Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rn cvf??
NotUkOnly    2/3/2007 10:55:30 AM
I am wondering what the consensuus is these days on the status of these vessels? Type 45 is being built although in smaller numbers than originally envisaged so does that mean Cvf must be built? It just seems to me that if these were to built they would have already been started? Whats the scoop guys??
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
EssexBoy    CVF Limbo   2/3/2007 1:10:51 PM
I don't think the building of the first batch of T45s means that the RN will get the carriers. The RN will still need air defence destroyers if CVF is cancelled and the MOD either goes for an LPH or even nothing at all. Also, there are rumours that the RN will only end up with four T45s as the hulls for five and six may be sold onto the Saudis.
 
How much of this is true I have no idea. It could be the RN and its supporters are trying to pre-empt further cuts by kicking up a fuss. Alternatively, the government may be trying to scare the hell out of the everyone with rumours of terrible cuts so that when more modest cuts are made they don't seem so bad.
 
You've also got to bear in mind the political situation in Scotland. Labour have been in deep trouble  for a while (and have just pissed off the Scottish Catholics) so they will be desperate not to lose more votes by cancelling the CVF. I would imagine that Tony and Gordon would very much like to announce before the election that hundreds (if not thousands) of jobs had been secured at Govan for years to come, and that new jobs would be created by re-opening Rosyth naval base at the expense of Portsmouth. This would be particularly effective against the SNP as Scotland would lose out on a lot of work if the SNP won. (I assume any English/Welsh government would place shipbuilding orders at Barrow or VT). If the orders aren't placed before the elections in May I would start getting worried. For the moment we're in Limbo while everybody argues about industry consolidation.
 
BTW all the above is speculation and could be utter crap.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       2/3/2007 4:07:49 PM
It may be possible that they are planning to do the same with the T-45s as they are doing with the Typhoons. If they can get the Saudis to buy a couple of destroyers at a suitable (high) price, then they can afford to actually buy the existing planned ships - i.e. get the Saudis to buy hulls five and six, and the UK's fifth and sixth ships become hulls seven and eight. Hopefully the UK will then be able to follow this up with more, hopefully bringing the batch to eight, and hopefully another eight to replace some of the T-22 Batch 3s and T-23s.
 
As for the carriers, my hope is that they will see sense and go for the French version (i.e. the CTOL version), since it gives the best price/capability balance. The final project launch is likely to be immediately before the elections in May, along with the usual promises (local hospital and school improvements in Labour districts etc...).
 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    CVF sweepstake   2/3/2007 4:24:28 PM
Any takers for a CVF sweepstake - say a tenner an entry and the most accurate prediction gets the lot?
 
Being a pessimistic sort I'm pretty sure that the carriers won't be built. My predictions are:
 
1) the government uses the industrial consolidation issue as an excuse to delay placing any orders. 2) Brown takes over in July and announces a defence review. 3) The review concludes that due to the WOT the UK needs more infantry, more helicopters, and more strategic lift. 4) The CVFs are cancelled (along with a lot of the MARS programme). 5) The army doesn't get the infantry, helicopters, strategic lift etc anyway.
 
Essex :-(
 
 
Quote    Reply

NotUkOnly       2/4/2007 1:15:20 PM
Thats depressing

I would hate for that to happen although I wounldnt bet against it!  Lets just hope that the RN doesnt get shafted AGAIN!!

 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    My guess (plus a wish)   2/4/2007 2:56:30 PM
My guess is that the CVF will be built, 138 Lightning IIs will be bought to fly off them (although some de-navalised F35c never will). This project will take so long to get off the ground that, even after all the de-risking and pre-budgeting for it, the final cost will still be well over the £3.6bn that the MoD are offering.

I would wish for a third CVF, for the RN, built for CTOL aircraft. This could make use of the F-35c that the RAF want for deep strike. All they have to do is keep them navalised.

 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    Consolidation rumour   2/19/2007 2:16:01 PM
From timesonline:
 
February 19, 2007

VT and BAE shipyards set for merger

VT Group and BAE Systems are in the final stages of negotiating the £1 billion merger of their shipbuilding assets, The Times has learned.

Integration of the shipbuilding assets, which will create a joint venture owned by the two companies, is due to be completed in about five weeks.

That will allow the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to give the official go-ahead for the Royal Navy’s £4 billion aircraft carrier project.

The MoD has made it clear that it will not award the contract to build the two carriers until there is consolidation in the shipbuilding industry.

BAE and VT have been wrangling over how to value their respective assets on the Clyde and in Portsmouth since last October.

The value of VT’s share will receive a boost in two weeks when the Trinidad & Tobago Government is expected to announce a £155 million contract for three patrol vessels.

The Times understands that negotiations between the UK and Trinidadian governments are nearly complete and that the deal should be announced imminently.

VT, formerly Vosper Thornycroft, has been in competition with Italy’s Finmeccanica for the contract but the Trinidadian Government is now thought to be committed to the British ships.

VT’s offer price lapses at the end of this month and both sides are rushing to complete the deal in time.

The valuation of VT’s Portsmouth assets will have been further helped by the £400 million contract it won from Oman last month to build a three more patrol vessels.

The negotiations over integrating the shipbuilding divisions of BAE and VT have been complicated by the question of what other assets should be included.

BAE and VT have two existing joint ventures — Fleet Service, which maintains and repairs Royal Navy ships, and Flagship, which trains Royal Navy seamen.

It is understood that Fleet Services will join the integrated shipbuilder, while Flagship will remain independent.

The MoD is pushing for the creation of a single shipbuilding company because it believes that one national champion will stand a better chance of winning export orders in the future.

It will also allow the companies to concentrate on specialist skills rather than duplicating their operations.

BAE’s yards on the Clyde, at Govan and Scotstoun, are expected to concentrate on large warships, while VT’s Portsmouth dock is becoming a world leader in smaller vessels such as the ones sold to Oman.

The MoD is using the aircraft carrier contract as a carrot to encourage the shipbuilders to merge.

The Times understands that the Treasury has now agreed to fund the carriers, which will cost between £3.6 billion and £3.9 billion.

The two carriers, which are expected to fly F35 Joint Strike Fighters, will become the flagships of the Royal Navy.

Britain’s once-dominant shipbuilding industry has been in decline since the end of the Second World War. British yards still build equipment for the oil industry and some specialist vessels, but the industry moved to countries such as South Korea and Japan in the 1960s and is unlikely to return.

British shipbuilders are pinning their hopes and ambitions on the military sector.

Combined assets

What the BAE-VT joint venture will look like:

BAE assets

-Govan shipyard on the Clyde, bought from Kvaerner in 1999 Scotstoun shipyard, also on the Clyde, opened 100 years ago and previously owned by Yarrow Shipbuilders Limited

 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    £3.9 bn price agreed   3/15/2007 3:04:55 PM
The times online are reporting that the Mod and the carrier alliance have agreed a "top price" of £3.9bn for the two carriers, with the alliance receiving a share of any cost savings as an incentive.
 
 
The report states that there will be announcement around easter with contracts signed in the autumn.
 
I assume this means that the mod have finally chosen the F-35B rather than F-35C as we've heard nothing to the contrary. If so what AEW system will we end up with; Merlin or V22? I'd guess at an ISD of 2014-2015 for the first of class.  
 
BAe and VT are also said to have agreed terms for a merger of their shipbuilding assets although this doesn't include Bae's facilities at Barrow, presumably to keep the sub building out of the new entity.
 
(Just heard on the radio that the olympics are now expected to cost £9.3 bn. Nice to know the govt. has its priorities right).
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral       3/19/2007 11:47:53 PM
The Olympics are fully funded by private sponsorship. That figure you have involves rebuilding a large part of London and the government paying itself VAT. The £9.3bn Olympics is bunkum.

 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    Olympic funding   3/20/2007 2:13:08 PM
 
Perfectgeneral - the olympics are not fully funded by private sponsorship. Most of the funding will come from central government, London ratepayers and the national lottery. Take a look at the following article:
 

"Jowell said the government would stump up an extra 4.93 billion pounds to fund the games and urban regeneration and that nearly 1 billion pounds more would be needed from London taxpayers and the proceeds of Britain's national lottery.

The new funding comes on top of the 2.38 billion pounds in London tax and lottery proceeds and 1 billion pounds from the government that were originally earmarked for the Olympics."

 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    Link   3/20/2007 2:17:41 PM
h**p://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/15/olympic.costs.reut/index.html
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics