Marine Britannique

[webfabrice]

A ce rythme là, ils vont finir avec 6 SNA comme la marine nationale... ;)

[Philippe Top-Force]

A ce rythme là, ils vont finir avec 6 SNA comme la marine nationale... ;)

Je partagerais ton optimiste Fabrice quand nos 6 SNA Barracuda seront tous en service.

Les Britanniques peuvent encore commander d'autres Astute.

[webfabrice]

Je partagerais ton optimiste Fabrice quand nos 6 SNA Barracuda seront tous en service.

Les Britanniques peuvent encore commander d'autres Astute.

Oui c'est vrai. Mais au vu des nombreux programmes à venir dans la Royal Navy (CVF, T45, etc...), j'ai bien peur que les commandes des 2 autres SNA de type Astutes fassent les frais des décisions et des coupes budgétaires du MoD...

Je ne le souhaite en aucun cas, car il n'y aurait plus qu'une douzaine de SNA en Europe, mais je reste sceptique...

[Invité Rob]

The plan is to reduce the SSN fleet to 8. Those 8 will at the end all be Astutes. The Trafalgars still have some life left in them whilst the first Astute will arrive in late 2008/early 2009. Three Astutes have been ordered with the fourth to be ordered soon (long lead items have been ordered already). The first Trafalgar class SSN will probably decommission in 2009, the last in 2019. HMS Trafalgar (S107) 1981 HMS Turbulent (S87) 1982 HMS Tireless (S88) 1984 HMS Torbay (S90) 1985 HMS Trenchant (S91) 1986 HMS Talent (S92) 1988 HMS Triumph (S93) 1991

[P4]

Navy too small to defend us, warns First Sea Lord

By Sean Rayment

(Filed: 15/01/2006)

Cuts to the Royal Navy's fleet of warships will render it incapable of protecting Britain's coastline, ministers have been warned.

Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, said any further reduction in the number of battleships could be fatal to the fleet's future.

The admiral, who is due to retire next month, said: "I don't think anything should ever be sacred but we do have to be careful that we do not reduce the Navy to a level that makes recovery difficult."

He went on: "It takes a long time to build up a maritime force that can cope with both the expected and the unexpected. The UK's security depends on having the right range of maritime capabilities."

The admiral has previously complained that his force has been cut to the bone and has too few frigates and destroyers to undertake major operations such as the Falklands War, but his new comments, in an interview with the magazine Warships, are the most damning to date.

In a direct reference to the Falklands crisis in 1982, he said: "Whenever the UK has got to the stage where it is spending too little on defence the nation has suffered, due to some unforeseen event not long afterwards."

In 1982 the fighting element of the Royal Navy consisted of three aircraft carriers, 15 destroyers, 50 frigates and 33 submarines. Today there are three carriers, eight destroyers, 17 frigates and 15 submarines.

A year ago the admiral said he was resigned to having a smaller fleet but insisted he would fight to ensure that the Royal Navy remained an effective force.

He said this would involve the two planned large aircraft carriers equipped with joint strike fighters, the first of which is to be in service in 2012; the fleet's nuclear-powered attack submarines of which there are 12; the amphibious force of assault ships for the Royal Marines and replacement Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels.

Doubts over the future of the most important of these projects, the two aircraft carriers, still exist and the admiral admitted he had hoped the order would be agreed before his retirement. Admiral West said he still thought the Royal Navy was the best in the world but admitted that the public was not "too concerned" about campaigning for more warships.

He said: "It would be nice to think that the public might mount a campaign something like the 'We Want Eight And We Won't Wait' pre-First World War campaign which sought to ensure enough was invested in capital ships. However, unless there is an obvious threat, I don't expect that the public is too concerned."

The admiral said he had told the Commons defence select committee that the Navy had too few frigates and destroyers but added: "You can only have what the Government and the public are prepared to set aside for defence spending."

Yesterday, the admiral added that the Royal Navy was now too small to perform the tasks being demanded by the Government. He said: "Maybe I'm just a silly old bastard but I've got 41 years experience of these things and I can tell you we need 30 destroyers and frigates for what the Government wants us to do."

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/15/ndef115.xml

[Invité Rob]

Well West will leave his office soon so it's good to see him fight for the navy. In the end I agree it is too small and If I were PM I'd immediately order 12 Astutes and 12 T45s, 2 additional Albions, 2 additional Oceans plus 4 CVFs. 8)

[Invité Rob]

The first T45 HMS Daring has been launched successfully on February the first 14.20 UK time. Here a picture of HMS Daring at night in the Scotstoun assembly hall from January 31 (source BBC):

[Marc P]

La vidéo de la mise à flot du HMS DARING (premier destroyer T45):

http://clients.mediaondemand.net/speakeasy/type45.wvx

;)

[Invité Rob]

COOL! :)

[Invité Rob]

Here's a really cool picture from above, plus a good article on it, also check out the new MoD site with a brand new look:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/HmsDaringLaunchesInGlasgow.htm

www.mod.uk

[webfabrice]

Est ce un effet d'optique, mais le T45 parait moins long et plus large que les horizon francais et italien ? ( A comparer avec les photos mises en ligne par Marc P)

[Invité Rob]

That most be an optical trick. HMS Daring is 152.4 Metres (a bit shorter than Horizon) long, has a max. beam of 21.2 Metres (larger than Horizon) and at 7350tonnes a bit heavier. So Overall quite similar.

[Philippe Top-Force]

That most be an optical trick. HMS Daring is 152.4 Metres (a bit shorter than Horizon) long, has a max. beam of 21.2 Metres (larger than Horizon) and at 7350tonnes a bit heavier. So Overall quite similar.

L'essentiel ROB c'est qu'elle escorte notre PAN CDG ou notre Richelieu :lol:

[webfabrice]

Bon ben pendant que nous débattons sur l'opportunité de remplacer les horizon n°3 et 4 par des Fremm AA, les britanniques se posent pas trop de question et commencent la construction de leur 4e unité type T45 ;) Portsmouth Naval Base Commander Signals Progress on Fourth Type 45 (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Feb. 8, 2006) An initial production milestone has been achieved on the bow of HMS Dragon, the fourth ship of the new Type 45 Class. Commodore David Steel, the new Portsmouth Naval Base Commander, positioned the first shell plate stringer on the bow section to signal progress on the first stages of production of the ship. Francis Paonessa, Managing Director of VT Portsmouth Shipbuilding Facility, which is building the bows of the warships commented: "It was Commodore Steel’s first visit to the modern VT Shipbuilding facilities, which represent the cutting edge of shipbuilding technology in the UK. He was impressed by the considerable level of activity taking place." VT is building the bow sections of all six initial ships in the Daring Class. The new ships will displace 7,350 tonnes and are over 150 metres in length. HMS Daring, the first ship to be built in the class was launched earlier this month. The first section of HMS Daring had been delivered to the prime contractor BAE Systems in Glasgow in June 2005 and consolidated with the rest of HMS Daring. The uptakes and masts of each ship are also being built by VT, with the first ship set to leave Portsmouth in the spring. VT is currently working on the bow sections and other elements of ships two and three in the Class, whilst awaiting the outcome of decisions on Type 45 ships seven and eight after submitting a tender to BAE Systems to build the same blocks.

[Invité Rob]

That figure can't inlcude subs. BTW how many frigates/destroyers/carriers/large amphibs will the MN have at the end of 2006?

astute subs are the shame of her majesty!

Ah yes. Luckily noone takes you seriously. Except perhaps Fonk.... :evil:

[Invité Rob]

At the moment the RN has: 14 Type 23s (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1288) 4 Type 22s (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1560) 8 Type 42s (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1630) 3 CVS (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1245) 3 LPH/LPDs (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1771) 8 Hunt Class MCMs (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1970) 8 Sandown MCMs (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2055) That makes 48 ships with a warfighting capability.

[lefoudeladefense]

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005199.php les british veulent reconsiderer leur force de frappe nucleaires placees sur tridents

[Arka_Voltchek]

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005199.php

les british veulent reconsiderer leur force de frappe nucleaires placees sur tridents

C'est en rapport avec leurs problèmes actuel de transfert technologique sur le JSF. mais concevoir un missile balistique... pas facile :?

@+, Arka

[Invité Rob]

Des nouvelles positive sur l'industrie britannique. [08][61][12]

BAE, VT Group Discuss Joint Venture

By ANDREW CHUTER

The two companies issued a statement saying they were in talks “regarding the combination of their surface ship build and naval support businesses into a joint venture. BAE Systems' submarines business is not included within the scope of these discussions”

A BAE spokesman said they hoped to conclude the joint venture talks in the first half of next year.

Successful conclusion of the talks would create one of Europe’s largest naval shipbuilding and support enterprises. Maritime industries across the region are in the throes of similar naval consolidations, particularly in France, where shipbuilder DCN is pulling together a deal with Thales.

VT Chief Executive Paul Lester signaled the U.K. talks were under way in announcing the company’s interim results on Nov. 14. He told reporters they were working to announce a framework agreement by Christmas.

The maritime industry has been the target of heavy criticism from Lord Drayson, the defense procurement minister, for several months regarding lack of progress on the restructuring front.

The companies' announcement at this time was probably triggered by Drayson’s demands to deliver progress on industry consolidation talks by Christmas, say industry sources.

The announcement means the two companies have also met Drayson’s requirement that he wanted to see progress on consolidation before the Ministry of Defence awards a 3.8 billion pound ($7.5 billion) deal to build two 65,000-metric-ton aircraft carriers to an alliance of companies including BAE and VT. That deal is expected to get final ministerial approval by early next year.

This time last year, the Ministry of Defence published its defense industrial strategy. A key part of the strategy was a demand that the maritime industry should consolidate while it had a healthy order book to look forward to over the next 10 years.

BAE operates two surface warship yards on the Clyde in Scotland and a yard at Barrow in northern England, which builds nuclear submarines for the Royal Navy and has some work constructing surface vessels.

The company also has a naval support activity it operates through its Customer Solutions & Support business group. CS&S has recently been reorganized, with the naval part of that business split out into an operation known as Surface Fleet Solution from the start of next year.

Europe’s largest defense contractor also has a naval support business in the United States, acquired as part of the takeover of United Defense. Those activities are unaffected by the talks.

BAE already operates two joint ventures with VT in the naval sector: Fleet Support, which undertakes both ship repair and maintenance and a partnering agreement with the MoD to run the naval base at Portsmouth; and Flagship Training.

The size of the BAE naval business is unclear. The company said talks to consolidate the nuclear submarine side of its business continue with other industry sector players, including Babcock Defence and DML. Both companies have interests in nuclear submarine support. Nuclear power plant builder Rolls-Royce also is part of the discussions.

VT Group itself has a shipyard at Portsmouth, where it is building modules for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer program. Those vessels are being assembled by BAE on the Clyde.

The company is expected to build key modules for the aircraft carrier program and is close to sealing export orders for warships from Oman and Trinidad & Tobago.

This year, naval shipbuilding is expected to contribute less than 20 percent of company sales of around 1 billion pounds. The company has reinvented itself as a successful support and services company in recent years, downgrading the importance of shipbuilding.

At the interim, Lester said eventually VT saw itself as shedding the shipbuilding business. “We have always said we think the better business model for us is to be purely a support services business, long term,” he said.

Source: Defense News

New 170-ft hall for BAE

Published on 14/12/2006

A NEW shipbuilding hall and 300 jobs could be on their way to Barrow.

The hall, 170ft tall, would be used to build sections of the Royal Navy’s future aircraft carriers.

BAE Submarines boss Murray Easton has briefed workers about the £40m “Son of DDH” plans. Last night he made the proposals public to business and local authority leaders at the annual meeting of local development agency Furness Enterprise, at Forum 28.

The shed would allow massive 16,800 tonne sections of aircraft carrier hulls to be built entirely under cover before they are launched and towed to Scotland to be mated with other ship sections.

Each section is almost as big as the Barrow-built warship HMS Albion.

Although not as large as the landmark Devonshire Dock Hall — 16,000 square metres compared with 25,000 square metres for the DDH — the new shed would be about as high as the DDH’s 170ft.

Barrow would build a massive central section for each of the two 65,000 tonne carriers, Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales.

A go-ahead for the final contract preparation phase for the carriers is expected to be announced by the government next week.

Mr Easton told the Evening Mail the yard hoped to start work on the ships in autumn 2008.

During the four-year carrier programme, the yard’s workforce is expected to rise from the present 3,500 to 3,800.

But Mr Easton warned that some work would be contracted out and many of the jobs would be temporary to avoid hiring full-time workers only to make them redundant after four years. He told last night’s meeting at Forum 28: “We will have to bring labour in on a temporary basis.”

He added: “We won’t prejudice the Astute submarine programme. We have seen some managers make a mess of that once and we are not about to do that again.”

The new DDH will be built in the central yard area bordering Michaelson Road, and would be suitable for both surface ship and submarine construction.

It would be partly on the site of the existing Boiler Shop, which would be demolished.

Stuart Klosinksi, the industrial development officer of the Fe, warned that the BAE proposal won’t happen without government grant aid.

He said: “We are highly excited by Murray Easton’s vision as outlined last night and we are working with BAE to demonstrate to the DTI and the Northwest Regional Development Agency why their grant support is essential to help this project go ahead.

“This proposal is just a vision of what could happen and is highly dependent on securing grant aid. We would urge the whole community to get behind this exciting project.”

The plans have yet to win the backing of the BAE Systems main board and will need local planning permission.

Link: http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=445801

[SPARTAN]

C'est la que je me dis que la langue anglaise est utile (on rigolait bien en cours d'anglais) et que j'aurais du suivre [08][08][08] pas compris grand chose au texte!!

[Arka_Voltchek]

Bof, pas grand chose, juste deux sociétée qui sont sur le point de fusionner (vu le nombre, c'ets ps trop tot) et l'ouverture d'une structure necessaire à la fabriquation de leurs PA (nous on s'en fout, on a ce qu'il faut) @+, Arka

[mirage IV]

Un lien assez complet sur les différents projets anglais dans les années à venir, et sur leur état d'avancement.

ici

Les infos datent de 2000.

[Philippe Top-Force]

Des nouvelles positive sur l'industrie britannique. [08][61][12]

Source: Defense News

Link: http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=445801

In french Rob : BAE et VT Group discutent coopération dans le naval

Les groupes britanniques BAE Systemset VT Group (ex Vosper Thornycroft) ont annoncé ce jeudi avoir engagé des discussions en vue de la création d'une coentreprise dans la construction et la maintenance navale. L'activité de sous-marins de BAE Systems n'est pas concernée par ce partenariat. L'initiative est conforme aux principes de la "stratégie industrielle" établie par le ministère britannique de la Défense, ont souligné les deux industriels dans un communiqué. Ce document de décembre 2005 préconisait une consolidation entre constructeurs navals. En mars dernier, BAE et VT avaient annoncé envisager de lancer une offre conjointe sur la société de services Babcock International, présente dans la formation militaire, l'entretien de bases navales, les infrastructures ferroviaires et les réseaux d'électricité et de télécommunications, avant d'y renoncer deux mois plus tard.

[Silgar]

Voila ca confirme ce que je dit. Ce qu'ils appellent 3 porte-avions se sont des porte-aeronef (il suffit de regarder le chiffre entre parenthese qui indique le nombre d'avion embarqué il est de 16 c faible) qui emporte des Harrier. Ca n'a rien de comparable avec les futur CVF anglais ou meme avec loe CDG. Pour les fregates antiaerienne ca ne m'etonne pas qu'il en ai 11. Au debut il devait avoir 12 T45 en remplacement des T42. Ce chiffre a été reduit a 6

En même temps le CDG ne transporte que 24 appareils (pour 32 prévus initialement)... Pas de quoi pavoiser.

[seb24]

En même temps le CDG ne transporte que 24 appareils (pour 32 prévus initialement)... Pas de quoi pavoiser.

24 Rafale + 2/3 E2C et 6 Hélicos...

Niveau capacité operationnelle entre un PA classique et un petit porte aeronef la comparaison n'a pas vraiment lieu d'être.