Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote:So what is the realistic alternative?
Don’t know. There’s a lack of capacity and workforce in the UK. Which is precisely why Navantia think they have a hope.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

RichardIC wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:So what is the realistic alternative?
Don’t know. There’s a lack of capacity and workforce in the UK. Which is precisely why Navantia think they have a hope.
But isn’t building that workforce and capacity the objective of the Ship Building Strategy?

Any proposal with only a token UK element should be dismissed out of hand, or the strategy is worthless. Fact is that the RN has time to get this right, the carriers will not operate even close to maximum capacity till end of the decade, and even then the Forts can be made available (and can probably be effective with investment in heavy lifting solutions, which is required anyway).
”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

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RichardIC wrote:Don’t know. There’s a lack of capacity and workforce in the UK. Which is precisely why Navantia think they have a hope.
Its either Belfast or Birkenhead as I really don't think Rosyth has the capacity with the T31/T32 builds.

Can Cammell Laird handle 3 FSS within a tight schedule and on budget?

If the answer to this question is no or a low probability maybe then Belfast/Navantia is the only realistic option.

IMO, if handled correctly Navantia's involvement could be just what UK commercial shipbuilding needs to get back up and running.

If the FSS build blows the budget and has to endure spiralling costs and substantial delays I suspect much of the Amphib replacement work will go abroad.

The FSS builds must come in on time and on budget or any shipbuilding renaissance will be short lived.

jonas
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by jonas »


User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Its either Belfast or Birkenhead as I really don't think Rosyth has the capacity with the T31/T32 builds.

Can Cammell Laird handle 3 FSS within a tight schedule and on budget?
Cammell certainly can't handle the financial risk and they'd never pass financial standing tests on a contract that size. The RRS build nearly wiped them out and they've said they would only take a risk like that again if they had a major backer which is why they need BAE and Babcock. There also needs to be relevant design expertise.

I've got a feeling there's some bed-hopping to be done.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:IMO, if handled correctly Navantia's involvement could be just what UK commercial shipbuilding needs to get back up and running.
Why would anyone think Navantia has the slightest interest in creating a competitor?

I am 100% sure their proposal will be to have Spanish ship builders live in Belfast for the duration of any assembly. Sure, local folks will be employed for the low skill jobs but when the Spaniards go home at the end of the contract, the shipyard will have exactly the same ability to build a ship as they do now. And that's a big fat zero.

Of course this doesn't mean they won't be selected. UK politicians are dumb as shit when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

We should follow the example Germany has set with its new frigates being built by Damen. That company has had to build the ships in a German yard in close co-operation with its German partner. At least 70% of the value of the contract for the four frigates must be spent in Germany including all subsystems and so on.

In the case of the SSS, this could mean that the blocks delivered from Spain would be bare bones and require completion in the UK including fitting out before being joined in the assembly dock. Navantia would be working with it UK partners in the design and programme organisation and management but the majority of the work would be in the UK. It would be more like the T-26 programme in reverse with us building a Navantia design in the UK with UK alterations.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:I am 100% sure their proposal will be to have Spanish ship builders live in Belfast for the duration of any assembly. Sure, local folks will be employed for the low skill jobs but when the Spaniards go home at the end of the contract, the shipyard will have exactly the same ability to build a ship as they do now. And that's a big fat zero.
So again, what is the realistic alternative?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

RichardIC wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Its either Belfast or Birkenhead as I really don't think Rosyth has the capacity with the T31/T32 builds.

Can Cammell Laird handle 3 FSS within a tight schedule and on budget?
Poiuytrewq wrote:Its either Belfast or Birkenhead as I really don't think Rosyth has the capacity with the T31/T32 builds.

Can Cammell Laird handle 3 FSS within a tight schedule and on budget?
Cammell certainly can't handle the financial risk and they'd never pass financial standing tests on a contract that size. The RRS build nearly wiped them out and they've said they would only take a risk like that again if they had a major backer which is why they need BAE and Babcock. There also needs to be relevant design expertise.

I've got a feeling there's some bed-hopping to be done.
The design concept is coming from Rolls Royce its based on the Enviroship like HMNZS Aotearoa. BAE do the detail design and Cammell Laird build them. I suppose Babcock spread the risk and can bring in the isupport asset/platform management stuff.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:We should follow the example Germany has set with its new frigates being built by Damen. That company has had to build the ships in a German yard in close co-operation with its German partner. At least 70% of the value of the contract for the four frigates must be spent in Germany including all subsystems and so on.

In the case of the SSS, this could mean that the blocks delivered from Spain would be bare bones and require completion in the UK including fitting out before being joined in the assembly dock. Navantia would be working with it UK partners in the design and programme organisation and management but the majority of the work would be in the UK. It would be more like the T-26 programme in reverse with us building a Navantia design in the UK with UK alterations.
What nationality are the workers in your proposal? What do they do when the contract is finished?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I am 100% sure their proposal will be to have Spanish ship builders live in Belfast for the duration of any assembly. Sure, local folks will be employed for the low skill jobs but when the Spaniards go home at the end of the contract, the shipyard will have exactly the same ability to build a ship as they do now. And that's a big fat zero.
So again, what is the realistic alternative?
Team UK.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:What nationality are the workers in your proposal? What do they do when the contract is finished?
The existing German workforce at the Yard which has built warships for the German Navy fairly recently. Would struggle to match that in more than 1 location, but will any of the bidders be willing to train an entirely UK workforce for an order of 3 ships with nothing certain to follow? Possibly a core of foreign workers to mentor their UK counterparts, I do not know, but if the contract stipulates a UK workforce, I fear it may get bogged down in red tape before any production contract is struck. Which UK yards currently have a skilled workforce able to build the SSS by the way?

jonas
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by jonas »

Parliamentary written answers 23rd Sept 2021:- Still ambiguity rules !

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 9-20/51615

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Not a bad answer as far as things go, but the important thing now is to progress the programme and start getting these things built. The majority of the work will most likely be done in the UK for the whole project, but it may only be a small majority. Even 51% of the work being done uin the UK meets the criteria.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Better than the Tides!

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

jonas wrote:Parliamentary written answers 23rd Sept 2021:- Still ambiguity rules !

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 9-20/51615
The Government has made clear that a substantial part of the build will be conducted in the UK, there is a requirement to integrate all ships in a UK shipyard. In addition Social Value will represent a significant proportion of the evaluation of the bids.

1: substantial part of the build : How much? Is it 51%? 66%? Significant fraction of equipments must be imported (e.g. diesel gen). Project management and control needs at least 10% (or more) of the cost of the work (I mean, the cost excluding equipments bought). If the "substantial part" is 66%, it will be a big drawback for international firms. In that case, the contract will force them to stand-up a "so-so large" UK firm to do most of the management work. If it is 51%, then a bit more relaxed, I guess. (Not talking about the specific number, but just pointing out the importance of "project management and control cost").

2: integrate all ships in a UK shipyard: This will open a possibility to block-build some parts abroad, and integrate them in UK well-dock.

3: The contract will be awarded to a UK firm acting solely or as part of a consortium. This is a big big point. It means, Navantia or Damen (or Gibs&Cocks) need to establish "a UK firm". Related to item-1, this "UK firm" will do most of the management work. But, the know-how, training of systems management engineers, might not grow in UK (as they will come from their homeland). Know-hows of "build" will remain in UK, good, but that is only a fraction of the work.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 3: The contract will be awarded to a UK firm acting solely or as part of a consortium
I assume that company would also become financially responsible for any contract problems. So would need deep pockets.

jonas
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by jonas »

At last some movement on the project :-

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W41/760611263

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

jonas wrote:At last some movement on the project :-

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W41/760611263
So much for the nonsense that all bids must be headed by a UK company.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
jonas wrote:At last some movement on the project :-

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W41/760611263
So much for the nonsense that all bids must be headed by a UK company.
Yes, will be interesting interesting see what that bid proposes in order to make it compliamt with being substantially/majority UK plc.

On the other hand, maybe they won't make much effort in that regard, knowing they'll not win - why not grab £4.85 million if offered to throw together a bid that will cost you a few pennies to put togther....Nice work for some

Post Reply