Shipyard rationalisation

For all things Clyde-related
User avatar
Brianh
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:21 am

Shipyard rationalisation

Post by Brianh » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:00 pm

On 6th November it was announced that shipbuilding at Portsmouth was to end. As a consequence 3 blocks for the second aircraft carrier were to be built on the Clyde instead of Portsmouth. In addition, to maintain a shipbuilding flow 3 offshore patrol vessels were to be built on the Clyde - these were to be a development of the River class extended by 30 metres and having a flight deck capable of taking a Merlin helicopter, build is expected to start by the end of 2014. I believe the 3 OPVs will be built in the shed at Scotstoun. It is not clear how they will be employed but it seems they could be deployed beyond UK waters.

User avatar
alasdairmac
Posts: 1015
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: Shipyard rationalisation

Post by alasdairmac » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:43 pm

The present lack of surface warships in home waters is an absolute disgrace - more often than not the only law-enforcement vessels around the Scottish coast are our own FPVs. Hopefully the RN will see fit to base them here to protect our maritime assets but I wont hold my breath.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

yorkieman
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:41 am
Location: Cottingham, Hull
Contact:

Re: Shipyard rationalisation

Post by yorkieman » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:52 pm

Hang on a minute Alasdair, you'll be building your own presumably to protect Scottish waters? ;)
George Robinson
Freeman of Eriskay

User avatar
Dennis Maccoy
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:58 pm
Location: South Shields

Re: Shipyard rationalisation

Post by Dennis Maccoy » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:03 pm

A 30 metre stretch of the River class is a length increase of almost 40% - virtually a new design. More likely to be a derivative of the T&T (now Brazilian) OPVs (90m) or possibly the Omani Corvettes (99m). 30m longer than the Rivers with a Merlin-capable flight deck (& hangar?) would suggest the latter.

The lack of surface warships is a disgrace – full stop. However, as opinion polls suggest that only about 2% of the electorate consider defence to be a high priority for government spending and for the last 20-odd years governing parties across the political spectrum and throughout the length & breadth of the UK have prioritised every other area of spending above defence, it’s not going to get any better.

The electorate has spoken – welfare before defence. We might get away with it – after all most people never have to call on the house insurance – but if it’s the wrong call we’re all in deep trouble – was it Lenin who said “you might not be interested in war but war might be interested in you”?.
Regards,

Dennis

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Shipyard rationalisation

Post by Allan » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:39 pm

The argument at this time seems to be that the UK Government is “cow-towing” to Scotland, to the extent that if we vote against independence, we will benefit. This appears to be supported by the contents of BrianH’s post #1, which indicates the “carrot-dangling” aspect of the proposals.

It is the UK government which determines the requirements for the UK’s defence programme.
If Scotland votes to be independent, we are no longer part of the UK, then the ”UK (minus Scotland) Government” still determines the requirements for the UK’s defence programme.

Do they then have an obligation to consider the Clyde as a viable option? I don’t think so.

Which puts us all (almost) back where we started – do we accept the status quo, or do we make the leap of faith and take our chances into the unknown?
Allan Macmillan

User avatar
alasdairmac
Posts: 1015
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: Shipyard rationalisation

Post by alasdairmac » Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:01 pm

Allan. The UK ceases to exist when we become independent (remember that the Kingdom in the UK is that formed by the union of 1707, which will be annulled). England can make and pay for whatever defence policy it wishes - Scotland will do its own thing and we can be fairly sure that that will not include WMD or the horrendous expense of equipping with the ability to invade far distant lands.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

User avatar
Brianh
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:21 am

Re: Shipyard rationalisation

Post by Brianh » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:01 pm

To correct my original post - the OPV is to be 30 ft longer (rather than metres), see the comment from Dennis.

Post Reply

Return to “CLYDE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests