Britain orders fleet of "budget battleships"

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
A radical shake-up of how warships will be built for the Royal Navy that aims to spread the work around the country has been unveiled by the Ministry of Defence.

Proposals floated by industrialist Sir John Parker in his review of the sector last year have been backed by Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon in a move intended to deliver budget vessels to the British military that are also aimed at being attractive to foreign buyers.

Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, Britain will buy five “Type 31e” general purpose frigates – a cut-price warship – to bolster the Royal Navy’s depleted fleet, with the first one intended to enter service in 2023.


Britain orders fleet of 'budget battleships' in deal to boost shipbuilding


How the new Type 31e frigates might look

Alan Tovey, Industry Editor
6 September 2017
The Telegraph

A radical shake-up of how warships will be built for the Royal Navy that aims to spread the work around the country has been unveiled by the Ministry of Defence.

Proposals floated by industrialist Sir John Parker in his review of the sector last year have been backed by Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon in a move intended to deliver budget vessels to the British military that are also aimed at being attractive to foreign buyers.


Another concept of how the Type 31e might look

Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, Britain will buy five “Type 31e” general purpose frigates – a cut-price warship – to bolster the Royal Navy’s depleted fleet, with the first one intended to enter service in 2023.

Sir John recommended the new vessels be built at shipyards around the country, using the “modular” system employed to construct the huge Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

This saw giant blocks fabricated at sites around the UK, before being towed to Rosyth in Fife where they were integrated into the 70,600-tonne ships by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, made up of BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales working with the MoD.


Britain's new aircraft carriers were built in blocks before being assembled at Rosyth Credit: Reuters

Backing his plans could threaten BAE’s near-monopoly on building vessels for the Navy, throwing it open to other entrants to the market and raising concerns about jobs at the defence giant’s naval operations focused at its Clyde facilities in Glasgow.

Announcing the plan, the MoD said a £250m-per-ship price cap had been set for the vessels, which were revealed in the last defence review when the Government said it would purchase only eight of the more capable Type 26 frigates, with the Type 31e making up numbers.

“This new approach will lead to more cutting-edge ships for the growing Royal Navy that will be designed to maximise exports and be attractive to navies around the world,” the Defence Secretary said, adding the strategy would “help boost jobs, skills and growth in shipyards and the supply chain across the UK”.

In July, the Government signed a £3.7bn contract with BAE for the first three Type 26s, underlining their relative expense.


The Type 26 frigate will be much more capable than the Type 31e - and more expensive Credit: BAE

A key focus of Sir John’s report was developing ships likely to be bought by foreign navies, helping create a secure foundation for Britain’s shipbuilders.

Responding to the announcement, Sir John – a trained naval architect who currently chairs Anglo American and has held senior jobs at companies including Babcock and Harland & Wolff – said he was “impressed by the Defence Secretary’s courage in adopting my recommendations, which were very extensive, and will change the shape of naval shipbuilding over the country”.

He added: “The next challenge is to come up with a world-leading design that can satisfy the needs of the Royal Navy and the export market. I see no reason why industry will not rise to that challenge.”

Another recommendation was that the MoD replaces ships once they reach the end of their natural lives, rather than extending their time in service thorough costly refits, creating uncertainty about when contracts to build new ships will be placed.

The £250m price cap was implemented as it was seen as the optimum price to encourage export orders, and the Government said it wants shipyards vying for the contracts to get export customers involved to increase the Type 31e’s marketability.

The prospect of work being spread across the UK has raised anger in some areas, with the GMB union claiming it will take away contracts from its Scottish members who were pledged the work.


Unions have raised concerns about jobs at BAE's shipyards on the Clyde as a result of the shipbuilding strategy Credit: Bloomberg

Gary Cook, Scotland organiser for the GMB, said: "Let's be clear that the Type 31 contracts were originally promised to the Upper Clyde, so while shipbuilding communities across the UK would benefit from a work-share programme of the Type 31 work, this will be at the expense of the Upper Clyde despite its own future already[being] secured until the 2030s."

Some defence commentators have questioned the usefulness of the budget vessels, and suggested that without the complex systems of their heavyweight sister ships they could be a liability in a war zone.

Britain orders fleet of 'budget battleships' in deal to boost shipbuilding
 
Last edited:

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Can they do missiles, torpedoes and mines in those fancy scifi 3D doo hickies?

I think they would be off making food growing machines or something
;)
you get more friends with honey then battleships
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Those are not "Battleships". They are not even remotely close to being battleships.

BTW, the Type 26 is a major contender to be the replacement for the 280 destroyers and the 330 Frigates in our own navy.

"Battleships"

Yugos are race cars 'cause you can race them. Ships that sail into battles are battleships (if you happen to be a blithering idiot)
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Those are not "Battleships". They are not even remotely close to being battleships.

BTW, the Type 26 is a major contender to be the replacement for the 280 destroyers and the 330 Frigates in our own navy.

"Battleships"

Yugos are race cars 'cause you can race them. Ships that sail into battles are battleships (if you happen to be a blithering idiot)

You are right. "Warships" is a more accurate term. "Battleships" originated in the 18th century in reference to "ships of the line of battle" which referred only the the three largest classes of warships in the wooden navies of the age.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Nit pickers eh?
If you can't take correction how can you dish it?
:)

You'll note the phrase was "budget battleships" which is called a "play on words"
It's a tactic used everyday, everywhere, by everyone when titling news stories.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Nit pickers eh?
If you can't take correction how can you dish it?
:)

You'll note the phrase was "budget battleships" which is called a "play on words"
It's a tactic used everyday, everywhere, by everyone when titling news stories.

I suspect it is a tactic used by ignoramuses who have little or no knowledge of what they are talking about. Many news reporters have only a minimal knowledge of history, economics, geography or pretty much anything for that matter.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Ah, so all our dictionary has belong to you, eh?

This isn't going to be like the conversation we had where you were wrong about the definition of the word "boat" is it?
;)

Due to their heavy armament of six 28 cm (11 in) guns, the British began referring to the vessels as "pocket battleships"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland-class_cruiser
(pocket battleship)

Its quite possible the brits had a navy and a language long before you
:)
 
Last edited:

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Ah, so all our dictionary has belong to you, eh?

This isn't going to be like the conversation we had where you were wrong about the definition of the word "boat" is it?
;)

Due to their heavy armament of six 28 cm (11 in) guns, the British began referring to the vessels as "pocket battleships"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland-class_cruiser
(pocket battleship)

Its quite possible the brits had a navy and a language long before you
:)

Which navy did you serve in, Horatio?
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Ah, so all our dictionary has belong to you, eh?

This isn't going to be like the conversation we had where you were wrong about the definition of the word "boat" is it?
;)

Due to their heavy armament of six 28 cm (11 in) guns, the British began referring to the vessels as "pocket battleships"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland-class_cruiser
(pocket battleship)

Its quite possible the brits had a navy and a language long before you
:)
You do understand there's still a significant difference between a cruiser and pocket battleship though, right? The pocket battleships that Germany built were primarily intended to be surface raiders going after merchant shipping. The purpose behind the design is based on "Outrun what you can't outgun, and outgun what you can't outrun".
In other words, they were't meant to go toe to toe with the British battleships. They were meant to deal with merchant shipping as mentioned above as well as any destroyer or cruiser escort(s).

Heck, even the (in)famous HMS Hood wasn't a full-on battleship. Technically it was a battle-cruiser.

But times and definitions change. By WW1, things like armour belts also determined what constituted a battleship. By today's standards, what we consider to be a battleship is almost anachronistic. In the age of missiles, armour belts and 14-16 inch guns mean nothing anymore. Missiles are the weapon of future naval warfare. There will still be a need for off-shore bombardments but that's pretty much what the role of the "traditional" battleship will be.

So, I think it's probably fair to say that the newer generation of cruisers and frigates are the battleships of today.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
We are arguing about the term as used colloquially in the OP I believe by a news paper
;)
The facts as you present them are fine, I'm arguing about the picking of knits
:)

These words like (patrol)boat and (pocket)battleship aren't quite static

 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
Those are not "Battleships". They are not even remotely close to being battleships.

BTW, the Type 26 is a major contender to be the replacement for the 280 destroyers and the 330 Frigates in our own navy.

"Battleships"

Yugos are race cars 'cause you can race them. Ships that sail into battles are battleships (if you happen to be a blithering idiot)

I know that. But you can't expect a MailOnline writer to.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Sounds more sensible than the L6 Billion each they're spending on those Aircraft Carriers (+ as much again for the aircraft). Flexible, missile carrying frigates will be the mainstay of modern Navies as they reorient to regional defense from global projection of power.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
Sounds more sensible than the L6 Billion each they're spending on those Aircraft Carriers (+ as much again for the aircraft). Flexible, missile carrying frigates will be the mainstay of modern Navies as they reorient to regional defense from global projection of power.

We've only built two carriers. We need at least another ten.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
We've only built two carriers. We need at least another ten.

I'm happy to see you're willing to donate to the UK Aircraft-Carrier Fund (UKACF). Do you get a charity tax credit for that at the end of the year when you do fill in your tax forms?
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Will these ones burn up on contact like the ones Argentina blew out of the water a few years back?

No, the design was changed to make new ships less flammable. The problem with the ships the Brits used in the Falklands War was that their superstructures were mostly aluminum the make them lighter. Problem was it did not resist fire as well as steel. Mind you anyone who has left an aluminum pot on the stove for too long could have told the navy that.