Shipbuilding at Portsmouth to end

[mightysaints]

This is a total cop out to keep the Scots in line before next years referendum. Time after time when the orders have come in for new ships the northern yards got the bulk of the orders on Political grounds. It was the same at the Woolston Yard. A lot of people are going to loose the jobs just for political reasons. The Portsmouth yard is more modern and is far more efficient than Govern

[Tokyo-Saint]

Nice to see the old divide and conquer technique is still working in 2013.

[Viking Warrior]

That is really sad but a sign of the times

 

As expected The closure of Portsmouth is hardly mentioned if not at all up here on the news News

 

BAE Systems: The firm cut around 900 jobs at its Govan base.Jonathan Rennie

BAE Systems will axe around 800 shipbuilding jobs at sites across Scotland.

 

The company announced on Wednesday that is was consulting on 835 job losses at its sites in Govan and Scotstoun in Glasgow, as well as Rosyth in Fife and Filton in Bristol.

 

At Prime Minister's questions, David Cameron said: "These are extremely difficult decisions and our first thoughts should be with all of those that are affected."

 

He added: "We want our Royal Navy to have the best and most modern ships and the best technology. That means we will go on building warships on the Clyde, we will be announcing three new offshore patrol vessels, keeping that yard busy rather than paying for it to remain idle as the last government proposed."

 

In his response to the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson he added: "No one should be in any doubt of two things: under this Government we will have aircraft carriers, Type 45 destroyers, the new frigates, the hunter-killer submarines.

 

"And there's something else they should know: if there was an independent Scotland we wouldn't have any warships at all."Scotland Secretary Alistair Carmichael said that despite news of the shipyard closures, the Government was working hard to promote business in Scotland.

 

Asked for assurances from Labour's Margaret Curran that the legacy of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow would not go to waste following today's news, he said: "I give you every assurance that, as was the case recently in the crisis surrounding the Grangemouth petrochemical plant, I will work with any party in any part of the country where Scotland's vital interests are concerned."I extend that invitation to you, to the Scottish National Party, to the Scottish government."

 

Although he acknowledged the significance of BAE's announcement, he said: "It was a day we always knew was coming. But working together we will manage to meet the challenges much more effectively."

Edited 6 November, 2013 by Viking Warrior

[Viking Warrior]

Also

 

The SNP do not want Nuclear subs up here and is going to fund his own Braveheart Forces

 

So I predict in the future that BAE will pull out of scotland if Sammy the Salmond gets his wishes

[Viking Warrior]

On a positive note may be the skates will be allowed to build a new commnuity stadium on the soon to be derilict sites

 

Im still saddened that so many folk will be losing their jobs and ship building skills will be lost to the area

[TopGun]

If there are no ships to be built what else can be done? You can't keep empty yards open employing men.

[Barry Sanchez]

It wont be as clear cut as that as the skate is far more tory than the whole of Scotland, they will be sure to lose votes there, its looking like the Scots will vote to stay in at the moment, regardless jobs will be lost at both sites, this is not a North/South fight the workers should be sucked into.

[OldNick]

The fat lady is clearing her throat.......although I didn't hear her in Parliament today fighting their corner. Funny when the chance of getting a few votes by spending taxpayers money saving the football club, you can't stop her from showing her mug

 

Sad for anyone losing their job, I hope that something good comes from it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

If there are no ships to be built what else can be done? You can't keep empty yards open employing men.

 

Very true I'm afraid. You can understand why so many in Portsmouth are upset about it, but the ever shrinking state of the Royal Navy and BAE's long term failure to win sufficient export orders has doomed this yard. What will happen to warship building in this country if the jocks decide to leave the UK is tonight very much a open question.

 

In order to keep the remaining BAE yards on the Clyde open between the end of the current aircraft carrier project and the new Type 26 frigate programme finally getting underway the Government (in its wisdom) has decided to order 3 new OPV's (Offshore Patrol Vessels). Now OPV's are virtually unarmed patrol ships that are mainly used for secondary tasks such as fisheries protection etc.

 

What the government isn't telling you is that we already have perfectly good OPV's (the 'River' Class) that were completed fairly recently and could/should serve on for many years to come. These ships are now to be needlessly replaced in what can only be described as a 'make work' scheme. So with the Royal Navy desperately short of real destroyers and frigates, we are about to spend good money building ships the navy neither needs or wants.

 

The mismanagement and waste emanating from the MOD is little short of a scandal.

[Batman]

Very true I'm afraid. You can understand why so many in Portsmouth are upset about it, but the ever shrinking state of the Royal Navy and BAE's long term failure to win sufficient export orders has doomed this yard. What will happen to warship building in this country if the jocks decide to leave the UK is tonight very much a open question.

 

In order to keep the remaining BAE yards on the Clyde open between the end of the current aircraft carrier project and the new Type 26 frigate programme finally getting underway the Government (in its wisdom) has decided to order 3 new OPV's (Offshore Patrol Vessels). Now OPV's are virtually unarmed patrol ships that are mainly used for secondary tasks such as fisheries protection etc.

 

What the government isn't telling you is that we already have perfectly good OPV's (the 'River' Class) that were completed fairly recently and could/should serve on for many years to come. These ships are now to be needlessly replaced in what can only be described as a 'make work' scheme. So with the Royal Navy desperately short of real destroyers and frigates, we are about to spend good money building ships the navy neither needs or wants.

 

The mismanagement and waste emanating from the MOD is little short of a scandal.

 

the river class are not actually owned by the RN in full, hence why they are getting replaced

Edited 6 November, 2013 by Batman

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

the river class are not actually owned by the RN, hence why they are getting replaced

 

Wiki link:

 

In September 2012, it was announced by the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the Ministry of Defence had purchased the vessels (from VT) for £39 million.

[Batman]

Wiki link:

 

In September 2012, it was announced by the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the Ministry of Defence had purchased the vessels (from VT) for £39 million.

 

yeah, in full

they are still maintained by BAE. stores, spares, repairs HAVE to be done by BAE and that costs more £££££

[dubai_phil]

Ah, If Only the Skates had paid their taxes, there might have been enough cash in the kitty to keep the yard running a bit longer

[Joesaint]

Hope Scotland vote for independence, that is all!

[TopGun]

Very true I'm afraid. You can understand why so many in Portsmouth are upset about it, but the ever shrinking state of the Royal Navy and BAE's long term failure to win sufficient export orders has doomed this yard. What will happen to warship building in this country if the jocks decide to leave the UK is tonight very much a open question.

 

In order to keep the remaining BAE yards on the Clyde open between the end of the current aircraft carrier project and the new Type 26 frigate programme finally getting underway the Government (in its wisdom) has decided to order 3 new OPV's (Offshore Patrol Vessels). Now OPV's are virtually unarmed patrol ships that are mainly used for secondary tasks such as fisheries protection etc.

 

What the government isn't telling you is that we already have perfectly good OPV's (the 'River' Class) that were completed fairly recently and could/should serve on for many years to come. These ships are now to be needlessly replaced in what can only be described as a 'make work' scheme. So with the Royal Navy desperately short of real destroyers and frigates, we are about to spend good money building ships the navy neither needs or wants.

 

The mismanagement and waste emanating from the MOD is little short of a scandal.

 

But are the new OPVs to replace the existing River class? I don't know the answer to that but it would seem that OPVs are needed more than ever for fisheries protection and anti-smuggling duties.

 

It also needs to be recognised that while the RN has far fewer destroyers and frigates than before they are way more capable. I recall reading something that said a Type 45 can fulfill the combat role of four Type 42s in a "localised" scenario. So better tech means fewer ships.

[TopGun]

If you look at where the RN might have to defend or attack with capital ships, the possible current and near future hostile nations probably don't have anything capable of causing serious damage.

 

The MoD has one destroyer/frigate on rotation in the Falklands with perhaps another attack sub within a few days at all times. Plus 4 Typhoons/Tornados on standby always at Port Stanley. That's deemed to be more than enough to dissuade Argentina of trying anything as their naval and air equipment is pretty much no better than in 1982.

Edited 6 November, 2013 by TopGun

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The new OPV's are expected to replace 3 River Class ships - HMS Tyne, Severn, and Mersey. These ships are by no means old or due for replacement in the normal course of events.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-offshore-patrol-vessels-for-royal-navy

 

As for modern ships being much more capable that the vessels they replace, this is perfectly true. But warships don't evolve in isolation and the sub surface, surface, and airborne threats they must face are also becoming increasing capable over time of course. In the final analysis, however sophisticated a warship is, it can only be at one place at a time.

 

With just 19 destroyers and frigates in the fleet (the RN had 38 frigates alone back in 1990) the service is (imo) in crisis - at its lowest ebb perhaps since way back when Admiral De Ruyter raided the Thames and sailed off with the Kings flagship in tow.

 

We can only hope this nation doesn't have to again pay a price in blood for the willful neglect it displays to its navy.

[Saint in Paradise]

Don't forget the RAF as well as the RN.

 

I know some love to hate everything about Portsmouth and not just the football team

but I really have sympathy for Anyone who has his job taken away.

[hutch]

If you look at where the RN might have to defend or attack with capital ships, the possible current and near future hostile nations probably don't have anything capable of causing serious damage.

 

The MoD has one destroyer/frigate on rotation in the Falklands with perhaps another attack sub within a few days at all times. Plus 4 Typhoons/Tornados on standby always at Port Stanley. That's deemed to be more than enough to dissuade Argentina of trying anything as their naval and air equipment is pretty much no better than in 1982.

To keep up the SWF reputation for pedantry, I think you meant to say Mount Pleasant.

[70's Mike]

Don't forget the RAF as well as the RN.

 

I know some love to hate everything about Portsmouth and not just the football team

but I really have sympathy for Anyone who has his job taken away.

 

Thing is it effects a lot of Southampton people who work their as well, plus the support services for those people

[alpine_saint]

TopGun makes some very good points. In addition, the new ships have much longer intervals between major refits, and the duration of these refits are much shorter. The new generation of vessels have much higher availability rates. Maybe 19 major surface combatants is the equivalent of 30 at the time of the Falklands War.

 

Nevertheless, a surface fleet of 19 (assume 2 in refit/ post-refit work-up) strikes me as too few, considering our legacy responsibilities. How will we protect the two QE carriers if we are forced on an expedition alone ?

 

I have been arguing for a long time that the army should be cut, and our contribution to NATO should be redefined in terms of sea and air power. We've done our share on the ground, we're getting out of Germany, and the UK is a f**king Island with Overseas Dependencies. I am also not convinced of the long-term viability of the RAF as a third armed service. I would prefer one unified command under the Royal Navy (which is the only all-arms service of the three).

 

Back to the shipbuilding issue, it makes my blood boil how successive governements have starved Southamtpon and Portsmouth of work to keep whinging cloth cap-wearing black pudding-munching whippet-owners in work.

Edited 7 November, 2013 by alpine_saint

[rooney]

Only Mike Hancock asked a question at PMQ's. The two ladies were strangely quite. Dineage did appear on Spotlight trying to beef up the repair work that will still go on but I expect the skates will see through these two now. Sorry for all those who will lose their jobs, Skates or not.

[alpine_saint]

Only Mike Hancock asked a question at PMQ's. The two ladies were strangely quite. Dineage did appear on Spotlight trying to beef up the repair work that will still go on but I expect the skates will see through these two now. Sorry for all those who will lose their jobs, Skates or not.

 

Interesting. Mordaunt's Wiki profile has been updated to make note of her passivity over this.

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

Those type 45's are utter crap. They cant maintain their top speed of 32knots for more than 3-5mins before the engines shut down due to electrical surges. BAE know this, the Govt know this. So why dont fix it, because that egg on face moment will not be lived down. Both reps will be destroyed.

Plus the Govt cut backs on RN personell, has led to 9moths TODs, with has caused moral to slide. Which in turn has caused an upturn in personal asking to leave.

All type 45's are undermaned by at least 20-25 currently.

 

The RN is in a bad way, but you eont hear this in the news.

[aintforever]

As soon as the docks were turned into a political football you just knew Portsmouth would lose.

[alpine_saint]

I wonder if the government interfered here too ....

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10792309.300_jobs_axed_as_company_shuts_its_Hampshire_plant/

[alpine_saint]

Those type 45's are utter crap. They cant maintain their top speed of 32knots for more than 3-5mins before the engines shut down due to electrical surges. BAE know this, the Govt know this. So why dont fix it, because that egg on face moment will not be lived down. Both reps will be destroyed.

Plus the Govt cut backs on RN personell, has led to 9moths TODs, with has caused moral to slide. Which in turn has caused an upturn in personal asking to leave.

All type 45's are undermaned by at least 20-25 currently.

 

The RN is in a bad way, but you eont hear this in the news.��

 

Let's face it, BAE Systems have the UK government by the balls over the shipyards, carriers, Astutes, Type 45s and F-35s, and BAE Systems f**king knows it.

 

The US authorities reckon it will take 400m to fit the two carriers with catapaults. BAE quoted 1.8bn. Problem is, we can then buy cheap, proven F18E/F Super Hornets, and half the cost of the entire carrier program. Who wants that, eh ? Not BAE Systems.

 

If u think the T45s are crap, wait until the carriers go into Service with one aircraft apiece, no AEW cover, no in-flight refuelling, and the aircraft a ridiculous toy of limited effectiveness and Zero interoperability with the French carrier, which was supposed to be a cornerstone of our strategy.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The US authorities reckon it will take 400m to fit the two carriers with catapaults. BAE quoted 1.8bn. Problem is, we can then buy cheap, proven F18E/F Super Hornets, and half the cost of the entire carrier program. Who wants that, eh ? Not BAE Systems.

 

 

You obviously know a lot about military stuff but this is all a bit simplistic isn't it. Do you think the MoD just sat around while BAE came up with a quote? Do you think that MoD would have just accepted any old figure BAE came up with and just thought "oh well" back to the old design then?

 

Who are the "US authorities"? and where did you get the £400m from?

[bridge too far]

I can see who the major shareholders are (Invesco for one) but when you look a the company's subsidiaries you can see how complicated it would be to drill down into each one to see who 'owns' them. Knowing how many MPs have fingers in other pies, I wonder if BAE exercises undue influence with the powers that be.

 

Reading BAE's Wiki page, the company seems to have been involved in a number of questionable issues - I remember the bunce allegations a few years ago.

[alpine_saint]

I personally think BAE Systems has a VERY long reach - right to the core of the Establishment.

[alpine_saint]

You obviously know a lot about military stuff but this is all a bit simplistic isn't it. Do you think the MoD just sat around while BAE came up with a quote? Do you think that MoD would have just accepted any old figure BAE came up with and just thought "oh well" back to the old design then?

 

Who are the "US authorities"? and where did you get the £400m from?

 

Sorry, its difficult to give one comprehensive source, I've read so much over the past couple of years about the Carrier Debacle.

 

However, there a couple of good pieces in the on-line Telegraph this week.

 

I get the impression the RN has kept schtum in the hope that the p*ssing about enables them to get both into service rather than one mothballed. Boy are they in for a shock.

[TopGun]

The new OPV's are expected to replace 3 River Class ships - HMS Tyne, Severn, and Mersey. These ships are by no means old or due for replacement in the normal course of events.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-offshore-patrol-vessels-for-royal-navy

 

As for modern ships being much more capable that the vessels they replace, this is perfectly true. But warships don't evolve in isolation and the sub surface, surface, and airborne threats they must face are also becoming increasing capable over time of course. In the final analysis, however sophisticated a warship is, it can only be at one place at a time.

 

With just 19 destroyers and frigates in the fleet (the RN had 38 frigates alone back in 1990) the service is (imo) in crisis - at its lowest ebb perhaps since way back when Admiral De Ruyter raided the Thames and sailed off with the Kings flagship in tow.

 

We can only hope this nation doesn't have to again pay a price in blood for the willful neglect it displays to its navy.

 

I may have mentioned this before but I was at an "RN wedding" about 18 months ago and spent quite some time chatting with the then Commander of HMS Tyne.

 

He told me an interesting tale about fisheries patrol. Basically the RN divides it into east and west patrol areas (roughly North Sea and Irish Sea). Tyne had just been patrolling the west area and had been alerted to a Spanish fishing vessel which had a known past of potentially flouting quotas and set full steam to intercept it. As they approached they could see the Spanish fishermen chucking crates of fish into the sea and it was obvious that they had a load of illegal catches. By the time they boarded the vessel it had all gone and nothing could be done to prove it and impound the trawler.

 

Apparently this is commonplace and the port authorities in certain Spanish ports look the other way as illegal catches are brought ashore.

[hutch]

Surely those geeks sitting behind a monitor in Cheltenham watching you eat your coco pops right now could take a look at that instead

[alpine_saint]

I may have mentioned this before but I was at an "RN wedding" about 18 months ago and spent quite some time chatting with the then Commander of HMS Tyne.

 

He told me an interesting tale about fisheries patrol. Basically the RN divides it into east and west patrol areas (roughly North Sea and Irish Sea). Tyne had just been patrolling the west area and had been alerted to a Spanish fishing vessel which had a known past of potentially flouting quotas and set full steam to intercept it. As they approached they could see the Spanish fishermen chucking crates of fish into the sea and it was obvious that they had a load of illegal catches. By the time they boarded the vessel it had all gone and nothing could be done to prove it and impound the trawler.

 

Apparently this is commonplace and the port authorities in certain Spanish ports look the other way as illegal catches are brought ashore.

 

And of course the Defence Budget doesnt stretch to video cameras..........

[ecuk268]

I wonder if the government interfered here too ....

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10792309.300_jobs_axed_as_company_shuts_its_Hampshire_plant/

 

No they didn't.

 

This decision was taken in Milan by the parent company on purely commercial grounds.