How do you post links? Copy and paste doesn't seem to work. Anyway, the news can be found on the BAE Systems website, under Investors Brief August 2007.
The key quote is "completes the contracting of the outstanding elements of ships 4 to 6 of the class".
Darings 4-6 are now fully contracted for with BAE Systems
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Rob |
Darings 4-6 are now fully contracted for with BAE Systems |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 430 ( 2-Sep-2007 20:41:00) |
|
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 431 ( 2-Sep-2007 20:42:10) |
It works in the quick reply.
Type 45 six ship contract Link. http://production.investis.com/investors/shareholder/comms/2007comms/2007-08-31/#type |
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 432 ( 2-Sep-2007 20:46:53) |
It would seem the agreement is good new for Darings 7-8, because the MoD surely wouldn't make a new "baseline" for the whole programme if they
wanted to stop at 6, as much of the work would have been done already anyway but with another two Darings to gain price reductions due to this new baseline it
would make more sense.
|
||
|
ViribusUnitis |
|||
|
Posts: 255 ( 2-Sep-2007 20:48:56) |
New baseline ? Is already known what will be changed - more VLS cells, SSMs, electronics ?
|
||
|
dpaajones |
|||
|
Posts: 2 ( 2-Sep-2007 20:49:39) |
Any news on whether we will be selling two Type 45s to Saudi Arabia or not?
|
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 433 ( 2-Sep-2007 21:00:41) |
A new baseline refers to management of the programme and prices in my opinion, not the weapon and sensors.
|
||
|
Kendo no sensei |
|||
|
Posts: 523 ( 2-Sep-2007 22:01:18) |
Good news.
|
||
|
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2436 ( 2-Sep-2007 22:48:48) |
ViribusUnitis wrote: I originally understood (and this was some time ago, so it might have changed by now) that the order for 6 might be divided into two batches, but that the differences would be more mundane, such as improvements in accomodation and hotel facilities, better staff facilities (presumably to accomodate the flag role), modifications to maintenance access based on batch 1 experience and other such "under the skin" changes. Nothing sexy or worthy of doodling in a 13 year olds maths book! Mind you, the mundane should never be neglected. It correlates directly with the psychological well-being of the crew and bears directly on retention in
the service as a whole.
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
|
||
|
ViribusUnitis |
|||
|
Posts: 256 ( 3-Sep-2007 08:52:04) |
MSR wrote: So a refining and streamlining of the production process, they rewrite their SOP "How to build a Type 45" ;-) |
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 435 ( 7-Sep-2007 07:24:36) |
Any news on whether we will be selling two Type 45s to Saudi Arabia or not? A Saudi delegation was on HMS Daring during sea trials, with the Eurofighter/Tornado upgrade deal now being signed (the Times reports that the UK has signed the contract and that the Saudis will sign this week or next), a contract for more defence equipment is not unlikely in my opinion.
Last Edited By: Rob
7-Sep-2007 11:37:46.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 643 ( 7-Sep-2007 09:33:22) |
A Saudi delegation aboard Daring... Sounds good to me. Of course they could also have delegations aboard any number of other ships, but it does at least
indicate that the Saudis are showing some interest in Type 45 (i.e. not just a jurno dreaming up the whole thing). Any source for that Rob (I'm hungry for
any details!)?
As I've said before, selling Type 45 to Saudi Arabia strikes me as probably the best chance the RN will get to get as many Type 45 as possible (probably 8, hope against hope 9). If the Saudis order 2 or 3 Type 45 that'll allow BAe and VT to achieve some economies of scale, especially if the MoD orders more Type 45 at the same time that the Saudis place their orders (i.e. how much cheaper would each ship be if an order was placed for 4-6 Type 45 compared to just two?), although that implies a level of foresight that I don't often associate with Whitehall. Alternately, A Saudi order provides a small (3-4 year) window in which MoD can wait to order more ships during which time HMS Daring and possibly Dauntless will be entering service, thus allowing the RN to determine how good/bad the Darings are and thus how much Type 45 7-8 are needed or wanted. The only thing that is niggling at the back of my head about this, is how would a Saudi order fit into the 'drumbeat' model adopted under S2C2 and the CSR? If Ship Co. deliver 3 Saudi Type 45 will that require the RN to wait 3 extra years for the first C2/C1? Or will ordering 3 additional major surface combatants make it easier for Ship Co. to retain their work force and thus make S2C2 and other future shipbuilding projects more affordable? |
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 438 ( 7-Sep-2007 11:39:48) |
The source is the Times, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis bought 4 Darings to have a comprehensive AAW capability. Concerning Shipco, I think their
workload is rather massive the next few years, it's Portsmouth yard has 6 OPVs on order from Oman and Trinidad&Tobago with deliveries in 2009, 2010 and
2011. The Glasgow yards will probably soon get the go ahead for a substantial involvement in 2-4 frigates for Malaysia (LoI signed more than a year ago) and
the Portsmouth and Glasgow yards are involved in the CVF and would be in any more Darings. And of course there is C1,C2 and C3, MARS and potentially more
exports.
Link. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2402913.ece
Last Edited By: Rob
7-Sep-2007 11:45:20.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Kendo no sensei |
|||
|
Posts: 525 ( 8-Sep-2007 11:20:51) |
I think talking of Saudi Arabia buying 4 Darings is a bit premature - just getting two would be good for industry and potentially the RN. One fairly safe thing
is that now Darings 4-6 have been fully contracted for it's unlikely they'd be sold on.
|
||
|
Colin Mc |
|||
|
Posts: 538 ( 9-Sep-2007 01:18:13) |
If the Saudis order some T45s I find it difficult to believe any more will be ordered for the RN. Everything is set for six. Full orders are in and the steel
for the last one was cut in January this year. Richard has said he does not think there is the money for 07 and 08 anyway. But by the time Shipco could get
around to building more for the RN after the Saudi order the focus will have moved on to C2 - a much cheaper option. So perhaps you could see some of the C2s
having A50 silos to augment the T45s? Nobody knows what radar the C2s are going to have but I a single face derivation of Sampson for an AAW version would be
useful to get the range.
So a Saudi order is bad news IMHO and makes more T45s for the RN a fond hope. |
||
|
Kendo no sensei |
|||
|
Posts: 526 ( 9-Sep-2007 11:52:47) |
Colin Mc wrote: No it isn't, because at the least it will mean more jobs for the economy. The RN wouldn't get more destroyers if they didn't place an order -
indeed they might just hang on and get the last two because costs could be lowered further.
|
||
|
surreytriumphant |
|||
|
Posts: 37 (10-Sep-2007 14:41:08) |
If you could get the Saudi`s to buy the type 45 then their type 45`s become orders 7 and 8 off the line. This would delay are order by say three years fo the
next two after the original 6 that have been ordered. remember if an emergency did arise then you can take over the Saudi order any way and complete them as RN
ships. This delaying the order for the RN 7th and 8th type 45 ships would mke the treasury happy. Lets hope they can persuade the Saudi government to buy them.
|
||
|
frogGB |
|||
|
Posts: 404 (10-Sep-2007 14:46:43) |
Silly question (s), but how many C1 capable ships are the RN due to get to replace the Type 23 Frigates? I have a feeling that we're due to get 8 Type
23-R's would any additional Type 45 orders eat into that number, or would they be ontop of that number, and if so what effect would that have on C2 and C3
capable ships?
|
||
|
Sunk at Narvik |
|||
|
Posts: 2024 (10-Sep-2007 14:48:18) |
Why is everybody so keen to let the Saudi's have Sampson? If you believe the hype this kit is the next generation on from Aegis- and its only twenty years
on that the Yanks are letting trusting allies have Aegis. Selling Sampson to a volatile ME state full of extremists seems a little
hasty and unwise to me.
|
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 444 (10-Sep-2007 17:29:00) |
No it isn't, because at the least it will mean more jobs for the economy. The RN wouldn't get more destroyers if they didn't place an order - indeed they might just hang on and get the last two because costs could be lowered further. Indeed and let's not forget that in the unlikely case of a Falklands II we could just "borrow" the Saudi Darings if they happen to be still in the Clyde before delivery. |
||
|
LordArpad |
|||
|
Posts: 1918 (10-Sep-2007 17:41:42) |
Rob wrote: *falls over* sure, including fully trained crew and all.
|
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 2951 (10-Sep-2007 18:59:26) |
Sunk at Narvik wrote: While I accept its an unfortunate necessity these days, I do wonder if selling our top equipment to countries full of people who hate us is going to bite
us on the arse some day.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
