Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old
Notebook's Avatar
Notebook Notebook is offline
Donator


Default Type 31 Frigate for UK
by Notebook 09-12-2019, 08:11 AM

Quote:
The race to design and build a new generation of Royal Navy frigates has been won by a consortium led by Babcock.
The firm has been named preferred bidder for the 1.25bn contract for five Type 31 warships.
The deal secures hundreds of jobs at Rosyth in Fife, where the ships will be assembled, with construction work spread between yards across the UK.
Work is to begin by the end of 2019, with the first ships delivered in 2023.
Four years to build a frigate?
Hadn't realised we needed any. I know ships have a short life, but why a new design?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...iness-49670332
Reply With Quote
Views 334 Comments 8
Total Comments 8

Comments

Old 09-12-2019, 08:22 AM   #2
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notebook View Post
 Four years to build a frigate?
Hadn't realised we needed any. I know ships have a short life, but why a new design?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...iness-49670332
"The deal secures hundreds of jobs at Rosyth in Fife"

This is the reason why you need new ones.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 09:08 AM   #3
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default

Yes, that will keep the politicians happy.

Not sure why we need much of a surface fleet except for NATO obligations.
What remains of empire is going back to the original owners. Not much of a threat for our merchant fleet except East Africa.
Got two new Fleet Carriers soon(assuming they get some aircraft) that will keep the Admirals happy.

We really don't need a big Navy.
Notebook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 10:22 AM   #4
Marijn
Orbinaut
 
Marijn's Avatar
Default

Navy's are getting smaller. Therefore, the ships need to be adjusted to be able to perform a wider range of activities. Also, bullets have become obsolete. Every ship needs a high energy laser weapon from now on to defend against other lasers and swarming attacks.
Marijn is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-12-2019, 11:07 AM   #5
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default

Don't mind the weaponry changing to meet modern needs. We need more coastal patrol vessels. Illegal migration is getting worse, over 60 people picked up in the English Channel on one day last week.
I'm guessing they are too desperate to fear the dangers on that crossing. Looks small on a map, but very busy.
Notebook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 04:20 PM   #6
Dickie
Wannabe Rocket Scientist
 
Dickie's Avatar
Default

It's not really a case of ships having a short design life, the existing T23s are pretty old already. Materially they simply need replacing as they are already beyond their original design life. They are still capable but are beginning to show their age and there's only so many times you can put them through refit before it's more cost effective to replace them.


A new design also benefits from being built around current weapon systems, sensors, propulsion etc rather than trying to retrofit them into an older platform which then results in compromises in their functionality.


As for the statement that the UK doesn't need a big - or more specifically a capable and globally deployable - navy, the simple answer is the UK does:


98% of our trade by bulk travels by sea. Simple economics mean part of the price you pay for anything bought in the UK which has been shipped by sea, including fuel (fuels for cars, electricity bills for gas powered power stations etc) covers transport costs. Those costs include a) the cost of moving it and b) incidentals like insurance. If the SLOCs (sea lines of communication) are not secure then you have the potential that commercial shipping avoids hazardous areas such as the Bab-al-mendeb, Hormuz, Indian Ocean etc meaning they travel further at increased cost and the cost will be passed onto the consumer. Alternatively, if they continue to travel through hazardous areas insurance costs go up and will also be passed onto the consumer. Hence it's in the UK's direct interest in maintaining security of the SLOCs, so a surface presence supports that especially a lightweight frigate designed to operate independently and more focused on what we refer to as 'constabulary operations' rather than high-intensity war-fighting. Going back to energy supplies, I can't remember what the specific details are but there is basically a conveyor-belt of ships carrying LNG and oil to the UK for use in electricity generation; if that supply is disrupted our reserves in the UK allow for power generation for 2-3 weeks max before the lights go out - that is how dependent we are on foreign energy and hence there is a clear interest to the UK in securing that supply.



Additionally, the UK's economy is very much a global one with UK companies having interests in many regions of the world. It is therefore in the interest of UK PLC to help maintain security wherever there are UK interests. There is a large value politically in having a presence in these regions and again, a lightweight frigate which can conduct maritime security, presence and influence operations has a clear utility in this. They show the UK is politically committed to a region and if security does deteriorate have a very practical utility in intelligence gathering and providing a military capability until the cavalry (i.e the carrier strike group) arrives.


Regarding the carrier strike capability, this is not really about placating the Admirals but again about giving the UK the ability to secure our interests at range. Again, our economy and energy supply are dependent on maintaining security. A carrier strike group gives you ability to forcibly enter a theatre, conduct day 1 of the war operations onwards against all but the most hardened of threats to rectify the situation and then disengage without having to rely on host nation support or potentially put boots on the ground (although this is also catered for if required with the UK's amphibious capability). This is HMG's preferred MO and referred to as 'strike warfare' - go in, decapitate the snake and withdraw without getting embroiled in a long-term conflict.


Apologies, rant(?) over.


TL;DR - the average person in the UK takes for granted the global maritime security we protect and is generally ignorant of how dependent we all are on it. That would change soon enough if the price of consumer goods and food go up or the lights go out if the SLOCs are disrupted. To do this you need ships. Expensive ships designed for high intensity war-fighting are great but you can only afford so many, a cheaper, lightweight frigate therefore enables more hulls able to be in more places at once - in this case, quantity really does have a quality of it's own.


Edit: As for migration, yes we do that too. However, in UK waters this is really the responsibility of Border Force. We are more focused on trying to prevent the problem at source (i.e the regions where security is so bad that traveling across Europe and taking to the seas in a tiny boat in the hope of the better life seems worth the risk. Most of these regions are in economic problems because of the underlying security issues.)

Last edited by Dickie; 09-12-2019 at 04:24 PM.
Dickie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 04:43 PM   #7
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default

Read it all, and nicely argued. Not a rant at all.

If I'm devils advocate, all island nations have the same problem with merchant navy traffic? How does Eire manage its sea-going trade?
Notebook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 04:53 PM   #8
Dickie
Wannabe Rocket Scientist
 
Dickie's Avatar
Default

You are correct, any island state or globally connected economy has the same issues. There's something of a Trump-esque argument along the lines of some nations taking advantage of the security other nations provide. That said a lot of similar sized developed nations do contribute individual frigate/destroyer sized units to NATO/EU missions or various CTFs around the world as part of providing collective security. For the most part, what is in the interest of one developed nation is probably in the interests of several others enough to work together.



In your example though, ultimately if there's an issue that only affects RoI interests do they have the ability to unilaterally act to secure them? I'd argue probably not. There's not many nations that can but that guarantee of security does come at a price.


(That's not to disparage the Irish military - they are very well regarded for their UN peacekeeping forces they do actively deploy.)
Dickie is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-12-2019, 09:12 PM   #9
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
 
jedidia's Avatar
Default

Quote:
"The deal secures hundreds of jobs at Rosyth in Fife"
Fife... and ships... in the same topic. I'm sorry, it's impossible to resist...

jedidia is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.