Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Aethulwulf »

Ron5 wrote:But why did they leave submarines off the list of ships that have to be built in the UK? did they just forget?

.. and why are opponents of the build FSS offshore so hung up on the EU definition of a warship when it doesn't appear to be relevant?

.. and why are Type 31's classified as complex warships (and therefore need to be built in the UK), when everyone knows they will be rather simple ships in order to meet the price cap?

Seems a lot of dumbassery going around.
The scope of the UK National Shipbuilding Strategy includes all naval surface ships including design, supply chain (raw materials, equipment and systems), manufacture, assembly integration and trials and acceptance. It does not include: small boats that are commercially available; submarines; maritime aviation; ship procurement undertaken by other Government departments

-bottom of page 6

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 »

Ron5 wrote:Seems a lot of dumbassery going around.
That's the shipbuilding strategy in a nutshell!
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

On the SavetheRoyalNavy thread on FSS.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/defenc ... ion-rules/

Not a Buffin-san explains how he think Sir Humphrey is correct in saying there is no capacity within UK to build FSS, provided T31e goes on. I am not sure how his comment is correct, but I feel his comment to date was reliable (if not kind), so I am convinced.

T31e or FSS. Not both.

For me? Of course, cut T31e and happy to build FSS in UK :thumbup:

[note] I am supporting "1 more T26 and 3-4 Floreal" proposal, or "2 more T26 and improving River B2s", but I am also NOT too much against T31e. If RN goes on with T31e, I will be a bit disappointed but still not the end of the world. As many here says, and also as I myself comments, T31e itself has its own rationale. The reason I am not so strongly supporting T31e is just because of "damage control" for future cut, in SDSR2020.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e or FSS. Not both.
Are you serious?

I could give you a lot of reasons why the statement above is incorrect but try these for starters,

Now that Appledore is closing (apparently) and Rosyth isn't a shipyard (apparently) where is Babcock going to build the T31's if it wins the competition?

If Atlas Electronik win the T31 competition where are they going to build their frigates?

Is Fergusons on the Clyde going to fabricate the entire hulls and then float them across to Belfast for fitting out as H&W isn't a shipyard?

Is Fergusons even a shipyard?

Is Cammell Laird a shipyard or just series of big holes in the ground?

What about A&P? Can they bid for work building blocks or are they excluded as they aren't considered as shipyards either.

Happy to go through this bit by bit if you want to but the UK is perfectly capable of building the T26's, T31's and the FSS vessels if HMG want to.

It's a lack of political will, not a lack of industrial capacity.

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e or FSS. Not both.
That's tricky to justify. Today there are three British yards building complete ships, so it's entirely feasible to suggest running three domestic programs in parallel in the 20's. Hell, they could even order blocks from abroad to cover any capacity gaps.

No comment on the economics, but it is totally feasible.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e or FSS. Not both.
Are you serious?...It's a lack of political will, not a lack of industrial capacity.
Yes I am serious. I understand your point. But, NAB-san comment is totally incorrect? I do not think so. Rothys do not have steel work, I read it somewhere else. Appledore is almost dead, because of inefficiency.

Yes UK can build anything, if you have plenty of money. For example, Rothys can build new steel work there, if payed. But with what expense?

I think You and NAB-san are BOTH correct. "Can do" is not "can build it efficiency". But, if the inefficiency it is not within 20-30%, the tax-refund level, do you really want to sacrifice RN/RFA capability to save shipyards?

I am happy to support "taking into account the tax refund level" on the bid price (for both imported and UK-build options). It is fair. Even a 3-5% "affirmative" option can added. But, shutting out foreign bid is really good point?

- Babcock abandones Appledore. No hope, they thought.
- Camell Laired is cutting manpower, even though they get big RFA and T45 refit bids. They are not optimistic of more building work in future, even though they got MV SDA. And, I think CL's infrastructure is one of the best place, much better than Appledore or Rothys (= Babcock).
- H&W, I'm not sure. But NAB-san says "Most fabrication facilities demolished some years ago, particularly panel line...". Is he lying?

Why are there so many small, incompetitive shipyards? Is UK shipbuilding industry really trying hard to survive? I am not familiar with these situations, so I want to ask you all.

Is NAB-san lying?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

While I'm loathed to agree with a Tory minister on most things my hunch has always been that this is about making sure a UK bid is at least competitive.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?i ... 8.0#g168.6
The whole point of the national shipbuilding strategy is to make our shipyards as competitive as possible. For far too long, our shipyards have depended too often on defence for their work. The whole point of the strategy is to try to make them as competitive as possible and to challenge them. The Type 31e frigate competition that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is one such challenge to industry to consider how it can become more competitive, so it can go out to the wider world and start winning competitions.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Use it or lose it. It's very very simple.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yes I am serious. I understand your point. But, NAB-san comment is totally incorrect? I do not think so.
It depends on whether you are talking about the infrastructure in place today or the infrastructure that could be built if a large £1bn order went a consortium's way. In general terms it is true that a lot of UK yards have diversified over the past 20 to 30 years and this has led to a reduction in ship building capacity and efficiency. That is true.

In effect with a £1bn order on the books the yard(s) would have to diversify again - but this time back to ship building from what has been sustaining many of the aforementioned yards, namely contracts from the oil&gas and wind energy sectors.

The current conundrum for British yards is that without orders on the books the investment required to upgrade the yards back up to a standard high enough to enable them to get properly back into the shipbuilding game cannot be warranted. Orders must be placed to secure the necessary investment. Classical chicken and egg....

Lots of yards have been mentioned but the most important one that has been left out of the discussion so far is Barrow. Just look at what guaranteed investment from HMG has done for this yard and the surrounding community. It's not perfect but it does show what can be done in a relatively short space of time, with the correct support, even when a lot of the skill and expertise has been lost albeit temporarily.

I agree that all of the yards cannot be supported and some probably aren't viable as purely ship building enterprises but allowing yard after yard go to the wall only a couple of years after unveiling the much trumpeted National Shipbuilding Strategy would be farcical. HMG could solve this issue tomorrow morning if it so desired but the political will currently isn't there.

I believe the UK needs a four yard strategy for constructing ships for the RN/RFA and Rosyth isn't one of them. That doesn't mean that Rosyth shouldn't have a future, it should, but not in its current role in my opinion.

This would be my approach,

1. Submarine centre of excellence at Barrow.
2. State of the art Frigate Factory at Scotstoun building all RN escorts.
3. Combined commercial enterprise between Cammell Laird and H&W to build all Auxiliary/Logistic/Amphibious vessels.
4. OPV, MHPC and Corvette centre of excellence at Appledore.

This approach spreads the work share more evenly across the UK resulting in following benefits,

1. The frigate factory at Scotstoun would be able to produce more frigates faster, lowering build costs and resulting in more escorts hitting the water.

2. The commercial enterprise between CL and H&W would enable both yards to support each other and float blocks across the Irish Sea as required. The combined output of these yards would be able to easily cope with the future build schedule of RFA and RN vessels. Industrial action at either yard would also have less of an impact using this combined build approach.

3. Appledore could build a business model around a drumbeat of OPV, MHPC and Corvette orders enabling these smaller RN vessels to be built in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible.

Rosyth would lose out but only in terms of actual shipbuilding. I would adapt Rosyth's role to act as the primary location for RN's non frigate/destroyer maintenance and refit work including the QE's. Rosyth could bid for the RFA maintenance and refit contracts along with other UK yards.
I think this is the pragmatic approach and would secure the future of UK shipbuilding for the foreseeable future. The work would be spread across the UK and in doing so help to secure the Union. Yes it would require substantial investment but so does HS2, CrossRail, Foreign Aid etc etc.

I don't have a problem opening up the bidding process for RFA vessels to international bids in an effort to encourage competition but it must be a level playing field. HMG must factor in recouped tax and lower welfare costs as well placing a value on supporting solid skilled careers in what are, In many instances fairly deprived areas of the UK.

Let's see if the National Shipbuilding Strategy is worth the paper it's written on.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

there could also be a 5th yard building & maintaining unmanned MCM , ASW craft and LCUs and RM raiding craft

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: true that a lot of UK yards have diversified over the past 20 to 30 years and this has led to a reduction in ship building capacity and efficiency.
+
Poiuytrewq wrote:have to diversify again - but this time back to ship building from what has been sustaining many of the aforementioned yards, namely contracts from the oil&gas and wind energy sectors.
Thank you! I have made that point many times that w/o the off-shore boom we would have v little left AND that the NSS is a response to that boom having come to a halt (as much as it is a response to the "unplanned" mass obsolescense of the RN escort fleet).
Poiuytrewq wrote: Classical chicken and egg....
Decision wise, yes. In economics it is called the pork cycle. If you slaughter too much of the "herd" to catch a price peak, you will be unable to grow the numbers back to benefit form the next one. Well observed e.g. in the mining industry, with the lead times that are involved in opening/ closing/ reopening mines.
- now, if NSS is called dog's breakfast, I would rather look at it in terms of a full English:
The chicken is participating (= the Gvmnt)
But the pig (the Industry) is/ will be committed.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Barrow. Just look at what guaranteed investment from HMG has done for this yard and the surrounding community
Was tempted to go and see when I was hiking on the other side of the mountain... but a wk end is too short for doing both :(

Yes, I think your proposal is rather good. What it would torpedo is this https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... ersion.jpg
- and let's carry through the image credit, too: Google/DigitalClobe
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)

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes, I think your proposal is rather good. What it would torpedo is this https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... ersion.jpg
- and let's carry through the image credit, too: Google/DigitalClobe
Does it have to kill the Portsmouth dry dock plans ? I mean we all know the faults with the rosyth in regards to the carriers, couldn't Portsmouth be built soley for the QEs and rosyth used for the rest as of the plan above ?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote:couldn't Portsmouth be built soley for the QEs and rosyth used for the rest as of the plan above ?
Sure (and personally I think we should, for reasons of resilience. Remember when QE had propeller shaft trouble and they had to ask around, whether Antwerp or St. Nazaire were 'immediately' available?)

I think (someone will know the details), though, that Rosyth costs are purely commercial whereas the Portsmouth facility (if seen through) would have an impact on defence budget... something else would have to go/ be delayed in order to find the funds?
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)

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:couldn't Portsmouth be built soley for the QEs and rosyth used for the rest as of the plan above ?
Sure (and personally I think we should, for reasons of resilience. Remember when QE had propeller shaft trouble and they had to ask around, whether Antwerp or St. Nazaire were 'immediately' available?)

I think (someone will know the details), though, that Rosyth costs are purely commercial whereas the Portsmouth facility (if seen through) would have an impact on defence budget... something else would have to go/ be delayed in order to find the funds?
And there the crux of it is for me, if HMG are happy with the RN being some trick pony around CSGs ( I don't think they are ) then they need to be able to do everything they can with a full airwing AAR COD AEW ASW and strike as well as a dry dock thst is alway avalible. But this would require more money.
If they are not happy with the one trick long then again this will require more money.

At the moment what we have is a half arsed one trick pony all because defence is vastly under funded.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:

1. Submarine centre of excellence at Barrow.
2. State of the art Frigate Factory at Scotstoun building all RN escorts.
3. Combined commercial enterprise between Cammell Laird and H&W to build all Auxiliary/Logistic/Amphibious vessels.
4. OPV, MHPC and Corvette centre of excellence at Appledore.

This approach spreads the work share more evenly across the UK resulting in following benefits,

1. The frigate factory at Scotstoun would be able to produce more frigates faster, lowering build costs and resulting in more escorts hitting the water.

2. The commercial enterprise between CL and H&W would enable both yards to support each other and float blocks across the Irish Sea as required. The combined output of these yards would be able to easily cope with the future build schedule of RFA and RN vessels. Industrial action at either yard would also have less of an impact using this combined build approach.

3. Appledore could build a business model around a drumbeat of OPV, MHPC and Corvette orders enabling these smaller RN vessels to be built in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible.

Rosyth would lose out but only in terms of actual shipbuilding. I would adapt Rosyth's role to act as the primary location for RN's non frigate/destroyer maintenance and refit work including the QE's. Rosyth could bid for the RFA maintenance and refit contracts along with other UK yards.
As I said, I am not so optimistic to see 4th-shipyard supportable. Let's be pragmatic and realistic. I think merging item-3 for RFA and item-4 for MHC/OPV will make the shipyards much powerful. I think RFA order is not enough to make them confident to invest modern, efficient infrastructure.

And with such infrastructure, the shipyards need to continuously build something. RFA order is not the case. Looking at the history, it suddenly comes in as a flow, and a decade of gap for "nothing". Such approach can only damage the industry.

SSS (~1Bn) --> MHC (~1Bn) and 3rd-SSS (~0.5Bn) --> LPD-R/LSD-R (1-2Bn) --> Wave-R (~0.5Bn) --> OPV-R (~0.5Bn) --> and SSS-R?

#Border force cutter and Archer replacements are very small order.

From SSS to SSS-R, there is only 5Bn GBP. And I think it is 40 years (average). So "the 3rd(+4th) shipyard(s)" can expect "only" 125M GBP per year, in long term. If we plan to support the 4th shipyards independently, the 3rd revenue becomes 75-100M GBP, and 4th 25-50M GBP. I do not think it is good idea. Too small for the 3rd, and just Appledore itself for the 4th. In other words, there is no hope for "investment".

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

I think we need to move this to a thread concerning the NSS. The discussion as moved well beyond just the FSS and needs to be continued in its own right as the subject is important.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Having them potentially built abroad is bad enough, but Spain? Bonkers :crazy:

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8832533

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Having them potentially built abroad is bad enough, but Spain? Bonkers :crazy:

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8832533
11m of us brits take holiday trips to Spain each year so maybe the powers that be are wanting a bus mans holiday!!

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:11m of us brits
And Spain wants "you"! Even in no-deal the IHIC will keep working (in Spain) until the end of the "imaginary" transition period... or, if that is to be extended, for another 1 or 2 years :) t
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)

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by clinch »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Having them potentially built abroad is bad enough, but Spain? Bonkers :crazy:

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8832533

An MoD spokesman said they were ‘required by law to procure’ the three fleet solid support ships ‘through open international competition’. He added: ‘The competition began in 2018 and there are currently five potential bids, including one from a UK consortium.’


Lying bastards.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

clinch wrote:An MoD spokesman said they were ‘required by law to procure’ the three fleet solid support ships ‘through open international competition’
Obviously the same law doesn't apply to the French, Spanish and Italians.

Isn't it great to see a Government with such an heroic sense of British FairPlay....

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by andrew98 »

Feck it, declare them complex! After all they carry a feck tonne of ammo/explosives. Need good build quality, design and damage control.
With the actions of Spain over Gibraltar alone they dont deserve even the opportunity of getting any of our tax money.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

andrew98 wrote:After all they carry a feck tonne of ammo/explosives.
In the Falklands their deep magazines came in handy when the nuclear depth charges needed removing from frigates/ destroyers... before entering the Latin American Nuclear-free Zone
... see! In those days :idea: int'l law still counted for something
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)

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Stick a gun on the front of them and call them auxiliary escorts and get them made in the UK

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 »

How does this sound;

"Call it complex, mandate UK build, pay twice as much, have 2 fewer frigates."

That is what all the comments above are advocating.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply