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 »

SW1 wrote:I thought BMT were in partnership with navantia and H&W for the Solid stores ship.
I think the Team 31 partnership showed how fickle these things can be. Navantia are trying to cover their bid with a union jack fig leaf.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:I thought BMT were in partnership with navantia and H&W for the Solid stores ship.
Worse than that, BMT and Bae were on the same FSS team but they had a heated argument about the merits of their designs and BMT stormed out and into the arms of Navantia.

But if you remember, Thales/BMT & Bae were heated enemies on the CVF design competition won by Thales but ACA won the contract to build. ACA being BMT, Thales, Bae & Babcocks.

I guess I was dreaming of an FSSA :D

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

RichardIC wrote:
SW1 wrote:I thought BMT were in partnership with navantia and H&W for the Solid stores ship.
I think the Team 31 partnership showed how fickle these things can be. Navantia are trying to cover their bid with a union jack fig leaf.


Possibly though I suspect other considerations were at play with type 31. If they use a bmt design and H&W yard for assembly or block build along with navantia Production scale know how i personally have no issue with that at all as ip design and integration skill set is held within the uk.

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:If they use a bmt design and H&W yard for assembly
Why would they use a BMT design? BMT may get a sub-contract to do some of the detail. And the only way construction is taking place at Belfast is if they import a workforce.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

RichardIC wrote:
SW1 wrote:If they use a bmt design and H&W yard for assembly
Why would they use a BMT design? BMT may get a sub-contract to do some of the detail. And the only way construction is taking place at Belfast is if they import a workforce.
Well they seem to indicate they will

https://www.bmt.org/news/2020/bmt-harla ... fss-ships/

There is a workforce at H&W and like most other yards have call on a large complimentary workforce.

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:Well they seem to indicate they will
Nice press release. But that's all it is.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

RichardIC wrote:
SW1 wrote:Well they seem to indicate they will
Nice press release. But that's all it is.
If you have information that they’re not using a bmt design that’s fair enough.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I thought BMT were in partnership with navantia and H&W for the Solid stores ship.
Worse than that, BMT and Bae were on the same FSS team but they had a heated argument about the merits of their designs and BMT stormed out and into the arms of Navantia.

But if you remember, Thales/BMT & Bae were heated enemies on the CVF design competition won by Thales but ACA won the contract to build. ACA being BMT, Thales, Bae & Babcocks.
Even with Type 31, BMT didn't exactly have a dream set of circumstances.

For decades, since FSC was first thought out, they had been aiming various 'lighter frigates' at the MoD. Finally a programme came along which was an ideal for for these concepts but the budget wasn't sufficient for them go find a partner to build a clean-sheet like Venator.

So instead they buddy up with Babcock, who don't have a depth of ship design capability, only to then be shunted to the side as their lead partner decides to bring in OMT and their Iver Huitfeldts.

BMT end up fulfilling valuable but pretty marginal work adapting the design for a programme that was almost written around their own proposals.
RichardIC wrote:
SW1 wrote:Well they seem to indicate they will
Nice press release. But that's all it is.
Interesting that there's no mention of the Tide Class or the Aegir family of ships in such a long release. Odd not to mention relevant experience, wonder just how bad things got behind the scenes.

The whole sorry situation makes me question the viability of building anything but subs, escorts and patrol ships in the UK. When you look at what Italy can deliver with a far smaller overall defence spend, it's just ludicrous we can't construct 3x FSS for £1.5bn.

We should ask Fincantieri for a quote on 3x updated Fort Victoria Class with double hulls and heavy duty RAS. Wouldn't shock me if we could almost afford four for the same budget.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

This was in the Telegraph yesterday but I think i's just a repeat of the story we discussed previously ..


MPs fire salvo in £1bn Navy contract row

MoD refuses to release findings into South Korea deal despite the fact its objective was to learn lessons
By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor 9 August 2020 • 9:30pm

Hopes that British shipyards will build new support ships for the Royal Navy are being undermined by the Ministry of Defence’s refusal to release a “lessons learned” report on a contract to build similar vessels abroad, it is claimed.

The Commons defence select committee has been denied access to the report on the £450m deal in 2012 that saw four Tide-class tankers to support the Navy built in South Korea.

According to Tobias Ellwood, the committee chairman, the document “assesses the economic impact on the UK of handing a contract to a foreign firm, including the loss of UK shipbuilding jobs that are critical to national security”.

The Ministry of Defence has recently invited expressions of interest from shipbuilders both at home and abroad about a potential £1bn contract to build up to three Fleet Solid Support (FSS) vessels to support the Navy’s new aircraft carriers with stores such as ammunition and food.

As work on contracting the FSS ships starts, MPs want to see the report to understand how awarding military contracts in the UK can help contribute to the national economy.

However, the MoD has told the committee the report cannot be shared as it contains commercially sensitive information, as well “an open and frank assessment of the procurement process and UK shipbuilding industry”.

Jeremy Quin, defence procurement minister, said the report also includes “matters of policy that remain under close consideration”. He added: “The disclosure of commercially sensitive information would prejudice not only the commercial interests of the bidders in the tanker competition, but also the future ability of the MoD to conduct a fair and value for money competition for any similar ships.”

The claims have been rubbished by John Spellar, deputy chairman of the committee, as “utterly absurd”. He said the report is “only being withheld to cover embarrassment as they realise the case for going abroad is in tatters”.

“The country is facing the greatest unemployment since the Thirties. Awarding the FSS ships abroad would only add to the overall cost if it means thousands of shipbuilding and supply chain jobs going, meaning the country will end up paying for the ships twice with people on dole.”

The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) argues that as the FSS vessels sail with the fleet, they are warships which have to be domestically built.

The Government has previously argued that because the FFS ships are part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, they are not warships and EU procurement rules mean work for them has to be tendered internationally.

Ian Wadell, CSEU general secretary, added: “A cynic might suggest the Government doesn’t want the committee to understand the lessons learnt from the Tide-class procurement because they are determined to repeat the same mistakes.”

According to the CSEU, building the FSS will protect 20,000 UK shipbuilding jobs and more in the supply chain, providing work in regional economies.

Peter Sandeman, director of campaign group Save the Royal Navy, said it was “odd” that the committee was not being allowed to see the report.

He said: “Select committee MPs regularly see information that has operational security considerations. It seems the FSS ships have become such a hot potato that the MoD is shutting down on it to avoid public scrutiny.”

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Caribbean »

Is it worth mentioning that the Norwegians also had problems with Daewoo and HNoMS Maude? It was initially delivered with damaged engines, leading to a two year wait until it was finally turned over. Once delivered DNV assessed it as too dangerous to use as, amongst other things, no maintenance had been perform during the two years that it was tied up at the dockside (plus numerous other defects). It's not outside the bounds of possibility that the Tides had a similar litany of woes.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:Is it worth mentioning that the Norwegians also had problems with Daewoo and HNoMS Maude? It was initially delivered with damaged engines, leading to a two year wait until it was finally turned over. Once delivered DNV assessed it as too dangerous to use as, amongst other things, no maintenance had been perform during the two years that it was tied up at the dockside (plus numerous other defects). It's not outside the bounds of possibility that the Tides had a similar litany of woes.
If you look at the long list of things done during at CL during the Tides first stay there, it does kinda fit the same pattern.

Seems nothing is ever black and white eh?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

I know this is way, way off topic but Jennsy upthread mentioned BMT and Venator.

It's kinda strange in a way, but as Jennsy said, BMT studied the market for small frigates for decades producing several excellent papers which are publicly available and several tasty designs concluding with the final Venator patrol frigate. They were most definitely subject matter experts.

But the RN didn't want a patrol frigate, they wanted a real frigate! Heave ho Venator. Out of the bath you go. Total shock!

And Babcocks, utter novices in the game blundered along in their hob nail boots with Arrowhead 120 based on the US coastguard design to which the RN repeated in an even louder voice "nope, we want a REAL FRIGATE", and then stumbled into the only oven ready (seems to be the popular phrase du jour) design on the open market, the Iver Huitfeld, which happened to be amenable to be turned into what the RN thinks of as a ...real frigate.

Now everyone on this board will say, hey wait a minute dumbo, the T31 as ordered is in no way a real frigate because it doesn't bristle with guns and missiles and sonars and all the stuff that wins Top Trumps & WW3. But, but, but, that's not what the RN means when it talks abut a real frigate is it?

Sorry mods. /drift off. I know where the stool is (in the corner).

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

Caribbean wrote:Is it worth mentioning that the Norwegians also had problems with Daewoo and HNoMS Maude? It was initially delivered with damaged engines, leading to a two year wait until it was finally turned over. Once delivered DNV assessed it as too dangerous to use as, amongst other things, no maintenance had been perform during the two years that it was tied up at the dockside (plus numerous other defects). It's not outside the bounds of possibility that the Tides had a similar litany of woes.
Well that somewhat confirms something I read a while back when the Kiwis rejected the Aegir design, despite it being the 'safer' option.
Ron5 wrote:I know this is way, way off topic but Jennsy (Jensy) upthread mentioned BMT and Venator.

It's kinda strange in a way, but as Jennsy (Jensy) said, BMT studied the market for small frigates for decades producing several excellent papers which are publicly available and several tasty designs concluding with the final Venator patrol frigate. They were most definitely subject matter experts.

But the RN didn't want a patrol frigate, they wanted a real frigate! Heave ho Venator. Out of the bath you go. Total shock!

And Babcocks, utter novices in the game blundered along in their hob nail boots with Arrowhead 120 based on the US coastguard design to which the RN repeated in an even louder voice "nope, we want a REAL FRIGATE", and then stumbled into the only oven ready (seems to be the popular phrase du jour) design on the open market, the Iver Huitfeld, which happened to be amenable to be turned into what the RN thinks of as a ...real frigate.
Typo aside :) pretty much what I getting at.

As it happens I quite like the IH/Arrowhead 140 design for its massive amounts of empty space. However it is in many (most) ways the opposite of what the programme was seeking to achieve:

- British design for a market leading light frigate
- British equipment with the option for foreign alternatives
- Multiple British yards working in collaboration (ok yet to be seen).

For fear of straying further off topic, it's worth pointing out that in many ways Type 31 has created the environment that's causing issues with FSSS.

Rosyth would be the logical yard to assemble (though not necessarily manufacture) large ships for the RN/RFA. Instead it's now looking at an immediate future as a second yard for escorts. With the argument against BAE on the Clyde that "no British yard has even built two new classes simultaneously" it would seem a non-starter for anything more than putting blocks together.

However, every option on the table for a UK build is inferior to the facilities and recent experience established there. Cammell Laird don't have the equipment for assembly, Scotstoun/Govan don't have the scale or capacity and H&W is very much a shadow of its former self and lacks the fabrication.

Of course there are many ways to resolve this (Carrier Alliance style) but it will cost a lot of money, which I just don't see going towards what is clearly viewed as an unglamorous and unimportant programme by those who control the budget.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Jensy wrote:Rosyth would be the logical yard to assemble (though not necessarily manufacture) large ships for the RN/RFA. Instead it's now looking at an immediate future as a second yard for escorts.
I've always thought following the ACA model with blockbuild elsewhere and assembly at Rosyth was the logical way to go with FSSS - ideally following on immediately from completion of work on the QEs - but we've missed that boat so let's not dwell on it.

Is it still a viable option, even with T31 construction on-site?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

RichardIC wrote:
Jensy wrote:Rosyth would be the logical yard to assemble (though not necessarily manufacture) large ships for the RN/RFA. Instead it's now looking at an immediate future as a second yard for escorts.
I've always thought following the ACA model with blockbuild elsewhere and assembly at Rosyth was the logical way to go with FSSS - ideally following on immediately from completion of work on the QEs - but we've missed that boat so let's not dwell on it.

Is it still a viable option, even with T31 construction on-site?
For assembly, probably as it doesn't look like the Goliath crane or dry dock no.1 are going to be used for Type 31.

However they have knocked down the old assembly building, where the carriers decks and other bits were manufactured, in order to build the new frigate assembly hall. Could ship all the modules up from Cammell Laird but that's going to add considerable cost and complexity, plus raises the question of not assembling them there too.

I'm guessing this is what the 'Team UK FSSS' plan is/was. Not exactly ideal. Plus there's the 'Scottish Independence question' and this deprives the carriers of their main (only?) dry dock.

Tying in slightly with the Future Amphibious thread, if there's a demand for multiple large (15,000t) ships all to built in the UK in the next decade plus, then there's an argument for planning investment in modern facilities, maybe at Cammell Laird, to benefit from economies of scale and drive down costs to be commercially competitive (at least in comparison to other European yards).

If it's all going to be done ad-hoc, for bargain basement prices then it's going to be a shambles, and brings me back to questioning if it's worth trying to build large ships here at all...

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

We are going to need large ships built for the RFA and the RN for many many years for me now is the time to invest in CL and H&W. Blocks can be built in both yards and assembled at H&W with finale fitting out at CL it would be a win win also the to yards are only 200 miles apart with good travel links allowing the work force to move about as needed . We could end up with two yards getting work plus if Scotland votes out we have two yards that can scale up to meet the escort build need

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Some comments and questions:

H&W and CL combined: Yes, but that means Rosyth will die as a ship builder because of no order after T31 (but may survive as a dock operator). Also, if H&W and CL are to be "deeply tied", who will own those yards? Independent firm holding two key infrastructure relying each other will not work for long.

By the way, CL has a long enough docks to handle Fort Victoria and even longer. What they lack is Goriate-like cranes to handle superstructure blocks? (most of the hull blocks do not use crane. They are floated and moved on land, not by huge crane). CL also has a large apparently vacant land space in its southern part (who owns it?).

see https://goo.gl/maps/8zagHKRDxYJyp9Dg6

I'm afraid investing in CL to do everything on RFA build will be more efficient = make them a bit more competitive as a ship builder? This will
- make the build cost of SSS and LPD/LSD replacements a bit lower
- enable possible civilian orders to be won to sustain the workforce (like RSS S.D.Attenborough or some ferries)

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Some comments and questions:

H&W and CL combined: Yes, but that means Rosyth will die as a ship builder because of no order after T31 (but may survive as a dock operator). Also, if H&W and CL are to be "deeply tied", who will own those yards? Independent firm holding two key infrastructure relying each other will not work for long.

By the way, CL has a long enough docks to handle Fort Victoria and even longer. What they lack is Goriate-like cranes to handle superstructure blocks? (most of the hull blocks do not use crane. They are floated and moved on land, not by huge crane). CL also has a large apparently vacant land space in its southern part (who owns it?).

see https://goo.gl/maps/8zagHKRDxYJyp9Dg6

I'm afraid investing in CL to do everything on RFA build will be more efficient = make them a bit more competitive as a ship builder? This will
- make the build cost of SSS and LPD/LSD replacements a bit lower
- enable possible civilian orders to be won to sustain the workforce (like RSS S.D.Attenborough or some ferries)
I do believe that CL and H&W should combine to build large RFA and RN ships I also feel BMT should be part of this group with aim of having design and build under one group. How this would work would need to look at but investment in these three could see big gains down the road.

As for the death of Rosyth maybe maybe not if the UK were to go for 10 to 12 100 x 18 meter multi mission sloops as part of the MH(P)C program these could be built at Rosyth. I see these ships as key to the future RN and believe something like a 100 meter Venari fitted with say M-cube CMS , Scanter 4100 Radar , 40mm or 57mm main gun with a core crew 30 on a 1.5 system plus a mission crew of 30 with berths up to 100

As for the yards they will need investment but as said this could see big gains down the road. As much as I would like to see Scotland stay in the UK they may well leave meaning that both BAE and Babcock would have to move. BAE could move to Barrow

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by serge750 »

I was hoping the idea was to assemble the FSSS blocks ( made at various locations inc CL ) at rosyth like the carriers, after the T31 are assembled & in the water ( last one in the water fitting out in 2026? ) then maybe after the FSSS are built the experience would help with the Albion's replacement (s) ?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

IMHO some quality comments above.

Some more of mine (ah well there goes the neighborhood):

1. Sorry about the name Jensy.

2. My understanding was that the priority for the navy was to keep Rosyth going so that the carriers had somewhere to be refitted/maintained. You know, where the Sea Ceptors will be installed.

3. I think Harland Wolf is a red herring. Yes they have some lovely docks but nothing else. A tiny workforce with irrelevant skills and no shipbuilding facilities. Let them quietly rust away or whatever old docks do.

4. Donald-san, I seem to remember us discussing expansion of Cammel Laird in the past, i think there was an old oil storage depot or somesuch in the location you mention, that CL acquired and has used for storage of raw materials. So yes, available for expansion.

5. Talking of CL, I think they would need a relatively minor expansion of their largest dry dock to build an FSS. Not a show stopper.

6. Building CVF blocks all over and ferrying to Scotland to piece together like gigantic Lego was a fantastic engineering feat but most definitely not the preferred way to build a ship. It was forced on the UK by circumstances. The best way is to build a large ship as evidenced by large shipbuilding the world over, is to build all at the same location. Yes, build in blocks and join them up, but all at the same place.

7. Not too late to make Rosyth that place but I think CL is well ahead in the facilities department but not in dock capacity.

8. Trouble is that if CL gets too much work it becomes a juicy target for a Babcocks or Bae takeover. Or would we like that?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:8. Trouble is that if CL gets too much work it becomes a juicy target for a Babcocks or Bae takeover. Or would we like that?
If this was to happen then I would prefer Babcock's

I agree about H&W but if we look at it in terms of the Union it would be a good boost to NI

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Tempest414 wrote:I agree about H&W but if we look at it in terms of the Union it would be a good boost to NI
It's got a workforce of under 100. It's a non-starter for anything other than minor fabrication without massive investment from the owners, who have never built a ship.

They paid just over £5 million to secure the yard from the administrators and they needed to borrow to do it. They're not a big money operation.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:CL also has a large apparently vacant land space in its southern part (who owns it?).

see https://goo.gl/maps/8zagHKRDxYJyp9Dg6
Was curious myself. It's where the old slipways and some fabrication sheds used to be. Looks like it's now owned by the local council and is offered for lease:

https://www.wirralwaters.co.uk/projects ... ell-laird/

If I were to pick a yard to invest heavily in, it would be CL. Plenty of space for expansion (with or without the above), adjacent to a major city (for workforce) and good insurance against any breakup of the UK.

However without that investment, Roysth is the best we have for this project. H&W, as others have pointed out, is little more than some impressive docks/cranes and a few sheds, albeit with a very proud history.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

RichardIC wrote:It's got a workforce of under 100. It's a non-starter for anything other than minor fabrication without massive investment from the owners, who have never built a ship.
As I said I agree however maybe minor fabrication could be the place to start and work from there some work is better than no work and there is a good amount of minor fab work in a big project like SSS allowing H&W to build skill sets and work force

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:CL also has a large apparently vacant land space in its southern part (who owns it?).

see https://goo.gl/maps/8zagHKRDxYJyp9Dg6
Was curious myself. It's where the old slipways and some fabrication sheds used to be. Looks like it's now owned by the local council and is offered for lease:

https://www.wirralwaters.co.uk/projects ... ell-laird/

If I were to pick a yard to invest heavily in, it would be CL. Plenty of space for expansion (with or without the above), adjacent to a major city (for workforce) and good insurance against any breakup of the UK.

However without that investment, Roysth is the best we have for this project. H&W, as others have pointed out, is little more than some impressive docks/cranes and a few sheds, albeit with a very proud history.
Ah but CL has all the pipe bending and sheet cutting and whatnot that Rosyth completely lacks. CL just built a complete ship, give or take, couple years late but quite beyond anything Rosyth can do. You wait, most of the Type 31's bits will be trucked in ready made. Not the most economic approach.

Rosyth is just not a shipyard. Not in the the accepted sense. Putting up a T31 shed doesn't really change that.

Post Reply