UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 931
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby RichardIC » 30 Jul 2018, 17:35

Ron5 wrote:But the original poster implied (at least to me) that the CL bid was won on price alone and that future RFA ships should be awarded in the same way. I vehemently disagree with that blinkered viewpoint and so do many others.


I didn't imply that at all. The word I used was competitive.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Opinion3 » 30 Jul 2018, 18:20

A steady pipeline with funds is probably the most important piece of the jigsaw missing from a ship building strategy. Whether yards should focus / merge / slim-down etc. all seems like the easy bit thereon.

Can these 40,000 ton beasts resupply the OPVs? I am guessing not. ..... Sorry I am thinking war and whether the OPVs will prove to be useless.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2122
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Caribbean » 30 Jul 2018, 18:24

Ron5 wrote:I'd love to see the quote that supports this


As recently as 13 July, the Babcock “Team 31” were issuing invites to industry delegates to their Bristol Suppliers’ Conference with the clear assumption that the project was on track.


In a briefing paper earlier this year, Peter Roberts, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London, said senior naval leaders appeared to agree with Parker’s plan to “build warships for functionality (that is, speed, size and numbers), without considering the needs of combat.”


Speech by Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord.

........ broadly speaking, the Type 31e will need a hanger and flight deck for both a small helicopter and unmanned air vehicle, accommodation to augment the ship’s company with a variety of mission specialists as required, together with stowage for sea boats, disaster relief stores and other specialist equipment.

It will be operated by a core ships company of between 80-100 men and women and it needs to be sufficiently flexible to incorporate future developments in technology, including unmanned systems and novel weaponry as they come to the fore, so open architecture and modularity are a must...........

...............the navy I joined still had general purpose frigates like the Leander, Rothesay and Tribal class and, later, the Type 21s, which picked up many of the routine patrol tasks and allowed the specialist ASW frigates to focus on their core NATO role.

It was only when defence reductions at the end of the Cold War brought difficult choices that we moved to an all high end force.

So forgive the history lesson, but the point I’m making is the advent of a mixed force of Type 31 and Type 26 frigates is not a new departure for the Royal Navy, nor is it a ‘race to the bottom’; rather it marks a return to the concept of a balanced fleet.

And the Type 31e is not going to be a glorified patrol vessel or a cut price corvette. It’s going to be, as it needs to be, a credible frigate that reflects the time honoured standards and traditions of the Royal Navy..................


That's the 2-minute Google - you can find the rest yourself - there's plenty out there
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2633
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby abc123 » 30 Jul 2018, 19:16

Caribbean wrote:It’s going to be, a credible frigate


To paraphrase what the Iranians said few days ago: "Color me as not convinced" :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4982
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Jul 2018, 19:46

It is down to which definition of a credible Frigate you adhere to, and there are quite a few. If a vanilla T-21 counted as one with Mk8, Sea Lynx MK2, ix4 Sea Cat and a couple of manual auto cannon then pretty much all the T-31e designs could be classed as one.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2122
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Caribbean » 30 Jul 2018, 22:46

abc123 wrote:To paraphrase what the Iranians said few days ago: "Color me as not convinced"

Nope - Google doesn't come up with anything for "Color me as not convinced" and Iran.
Link please, so that we know what you're wibbling about this time.

Dishonest, as well, to doctor my post, so as to attribute a fragment of the First Sea Lord's quote to me.

Lord Jim wrote:It is down to which definition of a credible Frigate you adhere to

I was just quoting the 1SL's definition. The T31 RFI seems to mirror his words pretty closely. Almost as if the RN had a hand in drafting it.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3817
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 Jul 2018, 01:42

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I'd love to see the quote that supports this


Speech by Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord.
........ broadly speaking, the Type 31e will need a hanger and flight deck for both a small helicopter and unmanned air vehicle, accommodation to augment the ship’s company with a variety of mission specialists as required, together with stowage for sea boats, disaster relief stores and other specialist equipment.
It will be operated by a core ships company of between 80-100 men and women and it needs to be sufficiently flexible to incorporate future developments in technology, including unmanned systems and novel weaponry as they come to the fore, so open architecture and modularity are a must...........
...............the navy I joined still had general purpose frigates like the Leander, Rothesay and Tribal class and, later, the Type 21s, which picked up many of the routine patrol tasks and allowed the specialist ASW frigates to focus on their core NATO role.
It was only when defence reductions at the end of the Cold War brought difficult choices that we moved to an all high end force.
So forgive the history lesson, but the point I’m making is the advent of a mixed force of Type 31 and Type 26 frigates is not a new departure for the Royal Navy, nor is it a ‘race to the bottom’; rather it marks a return to the concept of a balanced fleet.
And the Type 31e is not going to be a glorified patrol vessel or a cut price corvette. It’s going to be, as it needs to be, a credible frigate that reflects the time honoured standards and traditions of the Royal Navy..................

I was just quoting the 1SL's definition. The T31 RFI seems to mirror his words pretty closely. Almost as if the RN had a hand in drafting it.
Are you all contradicting? I felt you are all saying the same thing. In short,
Lord Jim wrote:It is down to which definition of a credible Frigate you adhere to
I read it when 1st SL said it, and just understood as a political comment = following the MODs will. My understanding is that; T31 can happily be a large OPV with a gun and CIWS (with hangar etc..), as was the T21. I understand 1st SL did not mention the ship to fight a war.

In the T31e RFI, only mention on "fight" is, on section 6.1, 4th para

T31e .. will operate predominantly in low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.

Very vague mention for fight, and all other requirements are constabulary and HADR. Therefore, "it up to us, how to define a credible frigate". I understand even RN and MOD has a different view on it. At least, 1st SL did not said anything about war fighting, as I understand.

So, no point to fight (or too vague definition of the words to fight). Yes, T31e itself is very vague.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2633
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby abc123 » 31 Jul 2018, 08:47

Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:To paraphrase what the Iranians said few days ago: "Color me as not convinced"

Nope - Google doesn't come up with anything for "Color me as not convinced" and Iran.
Link please, so that we know what you're wibbling about this time.

Dishonest, as well, to doctor my post, so as to attribute a fragment of the First Sea Lord's quote to me.



About Iran:
https://www.google.hr/amp/s/amp.cnn.com ... index.html

And nobody doctored anything it was a simple mistake, plus using my phone...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Jul 2018, 09:15

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I read it when 1st SL said it, and just understood as a political comment = following the MODs will. My understanding is that; T31 can happily be a large OPV with a gun and CIWS (with hangar etc..), as was the T21. I understand 1st SL did not mention the ship to fight a war.
Some of his statements have seemed very odd to me but I suspect what is said in public is very different to what is said in private.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In the T31e RFI, only mention on "fight" is, on section 6.1, 4th para

T31e .. will operate predominantly in low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.

Very vague mention for fight, and all other requirements are constabulary and HADR. Therefore, "it up to us, how to define a credible frigate". I understand even RN and MOD has a different view on it. At least, 1st SL did not said anything about war fighting, as I understand.
The more I look at the requirements for the T31 the more it appears (at least to me) that RN would be served better by a more multipurpose design than a budget patrol frigate. In my opinion, based on current planning these vessels are going to reduce capabilities than RN enjoyed in the past and not provide the capabilities that RN will require in the future. The worst of both worlds.

If a Frigate can't fight and win, is it a Frigate in name only?

clinch
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby clinch » 31 Jul 2018, 09:32

Lord Jim wrote:
clinch wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:I understand the wider benefits to the UK but we should not be spending more than we have to of the Defence Budget to support jobs and industry. Other departments have funding to do just that. The alternative is for the MoD to charge every other department when its assets are used to provide support and also for he construction of the platforms that may be asked to provide assistance and the training and support of the personnel who operate them.


So we end up sending all our jobs abroad, the economy contracts and the defence budget gets even smaller.


Well if we want to manufacture our own kit then we have to pay for it, so hands up all who want a 5-10% increase in income tax. I am not saying all defence procurement should go to the cheapest bidder, there are areas where we are still top table manufacturers in the area of defence but building what are basically merchant vessels is not one of them. If we had a vibrant and profitable ship building industry like we used to have I would see no problem, but we have to pick out battles when it comes to retaining highly skilled manufacturing job and capabilities. Would you prefer to see the numbers of actual warships cut further so we can spend money we don't need to buying RFAs form UK yards that cannot compete on the world stage. No industry can survive today relying in orders from the UK Government. They either have to expand internationally like BAe or achieve exports sales. If we are going to simply pay whatever in the name of job creation we might as well re nationalise all out current defence industries, pay people's wages from taxation and watch things gradually fall apart.


You are missing the point. If anything, it would be less tax because it would be cheaper.

As a simple example. Say we wanted to buy a certain widget that cost £120 in the UK. We can buy it for £100 in South Korea. However, if we order the UK widget, the tax paid by the company and workers making that widget comes straight back to us. If the tax return is 20 per cent, the bottom line price of that widget would be £96. If the tax return is 30 per cent, the price would be £84. Incidentally, I think Sir John Parker put the figure at more like 37 per cent.

So, not only do we retain the skills and the ability to manufacture this widget in the UK, but we also get it cheaper.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1800
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jake1992 » 31 Jul 2018, 09:40

clinch wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
clinch wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:I understand the wider benefits to the UK but we should not be spending more than we have to of the Defence Budget to support jobs and industry. Other departments have funding to do just that. The alternative is for the MoD to charge every other department when its assets are used to provide support and also for he construction of the platforms that may be asked to provide assistance and the training and support of the personnel who operate them.


So we end up sending all our jobs abroad, the economy contracts and the defence budget gets even smaller.


Well if we want to manufacture our own kit then we have to pay for it, so hands up all who want a 5-10% increase in income tax. I am not saying all defence procurement should go to the cheapest bidder, there are areas where we are still top table manufacturers in the area of defence but building what are basically merchant vessels is not one of them. If we had a vibrant and profitable ship building industry like we used to have I would see no problem, but we have to pick out battles when it comes to retaining highly skilled manufacturing job and capabilities. Would you prefer to see the numbers of actual warships cut further so we can spend money we don't need to buying RFAs form UK yards that cannot compete on the world stage. No industry can survive today relying in orders from the UK Government. They either have to expand internationally like BAe or achieve exports sales. If we are going to simply pay whatever in the name of job creation we might as well re nationalise all out current defence industries, pay people's wages from taxation and watch things gradually fall apart.


You are missing the point. If anything, it would be less tax because it would be cheaper.

As a simple example. Say we wanted to buy a certain widget that cost £120 in the UK. We can buy it for £100 in South Korea. However, if we order the UK widget, the tax paid by the company and workers making that widget comes straight back to us. If the tax return is 20 per cent, the bottom line price of that widget would be £96. If the tax return is 30 per cent, the price would be £84. Incidentally, I think Sir John Parker put the figure at more like 37 per cent.

So, not only do we retain the skills and the ability to manufacture this widget in the UK, but we also get it cheaper.


I complety agree with this but my big concern would be wether the treasury would give the the tax saving back to the mod or not

If not ( as suspect they wouldn't ) then the mod ends up paying more as they are used to prop up uk industry instead of other departments doing this.

The only way I could see it working is of the relivent department stumped up the extra cost to the mod up front, else the mod will be once again waiting on jam from the treasury that will never come

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4982
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Lord Jim » 31 Jul 2018, 11:07

Jake1992 wrote:
clinch wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
clinch wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:I understand the wider benefits to the UK but we should not be spending more than we have to of the Defence Budget to support jobs and industry. Other departments have funding to do just that. The alternative is for the MoD to charge every other department when its assets are used to provide support and also for he construction of the platforms that may be asked to provide assistance and the training and support of the personnel who operate them.


So we end up sending all our jobs abroad, the economy contracts and the defence budget gets even smaller.


Well if we want to manufacture our own kit then we have to pay for it, so hands up all who want a 5-10% increase in income tax. I am not saying all defence procurement should go to the cheapest bidder, there are areas where we are still top table manufacturers in the area of defence but building what are basically merchant vessels is not one of them. If we had a vibrant and profitable ship building industry like we used to have I would see no problem, but we have to pick out battles when it comes to retaining highly skilled manufacturing job and capabilities. Would you prefer to see the numbers of actual warships cut further so we can spend money we don't need to buying RFAs form UK yards that cannot compete on the world stage. No industry can survive today relying in orders from the UK Government. They either have to expand internationally like BAe or achieve exports sales. If we are going to simply pay whatever in the name of job creation we might as well re nationalise all out current defence industries, pay people's wages from taxation and watch things gradually fall apart.


You are missing the point. If anything, it would be less tax because it would be cheaper.

As a simple example. Say we wanted to buy a certain widget that cost £120 in the UK. We can buy it for £100 in South Korea. However, if we order the UK widget, the tax paid by the company and workers making that widget comes straight back to us. If the tax return is 20 per cent, the bottom line price of that widget would be £96. If the tax return is 30 per cent, the price would be £84. Incidentally, I think Sir John Parker put the figure at more like 37 per cent.

So, not only do we retain the skills and the ability to manufacture this widget in the UK, but we also get it cheaper.


I complety agree with this but my big concern would be wether the treasury would give the the tax saving back to the mod or not

If not ( as suspect they wouldn't ) then the mod ends up paying more as they are used to prop up uk industry instead of other departments doing this.

The only way I could see it working is of the relivent department stumped up the extra cost to the mod up front, else the mod will be once again waiting on jam from the treasury that will never come


That is my point exactly, get the DTI to sub the Yard the amount and then they get reimbursed by the Treasury. AS I have been banging on about all this time, I have no problem with orders going to UK yards as long as the MoD doesn't have to pay a premium out of its budget. Other nations "Protect" their industries using similar methods as has been suggested, it is about time we realised that playing by all the rules puts you at a disadvantage and costs you more.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3817
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 Jul 2018, 11:12

clinch wrote:As a simple example. Say we wanted to buy a certain widget that cost £120 in the UK. We can buy it for £100 in South Korea. However, if we order the UK widget, the tax paid by the company and workers making that widget comes straight back to us. If the tax return is 20 per cent, the bottom line price of that widget would be £96. If the tax return is 30 per cent, the price would be £84. Incidentally, I think Sir John Parker put the figure at more like 37 per cent.

So, not only do we retain the skills and the ability to manufacture this widget in the UK, but we also get it cheaper.
Anyway we need more detailed fact on "what fraction will come back as a tax". Building a SSS is not purely of UK origin. Many equipments will be bought from the market, which may not be British. Many (if not all) companies are "not" paying tax, because they have deficit in other fields (or something like Starbucks). The same labors will be working on other projects, earning money from Norway or Denmark (e.g. offshore industry) or others, and T31e program may stop these contracts. Or orders from British offshore industry may go abroad.

No it is not easy calculation.

I think 37% is not correct (simply because it is the number proposed from ship-building industry insiders). Surely, Treasury can do the calculation. It is politics, to ORDER Treasury to do it.

clinch
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby clinch » 31 Jul 2018, 17:11

Francis Tusa of Defence Analysis put together a report for the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, pressing the case for building the ships in the UK.

He puts the tax and national insurance return at 20 per cent.

Building FSS in the UK would contribute to the nation’s prosperity. There would be a direct tax and National Insurance return to the Treasury worth up to £415m - 20% of the contract cost.
Data from other countries indicates that naval shipbuilding has a multiplier effect of 1.35, so for every £1 spent, £1.35 is generated in long-term benefits. On a £1bn programme cost, the UK would benefit to the tune of £1.35bn. Building the ships overseas would simply hand this benefit to someone else.


The report is here:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/FleetSupportShips-2018-05-1411-34321.pdf

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5095
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jul 2018, 17:32

RichardIC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:But the original poster implied (at least to me) that the CL bid was won on price alone and that future RFA ships should be awarded in the same way. I vehemently disagree with that blinkered viewpoint and so do many others.


I didn't imply that at all. The word I used was competitive.


Then I have zero idea why you made the comment. It seems pointless without a definition of what "competitive" means.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5095
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jul 2018, 17:36

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I'd love to see the quote that supports this


As recently as 13 July, the Babcock “Team 31” were issuing invites to industry delegates to their Bristol Suppliers’ Conference with the clear assumption that the project was on track.


In a briefing paper earlier this year, Peter Roberts, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London, said senior naval leaders appeared to agree with Parker’s plan to “build warships for functionality (that is, speed, size and numbers), without considering the needs of combat.”


Speech by Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord.

........ broadly speaking, the Type 31e will need a hanger and flight deck for both a small helicopter and unmanned air vehicle, accommodation to augment the ship’s company with a variety of mission specialists as required, together with stowage for sea boats, disaster relief stores and other specialist equipment.

It will be operated by a core ships company of between 80-100 men and women and it needs to be sufficiently flexible to incorporate future developments in technology, including unmanned systems and novel weaponry as they come to the fore, so open architecture and modularity are a must...........

...............the navy I joined still had general purpose frigates like the Leander, Rothesay and Tribal class and, later, the Type 21s, which picked up many of the routine patrol tasks and allowed the specialist ASW frigates to focus on their core NATO role.

It was only when defence reductions at the end of the Cold War brought difficult choices that we moved to an all high end force.

So forgive the history lesson, but the point I’m making is the advent of a mixed force of Type 31 and Type 26 frigates is not a new departure for the Royal Navy, nor is it a ‘race to the bottom’; rather it marks a return to the concept of a balanced fleet.

And the Type 31e is not going to be a glorified patrol vessel or a cut price corvette. It’s going to be, as it needs to be, a credible frigate that reflects the time honoured standards and traditions of the Royal Navy..................


That's the 2-minute Google - you can find the rest yourself - there's plenty out there


None of these quotes supports your statement that "The two consortia involved both seem to think that, from their perspective, the project is both on track and of a standard to be acceptable to the RN"

Seeing the program just got stopped, why on earth would either consortium still think it's on track? That's daft.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5095
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jul 2018, 17:39

clinch wrote:Francis Tusa of Defence Analysis put together a report for the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, pressing the case for building the ships in the UK.

He puts the tax and national insurance return at 20 per cent.

Building FSS in the UK would contribute to the nation’s prosperity. There would be a direct tax and National Insurance return to the Treasury worth up to £415m - 20% of the contract cost.
Data from other countries indicates that naval shipbuilding has a multiplier effect of 1.35, so for every £1 spent, £1.35 is generated in long-term benefits. On a £1bn programme cost, the UK would benefit to the tune of £1.35bn. Building the ships overseas would simply hand this benefit to someone else.


The report is here:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/FleetSupportShips-2018-05-1411-34321.pdf


And he states data from other countries indicates a 135% return. I've seen data from French reports of over 200% benefit to their economy.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 931
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby RichardIC » 31 Jul 2018, 18:15

Ron5 wrote:It seems pointless without a definition of what "competitive" means.


You're an intelligent man. You know what competitive means. What it doesn't mean is price alone.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2122
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Caribbean » 31 Jul 2018, 18:57

abc123 wrote:And nobody doctored anything it was a simple mistake, plus using my phone...

Good of you to acknowledge your fallibility - I retract my statement and apologise.
clinch wrote:Incidentally, I think Sir John Parker put the figure at more like 37 per cent.

and
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think 37% is not correct (simply because it is the number proposed from ship-building industry insiders). Surely, Treasury can do the calculation. It is politics, to ORDER Treasury to do it.

HMG tax take is 36.9% of GDP (please see link to a recent IFS study below), so any portion of the project that goes towards increasing UK GDP, rather than another countries, increases HMG's tax take.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

Total UK government receipts are forecast to be £716.5 billion in 2016–17, or 36.9% of UK GDP. This is equivalent to roughly £13,500 for every adult in the UK, or £10,900 per person. Not all of this revenue comes from taxes: taxes as defined in the National Accounts are forecast to raise £665.1 billion in 2016–17, with the remainder provided by surpluses of public sector industries, rent from state-owned properties and so on.


The surpluses of state-owned industries etc come to around 6.4% (or £45b)

Jake1992 wrote:my big concern would be wether the treasury would give the the tax saving back to the mod or not

Indeed - it won't - that is the major issue.

Ron5 wrote:None of these quotes supports your statement that "The two consortia involved both seem to think that, from their perspective, the project is both on track and of a standard to be acceptable to the RN"

Riiiiiiiight. Okaaay, Whatever you say. Must be reading something different to me. Though the fact that I'm sipping on a cup of tea and not BAE coolaid probably has something to do with it.

Ron5 wrote:Seeing the program just got stopped, why on earth would either consortium still think it's on track? That's daft.

It's a thing called time, Ron - some things happen before others. The sequence is important. You understand that the 13th of July comes before the 24th of July, I hope? So on the earlier date, Team 31 thought it was on track - and were planning for future events. THEN the MOD paused the competition.

Funnily enough, Save the Royal Navy has also rowed back on the original post and now considers the current state to be no more than a pause for technical reasons.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

PapaGolf
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 21:43
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby PapaGolf » 31 Jul 2018, 20:16

abc123 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:To paraphrase what the Iranians said few days ago: "Color me as not convinced"

Nope - Google doesn't come up with anything for "Color me as not convinced" and Iran.
Link please, so that we know what you're wibbling about this time.

Dishonest, as well, to doctor my post, so as to attribute a fragment of the First Sea Lord's quote to me.



About Iran:
https://www.google.hr/amp/s/amp.cnn.com ... index.html

And nobody doctored anything it was a simple mistake, plus using my phone...

abc123 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:To paraphrase what the Iranians said few days ago: "Color me as not convinced"

Nope - Google doesn't come up with anything for "Color me as not convinced" and Iran.
Link please, so that we know what you're wibbling about this time.

Dishonest, as well, to doctor my post, so as to attribute a fragment of the First Sea Lord's quote to me.



About Iran:
https://www.google.hr/amp/s/amp.cnn.com ... index.html

And nobody doctored anything it was a simple mistake, plus using my phone...


And now we know your nationality, which you seem so keen to keep secret :thumbup:

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2633
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby abc123 » 01 Aug 2018, 08:30

PapaGolf wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:To paraphrase what the Iranians said few days ago: "Color me as not convinced"

Nope - Google doesn't come up with anything for "Color me as not convinced" and Iran.
Link please, so that we know what you're wibbling about this time.

Dishonest, as well, to doctor my post, so as to attribute a fragment of the First Sea Lord's quote to me.



About Iran:
https://www.google.hr/amp/s/amp.cnn.com ... index.html

And nobody doctored anything it was a simple mistake, plus using my phone...

abc123 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:To paraphrase what the Iranians said few days ago: "Color me as not convinced"

Nope - Google doesn't come up with anything for "Color me as not convinced" and Iran.
Link please, so that we know what you're wibbling about this time.

Dishonest, as well, to doctor my post, so as to attribute a fragment of the First Sea Lord's quote to me.



About Iran:
https://www.google.hr/amp/s/amp.cnn.com ... index.html

And nobody doctored anything it was a simple mistake, plus using my phone...


And now we know your nationality, which you seem so keen to keep secret :thumbup:


I'm simply amazed by your deduction capabilities... :lolno:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

PapaGolf
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 21:43
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby PapaGolf » 01 Aug 2018, 10:09

Unless using Croatian google was a clever deception, Comrade. :)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2633
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby abc123 » 01 Aug 2018, 11:44

PapaGolf wrote:Unless using Croatian google was a clever deception, Comrade. :)


Maybe I'm on vacations in Croatia... :think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2346
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Aug 2018, 12:17

well if you are on this site when on holiday that is quite sad however I don't care where you are from. There are people on here from all over the world some come with great stuff others talk shit ( and that just a matter of opinion for each of us )

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2428
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby dmereifield » 01 Aug 2018, 12:24

abc123 wrote:
PapaGolf wrote:Unless using Croatian google was a clever deception, Comrade. :)


Maybe I'm on vacations in Croatia... :think:


A "staycation" in Croatia


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests