Portsmouth dockyard 'vulnerable' to closure

HAVE YOUR SAY

25 June 2012

Another T45 would plug the gap and save the skills base. While keeping all three yards open.
Graham - High Wycombe

25 June 2012

One of the three yards being freed up to bid for the RNFA oilers a few years back would have helped - but the BAE monolith only plans 6 months ahead - so that was never going to happen.

Making BAE sell one of the yards to try its hand at commercial ship building as well as MOD work might help.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

25 June 2012

"If they don't shut something the shipyards will be inefficient"???

Well we could order some vessels - that would be a start and therefore make the yards "more efficient".

Our fleet is small and many vessels are long in the tooth so there is certainly potential. Not forgetting that Vospers in Portsmouth not so long ago (i.e. until BAE acquired it as part of the stitch-up deal under Labour) had an excellent reputation for smaller vessels. And Vospers also had an uncanny knack for building vessels that other countries wanted too...

Delaying orders and not committing to a proper fleet is not the way forward. And, dare I say it, it seems singular indeed to focus all military build on Scottish yards until we know the outcome of the referendum.
Michael - Hertfordshire

25 June 2012

Martin,
Sorry to nit pick but as an ex member of the RFA,may I point out that although they are attached to the RN,they are not part of it.
Hence they are not RNFA.
Cheers.

Graham,
I was reading on another blog, that someone was looking into the rumour that BAE has destroyed the jigs for T45.
If this is correct,it would appear they have acted with rather indecent haste,shades of MRA4.
Perhaps someone is determined no more will be built.
michael - notts

25 June 2012

I agree. More ship building, especially batches in multi-year deals would 1. Save Jobs 2. Provide taxes to HM Government, and 3. Bolster a weakened RN.

I would also include further R&D funds for additional air and ground capabilities, such as large aircraft (reduce reliance on multi-national projects which do not work), army vehicles in the medium to large armoured variety and a multi-role fast jet capable of meeting RAF and RN needs from 2030.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

25 June 2012

michael - notts

Apologies - RFA it is
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

25 June 2012

Delaying PoW for another 2 years when it's been held back repeatedly already! That's got to add a significant amount to the cost.

The MOD really should order a much needed 45 as the others have said, rather then "pay to slow down construction".

BAE can't wait to get rid of the Portsmouth yard. Sell the land to be turned into another "yuppie quays".
armchair admiral

25 June 2012

michael - notts

I do hope that is not true.
Graham - High Wycombe

25 June 2012

Just been looking at this on Gabrielles blog. He has this problem nailed it seems .... the cost of cancelling the TOBA, the probable delay to the type 26 and MHPC; blocks of which could be built at Portsmouth, and a very good analysis of the actual costs of delaying builds e.g. the costs incurred due to the delay in the Astutes would actually have built boat number eight. Delays to the CVF have already added £1.4Bn to the total cost!!!
What is the true cost of closing Portsmouth? What do politicians and senior service bureaucrats not tell us or fail to include in their calculations? Short termism and /or short sightedness is the perennial problem of British politicians, business, industry, and football. Problem is: it ends up in a long term cock-up!!
Norman - UK

25 June 2012

There seems to be no logical reason why the Type 26 project is not scheduled to commence until 2020, surely it does not take over 7 years to finalise the design? The fact is some of the Type 23's are already starting to develop problems and this situation will not improve as the increased demands on them inevitably reduces their operational lifespan. As we know only too well the Type 23 frigates were originally a class of sixteen ships, built to replace the 26 strong Leander Class, however three were sold prematurely to Chile. With the demise of the last four Type 22 frigates, the RN is woefully short of surface combatants, a situation highlighted by the Libyan campaign whereby UK naval forces relied heavily on ships then about to be decommissioned. The danger signs were already evident at the time but have since been ignored and latest figures suggest that, if we're lucky, Type 26 will be a one for one replacement for the 'Duke' Class. Just 13 hulls.

If the cost and the destruction of the Type 45 jigs preclude the building of more of these ships, surely some extra Type 26 would be desirable. As has been seen on so many projects, slowing down/delaying build times only increases the overall cost, so much so that these self imposed delays are used as an excuse for cost overruns by the media and often by the incumbent 'opposition party'

The 'future surface combatant' originally called for 3 distinct types of ship, now reduced to just two, only one of which, the Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' is as far as we know, actively under development. There is currently no mention of the supplementary 'Global Corvette' design. Nor for that matter the vessels required to replace the Fort Class RFAs. The MARS tanker order went to Korea amid much criticism in some quarters, but as has been rightly pointed out, no UK yard tendered for the contract.

There is no doubting the UK deficit must be addressed, but as all parties appear to agree the way forward is by growth, not contraction surely? It would seem there are several potential projects on the drawing board which could 'fill the gap' and fulfil the contractual obligations imposed by BAE whilst restoring the RN to a viable force. It seems BAE already have other interesting projects on the drawing board, some of which, in the light of current building programmes elsewhere around the world, would seem to have the 'home market' in mind... Please see
http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mdm5/~edisp/baes_026393.pdf

There has to be a common-sense solution in here somewhere!! Further reduction of UK shipbuilding capacity will inevitably mean more and more orders going overseas. Once the skills are gone they're gone for good!
Hereman - Wirral, England

25 June 2012

BAE systems would rather be wholly based in the US so is anyone surprised at further closures, however I would wait and see what the Scots do before we close any English shipyards.

Typical Labour once again signing gauranted contracts that once again pumps up the price of anything that may come out of it.

Leave POW alone, start T26 2018, failing that cancel the whole TOBA with BAE, blacklist them, and buy from abroad. Lets start having politicians tell companies what will be, not the other way round.

Is Walmsey a Scot?
JC - UK

25 June 2012

It seems to me
Its not the MOD or the government
At this point,
It's BAE Systems'
To big, to powerful , and to influencell

It has bigger fish in its net,

Get rid of this, and start again,
We need 3 bases,
And we should build our way out of recession,

Is not the reason great Britain, did not have a double recession, in the 1930s, is because we rebuild the navy ships,

It seems to me certain people wish to destroy the royal navy, by making it far to small to be self sustained,
And thereby forced to collaborate with others, [a European navy perhaps]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
We should be building our forces, but BAE, it seems is taking it apart bit by bit, Just my opinion. ,
criss of herts - london

25 June 2012

Following on from Hereman's blog. After the Leander Class build the T21, T22 & T23 hull's steel plate thickness was significantly reduced (that includes the three Invincible Classes as well). The modern hull will only take so many grit blasts at dockings (roughly every five years). It is well documented that the four T22 B3' were showing signs of hull plate thinness at recent dockings and hull plates were replaced, this is possibly one of many reasons why this class was retired early, it is also well documented that Invincible's hull was in a bad way for the same reason. I expect the earlier T23 hull will shortly be showing signs of the same problem.

The point I am making is that armed with in depth hull inspections by MoD and Lioyds Inspectorat they would know how long each hull will last/how many more grit blasts before scrapping. This could create a rolling programme of replacement warships (say T26) and hopefully would have kept the shipyards busy. The closest we got to some kind of rolling programe was the T42 replaced by the T45.

Some will say the reason for hull plate thickness on hulls since the mid 70's is lighness and the ability of gas turbines for propulsion etc. It is well documented that the T22 & T23 hulls had a finite life of 25 years - that means our earlier T23's have passed that milstone.
Buccaneer Fixer - Weymouth

26 June 2012

Delaying the second carrier should not even be considered, once again it is being suggested that the royal navy should get less capability much later than originally intended at a much higher price.

I agree it is important to keep the yards open and maintain the skills, but we should not throw any more vast sums of money down the drain intentionaly delaying projects.

As others have mentioned the RN is running dangerously low on escorts, not enough type 45 hulls are being built anyway so it would make sense to build additional Type 45's. This would mean a more capable navy, a preserved skills base, dockyards saved. Money well spent id say.

And the idea that BAE have destroyed the Type 45 jigs does panic me a little, but surely this cant be true?
David - Durham

26 June 2012

Although obviously not good news, and currently speculation anyway.I do wish the media would be a touch more accurate with there banner headlines!.To read the article one would think that Portsmouth is earmarked for closure, lock stock & barrel. Its the shipbuilding arm of bae in question, not the future of the Naval Base! a seperate operation, and not BAE"S to close anyway Like i say, a concern, but please more accuracy.
sean - Portsmouth

26 June 2012

Who are people complaining about here? BAE can't close the dockyard they don't own it, they rent space within it. They can however stop their ship building within the dockyard and transfer move it to one of their other sites. Why would they do that? Oh yes that's right because there isn't enough work for them to keep three ship building operations running. If there is no work forecasted for a two year period they have no choice but to address that in what ever way they can. What options are being proposed here?
Build another T45....really and do we think the government are likely to just order an extra one, do you think they have planned in that sort of spend?
Build some smaller vessels (like VT did) and sell them to other nations? Oh yes that was such a success, no wonder VT wanted out of shipbuilding.
Perhaps we should build commercial ships. That is a good idea...but why would someone pay more for a product to be made in the UK than they can get it from China where the necessary resources and so the end product are cheaper?
Don't get me wrong I think everything possible should be done to avoid such a loss of capability never mind the impact on the local economy and peoples lives but unless governments (our own included) are going to order more ships or subsidise British shipbuilding to enable it to compete with foreign commercial operations I don't hold out much hope. And finally if you think BAEs plans are short term focussed you should have a look at the MoD and our Government.
sean - Jeopardy - where the jobs are.

26 June 2012

Some say the shipyards cannot cope with certain builds,
The are not deep enough, outdated in parts, and not big enough in certain cases to build bigger ship and or commercial ships,
Some have suggested, why buy British when its cheaper elsewhere,
Im saying why not,
If Spain and others in Europe can do it, so can we , if only we believed in our selves,
Is it not possible for the government investing up to 3, billion +
To rebuild and totally upgrade British shipyards , with the latest technology , the best equipment ,
And big enough to build two or 3 ship together at the same time if required , and ships up the 100,000 tons ,
Is this not possible to have the biggest and best equipped yards in the western world, surely it only takes a bit of dedication and investment by the government .
Just a thought.
criss of herts - london

26 June 2012

Although some posters here would disagree, this is the perfect time for BAE systems to throw together some small OPV's and market them to countries both West (Latin America) and East (Middle East, Far East) to keep the dock running over the next few years.

Only this time maybe build them on time and on spec. Just a thought.

BAE have become so used to the government giving them contracts (and acting like an arm of HMG) that they have essentially forgotten the basic tenets of competitiveness that a private company (supposedly) adhere's to.

So go out into the real world my son, work hard, play fair, and you will eventually reap your rewards.
Anon - Abroad

26 June 2012

JC makes a good point, lets see how the vote on Scottish independence goes first, why would we base our warship building in a foreign country if they do vote for independance?

I was in BAE Scotstoun today on HMS Defender and a lot of the workers I spoke to have no interest in independence, in part because they believe that they would be voting themselves out of jobs long term.
Rob - Telford

27 June 2012

so if they shut portsmouth what happens if the SNP get the yes in the scottish indepedance vote where will we build our warships as barrow build submarines not warships anymore this is another cosying upto shipyards in scotland to stave off snp votes
michael - manchester

27 June 2012

I just wanted to chip in since some comments on here imply the TOBA is some huge stitch up by BAE and that's just not the case. The TOBA is a joint agreement where contracted parties agreed to deliver significant year on year mutual savings. The shipbuilding and support elements in Portsmouth, filton and on the Clyde (VT, BAE & FSL) had to be aligned and streamlined in order to make those savings possible. Huge amounts were invested to acheive that. The contract reflects a commitment that industry invests and improves efficiency to the point where it can gaurantee savings to the MoD and in return the MoD gaurantee a level of tasking. (very simplified but a point that seems to be getting overlooked).
No business would invest and re-organise to align to it's customer without some form of commitment that the investment would be rewarded with work.
That would be like saying to a tailor to invest in all new equipment, buy up a local fabric supplier and promise to be the cheapest suitmaker in town and if all that happens we might (or might not) get him to make a suit. The TOBA is like a promise that if the tailor does all that, the MoD promise to buy at least X suits - and if they later decide not to, the tailor has to be paid for the X suits anyway.

Now does that sound like BAE are ripping the MoD off? Or should the MoD be able to just say, thanks for all the effort but we don't want to buy those ships now......as happened in the past.
Sean - Hants

27 June 2012

Sean - Hants

There are no savings, we get less for our pound every year.

12 T45 planned - 6 built
Astute SSN years late and over budget, both BAE system led.
JC - UK

28 June 2012

JC - UK
"12 T45 planned - 6 built
Astute SSN years late and over budget, both BAE system led." yes, that is true and both with the same customer. are you suggeting that BAe are late with the other 6 T45s or is this recognition that the original scope was changed (12 - 10 - 8 - 6) over an extended period by the MoD.

MoD say "on QEC we want STOVL......oh no, forget that redesign the ship we want cat's and trap's......oh no forget that redesign it all back to STOVL....
Hey BAE systems why are things always late and over budget?

The ships are significantly underway in their buld program and significant customer requirements such as what type of aircraft it should be designed to support are still changing. How on earth can projects be delivered on time and to budget like that?
sean - hants

28 June 2012

Sean

Customer changed T45 buy I agree, 9-12 cancelled for finacial reasons, 7&8 so that new systems could be bought only for that to be cancelled.

My point was just that BAE has now got so big that everything seems to cost more, do less and arrives late. Not all is down to BAE I know, but if this happened in say car making and you waited up to five years for a car, wouldn't you go somewhere else eventually?

It always seems that as soon as we start building things in this country we start running late.

We need government to start issuing fixed price contracts, gov saying to suppliers that they will be held responsable for late delivery, unless customer fundimentally changes design. First of class always dearer and built slower but price and build time should start to come down as builder gets experience with the system.
JC - UK

27 November 2012

michael - notts

The Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability tankers (MARS) are a proposed class of four large fast fleet tankers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) of the United Kingdom that will be tasked with providing fuel, food, fresh water, ammunition and other supplies to Royal Navy vessels around the world. The vessels were ordered on 22 February 2012 in an order worth £452 million.[4] The ships were designed by BMT Defence Services in Bath, England but will be constructed in South Korea and have a projected in-service date of 2016.[5][6]

On 13 November 2012 the Royal Fleet Auxiliary named the tankers as the Tide-class and named all four vessels. These are;

RFA Tidespring, battle honours in 1982 from RFA Tidespring.

RFA Tiderace, after service in the Suez Crisis, the Tiderace was renamed the RFA Tideflow to avoid confusion with another ship name.

RFA Tidesurge, originally launched as RFA Tiderange in 1954, she spent many of her early years east of Suez; served until 1976.

RFA Tideforce, a new RFA name.[7]
Captain A. Walker (Retired) - Scotland.