Tempest414 wrote:Yes the clue is in the name ( National shipbuilding strategy ) and I said before with 36 ships that need replacing over the next 30 years there is enough work for 3 yards
This one has a x-dprtmntal approach... any good ideas, to highlight?Tempest414 wrote:as you say the money should not all come out of the MOD budget and if dose then the budget should reflect this
Poiuytrewq wrote:I think it's becoming clear that the National Shipbuilding Strategy which made the decision to allow non combatant RFA vessels to be put out to international tender got it very very wrong.
There is if it supports your national commercial shipbuilding between RFA orders. If Babcock shuts Rosyth because the QE's end up being dry docked in Portsmouth, and Cammel Laird and H&W go to the wall, who is going to build the Amphibious replacements in the 2030's?shark bait wrote:Neither is there much strategic value building cargo ships.
Only if the playing field is fair. State funded foreign yards will always be cheaper that UK yards. HMG need to take that into consideration when evaluating the bids as well as the swelled tax receipts and lower welfare costs by employing workers in the UK.shark bait wrote:A tender in the big international market is the correct option. The Polar Ship should be a model for the future, with the pressure of international competition resulting in domestic suppler with a good value bid.
How much actually the benefit is.shark bait wrote:The DE&S value assessment should absolutely included local economic benefits such as the ones suggested above, that would give any UK bid around a 20% head start, which is an easy zero cost method to 'level the playing field'.
I'd give it a 1/28th chancePoiuytrewq wrote: Is the UK strategy right and the rest of the world wrong...again?
Like hulls to Navantia, by Oz? I think this is what we should do with MHC and get some from the Belgo-Dutch batch (and fit them out in the UK)shark bait wrote: outsource the simple commercial products that don't return the same value.
I've often done that. Tankers are a borderline case as it is mainly the added kit that makes them differ from civvie production. The savings from ordering a batch of 4 on this basis were probably strong enough as a justification. SSS Class are likely to be much more "custom designs" even within the class (the option for the 3rd one may not be based on budgetary constraints alone)... and with added complexity, too.Tempest414 wrote:It could argued that all RFA ships are semi complex
Poiuytrewq wrote:unlikely to encourage too many to look to embark on a career in the RFA.
Lord Jim wrote:unmanned cargo ship had sailed from the UK to Belgium