T45 Delays etc

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by broadside, Mar 13, 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. Not that is should come as any surprise but it is now semi-official - the new Type 45s are delayed and over budget


    The MoD is aiming to get the first of the new ships, HMS Daring, into service at the end of this year - two years later than planned - although the NAO said that meeting even this revised target would be "challenging".

    And on top of that there is the issue of kit ...

    Even then, Daring will not get its new principle anti-air missile system (PAAMS) - which can shoot down multiple enemy aircraft or missiles simultaneously - until 2011, although the MoD believes it could be deployed earlier in an emergency.

    Pardon me for asking but if it can be "deployed earlier in an emergency" why not just do it now? It will work out cheaper, give the ships the capability they need, the operators the chance to "operate" and will stop us looking that the Champions of the worldwide Numpty Procurement League that we seem to be desperate to become
  2. Why so long?

    Shiny arsed Civil Serpents trying to make more work to justify their non justifiable existance.

    Remember how long it took to get Illustrious worked up and off to the Falkland? Amazing what yo can achieve when it's military reality and neccessity driving a work up.
  3. If its going into service at the end of this year, but not getting PAAMS until 2011, whats it going to be doing until then? It's just going to be a nice big floating target :S
  4. "but not getting PAAMS until 2011, whats it going to be doing until then?"

    Refit or plenty or flying the flag trips to liverpool, newcastle, etc :)

  5. AIR RED! AIR RED!!! All hands man the starboard rail and adopt stern looks and harsh stares!
  6. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    "Shiny arsed Civil Serpents trying to make more work to justify their non justifiable existance."

    I love the way that whenever a delay thread appears its always the big bad nasty civil servants who are blamed. Given that this was a military project, run by military officers and with very experienced military staff at all levels of the project - lets be clear that the blame is as much the RNs as anyone elses.

    Same old reasons of course, RN moves people at 2yr point so newcomers feel the need to reinvent the wheel, while in town the minor problem of fighting 2 wars on limited budget means we keep having to slip key bits of procurement (all military decisions taken by military officers by the way - CS don't decided on what stays or slips in the EP) and added to that, the general SNAFU you will encounter when building a hugely complicated ship and missile system.

    Of course we could just blame the CS because that means you don't have to accept the RN isn't perfect in every way.
  7. Purple_T

    How do you explain that a £6bn project for 12 platforms has become a £6bn project for 6 platforms? We should have bought Arleigh Burkes years ago.

    Armed to the teeth and they work.
  8. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    Inflation, cost overruns, problems with the kit, change in specs caused by the nightmare of the Equipment Programme forcing slips and delays to save money in year, but in the longer term causing cost increases. Change in wider defence budget meaning that RN can't afford 12 because the PM loathes defence and won't spend a penny on it. The loss of 7-12 is all about loss of budget and nothing else.

    AB's are a 25 year old design, built to US standards, with far lower habitability levels and different manning requirements. If we'd bought them we'd have spent billions changing them to our level of specification and ended up with a ship which began being designed while the 42s were still under construction.
  9. What a shocker

    And as for daring all the dorms have ipod docks yet doesnt have the capabillities it needs to opperate. But as long as the govt and MOD think they will be safe during an emergency then everythings fine and dandy with them .

  10. It's a fvcking warship, not a cruise liner! :roll:

    The 'lower' standards of habitabity you so decry on US designed warships is because they never forgot that warships have to be able to absorb fire/damage when other nasty people shoot at them.
  11. :wink: Could chuck in a couple of the new Zumwalt class $3 bn each. 8) 8)

  12. What an excellent answer.

    No good being really comfy and watch dvds if when the big fan turns and the brown stuff hits it, you have no armanent and are surrounded by reinforced tin foil for bulheads.
  13. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    By habitability I mean massive messes, no CPOs mess to speak off, no real wardroom, poor catering and hospitality services, massive amounts of manual work required to keep going. In other words it would be like going back to the RN of the 60s in terms of quality of life onboard.

    Not an expert on US weapons systems, but if we went down the road of AB's we'd either be buying foreign weapons for our own air defence, and installing a new supply chain (very expensive) or fusing UK systems onto US vessels (even more expensive). The idea that buying COTS is easy is a myth sadly - if we bought a Burke wholesale it would cost billions to adapt to UK standards in all areas (particularly electronics in the Ops room), we'd need to make major changes to put UK standard kit in to operate, or train a subsection of the RN in using US kit (thus creating major manning issues as we train, and sustain a manning pipeline). We'd have to look at a lot of changes to the ships operating systems - for instance the typical bridge party on a US DDG can be up to 17 strong vs 3 on a T23 - while some changes were doctrinal, we'd need to change our own working practises to suit the ship.

    I'm not saying it can't be done, but its not just a case of going "here's £3Bn, now let me have 12 DDG 51's please". Buying COTs involves major risk, major changes to the RN and major costs as we adapt systems to do jobs they were never intended to do - just look at the Tiger class cruisers as an example - great ships, but by the time the helo conversion was done, it would have been cheaper and easier to have built a 4th Invincible!

    I'm 99% certain the "Buy US" option was looked at back in the 90's and rejected for many of the reasons I just listed - namely it costs too much, is extremely risky to do and provides no guarantee it will work.
  14. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    KIA would do it quicker and cheaper and to spec.

  15. Sounds so unlike a cruise liner it's not funny.

    Well lets see…

    Big mess spaces. Handy things those when you need space for casualty treatment and such like.

    Poor catering and 'hospitality' services? Cunard is thataway if 'hospitality' services are a prime requirement->

    Lots of bodies… Here's a a thing, damage control, and firefighting especially, uses up people at a frightening rate through exhaustion/fatigue. Lean manned ships = abandon ship if it take a bad hit.
  16. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    Problem is oil slick that while some of the "old and bold" here look back fondly on such memories, todays generation don't.

    We are no longer in the market for cheap labour with no qualifications who will turn up, enjoy the prospects of foreign travel and the bit of money we pay in return for putting up with 40 man messdecks. Todays AB is a highly skilled individual, with years of training in most cases and a lot of taxpayers money has been spent getting them there - the kids of today are picky - they don't want to join up to spend their time sleeping with 40 other guys, and we're idiots if we deny that. Times have changed and if we want to get the next generation of sailors in, we have to adapt to that. That means smaller mess decks and 6 man cabins where possible.

    Big messes have their place, but in todays threat environment, they can also be a curse - USS Cole was bad enough when 17 guys were killed - but what would have happened had the boat hit a large mess deck or the all rates cafeteria? You'd have seen scores more killed - so it does work both ways.

    Hopsitality - cooking, power supplies etc - referred to in the Mob as "Hotel services" - sounds posh, but is a term for "somewhere to eat with the power to cook it". AB's have a single large canteen, and all rates from AB - CPO use it - there is no PO/CPO dining hall, and the W/R usually eat in their cabins (no W/R galley either). So if we buy a DDG51 we either put it in, or abandon decades of UK naval design of putting in rank appropriate galleys and mess spaces.

    Times change - our predecessors were arguing about hammocks to bunk beds, and our succesors will doubtless argue about something else. I just find it ironic that people are moaning that the Admiralty is placing the quality of life for ABs as a major priority in ship design!
  17. I see no problem with all rates and ranks using a big canteen… Occifers can sit to one side of that's what they want.
  18. Purple_twiglet is talking significantly more sense than the perpetual knobber Lewis Page did on the Today Programme this morning!
  19. I got to spend some time on USS Ramage as a guest of the USN a few years ago - apart from the fact that the bunks were a bit snug and crammed in and the food was crap, the "hospitality services"; heads and showers, wardroom and other messes etc were pretty good.

    Biggest shock to me was how archaic some of their Ops Room kit was
  20. What concerns me is that after extensive boards of enquiry after the Falklands War, it was assessed that the RN had sacrificed Weapon systems and surviveability for comfort. It looks like we've done it again.

Share This Page