Hero
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6178804.stm

It looks like the Scots may make our choice for us if they choose devolution.

Therefore:

Faslane: Close down. (Hurray!!)
Portsmouth: CVFs, Destroyers, Frigates, Mine Warfare.
Plymouth: Amphibious ships, SSNs, SSBNs, survey boats.

Yes, I know that this would cost a lot of money to move the submarine community south, but Guzz is near Raleigh for Submarine training and Guzz (possibly) has enough space for the shore side support for SSBN, especially if their Friagets move to Pompey.

This would fill up Pompey and Guzz nicely, and remove the biggest consequence of Scottish independance.
 

stumpy

War Hero
dunkers said:
Preventing further devolution of Scotland is the only reason I would vote Labour.
Don't get me wrong, I am not in favour of Scottish devolution, far from it. But... given how much will be spent in Faslane with the new Astute facilities (including training), follow on to the bombers etc, can any government guarantee that Scotland will not go Independant with the next 50 years?

Maybe it is better to ere on the side of caution and slowly move south.

One advantage is that you might get more volunteers for submarines if Faslane was removed from the equation!
 

Old_Hand

Lantern Swinger
Excuse my ignorance but if there is not a complete Scottish devolution and if the Astute's are going to Faslane, what boats use Guzz and how long before they go out of service. When they go, and if everything else is going to Faslane, will there be a need to keep Guzz?.
 

stumpy

War Hero
Somehow I don't see the SNP wanting a nuclear submarine fleet... or paying the running costs of them! I guess they would be happy with a few fishery protection vessels.

Of course, there would be no problem with people from Scotland joining/staying in, just as many people from the Republic of Ireland (and further afield) do now.
 

DingDong

Lantern Swinger
Within the boundaries of this forum, i have had several briefings from naval staff officers. Things aren't looking good for us at all (no change there). Firstly, whilst he wasn't directly asked the question, CINCFLEET hinted that buying a house in or near Portsmouth was a bad idea.

T45 has spirralled to nearly £800million a pop, numbers 5 and 6 are looking very dodgy, not to mention 7 and 8. We need 12 altogether. The reason is that PAAMS has proven to be so expensive that we are unlikely to be fully loading the silos. The RAF are putting pressure on us again to ditch the carriers because they see offensive air power as their bag. Follow on designs for the T23 shopping trolley class are delayed because we can't afford them.

Anyway enjoy, i'm off to get my OOW ticket for the Isle of White ferry.
 

Old_Hand

Lantern Swinger
Passed-over_Loggie said:
Old_Hand

Are you forgetting the grey things that bob around on the Surface? Some of them have very flat tops.
Passed-over-Loggie

Not forgetting them really. The ones we have now can get into Pompey and the planned future ones may not come to fruition. If they are cutting down on the T45's because of cost and the crabs are laying their claim to Air support I can't really see these new carriers coming in.
 

sledgehammer

Badgeman
Just one small point from another thread. If pompey is to get it in the neck,pray tell me why they are going to dredge a new channel into pompey harbour for the new big carrier?
 

clanky

War Hero
sledgehammer said:
Just one small point from another thread. If pompey is to get it in the neck,pray tell me why they are going to dredge a new channel into pompey harbour for the new big carrier?
Pompey is just about the only place not in the frame as a base for the CVF.Suggest you double check the dredging rumour?
 

clanky

War Hero
letthecatoutofthebag said:
clanky said:
sledgehammer said:
Just one small point from another thread. If pompey is to get it in the neck,pray tell me why they are going to dredge a new channel into pompey harbour for the new big carrier?
Pompey is just about the only place not in the frame as a base for the CVF.Suggest you double check the dredging rumour?
Clanky, I think you need the check the facts. The dredging is not a rumour. I have heard on fairly loud and knowledgeable jungle drums that they will start dredging soon.

MoD announced a long time ago Portsmouth was going to be the base for CVF. Okay, so circumstances change but consider this: QHM Devonport have put limitations on the size of vessels that they will allow to pass through Vanguard Bank. Guess what? Their new limitations are smaller than CVF. Though CVF is (a bit) smaller than the old Ark Royal, it still won't get into Guzz (even if it could, there are no dry docks big enough for it).

If CVF doesn't go to Portsmouth, the only other military port it could go to is Marchwood.
Lets just say that the basing options are not restricted to "military" ports!
 

Top