UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11033
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Nov 2019, 17:09

SW1 wrote: 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?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Nov 2019, 17:41

SW1 wrote: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
Senior Member
Posts: 1032
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 21 Nov 2019, 17:53

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote: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.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Nov 2019, 18:58

SW1 wrote: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
Senior Member
Posts: 1032
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 21 Nov 2019, 19:13

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote: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
Senior Member
Posts: 3313
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Nov 2019, 20:49

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote: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
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Roders96 » 21 Nov 2019, 20:55

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
Senior Member
Posts: 1032
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 21 Nov 2019, 21:12

Roders96 wrote: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
Senior Member
Posts: 3313
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Nov 2019, 22:47

SW1 wrote:
Roders96 wrote: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
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Roders96 » 22 Nov 2019, 09:20

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Roders96 wrote: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
Senior Member
Posts: 3669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 23 Nov 2019, 11:18


dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby dmereifield » 23 Nov 2019, 13:56

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


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests

 

 

cron