Link.
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2008/2nd_quarter/naval_design_partnership.Par.2049.File.tmp/FCS%20concept.jpg
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Rob |
QinetiQ signs naval design partnership - C1 concept? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 612 ( 7-May-2008 23:28:37) |
Link. http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2008/2nd_quarter/naval_design_partnership.Par.2049.File.tmp/FCS%20concept.jpg |
||
Anthony58 |
QinetiQ Signs Naval Design Partnership Contract | ||
|
Posts: 2383 ( 8-May-2008 01:52:50) |
(Source: QinetiQ; issued May 7, 2008)
QinetiQ has signed an initial 11 month contract with the MOD as part of a £2m pilot study which will see a new joint MOD / industry naval ship design office established in Bristol, to be tasked with the design of complex naval ships for the Royal Navy, such as the Future Surface Combatant. The Naval Design Partnership (NDP), with its 'rainbow team' of talent, which includes Thales, BAE Systems, VT Group, Babcock and BMT, will allow greater innovation and pull-though of new technology and will cost effectively manage the translation of maritime capability requirements into warship product specifications. It will also enable MOD to reinforce in house Naval Architecture and related specialisms through a collaborative design approach. "We are delighted that our maritime team will be contributing to the future of naval ship design, which is fundamentally important to the future naval capability of this country," stated Neville Salkeld, Managing Director of QinetiQ's Consulting sector. "The Maritime Industrial Strategy (MIS) identified a need for the UK to sustain the ability to design complex naval vessels, from concept to the point of build, so in consultation with industry, the Frigates Integrated Project Team (FIPT), on behalf of DG Ships, has defined the requirements for the NDP." The NDP team will be collocated at QinetiQ's Bristol office, close to MOD Abbey Wood, under the leadership of a MOD Chief Engineer. The dedicated facilities can accommodate up to 25 people, drawn from the best that UK industry and MOD currently have to offer. The team will be initially tasked with a series of concept studies to develop the high level product specification for the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) C1 programme with the objective of ensuring that it successfully clears Initial Gate in late 2008. It is envisaged that this output may be further extended to address future MARS and other future FSC platforms and be adapted to provide appropriate designs for any future vessel classes that may be required. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.36827745.1210203898.jXry L38AAAEAAApBsM4AAAAC&modele=jdc_34 |
||
Anthony58 |
Removed | ||
|
Posts: 2384 ( 8-May-2008 01:55:52) |
Removed as it is a repeat of above.
Last Edited By: Anthony58
9-May-2008 02:38:53.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
perfectgeneral |
|||
|
Posts: 339 ( 8-May-2008 03:46:35) |
I've got a bad feeling about this.
|
||
Sunk at Narvik |
|||
|
Posts: 2243 ( 8-May-2008 10:41:31) |
Warmed over T23 for a graphic!
|
||
WIWD |
|||
|
Posts: 250 ( 8-May-2008 20:59:52) |
It is my understanding that the graphic is just some internal PV work that hasn't been done for the FSC project (otherwise why would they need the NDP?).
|
||
Moskit |
|||
|
Posts: 977 (10-May-2008 17:54:40) |
Why's that then? Anything concrete or just succumbing to the general "glass half empty" pessimism of the board?
|
||
WIWD |
|||
|
Posts: 251 (10-May-2008 18:29:40) |
Moskit wrote: Well because it was developed jointly by the UK MoD and UK industry it must be worse than anything the
Americans/Europeans/Russians/Chinese/Ruritanians (delete as applicable) could come up with! |
||
Ken the Coastie |
|||
|
Posts: 43 (10-May-2008 23:48:25) |
Why's that then? Anything concrete or just succumbing to the general "glass half empty" pessimism of the
board?
Well because it was developed jointly by the UK MoD and UK industry it must be worse than anything the
Americans/Europeans/Russians/Chinese/Ruritanians (delete as applicable) could come up with! Hah! You are one confidant Brit!
You have no hope of even coming close to us...this is OUR home turf! We Americans managed to pay more for a defective offshore patrol vessel than the Norwegians spent on an AEGIS equipped frigate. We have two competing designs for a gunboat that will cost as much as a destroyer, have the armament of a coast guard cutter and function as a 40 kt tender for marine robots...that we've canceled. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!!! We came up with a gold plated monitor that we called a destroyer and costs itself right off the scale. The thing is as large as a predreadnought and we gave it a hullform of dubious seaworthiness (making it look like some unfinished steampunk ironclad movie prop)...as part of a bizarre attempt to make a 15,000 ton monitor....invisible. Oh no mister WTWD, I think you Brits had best crawl back into your holes, 'cause we have you utterly pwned in the stupid NAVAL procurement tricks dept.....2000s division....Our ships are much more worser than yours so take THAT!
|
||
Dickon M |
|||
|
Posts: 351 (11-May-2008 00:58:37) |
Gentlemen, we have hit a new low. Once upon a time, we used to argue about who had the BEST navy. Now we argue about who has the WORST ...
Dickon M |
||
WIWD |
|||
|
Posts: 252 (11-May-2008 16:18:55) |
Ken,
Sir, when you make your argument as clearly as you have I must bow before logic and simple plain sanity. I now heartily agree with you that the US have made a complete mess of their next generation ship designs and that whatever the UK does, we will do better than you; and anybody who disagrees with us is a bounder and a cad! |
||