Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

[Amp34]

Wiki says: "The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems". Confused. Either way, they're now old.


With an unlimited budget, I know what the RN would choose, though. That's what is upsetting.

True, however there is no such thing as an unlimited budget and I think sacrificing nuclear propulsion for other tech/ships that will create a bigger advantage is the way to go.

Besides that I do't like the environmental issues that could be involved if one of them sank/was blown up.

 

[meghatronic]

True, however there is no such thing as an unlimited budget.

I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to bring up my "completely wasteful cost of Scottish/Welsh/NI governments and EU" card. Somewhere of the order of £120bil pa. That would buy a lot of ships, planes body armor and boots.

Also, bank bailout is something like the entire military budget for the last 40 years.

 

[Amp34]

An interesting read ! LOL at some of the above comments.

It seems as the whole thread has shifted from The Argies "new" shipping rules, to the current state of the Senior service

Considering that the T45 has not yet been fully accepted into service yet, lots more trials to be completed (yes the first of class has already been commissioned, 23 Jul 09!). I think you will find that once the FULL trials have been completed (some time in the next 12 months perhaps) any teething problems with the new systems will be sorted, bearing in mind the UK is one of the worlds biggest developers in the defence industry (in decline over the last 6 or 7 years or so, but should start to pick up again). Yes we could have bought US AB ships (but we have always been sellers of old tech, not buyers). Also with each ship the majority of the money spent has gone back into UK coffers, (not US). Enough said.

For my 2 pence worth, I think this is all hot air and the Argies are merely jumping on their soapbox. Just look at how ridiculous their claimed areas are.

It might take 9-14 days to get a ship from home to the falklands, but you can bet there are other units a LOT closer. S and T boats (Possibly A by end of year) would take the waters. No question we would hold the air within a couple of weeks, and after that there is no way any Argies could hold the land (even if they managed to invade it in the first week to 10 days). AR. .-.

That's a good point actually, we have sold various ships (both new and second hand) to other nations, I wonder how much that netted us in return for our research investment?

 

[meghatronic]

That's a good point actually, we have sold various ships (both new and second hand) to other nations, I wonder how much that netted us in return for our research investment?

Not a whole lot. We tend to send on to five eyes (well not US) so we offer cheap prices. E.g. Canada and Australia. Others get us a better deal. But not great, at all.

 

[Amp34]

Well I'd argue you have to consider the flight 2A ships a different proposition to the original one commissioned in the early 90s and age aside they are still either as good or very near to the type 45 in capability and are backed by American R&D investment for future upgrades.



Apparently so but I can't understand the wisdom myself, in any environment where there's no air threat they are essentially useless or a very expensive helipad (a type 23 costs less than 1/5th as much and is as or more useful outside of the anti air role - it can attack ships and submarines for a start...). I'm not an expert but I just don't see the point myself - there's virtually no other class of ship been built in the last decade which is so single role..

I wouldn't count on continued American R&D, as I mentioned earlier we would be buying the hull essentially and then equiping the ship with our own technology. Most/all of the future research would be on the tech and weapons, which we wouldn't have bought.

The Type 23 was actually designed (and is still used "mainly" in this role) as an anti sub frigate, with the type 42 as the anti aircraft platform in the fleet. The 23 was subsequently upgraded to be better at other roles though. And lets face it, the type 45 is still equiped for anti submarine and anti ship so it won't be entirely defenceless against that threat, in fact rather good.

These ships, in times of proper war would be stationed together, normally in a defensive pattern around a carrier so a selection of specific ships is better than a load of all rounders in that role.

They sold the very latest Aegis radar system to Spain, they sold us trident and the newest tactical tomahawk so I don't see why they wouldn't. The F35 IP row is a worry I concede though.

The ships are already equipped to operate effectively together, one of the upsides of NATO and the cold war. The british command and control systems are actually considered superior (or were at the time of the first gulf war anyway) but they do interoperate pretty well and fitting custom electronics is always going to be possible



Indeed they are and I think the navy would have been better off if we hadn't pulled out of the project which gave the french the Horizon class and gone and built the type 45 instead. The french have a ship with EXACTLY the same air warfare capability (same radar, same missiles) but it can actually do other things too.

They are, true, but they still use different technology (although actually we would probably replace their tech with our own, sort of defeating my own argument there... )

The question with that however is how much would it actually have cost to co-develop? The eurofighter was supposed to have been cheaper because of us sharing design... However a single partner may well have made it work.

Well they're maybe 40-50% more expensive than the Arleigh Burke which is very close in anti air capability (maybe it's technically slightly behind but it's got twice the missile capacity - swings and roundabouts) and exceeds it in others. We could argue this forever but I think that's too much for too little myself - with continuing development of Aegis I think they will be good for 30 years or so and they provide so much more (even if they didn't, I think the navy would rather 10 very good ships to 6 best in the world ones myself).



I think we're more like spain than you imagine, an old world power with a few remaining overseas territories... sure the nuclear weapons and security council seat change that somewhat but still, we're not totally dissimilar.

Where did you get the 40-50% more expensive? You mentioned earlier that the costs were very similar? A for ability TBH neither of us are experts so I guess we could never be sure. I just think the RN would have created a more all rounder if they thought they needed it.

I agree, it would be nice to have 10 good ships instead of 6, the problem is the majority of the cost of ships throughout their lifetime is after they are comissioned. The first thing to go when we have a defence cut are "spare" ships with years/decades of service life left in them, it's just they cost too much. I'd expect instead 6 AB's instead of 6 type 45s...

You could say that, however we do have far more influence than Spain, backed up by a far larger/adept armed forces. That permanent seat is also a massive difference, we have a veto, they don't...

 

[starfighter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8527307.stm

Drilling has begun.

Bring it on Argentina, we will destroy you and your MILF president.

 

[Nix]

What's the bet that Hugo Chavez will chime in over this and try and blame America?

 

[starfighter]

How are these Islands even "contested" as the Argies keep saying. Everyone that lives there is British and speaks English. Suerly that is the main thing, do they honestly expect these people to move out or change nationality?

and if you go down the Historical route no one lived there before Spain and Britain went down there, Before Argentina even existed probably.

And then they got beat once trying to invade, honestly if they pull this one again they need to be seriously humiliated.

 

[neil3k]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8527307.stm


Bring it on Argentina, we will destroy you and your MILF president.

bwahahahahaha

milf president

 

[bigredshark]

Well potatoes and a grenade aren't dissimilar....

What an odd comparison, and more anti-Anglo sentiments. We dwarf the Spanish economy and military.

FFS this is your country, have some pride.

At risk of dragging it off track - no. I was born here, that's a fairly abstract reason for national pride in my view, I could (given my families background and travels) easily have been born in South Africa, Australia or the US. Where my parents were living back then makes little difference to me, I am British and I do have some pride in that but not an irrational belief in our superiority or greatness in the face of the evidence otherwise. Rule Brittania nationalism has little appeal to me.

 

[meghatronic]

At risk of dragging it off track - no. I was born here, that's a fairly abstract reason for national pride in my view, I could (given my families background and travels) easily have been born in South Africa, Australia or the US. Where my parents were living back then makes little difference to me, I am British and I do have some pride in that but not an irrational belief in our superiority or greatness in the face of the evidence otherwise. Rule Brittania nationalism has little appeal to me.

Your choice. But you don't choose your parents either.

And "evidence" otherwise is BS. We have the second best Military in the Western world, almost any analyst would agree.

Anyway, as you said, back on track.

 

[bigredshark]

I wouldn't count on continued American R&D, as I mentioned earlier we would be buying the hull essentially and then equiping the ship with our own technology. Most/all of the future research would be on the tech and weapons, which we wouldn't have bought.

Actually I was suggesting much the reverse, build our own hulls, to our own design if we feel the need and drop the VLS system in it and fit Aegis radar (like Spain, Australia, Norway and Korea among others have done). So we get the benefit of the ongoing Aegis R&D.

The Type 23 was actually designed (and is still used "mainly" in this role) as an anti sub frigate, with the type 42 as the anti aircraft platform in the fleet. The 23 was subsequently upgraded to be better at other roles though. And lets face it, the type 45 is still equiped for anti submarine and anti ship so it won't be entirely defenceless against that threat, in fact rather good.

Well aside from what it's helicopter can launch it's not, unless you count a single medium caliber gun. There's no provision for the launch of anti ship missiles of any kind from the ship (which is arguably worse than the type 42 - where the sea dart had an anti ship capability at least) and no deck mounted torpedo tubes (less serious as you don't want to be using those really).

These ships, in times of proper war would be stationed together, normally in a defensive pattern around a carrier so a selection of specific ships is better than a load of all rounders in that role.

probably yes, but I can't see any way in which this doesn't make multi role ships better - if you have 4 ships it's surely better that all 4 can do anti air when required and all 4 can do ASW when required. If you're under sustained air attack having two air warfare destroyers to handle that while your two ASW ships just try their best not to get sunk doesn't seem the best option - particularly when the all rounders discussed are probably as good or very close to the dedicated ships

Where did you get the 40-50% more expensive? You mentioned earlier that the costs were very similar? A for ability TBH neither of us are experts so I guess we could never be sure. I just think the RN would have created a more all rounder if they thought they needed it.

The cost of a type 45 is £6.46bn for 6 ships (from the public accounts committee report) for a bit under £1.1bn each, whereas the cost of an Arleigh Burke flight 2A ship is around $1.2bn (various sources) which is around £775m. By my maths that puts a type 45 at 141% of the cost of an Arleigh Burke.

 

[Beansprout]

All this publicity is fantastic, the shares I have in Rockhopper have shot up 30% in 2 days

 

[meghatronic]

The cost of a type 45 is £6.46bn for 6 ships (from the public accounts committee report) for a bit under £1.1bn each, whereas the cost of an Arleigh Burke flight 2A ship is around $1.2bn (various sources) which is around £775m. By my maths that puts a type 45 at 141% of the cost of an Arleigh Burke.

Can you name those sources? Not that I don't believe you - I just only found the ambiguous wiki quote above.

Also, at 141% cost, I would still choose the in house option. Only at 200% would I start to rethink .

All this publicity is fantastic, the shares I have in Rockhopper have shot up 30% in 2 days

Another 11% it seems today. Do you just have Rockhopper (for Falklands oil)?

 

[bigredshark]

Can you name those sources? Not that I don't believe you - I just only found the ambiguous wiki quote above.

Also, at 141% cost, I would still choose the in house option. Only at 200% would I start to rethink .

The wiki quote is as good as any, I don't believe the congressional reports are online. It says $1.1bn made up of $321.9 for the hull and $778 for weapons and systems - how is it ambiguous? Later ships were more expensive as they got some additional weapons upgrades.

There is a register article which quotes similar figures for both that and slightly less for the Korean built KDXIII ships.

If it was 141% for the same capability I might consider it (but I'd still come down on the side of spending the extra £300m on education or lowering taxes or paying down the deficit) but it's 41% more for a ship which can't do even half as much. While I except the MOD is likely a bit better informed than me I just don't see how it works out sensible (until you factor in they're buying votes and subsidising BAE)

 

[meghatronic]

The wiki quote is as good as any, I don't believe the congressional reports are online. It says $1.1bn made up of $321.9 for the hull and $778 for weapons and systems - how is it ambiguous? Later ships were more expensive as they got some additional weapons upgrades.

Well it says: " The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems."

It's the other bit I dislike.

And the later (newer) ships should be offered for fair comparison vs Type 45 (when it works ).

 

[bigredshark]

Well it says: " The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems."

It's the other bit I dislike.

And the later (newer) ships should be offered for fair comparison vs Type 45 (when it works ).

And it says before that the hull cost $321m is you read the full paragraph, so giving the total cost and making it clear where the rest went seems logical. Given that 321m+778m is rounded to 1.1bn I think it's fairly clear really.

 

[meghatronic]

And it says before that the hull cost $321m is you read the full paragraph, so giving the total cost and making it clear where the rest went seems logical. Given that 321m+778m is rounded to 1.1bn I think it's fairly clear really.

Dohhh. Teach me for skim reading. Although it isn't exactly clear:

"On 3 April 1985 Bath Iron Works received a US$321.9 million contract to build the first of class, USS Arleigh Burke"

You're assuming Bath Iron Works make hulls (shhhh ).

 

[mollymoo]

Then I'm afraid we disagree, I don't think we can, in the current economic climate, afford it and even if we could I suspect that given the choice the navy would rather 11 American ships rather than 10 British ones (assuming the same capabilities).

And that we could be at war with the US tomorrow isn't really a decent reason against buying stuff from them - whether they can impede our ability to fight or not they'd still walk over us before lunch through sheer strength of numbers .

The few current and former navy officers I know quietly admit we'd be better in their estimation buying our ships off the shelf from the Americans rather than designing from scratch despite a few flaws in the American designs.

We'll just have to disagree on cost though, personally in the modern world if we can spend 20% less on defence through buying foreign kit and put that money into education then it's no contest in my opinion.

IMO you would need to analyse the effects on our economy.

You could hand over 6 million to the USA for pre-built ships and that takes 6 million pound out of our economy.

You could spend 7 million building the ships your self, a good percentage of which would be in labour costs which you would be paying to your countrymen that would in turn they pay various taxes on that get returned to the government and the rest helps bouy the economy. Therefore you give less of your money to a foriegn country and retain more for your own economy.

This of course depends on the labour costs which I have no idea about.

 

[Tefal]

IMO you would need to analyse the effects on our economy.

You could hand over 6 million to the USA for pre-built ships and that takes 6 million pound out of our economy.

You could spend 7 million building the ships your self, a good percentage of which would be in labour costs which you would be paying to your countrymen that would in turn they pay various taxes on that get returned to the government and the rest helps bouy the economy. Therefore you give less of your money to a foriegn country and retain more for your own economy.

This of course depends on the labour costs which I have no idea about.

Or you could buy the plans from the Americans and build them here which is what the Norwegians and Koreans do iirc.

remember it's not just the cost to build the ship it's the R&D costs you have to include when you design your own.