0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Type 45 Units 7 & 8 Cancelled - FSC to be brought forward

Author

Comment

devils advocate

Type 45 Units 7 & 8 Cancelled - FSC to be brought forward

Lead

[-]

Posts: 7

(19-Jun-2008 18:19:55)

In today's Defence Procurement Debate in the House of Commons.

StevoJH

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 82

(19-Jun-2008 19:12:07)

Thats a shocker

Did they describe the replacement as the "future surface combatant" or say something about C1,2,3 etc?

I think i saw somewhere that the T45 was designed in a hurry, to be expected when you throw 12 years of multinational planning out the window to build it, but maybe they decided that its better to wait and get a better "evolved design"? Wishful thinking i know.

Edit: bringing forward FSC could mean a 6 ship class to replace the last two T42B3's in service plus the four T22B3's?

Last Edited By: StevoJH 19-Jun-2008 19:16:25. Edited 2 times.

kev 99a

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 61

(19-Jun-2008 19:31:53)

I'm shocked and appalled.

shaun

[-]

Posts: 174

(19-Jun-2008 19:38:27)

Any source? Need to wait till 8am tomorrow to check Hansard to be doubly sure.

Obi Wan Russell

[-]

Posts: 286

(19-Jun-2008 19:46:31)

Just heard the news on BBC South Today; Vosper Thorneycroft replied they weren't expecting the orders and hadn't budgeted for them anyway. The tone was basically up yours Brown(e), we don't care! At least the first six are safe (for now).

Bledlow

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 116

(19-Jun-2008 22:22:31)

shaun wrote:
Any source? Need to wait till 8am tomorrow to check Hansard to be doubly sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7464085.stm

And in the online versions of various papers.

jock

[-]

Posts: 987

(19-Jun-2008 22:48:11)

Yes we all wanted them, but is anyone genuinely surprised? Much comment on the forum over the last year about "hoping" for 7& 8.

Anthony58

Government cancels two warships

[-]

Posts: 2397

(19-Jun-2008 23:28:59)

Frankly I am not surprised, I hope that 8 - 10 C1s follows on from Type 45 production, that it carries a multi function radar, a survelliance radar and a reasonable number of missile tubes.

Royal Navy's new Type 45 Destroyer HMS Daring

The government has cancelled plans to build an extra two Type 45 Destroyers for the Royal Navy.

Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth told the Commons it would not be taking up the option to build the seventh and eighth warships.

Already, six high-tech £600m Type 45s have been ordered and will be based in Portsmouth, Hampshire.

Mr Ainsworth said there were not "unlimited resources" for the Navy but the fleet had "sufficient capability".

A spokesman for Portsmouth-based VT Group, which builds the bows, funnels and masts for the ships, said it was not surprised and had not budgeted for the order - therefore the decision would have no impact on jobs.

Mr Ainsworth, opening a Commons debate on defence, said: "The reality is we do not have unlimited resources.

"We have to prioritise between a range of competing requirements, focusing on the balance between current operations and future capability.

"That is why I can confirm that we have taken a decision not to take the option to order the seventh and eighth Type 45 destroyers.

"The six destroyers already on contract will provide a formidable capability."

The ships are assembled at BAE Systems shipyard on the Clyde in Scotland.

The first of the Type 45s, HMS Daring, is due to go into service next year.

Mr Ainsworth added that work on new vessels to replace the Type 22 and 23 frigates would, also be accelerated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7464085.stm

Kendo no sensei

[-]

Posts: 608

(20-Jun-2008 00:20:28)

Hope over Type 45s 7 & 8 is replaced by hope over FSC moving forward!

Colin Mc

[-]

Posts: 615

(20-Jun-2008 00:47:57)

Surely this is all to do with the Shipco deal (or whatever it is called now) and the obligation to bring into service one ship per year over the next 15 - I thought it might have fallen through the cracks but it seems not. The 15 ships included CVF and T45 so it means that seven ships of some other sort have to be delivered between next year and 2023; it also means that the first FSC of whatever ilk has to be delivered in 2017 after CVF02 - so they had better get their skates on and stop the usual FSC faffing around. Given that you could probably buy two FSCs for the price of one T45 it is pretty clear that T45 07 and 08 had to go - killed by the deal. I think I shall shed I tear. I only hope it won't end in tears off some distant shore in some future conflict as a sole T45 battles against the odds and perhaps is overwhelmed for the lack of a mate.

On the FSC front I would hope we are looking at an innovative high-end ship. What happens after 2023 will be interesting.

Dickon M

[-]

Posts: 356

(20-Jun-2008 01:00:13)

Since when is cutting from 12 to 8 to 6 not building an extra 2? Has any one point out to him that this is 50% less what was decided as as the minimum in 1998, and then 25% less then what was decided as the minimum just a few years ago?

And they wonder why the reputation of politicians is low.

Dickon M

StevoJH

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 83

(20-Jun-2008 01:51:42)

Considering that the first two T45's have planned dates of commission that are 6 years after work began, and the need for the first FSC to start coming into commission in 2015 at the latest, i hope they have the design worked out because construction would need to start next year.

Colin Mc

[-]

Posts: 616

(20-Jun-2008 09:07:03)

The temptation must be to use the T45 hull design and machinery, not only as a shortcut within a tight timetable but also to reduce cost.

StevoJH

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 85

(20-Jun-2008 09:18:15)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080619/text/80619w0012.htm#08061980000092

Type 45 Destroyers

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest date is by which a seventh Type 45 destroyer would have to be ordered to avoid an interruption in production. [206627]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth [holding answer 22 May 2008]: Following the Department's 2008 planning round, we no longer intend to take up the option to place orders for further Type 45 warships beyond the six already on contract. Instead, we plan to bring forward the timetable for the introduction of the Future Surface Combatant which is intended to provide replacements for the Type 22 and Type 23 frigates. This, together with the Carrier and Astute programmes, will balance the volume of construction workload across maritime programmes to ensure retention of key capabilities and viability of the business that delivers them.

Type 45 Destroyers: Deployment

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Type 45 destroyers will be able to be deployed simultaneously if the total built is (a) six, (b) seven and (c) eight; and if he will make a statement. [206329]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth [holding answer 20 May 2008]: For a fleet of six Type 45 destroyers we would expect that one ship would usually be in deep maintenance, leaving up to five available for deployment at various states of readiness. Following the Department's 2008 planning round, we no longer intend to take up the option to place orders for further Type 45 warships.

Warships: Guided Weapons

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which ships he plans to remove Sea Dart missiles in the next 12 months. [211394]

19 Jun 2008 : Column 1100W

Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.

And thats all she wrote.

CVFOptimist

Re: Type 45 Units 7 & 8 Cancelled - FSC to be brought forwar

[-]

Posts: 108

(20-Jun-2008 09:40:55)

There is more here in hansard

CVFOptimist

Zen9

[-]

Posts: 3628

(20-Jun-2008 10:30:24)

Instead, we plan to bring forward the timetable for the introduction of the Future Surface Combatant which is intended to provide replacements for the Type 22 and Type 23 frigates.

The key phrase I hope. Well this forces our hand, and shuts down the hull options to mono-hull, no argument there.

Would look like the T45 hull is the fastest way to gain T22 replacements, should we expect that instead of ships -07 and -08 we will see a T45 variant with cut down (cheaper) AirDefence?

StevoJH

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 89

(20-Jun-2008 11:09:32)

Zen9 wrote:

Instead, we plan to bring forward the timetable for the introduction of the Future Surface Combatant which is intended to provide replacements for the Type 22 and Type 23 frigates.
The key phrase I hope. Well this forces our hand, and shuts down the hull options to mono-hull, no argument there.

Would look like the T45 hull is the fastest way to gain T22 replacements, should we expect that instead of ships -07 and -08 we will see a T45 variant with cut down (cheaper) AirDefence?

I'm going to take a wild guess here. a 48 or 64 cell loadout with the variation from the T45 being the addition of a towed array and use of the cheaper SAAM system instead of PAAMS. Besides, if there is a T45 in the surface group/carrier escort, it can provide control for anti-aircraft missiles through data link at the longer ranges if it comes to that. Could we see Aster integrated with the Mk.41 or successor system to allow Tomahawks to be equiped?

hulahoop7

[-]

Posts: 1152

(20-Jun-2008 11:40:56)

The 8 Type 23 upgraded sub hunters aren't due to go till mid 2020's. So whatever FSC is in the initial stages, it won't be focused on that role.

hulahoop7

[-]

Posts: 1154

(20-Jun-2008 12:42:37)

On a more positive note, Twigg confirmed that the SSNs remain at 7.

Zen9

[-]

Posts: 3630

(20-Jun-2008 12:43:35)

Why the expense of TLAM and Mk41?

We have SSN's for TLAM, and we are never going to be a bulk buyer of TLAM unless we get into a Second Cold War scenario.

Simplest thing is T45, with Sampson only, ASTER 15 but no 30, and a changed rear to handle a TAS, which is likely the biggest change of all. Mark you this is not ideal for C.1, which should be a specialist in ASW from the keel upwards.
But as a Type22 replacement, C.2 with various bits of kit for snooping, it seems a logical option to explore. Likely the cheapest and quickest option available.

OR are we really going for C.1 to start with?
How far along is a dedicated ASW ship design?

C.3 seems a bit far off, considering the state of patrol ships.

kev 99a

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 63

(20-Jun-2008 12:47:12)

Well that is good news I suppose at least.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Type 45 Units 7 & 8 Cancelled - FSC to be brought forward

Type 45 Units 7 & 8 Cancelled - FSC to be brought forward

Frankly I am not surprised, I hope that 8 - 10 C1s follows on from Type 45 production, that it carries a multi function radar, a survelliance radar and a reasonable number of missile tubes.

Type 45 Destroyers

Type 45 Destroyers: Deployment

Warships: Guided Weapons

Quick Reply