Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 5326
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 07:28
Repulse wrote: 24 Jul 2024, 17:32
Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Jul 2024, 17:19 The simple truth is that the T32 and the MRSS programs are currently unfunded…
Then do not build them.
Problem solved but what does Rosyth do from 2026 onwards?
Something that’s needed and if there isn’t anything nothing. This is a self created mess, the RN budget can afford one efficient complex warship yard, one minor warship yard and perhaps a RFA yard.

If the T31 junkies are surprised that other countries would rather build less complex ships themselves and more interested in importing designs and build experience then I am lost for words. What makes me angry is that we’ve weakened the RN and made Govan less efficient by cutting the T26 order and refusing to commit long term whilst we learn what was bloody obvious.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 5326
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 07:28 What Amphibious fleet? The Albions are already effectively deleted and Argus will go by 2028. By the mid 2030’s the Bays would be 30 years old and increasingly unreliable.

The total U.K. LCU capacity would be 3. Totally unacceptable.

Why would over 5000 RM be required if the entire Amphibious fleet consists of only 3 auxiliary vessels?
Firstly it’s been confirmed that RFA Argus will remain in service beyond 2030, and some reports suggest the latter half of the 2030s. Even then, if money is tight, another commercial conversion is a real option and I’d argue the better route. People argue it’s all about new ships, but guess what will be more important in a war, yes the ability to convert what’s already built and in the water.

Second, the 5,000 RMs you quote have a variety of roles, at best you are talking about half of this when we talk about the two Cdos still assigned to Cdo level operations.

With relatively modest investment in CIC (already funded) and vertical lift (partially funded) and an increased focus in OTH operations (which is the direction of travel), then yes 2 CVFs, an ASS and 3 LSDs is sufficient. However if it’s not, then it’s not too late to save the two LPDs (it soon will be), but new ships do naff all to achieve this, an increase in RN numbers and the OPEX will.

The fleet is ok for another decade - what needs investment is the connectors and enablers.
If H&W goes to the wall where is the FSS going to be built?
The UK needs and can afford a single RFA yard - if it’s H&W then nationalise it.
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 08:52
Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 07:28 What Amphibious fleet? The Albions are already effectively deleted and Argus will go by 2028. By the mid 2030’s the Bays would be 30 years old and increasingly unreliable.

The total U.K. LCU capacity would be 3. Totally unacceptable.

Why would over 5000 RM be required if the entire Amphibious fleet consists of only 3 auxiliary vessels?
Firstly it’s been confirmed that RFA Argus will remain in service beyond 2030, and some reports suggest the latter half of the 2030s. Even then, if money is tight, another commercial conversion is a real option and I’d argue the better route. People argue it’s all about new ships, but guess what will be more important in a war, yes the ability to convert what’s already built and in the water.

Second, the 5,000 RMs you quote have a variety of roles, at best you are talking about half of this when we talk about the two Cdos still assigned to Cdo level operations.

With relatively modest investment in CIC (already funded) and vertical lift (partially funded) and an increased focus in OTH operations (which is the direction of travel), then yes 2 CVFs, an ASS and 3 LSDs is sufficient. However if it’s not, then it’s not too late to save the two LPDs (it soon will be), but new ships do naff all to achieve this, an increase in RN numbers and the OPEX will.

The fleet is ok for another decade - what needs investment is the connectors and enablers.
If H&W goes to the wall where is the FSS going to be built?
The UK needs and can afford a single RFA yard - if it’s H&W then nationalise it.
If Government was thinking of nationalising H&W Belfast, then surely the Government simply guaranteeing the £200m loan would be a cheaper and less risky option than going straight for full Nationalisation.

If H&W Belfast specialises in RFA Auxiliaries and amphibs that there is enough work for them if the ships are properly ordered and spread out over the 25-30 years UK Shipbuilding Plan.There should be around 12-15 such ships required over such a period.

Considering that have 4*Tides, 3*FSS, 2*Waves plus hopefully 6*MRSS (to replace Ocean, Argus, 2*Albions & 3*Bays).

Add in commercial refit and hopefully (eventually) commercial shipbuilding and H&W Belfast should have enough work over this 25-30 year cycle once they have built up their workforce and benefitted from some knowledge sharing from Navantia.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5894
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Thus again I prefer to see Babcock or BAES to buy H&W Belfast yard.

If BAES do it, it can raise hands for MRSS build after FSS build, sharing some workforce between T26 build. Or, it can also raise hands for CVF maintenance, which will in place free-up Babcock/Rosyth for MRSS build.

If Babcock do it, it can do CVF maintenance and MRSS build at once. (Independently, they can build MHC LSV after T31 build ends).

Both of these proposal are valid only AFTER FSS build ends. And anyway, MRSS MUST start building only after FSSS build ends. If not, the "RFA build yard" will easily dry-out of order in late 2030s.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4374
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 08:37 Something that’s needed and if there isn’t anything nothing.
I simply can’t agree. Stopping the construction pipeline to convert commercial hulls isn’t the answer in an increasingly dangerous world.

The T31 direction of travel is sound provided the vessels are decommissioned after 12-15 years. Building 10 vessels every 12 years ensures viability for Rosyth. Personally I would forget the T32 and build another 6x modernised Iver Huitfeldt with as much commonality with existing RN vessels as possible but only if the new funding is secured, if it isn’t then it’s clear the new administration in No10 has no interest in rebuilding the mass that has been lost since 2010. That would result in HMG wilfully disregarding a clear requirement for a minimum of 24 escorts. Not smart.

Govan and Scotstoun are now viable and any orders from Norway would just be a bonus.

Therefore, H&W (Belfast) would have a clear run at everything above ~160m ensuring long term viability.

H&W (Appledore) could become the UK’s small vessel centre of excellence constructing all OPVs, IPS, LSV, Survey, fishery protection and border force vessels plus landing craft and updated mexefloates etc.

This would give HMG the ability to build 3-4 escorts a year in a prolonged crisis, dry dock both CVFs concurrently without disrupting the construction pipeline and ensure competition by encouraging bids from different yards to construct blocks for the main assembly yard.

The stop-start bean counting approach doesn’t work and unpicking the National Shipbuilding Strategy now would be extremely reckless.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 5326
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 12:45
Repulse wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 08:37 Something that’s needed and if there isn’t anything nothing.
I simply can’t agree. Stopping the construction pipeline to convert commercial hulls isn’t the answer in an increasingly dangerous world.

The T31 direction of travel is sound provided the vessels are decommissioned after 12-15 years. Building 10 vessels every 12 years ensures viability for Rosyth. Personally I would forget the T32 and build another 6x modernised Iver Huitfeldt with as much commonality with existing RN vessels as possible but only if the new funding is secured, if it isn’t then it’s clear the new administration in No10 has no interest in rebuilding the mass that has been lost since 2010. That would result in HMG wilfully disregarding a clear requirement for a minimum of 24 escorts. Not smart.

Govan and Scotstoun are now viable and any orders from Norway would just be a bonus.

Therefore, H&W (Belfast) would have a clear run at everything above ~160m ensuring long term viability.

H&W (Appledore) could become the UK’s small vessel centre of excellence constructing all OPVs, IPS, LSV, Survey, fishery protection and border force vessels plus landing craft and updated mexefloates etc.

This would give HMG the ability to build 3-4 escorts a year in a prolonged crisis, dry dock both CVFs concurrently without disrupting the construction pipeline and ensure competition by encouraging bids from different yards to construct blocks for the main assembly yard.

The stop-start bean counting approach doesn’t work and unpicking the National Shipbuilding Strategy now would be extremely reckless.
Sorry, but utter nonsense - basically you are arguing that we need to keep people in jobs, and dockyards building stuff that isn’t needed, above the defence of the realm.

The government has killed Appledore as a serious dockyard, all reason points to Rosyth being the best yard for minor warships - yes that means a drumbeat of OPVs and the like which some here want to kill for the unaffordable dream of large numbers of light frigates.

The reason why H&W isn’t getting a loan is twofold, there’s no faith in the management / business plan, and the government is still obsessed by going out to tender when it can easily just make a decision to declare all ships warships and fix in getting individual yards efficient for particular warships.

Lastly, if you think conversion of commercial ships for military use will not need to be a large part of growing the fleet in wartime, then I suggest you look again at the IPS, MROSS, OSV, ASS and logistical ships already in service and history of previous conflicts.
”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: 1356
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
British Indian Ocean Territory

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote: 23 Jul 2024, 05:39
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Jul 2024, 22:14
tomuk wrote: 22 Jul 2024, 19:14
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Jul 2024, 16:09 I really hope Babcock or BAES to buy H&W. UK cannot accommodate so many ship builders, all are too small and thus will easily lost with a smallish problem like those now we see on H&W. If the FSS contract is really promising, there is no risk on Babcock or BAES to buy H&W. By doing so, they can share their designing resources to build MRSS, and also use Belfast dock to handle current build program AND FSS and then MRSS by their own.

Why not?

If not, "the FSS contract is NOT promising", I guess.
The FSS contract is with Navantia not H&W. Would Navantia work with a BAE or Bbcock owned H&W?
Why not? There are many joint venture on Navanita and BAE. Australian LHD and DDG, for example?
Because they are competitors, BAE with T26\F110 and Babcock with T31\Alpha. The Australian builds weren't JVs with BAE The Canberras were procured before BAE bought out Tenix albiet built after and on the Hobarts BAE lost the contract and were only brought in after the fact when the preferred Australian subcontractor pulled out they weren't a prime.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Babcock and BAE are competitors for Navantia in frigates, and in any case if BAE were to buy H&W the FSS costs would double.

H&W are under capitalised and need to bring in an investor or just a plain old fashioned rights issue. Though I do struggle to understand how 50 million could not be found within either the levelling up budget or the Infrastructure bank. It doesn't need to be a gift - just a loan at less than 14%.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5894
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 13:36
tomuk wrote: 23 Jul 2024, 05:39Because they are competitors, BAE with T26\F110 and Babcock with T31\Alpha. The Australian builds weren't JVs with BAE The Canberras were procured before BAE bought out Tenix albiet built after and on the Hobarts BAE lost the contract and were only brought in after the fact when the preferred Australian subcontractor pulled out they weren't a prime.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Babcock and BAE are competitors for Navantia in frigates, and in any case if BAE were to buy H&W the FSS costs would double.

H&W are under capitalised and need to bring in an investor or just a plain old fashioned rights issue. Though I do struggle to understand how 50 million could not be found within either the levelling up budget or the Infrastructure bank. It doesn't need to be a gift - just a loan at less than 14%.
Many competitors collaborate. For example,
- Babcock vs BAES competed in T31, but formed a team on FSSS. Very clear answer they can do it.
- RN CVF program, we all know how it proceeded. Competitors become collaborators later.
- RAN Hobert class was Navantia design, but later BAE joined the build program.
No problem. There are many many "the same cases" as we now see on FSSS.

If BAE or Babcock is to buy H&W Belfast, they do not need to be united. H&W-Belfast can be a subsidiary. No problem. What H&W lack is "mass" in resource. Only BAE or Babcock can provide it. Simple.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5894
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 12:45
Repulse wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 08:37 Something that’s needed and if there isn’t anything nothing.
I simply can’t agree. Stopping the construction pipeline to convert commercial hulls isn’t the answer in an increasingly dangerous world.

The T31 direction of travel is sound provided the vessels are decommissioned after 12-15 years. Building 10 vessels every 12 years ensures viability for Rosyth. Personally I would forget the T32 and build another 6x modernised Iver Huitfeldt with as much commonality with existing RN vessels as possible but only if the new funding is secured, if it isn’t then it’s clear the new administration in No10 has no interest in rebuilding the mass that has been lost since 2010. That would result in HMG wilfully disregarding a clear requirement for a minimum of 24 escorts. Not smart.

Govan and Scotstoun are now viable and any orders from Norway would just be a bonus.

Therefore, H&W (Belfast) would have a clear run at everything above ~160m ensuring long term viability.

H&W (Appledore) could become the UK’s small vessel centre of excellence constructing all OPVs, IPS, LSV, Survey, fishery protection and border force vessels plus landing craft and updated mexefloates etc.

This would give HMG the ability to build 3-4 escorts a year in a prolonged crisis, dry dock both CVFs concurrently without disrupting the construction pipeline and ensure competition by encouraging bids from different yards to construct blocks for the main assembly yard.

The stop-start bean counting approach doesn’t work and unpicking the National Shipbuilding Strategy now would be extremely reckless.
Sorry, I cannot agree here.

1: "The T31 direction of travel is sound provided the vessels are decommissioned after 12-15 years. " The same was said for T23. It failed. The same was said for HMS Ocean. Failed. Thus, T31 will failed to be replaced within 12-15 years. Note that there is not such saying anymore anywhere. It is already old plan. One of the many ideas, the original SBS had, but lost later.

2: "Govan and Scotstoun are now viable and any orders from Norway would just be a bonus." Agree. But, it can expand.

3: "H&W (Belfast) would have a clear run at everything above ~160m ensuring long term viability." Why not Rosyth. Why invest on Belfast, and not on Rosyth?

4: "H&W (Appledore) could become the UK’s small vessel centre of excellence constructing all OPVs, IPS, LSV, Survey, fishery protection and border force vessels plus landing craft and updated mexefloates etc." All of them shall go to Rosyth for it to survive and become healthy. Even if Rosyth gets T32, it can relatively easily handle all of these order. Some of them can go to BAES with Cammel Laird, Furgason, etc. out sourced.

This idea will make UK shipbuilding much more stronger, solid, durable and high tech. Distributing investment will just make it worse. None of the UK shipbuilder is large. They are small industries in global point of view. If they were kept smaller and weaker, they will lose, lose and lose.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1356
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
British Indian Ocean Territory

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 13:52
SD67 wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 13:36
tomuk wrote: 23 Jul 2024, 05:39Because they are competitors, BAE with T26\F110 and Babcock with T31\Alpha. The Australian builds weren't JVs with BAE The Canberras were procured before BAE bought out Tenix albiet built after and on the Hobarts BAE lost the contract and were only brought in after the fact when the preferred Australian subcontractor pulled out they weren't a prime.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Babcock and BAE are competitors for Navantia in frigates, and in any case if BAE were to buy H&W the FSS costs would double.

H&W are under capitalised and need to bring in an investor or just a plain old fashioned rights issue. Though I do struggle to understand how 50 million could not be found within either the levelling up budget or the Infrastructure bank. It doesn't need to be a gift - just a loan at less than 14%.


If BAE or Babcock is to buy H&W Belfast, they do not need to be united. H&W-Belfast can be a subsidiary. No problem. What H&W lack is "mass" in resource. Only BAE or Babcock can provide it. Simple.
In a top 100 PLC, employee relations doesn't really work like that. There are fixed salary bands and the unions don't tolerate much divergence between the sites. They also have big HR departments, DEI, etc. A BAE welder is a BAE welder. They earn 100k in a good year. That is economically incompatible with the sort of work H&W are picking up = refit, small commercial vessels, barges etc. IMHO there's a reason BAE don't currently do that work, and there's likely a reason Babcock shut down Appledore.
A buyer would have to be a medium sized engineering company, ideally not a PLC, keeping it lean

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5894
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 14:35In a top 100 PLC, employee relations doesn't really work like that. There are fixed salary bands and the unions don't tolerate much divergence between the sites. They also have big HR departments, DEI, etc. A BAE welder is a BAE welder. They earn 100k in a good year. That is economically incompatible with the sort of work H&W are picking up = refit, small commercial vessels, barges etc. IMHO there's a reason BAE don't currently do that work, and there's likely a reason Babcock shut down Appledore.
A buyer would have to be a medium sized engineering company, ideally not a PLC, keeping it lean
Interesting point. It is only top 100 PLC? I mean, APCL group owns Cammel Laird and A&P and Neway, and the worker there is all paid the same?

- How does it work if BAE buys 49% of the stocks of H&W Belfast? What if 51%?. What if 33%? Many options are there?
- How is the Thales UK related to Thales Netherland and then Thales (France)? International case differ?
- What if US BAE, not UK BAE, buys 51% of the stock of H&W Belfast?

There are many option to make a company a subsidiary, but you mean in every case the pay must be the same? (Just for clarity)

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 2422
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 07:28
Repulse wrote: 24 Jul 2024, 17:32
Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Jul 2024, 17:19 The simple truth is that the T32 and the MRSS programs are currently unfunded…
Then do not build them.
Problem solved but what does Rosyth do from 2026 onwards?
…the current amphibious fleet can carry on another decade….
What Amphibious fleet? The Albions are already effectively deleted and Argus will go by 2028. By the mid 2030’s the Bays would be 30 years old and increasingly unreliable.

The total U.K. LCU capacity would be 3. Totally unacceptable.

Why would over 5000 RM be required if the entire Amphibious fleet consists of only 3 auxiliary vessels?

If H&W goes to the wall where is the FSS going to be built?
Cadiz like the majority of it always was.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1356
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
British Indian Ocean Territory

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 15:48
SD67 wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 14:35In a top 100 PLC, employee relations doesn't really work like that. There are fixed salary bands and the unions don't tolerate much divergence between the sites. They also have big HR departments, DEI, etc. A BAE welder is a BAE welder. They earn 100k in a good year. That is economically incompatible with the sort of work H&W are picking up = refit, small commercial vessels, barges etc. IMHO there's a reason BAE don't currently do that work, and there's likely a reason Babcock shut down Appledore.
A buyer would have to be a medium sized engineering company, ideally not a PLC, keeping it lean
Interesting point. It is only top 100 PLC? I mean, APCL group owns Cammel Laird and A&P and Neway, and the worker there is all paid the same?

- How does it work if BAE buys 49% of the stocks of H&W Belfast? What if 51%?. What if 33%? Many options are there?
- How is the Thales UK related to Thales Netherland and then Thales (France)? International case differ?
- What if US BAE, not UK BAE, buys 51% of the stock of H&W Belfast?

There are many option to make a company a subsidiary, but you mean in every case the pay must be the same? (Just for clarity)
Cammel Laird and A&P pay alot less than BAE and also get rid of people more quickly in the downturns. BAE has history as a state owned company which in the past created a Civil Service type culture. Also have many managers, arguably too many.

Minority shareholding might work. Though to be honest Navantia is maybe a more logical investor.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 2422
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 15:48
SD67 wrote: 25 Jul 2024, 14:35In a top 100 PLC, employee relations doesn't really work like that. There are fixed salary bands and the unions don't tolerate much divergence between the sites. They also have big HR departments, DEI, etc. A BAE welder is a BAE welder. They earn 100k in a good year. That is economically incompatible with the sort of work H&W are picking up = refit, small commercial vessels, barges etc. IMHO there's a reason BAE don't currently do that work, and there's likely a reason Babcock shut down Appledore.
A buyer would have to be a medium sized engineering company, ideally not a PLC, keeping it lean
Interesting point. It is only top 100 PLC? I mean, APCL group owns Cammel Laird and A&P and Neway, and the worker there is all paid the same?

- How does it work if BAE buys 49% of the stocks of H&W Belfast? What if 51%?. What if 33%? Many options are there?
- How is the Thales UK related to Thales Netherland and then Thales (France)? International case differ?
- What if US BAE, not UK BAE, buys 51% of the stock of H&W Belfast?

There are many option to make a company a subsidiary, but you mean in every case the pay must be the same? (Just for clarity)
The pay doesn't have to be the same even in the same company but as said with an established multinational firm like BAE there is a higher overhead due to union agreements and just the corporate nature of things.

If BAE were to buy only 51% they would only get 51% of the profit but it would appear you want them to put up all of the capital as H&W is basically worth zero.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1519
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Not strictly FSS, but not going well for Harland and Wolff

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck5gkxg700jo

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 2096
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
British Indian Ocean Territory

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by new guy »

RichardIC wrote: 01 Aug 2024, 14:27 Not strictly FSS, but not going well for Harland and Wolff

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck5gkxg700jo
They cancelled it to preserve the main company.


Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

new guy wrote:
RichardIC wrote: 01 Aug 2024, 14:27 Not strictly FSS, but not going well for Harland and Wolff

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck5gkxg700jo
They cancelled it to preserve the main company.

As suggested on 18th July:

"Also wonder whether the juice is worth the squeeze on their Scilly Isles ferry venture if it's going to lead to a competition/state aid challenge from the current monopolistic"

[Apologies for typos by Samsung]

It always appeared a folly, which irked the incumbent enough to threaten a state-aid review when H&W applied for the £200m loan guarantee.



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5894
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

https://x.com/UKDefJournal/status/1822622379299815475

I think selling H&W to either Babcock or BAES is just good. UK shipbuilding order is NOT enough to keep three ship builders. As a ship builder, BAES is smallish, Babcock is small, and H&W is tiny, in global standards.

If united with Babcock or BAES, the Belfast worker can get subcontracts for T31 ans/or T26 blocks. Then, in future, Clyde and/or Rosyth worker can get subcontracts for FSSS ans/or MRSS blocks.

Just win-win.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 2422
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 11 Aug 2024, 19:09 https://x.com/UKDefJournal/status/1822622379299815475

I think selling H&W to either Babcock or BAES is just good. UK shipbuilding order is NOT enough to keep three ship builders. As a ship builder, BAES is smallish, Babcock is small, and H&W is tiny, in global standards.

If united with Babcock or BAES, the Belfast worker can get subcontracts for T31 ans/or T26 blocks. Then, in future, Clyde and/or Rosyth worker can get subcontracts for FSSS ans/or MRSS blocks.

Just win-win.
Why not Navantia they have a requirement to build a percentage of FSS in the UK? Don't they?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 2096
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
British Indian Ocean Territory

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by new guy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 11 Aug 2024, 19:09 https://x.com/UKDefJournal/status/1822622379299815475

I think selling H&W to either Babcock or BAES is just good. UK shipbuilding order is NOT enough to keep three ship builders. As a ship builder, BAES is smallish, Babcock is small, and H&W is tiny, in global standards.

If united with Babcock or BAES, the Belfast worker can get subcontracts for T31 ans/or T26 blocks. Then, in future, Clyde and/or Rosyth worker can get subcontracts for FSSS ans/or MRSS blocks.

Just win-win.
Nationalise it, like Australia has done with their Hunter class / AUKUS Yard.
Like Sheffield forgemasters.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5894
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Sorry my point is, why you dislike H&W sold to BAES or Babcock? If UK seriously want to rebuild your ship building, I think it is the only practical solution? Having tiny shipyard(s) will not work. A short term shortage of cash flow will easily killl the company. Actually, Cammel Laird was almost dead with RV SDA building, which made them huge loss. They under estimated the build cost by x1.5 .

Babcock buying Belfast, Only merit I can see.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 2422
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 11 Aug 2024, 21:15 Sorry my point is, why you dislike H&W sold to BAES or Babcock? If UK seriously want to rebuild your ship building, I think it is the only practical solution? Having tiny shipyard(s) will not work. A short term shortage of cash flow will easily killl the company. Actually, Cammel Laird was almost dead with RV SDA building, which made them huge loss. They under estimated the build cost by x1.5 .

Babcock buying Belfast, Only merit I can see.
Why would Babcock want to get involved? They already closed down Appledore so would hardly want it back and have taken serious shade on T31 programme, reading the annual reports it wouldn't surprise me if they wanted out of new shipbuilding once T31 is built.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 2096
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
British Indian Ocean Territory

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by new guy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 11 Aug 2024, 21:15 Sorry my point is, why you dislike H&W sold to BAES or Babcock? If UK seriously want to rebuild your ship building, I think it is the only practical solution? Having tiny shipyard(s) will not work. A short term shortage of cash flow will easily killl the company. Actually, Cammel Laird was almost dead with RV SDA building, which made them huge loss. They under estimated the build cost by x1.5 .

Babcock buying Belfast, Only merit I can see.
Because I don't think a large efficient entity should be weighed down by purchasing an undeveloped company with 4 yards.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5894
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

For Babcock, No need to buy other than Belfast. The article suggests “ripping apart”, which I think means as such?

What Babcock may want is the 2nd well dock big enough to handle CVF. Now Belfast has some work for several years as FSSS, AND can provide the dock around 2032-35, when Babcock ends its T31 build.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 2096
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
British Indian Ocean Territory

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by new guy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 11 Aug 2024, 22:03 For Babcock, No need to buy other than Belfast. The article suggests “ripping apart”, which I think means as such?

What Babcock may want is the 2nd well dock big enough to handle CVF. Now Belfast has some work for several years as FSSS, AND can provide the dock around 2032-35, when Babcock ends its T31 build.
I'm not against it.

Post Reply