SumGui wrote:
I do wonder how much more capability the RN and UK in general would have by allowing the more non-British systems and design.
The Type 45s certainly have some impressive capabilities, but what if the Type 45 was built in the UK, with AEGIS and Mk41 instead, saving the development and integration costs of a low production number of systems? Is there reason to not switch over to a 127mm gun from wither the US or Italy?
SeaCeptor is looking very appealing right now - no reason that could have have carried on for integration with Artisan and AEGIS, but there are so many British versions of systems and weapons that I feel the UK could have much more capability if some of those items were let go. PAAMS was a joint venture - but a joint venture that only produced 10 systems - six of them British - no economy of scale there. I am not admonishing the performance of the system - just the economic affordability and future supportability of it.
A good example of the over-reach for pride is all the money put into various programs and overlong support to Nimrod. Excellent birds in their time - but did the UK need a Nimrod AEW when AWACS was already there? did the older Nimrods need to keep flying when economic replacements were at hand in other platforms? These strike me as pride decisions - trying to keep every capability in-house, and in the end they did go to the other viable alternatives out there but only after much of the Crown's money had already been thrown into a black hole.
I don't advocate buying everything from overseas - and the UK certainly already does a good job in some areas - but having domestic full capability in everything is simply untenable in an economic sense for a 'Medium Plus' size military force.
The UK is not a superpower - and that's not a bad thing - it tends to mean less trouble comes looking for you - but is is an economic reality.
I believe the UK defence budget could go farther with a broader consideration of the origin of certain capabilities, and allowing the defence development dollars to be focused on decidedly British items and what is done well (and is exportable) within the UK.
The first thing to note about UK defence spending is that defence is not the priority. That is how we have come to be in this mess. Political considerations are what is important. That means safeguarding jobs. For several years BAE had a government contract (which they have now agreed to drop in return for Type 26 orders) which earned them £250 Million a year whether or not they built anything!
As noted in the comedy Yes Minister, the point of the UK defence policy is not to defend the country ("the Russian's know it is not") but rather to make it look as though Britain is defended.
The Type 45 came out of the Horizon frigate project which was meant to provide a common hull for UK/France/Italy. In fact if you look at the Type 45 and the Horizons in French and Italian service you can see the similarities. The RN had slightly different requirements from the other two nations and so the Type 45 was born.
However, I agree that a lot of money could be saved if the UK would buy ships from overseas. The first three Type 26 frigates are going to cost £1,233 Million each. If we got DCNS or Fincantieri to build them I suspect it would be much cheaper.
The Type 26 will be armed with the US 127mm gun.
Nimrod was a typically British mess. How can we produce a good maritime patrol aircraft very cheaply? Use an existing airframe and pack it with state of the art electronics of course! Well the electronics were beyond the capability of the company producing them and the airframe was obsolete. So something cheap becomes a ridiculously expensive matter of pride (political and national) and the whole thing ends up in the toilet.
All UK governments are obsessed with saving money and if they have to spend a fortune to do it then they will!