Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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:
Aethulwulf wrote:Mr Waddell added: “Last month the Prime Minister issued an urgent call for ‘shovel-ready’ projects to help the economy recover from the damage wreaked by the coronavirus lockdown - and FSS is a perfect example.”
There is no single way FSS is "shovel-ready". It's not designed and there isn't the industrial capacity to build them without a lot of investment.
Depends how you interpret "shovel ready"....

Ready to build? No

Treasury to bury the project in a shallow grave? Yes

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Of course it's not shovel ready, but money could be spent on the project (investment in modernising the yard, building up the workforce, purchasing long lead items etc) within about 12 months or so....not quite shovel ready, but not exactly in the long grass either

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

dmereifield wrote:Of course it's not shovel ready, but money could be spent on the project (investment in modernising the yard, building up the workforce, purchasing long lead items etc) within about 12 months or so....not quite shovel ready, but not exactly in the long grass either
I was being just a little extreme!

I reckon this entire programme was originally to be sent to South Korea, and built cheap as chips, with the Tides as a proof of concept. As Ron5 noted above, that didn't exactly go to plan.

At this moment in time we have a choice of going unknown with a UK bid that hasn't even released so much as a joint Press Release (and whose design authority has been sold abroad), and a variety of foreign firms who seem to be basing their bids off far smaller and less complex platforms that will need to be stretched or redesigned. From recent history this seems a recipie for disaster.

The one saving grace is a Spanish bid, somewhat based upon an existing, in service, British design, with some level of assembly at Harland and Wolff. However, for a great many reasons, most them political, it's probably not a goer.

The question is: where can we get from here in 12 months that we've failed to do in the previous 12?

I know some people would favour killing of Type 31(and I can see some logic in that) but I have no confidence that will do anything but further diminish the Royal Navy's shrinking mass.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

For me this project could offer a number of good options is it ready to build no is it ready to offer a work and a jobs maybe if we take the project as a whole and put a real time line in place like

RFI and design stage 1 complete by 2nd Q of 2021
contact award and design signed off 1st Q of 2022
1st steel cut 1st Q 2023 first ship in the water 2026 last ship in the water 2030

this project could offer work for the next 10 years if winning yard were then given the Amphib replacement project to follow it could have work out to 2042 +

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:For me this project could offer a number of good options is it ready to build no is it ready to offer a work and a jobs maybe if we take the project as a whole and put a real time line in place like

RFI and design stage 1 complete by 2nd Q of 2021
contact award and design signed off 1st Q of 2022
1st steel cut 1st Q 2023 first ship in the water 2026 last ship in the water 2030

this project could offer work for the next 10 years if winning yard were then given the Amphib replacement project to follow it could have work out to 2042 +
Hmmm. I'm afraid the "winning yard" will compete for LPD/LSD replacements with, Babcock Rosyth and Cammell Laired in 2030+. In other words, two of the three yards may die.

Not using Babcock Rosyth and Cammell Laired in FSSS build will results as such.

---- just "hope" or "wish" -----
From industrial point of view, I propose:

RFI and design stage 1 complete by 2nd Q of 2022
contact award and design signed at 2nd Q of 2023
1st steel cut 2nd Q 2024 (1st block @CL)
block assembly start 4th Q 2026 (@Rosyth, after 2 T31 hulls delivered and final hull steal-work almost ends)
2nd ship steel cut (@CL)
first ship in the water 4th Q 2027, fitting out @Rosyth (final T31 almost to be delivered)
first ship delivered in 2nd Q 2029,
2nd ship last block delivered from CL to Rosyth
2nd ship in water 4th 2029.
2nd ship delivered in 2nd Q 2031 (replacing Fort Victoria, with 3-years life extension)
+ (if exists) 3rd ship delivered in 2nd Q 2033
...

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

My point is more that as a ship ready to build no this is not oven ready but as a whole project yes it is . Also if the government wanted to it could just tender the design work and say the ships will be built at CL in Liverpool

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

I really don’t see what the issue is with this. So it doesn’t currently exist, neither did the carriers before they were designed. So pay someone to design the thing. If the cost is too high maybe the Navy needs to simplify the spec a bit and not turn it into a swiss army knife.

In terms of capacity I wonder what the BAE design resources are doing right now, T26 and Hunter are pretty much finalised Successor is in build, they’re not on T31. A BAE design built at Cammel Llaird should be doable. This is not the space shuttle

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:I really don’t see what the issue is with this. So it doesn’t currently exist, neither did the carriers before they were designed. So pay someone to design the thing. If the cost is too high maybe the Navy needs to simplify the spec a bit and not turn it into a swiss army knife.

In terms of capacity I wonder what the BAE design resources are doing right now, T26 and Hunter are pretty much finalised Successor is in build, they’re not on T31. A BAE design built at Cammel Llaird should be doable. This is not the space shuttle
T26's in Canada and Australia. Very, very, far from finalized. Submarine lot is separate and working on Dreadnought, so no use to you. Wishful thinking doesn't get ships designed and built. If it's so easy, have a go yourself.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:I really don’t see what the issue is with this. So it doesn’t currently exist, neither did the carriers before they were designed. So pay someone to design the thing. If the cost is too high maybe the Navy needs to simplify the spec a bit and not turn it into a swiss army knife.

In terms of capacity I wonder what the BAE design resources are doing right now, T26 and Hunter are pretty much finalised Successor is in build, they’re not on T31. A BAE design built at Cammel Llaird should be doable. This is not the space shuttle
T26's in Canada and Australia. Very, very, far from finalized. Submarine lot is separate and working on Dreadnought, so no use to you. Wishful thinking doesn't get ships designed and built. If it's so easy, have a go yourself.
Weird comment. Given that Hunter construction is on track to start mid 2022 I’d say there’s about to be some design capacity becoming available within the project timeline of FSS. And as for Subs being separate, well I was working at Barrow when the carriers were being designed - there were plenty of engineers there being assigned to support it. Amazing thing CADCAM. This is not a Ford class, it’s an RFA replenishment ship, we buy a design and scale it up a bit, what’s the issue, it’s been done before (Bay class)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

lets not forget BMT they are all about design and already have a starting point for this project

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

Quite! No.1 Dock & Goliath will also be available. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:I really don’t see what the issue is with this. So it doesn’t currently exist, neither did the carriers before they were designed. So pay someone to design the thing. If the cost is too high maybe the Navy needs to simplify the spec a bit and not turn it into a swiss army knife.

In terms of capacity I wonder what the BAE design resources are doing right now, T26 and Hunter are pretty much finalised Successor is in build, they’re not on T31. A BAE design built at Cammel Llaird should be doable. This is not the space shuttle
T26's in Canada and Australia. Very, very, far from finalized. Submarine lot is separate and working on Dreadnought, so no use to you. Wishful thinking doesn't get ships designed and built. If it's so easy, have a go yourself.
Weird comment. Given that Hunter construction is on track to start mid 2022 I’d say there’s about to be some design capacity becoming available within the project timeline of FSS. And as for Subs being separate, well I was working at Barrow when the carriers were being designed - there were plenty of engineers there being assigned to support it. Amazing thing CADCAM. This is not a Ford class, it’s an RFA replenishment ship, we buy a design and scale it up a bit, what’s the issue, it’s been done before (Bay class)
Let me take a wild, wild stab in the dark here and guess that you weren't part of the design department at Barrow.

How close am I?

PS Design doesn't magically stop when construction starts.

PPS Dreadnought has priority over FSS, is untouchable.

PPPS. Who has an oven ready FSS design ready to purchase, oops sorry, you're not a designer so you wouldn't know.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:lets not forget BMT they are all about design and already have a starting point for this project
BMT has excellent design skills but not the manpower to do the detailed design that's required to build. For the Tides, BMT with their Norwegian partners provided the high level design, Daewoo did the detail. It's the detail bit the UK is short of right now.

For the BMT FSS partnership with Navantia, the Spanish would provide the detailed design.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Ron5 wrote:I think poor Boris is between a rock and a hard place. I have no idea where in the UK there is the capability and capacity to design and build these ships.

Maybe Cammel Laird with a ton of help from BMT & Bae on the design side but that's a risky choice. And BMT & Bae already came to (verbal) blows over FSS.
But as I've said previously above, if HMG wants to takes some big risks, my guess (repeat guess) is this is the best option although as we've seen with McBoatyface, recent history is not real good.

And it would really cement CL as the RFA shipyard. Center of excellence?

Personally I'd take a shot but it's not my money is it?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Caribbean »

Just a thought (and possibly not a particularly good one). If there is not quite enough money to build three SSS, is there enough to build two full SSS (based on, say, an scaled-up Aegir design) and a smaller AOR (HNoMS Maud, but with the heavy RAS rigs, springs to mind). Perhaps you wouldn't need the full medical facility of Maud and might want to add more solid stores capacity and less fuel, but it looks like a design that would be quite useful as a non-carrier group resupply (it's designed to support smaller vessels, like patrol boats and submarines), but able to stand-in on carrier duties, with reduced capacity, when needed. It looks like it's the scale of project that would be a good follow-on for CL from the RRS and the detailed design should be as close to "shovel-ready" as you could get.

Maybe, by the time it's built, the SSS design will have been selected and completed.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

First the Rn needs to sit down and decide what the FSS has to do, have designs drawn up and costed, and if there is any money left over from building two then look at all the bells and whistles they would like them to have.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote:Just a thought (and possibly not a particularly good one). If there is not quite enough money to build three SSS, is there enough to build two full SSS (based on, say, an scaled-up Aegir design) and a smaller AOR (HNoMS Maud, but with the heavy RAS rigs,
As I said up thread we could look to replace the two Wave class with a Aegir-26R. The Aegir-18R differs from the standard 18 by have cargo hold of 1350 m3 in place of the rear tank which reduces the fuel load by a third to 12,000 m3. The superstructure is extended forward and makes room for 180 berths. Given this a Aegir-26R should be able to be fitted with a 1750 m3 cargo hold and still carry 16,000 m3 of fuel. With this said I think if the RFA ended up with

2 x Full fat SSS
4 x Tide class
1 x Aegir -26R ( Maybe Tidereach )
4 x Enforcer LSD's

The RN would be in a really good place

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:2 x Full fat SSS
4 x Tide class
1 x Aegir -26R ( Maybe Tidereach )
4 x Enforcer LSD's

The RN would be in a really good place
Been thinking about the optimal RFA mix also - would personally say the following:

CEPP Support:
- 4 x Tide Class Tankers
- 2 x Solid Support Ships (straight Fort I replacements, no frills)
Amphibious (Littoral Response Group) Support:
- 3 x Large Multirole Logistics Support Ship (perhaps enlarged Ellida design)

This would allow all ships to be manned (rather than today’s reality). Combined with this would be two large or three smaller RN LPDs for the RMs.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:I really don’t see what the issue is with this. So it doesn’t currently exist, neither did the carriers before they were designed. So pay someone to design the thing. If the cost is too high maybe the Navy needs to simplify the spec a bit and not turn it into a swiss army knife.

In terms of capacity I wonder what the BAE design resources are doing right now, T26 and Hunter are pretty much finalised Successor is in build, they’re not on T31. A BAE design built at Cammel Llaird should be doable. This is not the space shuttle
T26's in Canada and Australia. Very, very, far from finalized. Submarine lot is separate and working on Dreadnought, so no use to you. Wishful thinking doesn't get ships designed and built. If it's so easy, have a go yourself.
Weird comment. Given that Hunter construction is on track to start mid 2022 I’d say there’s about to be some design capacity becoming available within the project timeline of FSS. And as for Subs being separate, well I was working at Barrow when the carriers were being designed - there were plenty of engineers there being assigned to support it. Amazing thing CADCAM. This is not a Ford class, it’s an RFA replenishment ship, we buy a design and scale it up a bit, what’s the issue, it’s been done before (Bay class)
Let me take a wild, wild stab in the dark here and guess that you weren't part of the design department at Barrow.

How close am I?

PS Design doesn't magically stop when construction starts.

PPS Dreadnought has priority over FSS, is untouchable.

PPPS. Who has an oven ready FSS design ready to purchase, oops sorry, you're not a designer so you wouldn't know.
1) No I wasn't part of the design department but they were my Customer as an IT Project Delivery Manager so I got to know their Business Processes rather well. Barrow were supporting the ACA design effort quite heavily, and not just for the modules they were building. There is no magic wall of China separating one part of shipbuilding from another.

2) "Design maturity before construction" has been the Holy Grail of BAE for a long time, ever since they got royally screwed by the racy bid that GEC-Marconi put in for Astute. The amount of unnecessary rework that was required because boat 1 and 2 were partly designed after they were built was horrific and yes I have seen the case studies and yes I have sat in the Engineering Change meetings and yes I have seen the mandates from the very top that this must never ever be allowed to happen again or else heads will roll.

I suspect this is the reason that the T26 design phase seemed to be taking along time. Because they were determined to do it property. If Glasgow is in production there's no way that major design activity is still ongoing. Support of build / ECR work of course that's BAU, doesn't involve as many people.

3) Design on Successor started around 2011. I remember the portakabins going up for the 100s of additional engineers being recruited. Early 2020s are peak build years. Again, for the reasons above I don't believe that peak build year = peak design year. Or if it does then no lessons have been learnt.

4) Hunter - can't say for sure, but new mast and extra mk41 silos is not exactly a ground up redesign.

I don't pretend to know everything about UK shipbuilding, but I know enough to know you're talking nonsense.

The idea that the same industry that can successfully design a 70k tonne aircraft carrier, a 20k tonne SSBN and a 8k tonne world beating subhunter, at roughly the same time, will suddenly be floored by the need to design an RFA, is just patently absurd. Especially as those three massive projects are all now in production.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

It seems the tender for Three new FSS has begun again according to sources, though only a few I have found so far. How many will actually be ordered, well who knows, but at least the balls appears to be rolling once again if slowly.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:I really don’t see what the issue is with this. So it doesn’t currently exist, neither did the carriers before they were designed. So pay someone to design the thing. If the cost is too high maybe the Navy needs to simplify the spec a bit and not turn it into a swiss army knife.

In terms of capacity I wonder what the BAE design resources are doing right now, T26 and Hunter are pretty much finalised Successor is in build, they’re not on T31. A BAE design built at Cammel Llaird should be doable. This is not the space shuttle
T26's in Canada and Australia. Very, very, far from finalized. Submarine lot is separate and working on Dreadnought, so no use to you. Wishful thinking doesn't get ships designed and built. If it's so easy, have a go yourself.
Weird comment. Given that Hunter construction is on track to start mid 2022 I’d say there’s about to be some design capacity becoming available within the project timeline of FSS. And as for Subs being separate, well I was working at Barrow when the carriers were being designed - there were plenty of engineers there being assigned to support it. Amazing thing CADCAM. This is not a Ford class, it’s an RFA replenishment ship, we buy a design and scale it up a bit, what’s the issue, it’s been done before (Bay class)
Let me take a wild, wild stab in the dark here and guess that you weren't part of the design department at Barrow.

How close am I?

PS Design doesn't magically stop when construction starts.

PPS Dreadnought has priority over FSS, is untouchable.

PPPS. Who has an oven ready FSS design ready to purchase, oops sorry, you're not a designer so you wouldn't know.
1) No I wasn't part of the design department but they were my Customer as an IT Project Delivery Manager so I got to know their Business Processes rather well. Barrow were supporting the ACA design effort quite heavily, and not just for the modules they were building. There is no magic wall of China separating one part of shipbuilding from another.

2) "Design maturity before construction" has been the Holy Grail of BAE for a long time, ever since they got royally screwed by the racy bid that GEC-Marconi put in for Astute. The amount of unnecessary rework that was required because boat 1 and 2 were partly designed after they were built was horrific and yes I have seen the case studies and yes I have sat in the Engineering Change meetings and yes I have seen the mandates from the very top that this must never ever be allowed to happen again or else heads will roll.

I suspect this is the reason that the T26 design phase seemed to be taking along time. Because they were determined to do it property. If Glasgow is in production there's no way that major design activity is still ongoing. Support of build / ECR work of course that's BAU, doesn't involve as many people.

3) Design on Successor started around 2011. I remember the portakabins going up for the 100s of additional engineers being recruited. Early 2020s are peak build years. Again, for the reasons above I don't believe that peak build year = peak design year. Or if it does then no lessons have been learnt.

4) Hunter - can't say for sure, but new mast and extra mk41 silos is not exactly a ground up redesign.

I don't pretend to know everything about UK shipbuilding, but I know enough to know you're talking nonsense.

The idea that the same industry that can successfully design a 70k tonne aircraft carrier, a 20k tonne SSBN and a 8k tonne world beating subhunter, at roughly the same time, will suddenly be floored by the need to design an RFA, is just patently absurd. Especially as those three massive projects are all now in production.
Sorry if I hit a nerve (really) but you know very well that significant design activity goes on well after construction is started. The use of weasel words (not yours) in your post acknowledges the fact. For example "Design maturity" does not mean all design is complete. Far from it.

I refer you to the recent press storm about Hunter design problems to indicate that indeed design is still very much underway on that class as it is with the Canadian T26's.

You're are free to think otherwise than me, I've been wrong many times before, time will tell if there's enough surplus design capacity in the UK right now to support an FSS build program to meet the required dates. You seem to think it's at Bae. We'll see.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

No, sorry you’re wrong - design after build starts is largely a thing of the pas. That was the 3 billion gbp lesson learnt from Astute, and as I was saying I was there and people within my customer base lost their jobs as a result. Hunter is an evolution of t26 that has not yet started production. Production won’t start until that (re) design is complete.

Potted history:
Pre- CADCAM, as you say, ships were designed as they were being built because of the inherent limitations of lines on paper.

Astute was designed on paper and then effectively redesigned on CAD as it was being built as the skills to translate paper to metal no longer existed - many old blokes had retired. Pain.

Around this time the CAD systems really started to mature both in capacity and in their ability to interface seamlessly with logistical planning and erp systems which in BAEs case were/are Primavera and SAP.

That gave the opportunity to do a dispersed design and build of the carriers. Whether that was financially smart was another question but for the first time it was technically possible.

Type 45 of course had already been built - that was a digital design from the start but dirty little secret BAE lacked internal capacity at that time (early noughties) and so subcontracted large chunks of the design out to cad engineers in slovakia. No doubt the MOD still paid uk rates.

Then type 26 was really the first UK ship that was all BAE and all digital from the get go which is why it took so long, that’s why the design was a separate billion gbp contract from the build and why build didn’t start until design was largely complete. Now i don’t pretend to know exactly how complete but it was a helluva lot more complete than any previous ship. New ways of working.

This was also influenced by their relationship and exchange of information with Daewoo around the time of the Tide construction and the message from DMSE was very clear “don’t lift a spanner until design is complete”. Which ironically is much more an aerospace type process than traditional shipbuilding.

Which brings us to where we are now. A UK digital design capability that is now capable, well trained with the right tools and sometimes painful experience gained across 3 major projects. I suspect a factor in the Canadian / Australia choice of t26. So there’s a logical opportunity to roll designers off T26/Hunter and onto FSS. One ramps down the other ramps up.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

As much as the crowd loves to hear your black and white version of the world it just isn't 100% correct. Significant T26 design activity has gone on after build commenced on HMS Glasgow. Take a trip up to the Clyde and ask for yourself. And a shed load of activity is still going on for the Australian and Canadian T26's which are not yet started build and won't for years to come.

Go back and check those time lines for FSS and you'll see that their design needs to start right NOW to meet their in service targets. Call up your old Bae buddies and ask them if they think they have enough design folks sitting on their hand waiting for the off.

Let us know.

PS News to me that Bae designed the Tides.

PPS I am a huge admirer of the current, hard won, UK warship designing skill talent base, probably in the best shape it's been for a very long time. I wish I had the confidence that the UK politicians had the same level of ability not to piss it away.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Waking up this morning, reminded me that I should post that I would love to be dead wrong about this issue. Seeing the first of 3 mighty FSS float out of an expanded CL dock based on the BMT concept design fleshed out by Bae would be magnificent. Hopefully we will know by year end which way Boris will jump. Or not jump.

Last night I also read my latest copy of Warship World that was delivered this week with the latest on the Type 45 saga by Christopher Cope. Not for the weak of heart.

By the way, the magazine and its stable mate Warship Pictorial has gone through something of a renaissance. I have zero connection with them other than satisfied customer. Very well worth the price.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

I thought BMT were in partnership with navantia and H&W for the Solid stores ship.

Post Reply