Future Solid Support Ship

[ArmChairCivvy]

Navantia bid has merit after all isn’t there proposal based on a solid stores variant of the tide class tankers.

Was it them or the Koreans who built for Oz? Anyway, the proposal was rounded (in cost and detail) yonks ago - though we might need it "stretched" in size?

[Poiuytrewq]

In one sense I can see why the Navantia bid has merit after all isn’t there proposal based on a solid stores variant of the tide class tankers. If the RFA are happy with the tide class and know the design the commonality that basing the stores ship on the same design would surely be of benefit.

In that case, why not just build the BMT design at Cammell Laird with or without input from H&W.

Why is Navantia's involvement even necessary if the preferred option is now that the FSS is built in the UK with a UK design?

[SW1]

In one sense I can see why the Navantia bid has merit after all isn’t there proposal based on a solid stores variant of the tide class tankers. If the RFA are happy with the tide class and know the design the commonality that basing the stores ship on the same design would surely be of benefit.

In that case, why not just build the BMT design at Cammell Laird with or without input from H&W.

Why is Navantia's involvement even necessary if the preferred option is now that the FSS is built in the UK with a UK design?

Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.

[Poiuytrewq]

Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.

My point is, if it's a British design to be built in a British yard(s) why the need for Navantia's involvement?

I fully understand the BMT/Navantia collaboration if the FSS were to be constructed in Spain. If the FSS are now to be built in the UK due to a change in procurement policy then the need to involve a foreign manufacturer seems weak, especially if it is a UK design.

[SW1]

Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.

My point is, if it's a British design to be built in a British yard(s) why the need for Navantia's involvement?

I fully understand the BMT/Navantia collaboration if the FSS were to be constructed in Spain. If the FSS are now to be built in the UK due to a change in procurement policy then the need to involve a foreign manufacturer seems weak, especially if it is a UK design.

Define built in the UK, possibly parts of the design will be fabricated in the UK and assembled elsewhere or the reverse. Is fitting of UK specific equipment required in the UK like the tide class rather than full build. Also navantia probably brings more experience of building large vessels that other yards do not.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.

My point is, if it's a British design to be built in a British yard(s) why the need for Navantia's involvement?

BMT design is "concept level", not detailed design. The former is relatively cheap so that even a small firm as BMT can do it by themselves.

The latter shall include all parts lists, and each and every steps with process documented out. An, this is the expensive part = main part.

I guess Navantia is doing the latter part. Can CL do it or not?

[Roders96]

Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.

BMT + HW have the capability on paper but Espanola brings much needed depth.

Same reason BAE partnered with LM for CSC bid. They didn't have the financial heft to layout in advance the required capital investment alongside Sea5000 + UKT26.

[SW1]

Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.

H&W did not go bust. The parent company that owned H&W went bust and sold H&W as a going concern.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.

H&W did not go bust. The parent company that owned H&W went bust and sold H&W as a going concern.

Yes. But, H&W was on sale for 1 year or so, and couldn't find buyer = surely not a brilliant branch of the business (=not high profit). The buyer has come only recently, which means not zero profit.

[Roders96]

Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.

H&W did not go bust. The parent company that owned H&W went bust and sold H&W as a going concern.

Yes. But, H&W was on sale for 1 year or so, and couldn't find buyer = surely not a brilliant branch of the business (=not high profit). The buyer has come only recently, which means not zero profit.

@ SW1 apologies for simplifyng

@ DoT Ty for explaining

'noun
noun: bust; plural noun: busts
1.
a period of economic difficulty or depression.'

[Ron5]

Apologies if already posted:

https://www.janes.com/article/92769/navantia-continues-fss-bid-despite-stopped-competition

[dmereifield]

Thanks Ron. Wow, a whole 33% of the money going into UK Plc...