Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Do we think this is a hint to FSS or is it just his typical over exaggeration of things?
Possible vessels that could be laid down in the UK in the next 10 years if funded in the upcoming integrated review.

3x Solid Support Ships
2x Littoral Support Ships
2x Disaster Relief/ Hospital Ships
8x Type 26 Frigates
5x Type 31 Frigates
2x Craft for Gibraltar Squadron
3x Replacements for RB1's
Unspecified number of Fisheries/ Border Patrol Vessels
Unspecified number of MHC vessels


It would tough going to get even half of this in the water before the Amphibs and the T45's need replaced in the 2030's.

Plenty of potential for a sustainable drumbeat if HMG would properly fund a sustainable plan going forward.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:How about this for a plan:

1. CL & Bae partner up on a new venture : English Big Docks Inc

2. Dig a big dock in that spare land, big enough for QE/POW, with removable cover in case it rains (I'm a caring employer)

3. Build additional sheds to make blocks & other bits to be dropped into big dock (carefully)

4. Win 3 ship FSS order to be built sequentially in big dock

5. Win QE/POW refit work
6. Move T26 Batch 2 there and speed up the build

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

This is more wind and piss from Boris first we need to see where his mates have invested i.e is it in the new H&W yards then you will see where the money is going

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by bobp »

Lord Jim wrote: trying to be optimistic in these times is rather painful.
Acutely painful.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by bobp »

Tempest414 wrote:This is more wind and piss from Boris

As always

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:then you will see where the money is going
Decisions pending the grouse shoot get-togethers ;)
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 »

How about R10 and R11. Just what we need for Global Britain (plus escorts and supply ships of course). :mrgreen:

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

I'm certain Boris will want to announce new ships to be built, so I'm sure at the least we'll have 2 FSS UK built, but I'd think that's the minimum. I wouldn't be surprised to see some other ships announced, too

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:I'm certain Boris will want to announce new ships to be built, so I'm sure at the least we'll have 2 FSS UK built, but I'd think that's the minimum. I wouldn't be surprised to see some other ships announced, too
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/britai ... r-ukraine/

An excerpt:
On 17 September The Prime Minister, speaking before the Commons Liaison Committee, said “On shipbuilding alone, you should look at the ambitions of the Defence Secretary and what we are doing with the Fleet Solid Support ships, the investments we are making in frigates, the Type 31s, the Type 26s. This is going to be a fantastic time for investment in shipbuilding.”

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:I'm certain Boris will want to announce new ships to be built, so I'm sure at the least we'll have 2 FSS UK built, but I'd think that's the minimum. I wouldn't be surprised to see some other ships announced, too
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/britai ... r-ukraine/

An excerpt:
On 17 September The Prime Minister, speaking before the Commons Liaison Committee, said “On shipbuilding alone, you should look at the ambitions of the Defence Secretary and what we are doing with the Fleet Solid Support ships, the investments we are making in frigates, the Type 31s, the Type 26s. This is going to be a fantastic time for investment in shipbuilding.”
No idea if this is credible or not, but there is some speculation on a deal to build Ukrainian ships....

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/britai ... r-ukraine/

Very speculative, but just occasionally 2+2=4....

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

dmereifield wrote: No idea if this is credible or not, but there is some speculation on a deal to build Ukrainian ships....

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/britai ... r-ukraine/

Very speculative, but just occasionally 2+2=4....
Or in this case 2+6="Global Britain".... :roll:

There's something very odd about the whole story (which in 2020 need not be a reason to disbelieve it).

Almost reads like a clipping from the 1990s, with the Vita Class derivative, the £1.2bn loan package and building two here with the rest built in Ukraine. Hardly the most cost effective way to build anymore.

I'm guessing BAE has kept ownership of the Super Vita design that the Greeks have been building locally. Just curious where in the UK they would build them?

Image

This article has a great deal more info though can't speak for the publication:
https://defence-ua.com/minds_and_ideas/ ... -1615.html
Only the first two hulls of the new boats will be built at a shipyard in the UK, and the other six are to come off the berths of one of the Ukrainian shipyards. To obtain the necessary qualifications, factory workers will take part in an internship at a British company, during the assembly of the first buildings. In addition, Ukraine will be provided with the necessary drawings and technical documentation to master production at its own facilities.
(Mods: Happy to repost this in the Ukraine or UK Shipbuilding thread if that's preferred?)

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Appledore being predicated on the assumption that there is a market also for smaller ships (than what our global navy requires)?
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)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ssion=true

Well, this pretty much confirms what we had already known: FSS to be UK built. FSS to be classified as "warships" so no need to go out to international tender....

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ssion=true

Well, this pretty much confirms what we had already known: FSS to be UK built. FSS to be classified as "warships" so no need to go out to international tender....
Also shows you as a Daily Mirror reader which is a bit sad :(

But on the other hand, all I could find in the Telegraph of the Ministers words in parliament today was this ..
Previous defence reviews were let down by funding rather than policy mistakes, the Defence Secretary has said.

Labour's shadow defence secretary John Healey asked if he would "avoid making the big mistakes of the last two" defence reviews in its Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.

Ben Wallace replied: "The mistakes of all the defence reviews, including the 1998 one - which was an exceptionally good review - and indeed Lord Drayson's review - was they weren't matched by funding.... The key here is to make sure our review is driven by threat, then the threat defines what we need to do to keep us safe at home and then the ambition defines how far we wish to go.

"All of that needs to be matched with the Treasury funding. If we are overambitious, underfunded or both, we end up in a position in a few years' time like we have been today and like we have been in the past.

"It has been my determination to support the men and women of the armed forces - that the shadow defence secretary talks about - by making sure we give them something we can afford and tailor our ambition to match our pocket."
I assume he was drunk.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ssion=true

Well, this pretty much confirms what we had already known: FSS to be UK built. FSS to be classified as "warships" so no need to go out to international tender....
Also shows you as a Daily Mirror reader which is a bit sad :(

But on the other hand, all I could find in the Telegraph of the Ministers words in parliament today was this ..
Previous defence reviews were let down by funding rather than policy mistakes, the Defence Secretary has said.

Labour's shadow defence secretary John Healey asked if he would "avoid making the big mistakes of the last two" defence reviews in its Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.

Ben Wallace replied: "The mistakes of all the defence reviews, including the 1998 one - which was an exceptionally good review - and indeed Lord Drayson's review - was they weren't matched by funding.... The key here is to make sure our review is driven by threat, then the threat defines what we need to do to keep us safe at home and then the ambition defines how far we wish to go.

"All of that needs to be matched with the Treasury funding. If we are overambitious, underfunded or both, we end up in a position in a few years' time like we have been today and like we have been in the past.

"It has been my determination to support the men and women of the armed forces - that the shadow defence secretary talks about - by making sure we give them something we can afford and tailor our ambition to match our pocket."
I assume he was drunk.
It’s a very weird comment, to me it started out as if he was saying the defined threat will determin what we need to spend ( great finally sounding good ) but then ended by sounding like he was saying we have to match what we get to the funding we can afford.

Now I know in a sence both can be true but they really can’t as we’ve seen the budget we can afford ( more like the little were willing to spend ) does not match or come close to the threats we are looking at facing.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by inch »

Doesn't tailor our ambition to our pocket and something we can afford just code for slash ,cut or reduce. It's all a load of baloney anyway the money men are going to dictate what we getting as usual ,it's never going to be what we need to do the job ,so don't let this rubbish they will try and spin as anything but .......when asked every politician says defence of the country is the first priority of any government then they get in and then don't prioritize defence first no matter what colour of politician lol

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ssion=true

Well, this pretty much confirms what we had already known: FSS to be UK built. FSS to be classified as "warships" so no need to go out to international tender....
Also shows you as a Daily Mirror reader which is a bit sad :(

But on the other hand, all I could find in the Telegraph of the Ministers words in parliament today was this ..
Previous defence reviews were let down by funding rather than policy mistakes, the Defence Secretary has said.

Labour's shadow defence secretary John Healey asked if he would "avoid making the big mistakes of the last two" defence reviews in its Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.

Ben Wallace replied: "The mistakes of all the defence reviews, including the 1998 one - which was an exceptionally good review - and indeed Lord Drayson's review - was they weren't matched by funding.... The key here is to make sure our review is driven by threat, then the threat defines what we need to do to keep us safe at home and then the ambition defines how far we wish to go.

"All of that needs to be matched with the Treasury funding. If we are overambitious, underfunded or both, we end up in a position in a few years' time like we have been today and like we have been in the past.

"It has been my determination to support the men and women of the armed forces - that the shadow defence secretary talks about - by making sure we give them something we can afford and tailor our ambition to match our pocket."
I assume he was drunk.
Don't be silly, I saw a link to the article on Twitter

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

A more official source for those that want one:
Ben Wallace wrote: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.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... lQuestions

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:which will build on the success of Type 31.
Interesting they state T-31 as a success unless they mean the procurement

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:
The Armchair Soldier wrote:which will build on the success of Type 31.
Interesting they state T-31 as a success unless they mean the procurement
What the odds of that being late and well over budget? I'd say, odds on given the complete lack of any shipbuilding experience in the builders. Design should be OK with OMT but build?

Over the past few days Think Defence has been waxing lyrical on what a stupid decision it was to place the Ajax order with unexperienced GD & LM. Type 31 with Babcocks is pretty close to the same and placing FSS with Harlands would be a third. Talk about putting yourself behind the 8 ball before you even start.

Of course giving the work to CL would alleviate some concerns but the MoD seems to enjoy avoiding common sense at every opportunity.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

According to Navylookout, a straight fight between “Team Resolute” (Harland Wolf, BMT, Navantia) and "Team ?" (Bae, Cammell Laird, Babcocks)

No prizes for whose picture this is. Presumably will be built in Spain and shipped to Northern Ireland for a photo op.

Image

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Ron5 wrote:No prizes for whose picture this is. Presumably will be built in Spain and shipped to Northern Ireland for a photo op.
Couldn't agree more. Team Resolute is a Trojan horse.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

Surprised they don’t want to deliver it to Gibraltar, or perhaps they plan on taking NI hostage against the return of Gibraltar? :mrgreen:

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:“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?
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: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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."

Post Reply