Ron5 wrote:Google it dude, plenty of places to find out what was written.
You could start here:
https://bullishnews.com/babcock-in-talk ... -contract/
It would have been nice if that is the link that was posted instead.
Ron5 wrote:Google it dude, plenty of places to find out what was written.
You could start here:
https://bullishnews.com/babcock-in-talk ... -contract/
Just how many times did it go through Google translate to get that way?Ron5 wrote:I read that article and thought I was having a stroke.
It is still there and it hadn't been sold as recently as two weeks ago.I ust recently read about Meyer Warft (big in cruise ships... which, in their trn, tend to be big, too)
- Goliath , in their yard was mentioned
- does not need to be the same "Goliath"
- but is "ours" still there?
Doesn't that rather depend on how you calculate the price?Lord Jim wrote:Jesus, just tried to read the version Ron5 linked to, and I thought some of the Robo translations on You Tube were bad.
Regarding the contract, my view is the same, If Babcock and BAe can build the ships for the same price as an overseas builder, with support form the DTI if necessary then that is fine. But the Defence Budget is not there to support or create jobs so if they cannot then the contract should go to the best value company.
... or building RN T-31s and T-31e's (differently specced) in parallel?RichardIC wrote:as oblique reference to FSS build by the same partnership
......and the country loses money. I think Parker or someone else estimated that, built in Britain, 37 per cent of everything we spend comes back to the Treasury.Lord Jim wrote:Jesus, just tried to read the version Ron5 linked to, and I thought some of the Robo translations on You Tube were bad.
Regarding the contract, my view is the same, If Babcock and BAe can build the ships for the same price as an overseas builder, with support form the DTI if necessary then that is fine. But the Defence Budget is not there to support or create jobs so if they cannot then the contract should go to the best value company.
It's not smart to pay through the roof to maintain a merchant ship building capability.Ron5 wrote:I guess the UK is so much smarter than them (heavy sarcasm).
Agreed. As long as the procurement process is fair, and includes the financial benefits to treasury and the country in the figures we should look for the best deal. Anyone looking to recommend the Canadian system should look at the cost of the Asterix. It's not far from the cost of 3 Tide Class....Lord Jim wrote:Seeing the Canadian problems it is good to see we are not alone in having a screwed up procurement process. Government support for industry is on the whole a good thing as long as the money to do so comes form the right budget and Defence is not the one that should be used.
Cost or price? because that's the nub of the argument.Timmymagic wrote:Agreed. As long as the procurement process is fair, and includes the financial benefits to treasury and the country in the figures we should look for the best deal. Anyone looking to recommend the Canadian system should look at the cost of the Asterix. It's not far from the cost of 3 Tide Class....Lord Jim wrote:Seeing the Canadian problems it is good to see we are not alone in having a screwed up procurement process. Government support for industry is on the whole a good thing as long as the money to do so comes form the right budget and Defence is not the one that should be used.
Yes please, but we know that's not going to happen with this useless bunch in chargeLord Jim wrote:Simple solution, the Department for Trade and Industry subsidises a UK yard to enable it to built the FSS at the same price as those submitted by overseas ones.
The interesting/puzzling thing about this article is why publish it now?Ron5 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ilt-abroad
Yeah I know, it's the Guardian but still of interest even if rather unreliable.