By registering with our site you will have full instant access to:
268,000 posts on every subject imaginable contributed by 1000's of members worldwide.
25000 photos and videos mainly relating to the British Merchant Navy.
Members experienced in research to help you find out about friends and relatives who served.
The camaraderie of 1000's of ex Merchant Seamen who use the site for recreation & nostalgia.
Here we are all equal whether ex Deck Boy or Commodore of the Fleet.
A wealth of experience and expertise from all departments spanning 70+ years.
It is simple to register and membership is absolutely free.
N.B. If you are going to be requesting help from one of the forums with finding historical details of a relative
please include as much information as possible to help members assist you. We certainly need full names,
date and place of birth / death where possible plus any other details you have such as discharge book numbers etc.
Please post all questions onto the appropriate forum

-
23rd May 2012, 06:53 AM
#1
Design for the new Submarines
The Government has awarded contracts worth £350 million to UK companies to design the next generation of nuclear submarines.
Most of the work on the Trident system will go to BAE Systems, which said it will sustain the jobs of 1,000 workers at its site in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.
The first Successor submarine is due to be delivered in 2028, replacing the Vanguard Class vessels which currently carry Trident. A decision on the final design and build will not be made until 2016, but the Ministry of Defence said detailed work has to take place now.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: "This Government is committed to maintaining a continuous submarine-based nuclear deterrent. The contracts announced today with BAE Systems, Babcock and Rolls-Royce symbolise an important step towards renewing our nation's nuclear deterrent into the 2060s.
"We have a world-class submarine-building industry in this country and this programme will help to sustain or create more than 1,900 jobs across the UK. By making the core equipment programme fully funded and affordable, we are able to confirm additional equipment projects which help safeguard our national security."
BAE Systems managing director John Hudson said: "The signing of this contract is a key step forward in our business strategy to deliver a seven-boat Astute programme followed by the replacement class for the Vanguard submarines.
"Not only does it help sustain the jobs of over 1,000 skilled employees currently working on the programme, it also provides the opportunity to grow our workforce by a further 280 in 2012."
OK a thousand people too design a Submarine at a cost of £350,000,000 just for the design and sixteen years to design and build it , I wonder how much shipowners pay to have a new ship designed from scratch , My worry is that the defence industry , whilst being good sources of employment , seem to be in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to costs
Rob Page R855150 - British & Commonwealth Shipping ( 1965 - 1973 ) Gulf Oil -( 1973 - 1975 ) Sealink ( 1975 - 1986 ) 

-
23rd May 2012, 11:49 AM
#2
ROB the only thing on the down side is the budget? like all defence contracts how many come in on budget? all praise to the british companies that build the equipment but how many times will the goal posts be moved whilst building goes ahead jamming the cost by at least a half again then the complaints start.JP
-
23rd May 2012, 12:25 PM
#3
I guess we are lucky that Germany is not building them for us. It is keeping people and skills employed which would be lost for ever if it went for tender into europe,
Cheers
Brian.
-
23rd May 2012, 12:34 PM
#4
M.o.d.
If the M.O.D. are going to build our submarines here in the U.K. how come the contract for the new RFA ships went to Korea. Know the RFA is a civilian force but surely the M.O.D must have had some input into design and choice of where the ships are to be built.
The contract cost seems an obscene amount given that not one piece of steel has been cut, just designed and just watch the costs escalate as the M.O.D. has to be the most inefficeint of all our State Departments and thats saying something looking at the inefficeincy and wastage in all the other State departments.
rgds
Capt. John Arton (ret'd)
-
23rd May 2012, 06:36 PM
#5
I think whoever changes the specification should be held to task as to why it was not included in the first specification , maybe there are too many cooks spoiling an unlimited budget of a broth !!! . I just get the feeling that defence budgets are too much of never mind the quality feel the employment in my constituancy .
Rob Page R855150 - British & Commonwealth Shipping ( 1965 - 1973 ) Gulf Oil -( 1973 - 1975 ) Sealink ( 1975 - 1986 ) 

-
23rd May 2012, 07:38 PM
#6
Submarines

Originally Posted by
robpage
I think whoever changes the specification should be held to task as to why it was not included in the first specification , maybe there are too many cooks spoiling an unlimited budget of a broth !!! . I just get the feeling that defence budgets are too much of never mind the quality feel the employment in my constituancy .
Rob
Costs are high because the whole tender process is so slow, firms tender and have to charge for the technical expertise they bring to these quotes, a lot of expensive, highly intelligent people work on these estimates, they need paying, there are very onerous rules in place to stop every Tom, Dick or Harry submitting useless quotes just to get funds.
These projects are expensive because the firms who supply the goods or services know that they have to self finance their services because they are not going to receive their monies due for at least 12 to 18 months after submission of invoices. If the various Government departments outside the MOD got their act together and got funds to the MOD on time then inummerable projects would be a lot cheaper, but as leapords do not change their spots the contractors WILL HAVE TO keep charging top dollar
Firms tendering for any Govt/MOD contracts know that their money is usually secure but they are going to have to borrow expensive money to finance the project until they get paid. So the Govt (you and me) are in fact financing the Banks that lend the money to the contractors.
Having been an approved supplier I speak from experience, removed my company from the list because of the high cost of finance.
-
24th May 2012, 06:31 AM
#7
Ship building is all over the place these days. Here in Oz we are having a nimber fo RN ships built in Spain, but only to 'lock up' stage. They will then be brought here to be fitted out. Gov says it is the cheapest way to do it?????


Happy daze John in Oz.
Life is too short to blend in.
John Strange R737787
World Traveller

-
29th May 2012, 09:32 PM
#8
I still don't get the engineering or economic logic of building the new aircraft carriers in three yards . The transportation alone is £85,000,000 , the ventilation is IMtech who are Dutch . I thought the decision might be political , but Portsmouth and Rosyth are represented at the time of the contract by Lib Dems . SO are we looking at only one dockyard with teh capability to assemble these ships , itf that is the case then we are in a sorrier state than I thought .
Rob Page R855150 - British & Commonwealth Shipping ( 1965 - 1973 ) Gulf Oil -( 1973 - 1975 ) Sealink ( 1975 - 1986 ) 

-
30th May 2012, 06:56 AM
#9
You well maybe, saw an article on the net yesterday by your bank of England cheif. He said base rates for interest will remain where they are until 2017. But hollidays to Greece are all the go with some so cheap they beat prices of 15 years ago.


Happy daze John in Oz.
Life is too short to blend in.
John Strange R737787
World Traveller

Similar Threads
-
By john tippett in forum Silvertown Services
Replies: 0
Last Post: 5th November 2012, 01:26 AM
-
By Bill Cameron in forum Royal Navy
Replies: 33
Last Post: 23rd December 2011, 09:35 PM
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules