Lord Jim wrote:I can see no issue with building foreign designs in UK yards. What is important is that these yards are viable and have the design and construction capability to produce their own designs, possible after the initial order for the aforementioned.
Do you mean, for example, Babcock can "learn" new way of designing warship from OMT from the Arrowhead 140 project, and then can design their own Arrowhead 120 (or alike) based on the technology for future export ? Just like Navantia started their new generation of escort building with FFG-7 class building, and came to F100/F110 designs?
Worth considering.
But, I am not sure how long Babcock needs (even if they win T31e project) to come with their own escort design "NOT restricted in license to OMT", and gain export. I'm afraid RN may need to order 5 "T32", based on this new design, to make it happen.
... If ships are built in the UK at greater expense because the UK gains tax income as a result form the jobs created that does not help the MoD which has had to spend more than it needed to. The only way this works for the MoD is if UK industry is subsidised so that any difference between a cheaper foreign bid and that of a UK company it met.
So, you propose the Government to "invest" the money they expect to "be payed back as TAX when SSS are ordered in UK" (say 200M GBP) prior to the SSS order (of 1B GBP) ?
Considering the Starbucks and Amazon "no TAX" deal with UK government, it MUST be possible in principle, but surely will be very difficult.
Caribbean wrote:They aren't "trying to turn the T31e into something that delivers a key part of the NSS". The NSS was derived from the perceived need for stability in naval production. The T31 is the low-cost, low risk, test project, to see if the NSS works "out of the box", or whether it needs "tweaking" to make it work long term. Don't forget that the cap on the cost of the T31 is nothing to do with the NSS - there is nothing in the NSS that requires ultra-low budgets.
I do not think so. I think, NSS is not widely supported, and could not "gain" many budget, which resulted in ultra-low T31e program cost. To make NSS work, constant future order flow is "must", but are there enough budget to do it?
At it's most basic , it's about harnessing spare capacity in yards that are already capable of standing on their own, in order to smooth the peaks and troughs of naval construction (and also smoothing those peaks and troughs by adopting a long-term construction plan), without investing huge amounts in a single monopoly manufacturer, only for that investment to sit idle throughout the troughs.
"Harnessing spare capacity in yards that are already capable of standing on their own", means "a shipyard with 10B GBP order list for a decade (= standing on their own), bidding for T31 or SSS project, which is ONLY 1.25B and 1B GBP for a decade". Surely this is not the case in UK.
The truth is, any shipyards in UK do not have any order list exceeding 1B GBP (actually, even 100M GBP....), and T31 or SSS program will be the major (dominant) work for them. In other words, those shipyard are NOT "standing on their own".
- H&W's dock has lost their steal work right after the CVF ends,
- Appledore was abandoned right after the Irish Navy's OPV program ends,
- Carmell Laired is trying to lay-off their worker right after the end of RV S.D. Attenborough build.
A&P is focussed on RFA maintenance, Babcock Portsmouth on T23 LIFEX, and CL on RFA maintenance, as well, and all of these program is significantly cheaper than T31e or SSS. This is the current status.
Too many conflate the NSS with the T31 RFI - completely different beasts, originated by different groups, with different objectives..
I'm not sure what you meant. Without NSS, there is ZERO rationale for T31e, I think. So, these two are clearly related. But, I think you mean something else?
Repulse wrote:Then the business case for setting up a “C3 Sloop” factory line to build the future MHC and OPV replacements
Caribbean wrote:... If the current unmanned systems trials go as hoped, the future MCH fleet for the RN is probably going to be comprised of vessels of opportunity and a small number of general-purpose platforms derived from existing civilian designs, which could be built easily in existing yards, by existing companies (i.e. the system that the NSS is trying to bring about).
No yards other than BAES and the one who wins T31 program, will survive until 2030, in current situation. As these ship are also not a "warship" (as you rightly say "platforms derived from existing civilian designs"), it will go to international tender. So, it could be Damen itself, Navantia, or Hyundai, which is building MHC.
If UK want to avoid such case, HMG shall ask BAE to buy Cammell Laird (paired with TOBA-like agreement for SSS, LSD/LPD, and MHC order) or simply select Babcock to buy Cammell Laird and do the same. Other companies (H&W, A&P, CL) are too small to tolerate the financial risks in future.
[EDIT] or I may be completely missing your point? ....