Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Ron5 wrote:
Presumably will be built in Spain and shipped to Northern Ireland for a photo op.
IMO, here is the crucial phrase from the DS Ben Wallace MP,
"We intend to encourage international partners to work alongside UK firms for the bid..."
Here is his answer in full,
"We have already started a market engagement exercise and have had a healthy response. I intend to announce the procurement timetable for the warships in due course, after market testing has completed. We intend to encourage international partners to work alongside UK firms for the bid, which will build on the success of Type 31."
Exactly so. This is facing up to the reality that there isn't the industrial capacity in the UK currently.

Agree with Ron that the candidate that could maximise UK content would involve Cammell rather than H&W.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Yeah I also thought that one was a bit odd, one is a legit ship builder (CL) whereas the other is a dry-dock (HW).
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RichardIC wrote: facing up to the reality that there isn't the industrial capacity in the UK currently.

Agree with Ron that the candidate that could maximise UK content would involve Cammell rather than H&W.
But then again, BMT seems to be able to 'churn' out good stuff; I think the extent of their international involvement is not fully recognised

It is true that this could look much like the army's screw-driver (plant) projects, as in
shark bait wrote:whereas the other is a dry-dock
but then again, once you let the rot properly set in you can try tooth implants (before going for false teeth altogether)
- the former Navantia/ BMT/ H&W and the latter what was done with the fleet tankers
- at least the former builds capacity for 'the next steps' whereas the latter is akin to maintenance and overhaul work on the forever-older RFA vessels
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Surprised they don’t want to deliver it to Gibraltar, or perhaps they plan on taking NI hostage against the return of Gibraltar? :mrgreen:
In a trade, I know which one I would keep :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:“Team Resolute” (Harland Wolf, BMT, Navantia)
BMT to score on 100% of the deliveries that (along 'the long and winding road') came out of Project MARS?
- is there any idea how much tonnage growth (vs. Navantia deliveries todate) would be involved
- i.e is the British design in name only, or for real?
Bae has at least a concept design. No pictures so far I believe. But when it appears they will be instantly recognizable as Bae ..

... it will be painted in a Union Jack.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RichardIC wrote: facing up to the reality that there isn't the industrial capacity in the UK currently.

Agree with Ron that the candidate that could maximise UK content would involve Cammell rather than H&W.
But then again, BMT seems to be able to 'churn' out good stuff; I think the extent of their international involvement is not fully recognised

It is true that this could look much like the army's screw-driver (plant) projects, as in
shark bait wrote:whereas the other is a dry-dock
but then again, once you let the rot properly set in you can try tooth implants (before going for false teeth altogether)
- the former Navantia/ BMT/ H&W and the latter what was done with the fleet tankers
- at least the former builds capacity for 'the next steps' whereas the latter is akin to maintenance and overhaul work on the forever-older RFA vessels
But why build a shipbuilding capability in Northern Island when there is too much build capability on the mainland? Doesn't make any kind of sense to me. But then again I'm not a UK politician.

And I mean build capability, not design. I still believe there is a current design capacity shortfall that could impact FSS. Although other, more expert guys here disagree.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:why build a shipbuilding capability in Northern Island
They get given a bn xtra in every round
... and now Boris has a special reason (and I don't mean propping up his state aid agenda; also a reason. And adds credence to the shipbuilding renaissance promised - across the islands).

Also, if his gvmnt adds more years into getting the carriers 'fully operational' then in the eyes of many Tories he will be placed in the same part of the Defence wax museum as Cameron and Osborne.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Three is officially a requirement. No surprise but will HMG fund it?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Three is officially a requirement. No surprise but will HMG fund it?
I say, I say: Nicht Gut :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Three is officially a requirement. No surprise but will HMG fund it?
Up to the MoD in a finite budget spend more in one area you spend less in another it was ever thus.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not when there was the Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry. :mrgreen:

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

SW1 wrote:Up to the MoD in a finite budget spend more in one area you spend less in another it was ever thus.
And this was also discussed. The response was any cuts to carrier strike means no carrier strike. We are looking to make cuts elsewhere.

At this point I'm not sure whether we're looking at sunk costs fallacy on a colossal scale and I'm a total carrier strike fanboy.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

RichardIC wrote:
SW1 wrote:Up to the MoD in a finite budget spend more in one area you spend less in another it was ever thus.
And this was also discussed. The response was any cuts to carrier strike means no carrier strike. We are looking to make cuts elsewhere.

At this point I'm not sure whether we're looking at sunk costs fallacy on a colossal scale and I'm a total carrier strike fanboy.
Yes I’m sure they are.

I’m sure you could guess my thoughts on the later question but hey ho.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Looks tiny
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil- ... australia/
but 'a plug in the middle' will :?: see to it
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

It looks little more than the required plug by itself! :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Looks tiny
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil- ... australia/
but 'a plug in the middle' will :?: see to it
This ship isn't connected in any way to FSS except that it was built in the same yard as one of the FSS bidders.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:one of the FSS bidders
u got it in one; please share what the others have built (in a relevant class) ;)
- more pertinently: as in, not designs that are about to be headed for the breakers
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:one of the FSS bidders
u got it in one; please share what the others have built (in a relevant class) ;)
- more pertinently: as in, not designs that are about to be headed for the breakers
Irrelevant.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:Irrelevant.
Answer the exam question
... or read it again :D
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Irrelevant.
Answer the exam question
... or read it again :D
Competitors built two 70k ton aircraft carriers, that trumps stores ships!!

Grade A++

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Will everybody please calm down. As long as we get at least one new FSS in the next five to six years that is all that counts, not who builds it or where. If the Politicians are determined to build the FSS in the UK then they need to cough up the extra new money from outside the MoD's overstretched budget.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: not who builds it or where
Quite a few view points on this have been shared (much further) upthread.

We shook off the government ‘stop‐go’ economic policies a while back, in the 60s, as such gvmnt restrictions had devastating impacts e.g. on Britain's 'high-ticket' consumer durables industries, preventing firms from fully exploiting economies of scale, reducing output growth and international competitiveness, and eroding industrial relations. For the ship building industry I can see some (belated :!: ) green shoots
... but a supertanker turns slowly (and capacity does not spring up like mushrooms, after a brief late summer shower). Would the FSSSs be/ become a case in point?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Will everybody please calm down. As long as we get at least one new FSS in the next five to six years that is all that counts, not who builds it or where. If the Politicians are determined to build the FSS in the UK then they need to cough up the extra new money from outside the MoD's overstretched budget.
You know that won't happen. All politicians are two faced bar stewards.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not “All”. Only “Some”, or perhaps “Too Many”. :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Not “All”. Only “Some”, or perhaps “Too Many”. :mrgreen:
Sooooo hard to name an exception! I don't know enough UK politicians to do that and I could not think of one in the US. John McCain perhaps but he's dead.

Post Reply