SW1 wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 09:11
It depends what you mean by troop transport role. Every study ever done shows keeping troops embarked on a ship reduces there fighting capability quite quickly. The way you get troops anywhere is to fly them in the a330s you transport there equipment by sea and marry up the to at a port.
True, but like the Falklands proved sometimes flying troops to friendly airports isn’t an option. I think some level of modularity (or ability to rapidly convert) would be a good middle ground.
Would still argue for 3 FSS and 2 JSBL (covering the Aviation Support role also) is the best option, combined with 3 new LPDs.
”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
SW1 wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 09:11
It depends what you mean by troop transport role. Every study ever done shows keeping troops embarked on a ship reduces there fighting capability quite quickly. The way you get troops anywhere is to fly them in the a330s you transport there equipment by sea and marry up the to at a port.
True, but like the Falklands proved sometimes flying troops to friendly airports isn’t an option. I think some level of modularity (or ability to rapidly convert) would be a good middle ground.
Would still argue for 3 FSS and 2 JSBL (covering the Aviation Support role also) is the best option, combined with 3 new LPDs.
I think if we looking at allocating resource and being realistic there isn’t anywhere were flying to a friendly airport or port won’t be an option going fwd if we are to intervene somewhere.
SW1 wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 10:49
I think if we looking at allocating resource and being realistic there isn’t anywhere were flying to a friendly airport or port won’t be an option going fwd if we are to intervene somewhere.
Friendly or secured port I agree with you, relying on friendly or secured airports I have doubts that even in austere times we should be making that assumption.
”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
SW1 wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 10:49
I think if we looking at allocating resource and being realistic there isn’t anywhere were flying to a friendly airport or port won’t be an option going fwd if we are to intervene somewhere.
Friendly or secured port I agree with you, relying on friendly or secured airports I have doubts that even in austere times we should be making that assumption.
To an extent yes but beyond special or small scale operations I think it applies to airfields as well.
It seems the Def Sec is not quite the fan of openness that he loudly proclaims to be.
Our entire defence procurement process is broken (I'm tempted to say something far stronger/potentially libellous) and I'm less than certain there is the will or even desire to ever fix it.
This just joins a growing list of programmes that will miss their planned entry into service, not by years but by a decade or more. FSSS was once upon a time intended to enter service in 2017. We haven't even picked a design yet.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
I have to admit I have some sympathy with the MOD on this. When was the last time BAE / Babcock built this kind of ship? It could end up costing a packet. And would you really want to distract their attention from T31/T26? But if Navantia can commit to knowledge transfer and upskilling at either Cammells / H&W it could be an interesting ongoing partnership.
I don't, if the MOD does not have faith in the UK shipbuilding then come out and say it. Nothing will be gained by keeping quite and giving it away to a foreign shipyard at a later point.
I assume from this Navantia have a spotless record on delivering ships on budget and on time? If I remember right the ships from Korea didn't stick with the original time scales.
It depends on the overall quality of the proposal. If BAE are saying "we're going to charge you 3 billion and we won't invest in the yard, once this contract is finished we'll just shut up shop like we did at Portsmouth" and Navantia are saying "We want to be a long term player in the UK like RBSL, first of class will be 40% British, second 60%, third 80%, and we'll invest and pursue future opportunities" then that might be a tempting offer.
Which company or consortium is adequately qualified and experienced to build these vessels in the UK on time, on budget AND has the necessary yard capacity to make it work?
I think the simple answer is, it isn’t possible and if it was it would have happened by now.
RN want the three vessels and in all likelihood a UK consortium will use the entire budget on two hulls unless there is foreign involvement.
Involving Rosyth and Govan would be a complete distraction from the Frigate builds IMO.
The FSS builds need to run seamlessly into the Amphib replacements thereby retaining the necessary skills and experience. Govan has little extra capacity and Rosyth needs to use all available capacity to maintain the T31/T32s highly ambitious construction timetable as well as providing planned and emergency capacity for QE and PWLS.
A BMT/Foreign consortium working with Cammell Laird and H&W with cast iron skill transfer guarantees along with rising UK work share in hull 2 and 3 remains the best option IMO.
The UK yards could then confidently bid for the MRSS contracts around 2030
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
SD67 wrote: ↑10 Oct 2022, 16:12
I have to admit I have some sympathy with the MOD on this. When was the last time BAE / Babcock built this kind of ship? It could end up costing a packet. And would you really want to distract their attention from T31/T26? But if Navantia can commit to knowledge transfer and upskilling at either Cammells / H&W it could be an interesting ongoing partnership.
Just want to make clear. I was not criticising the role of foreign firms in delivering FSSS.
I may have reservations about Navantia but frankly not as much as their partner, H&W whose main focus since assembling offshore turbines, going bust and being taken over by Infrastrata was limited to ship refit.
My issue is the lack of openness from a department and particularly an individual who otherwise wax lyrical about a "shipbuilding renaissance" and the importance of "learning lessons" from the past. Yet neither of whom seem to have an ability or desire to deliver either.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑10 Oct 2022, 19:25
The UK yards could then confidently bid for the MRSS contracts around 2030
Will Cammell Laird and H&W actually have the ability to bid? They aren't exactly FTSE 100/250 multinational companies like BAES or Babcock. They will need a large backer.
I’d guess probably not, it would likely be another consortium bid with Navantia backing them. But then how different is this from RBSL/Boxer or Leonardo/AW149?
In terms of secrecy / obfuscation at a wild guess I’d say politics rearing its ugly head ie Team UK committing to assembly in Rosyrh may not exactly be Reading The Room. “ yet more shipbuilding for. those ungrateful seditionists north of the Tweed” etc
Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑10 Oct 2022, 19:25
The UK yards could then confidently bid for the MRSS contracts around 2030
They will need a large backer.
I am expecting Navantia to be the prime contractor supported by BMT.
There is another option and that is for HMG to invest in a mega-yard somewhere in the UK. This would involve concentrating all Auxiliary, Amphibious and any additional commercial shipping construction on one site. Such a yard would be operated by BAE or Babcock.
A mega-yard would be the most efficient way for the UK to build these large vessels but it also would leave the treasury exposed to massive state funded bailouts if times got hard. This is the main reason why the mega-yard approach won’t happen.
14 September 2021
Defence and Security
Team Resolute is a UK consortium consisting of Navantia, Harland & Wolff and BMT. We are jointly pleased to announce the award of a Competitive Procurement Phase (CPP) design contract by the UK Ministry of Defence.
The Ministry of Defence has awarded four CPP design contracts, each initially worth around £5 million, to four contenders, including Team Resolute.
The contracts will enable the bidders to develop their design proposals, and the next stage will seek details of how they would fulfil the broader delivery needs of the programme.
Team Resolute will develop its proposal to build three new Fleet Solid Support ships that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary require to support the Royal Navy. The CPP contract award means a significant step forward for Team Resolute, which is committed to providing the right capability to the Royal Navy and outstanding social value to the UK shipbuilding industry.
Team Resolute is a UK based collaboration between Harland & Wolff, BMT and Navantia, focused on strengthening UK sovereign shipbuilding capability and prosperity whilst driving cost and production efficiencies.
The collaboration combines over 160 years of shipbuilding experience at one of the UK’s biggest shipyards, including two of the largest drydocks in Europe, with unrivalled auxiliary design experience from UK designer BMT and a world-leading auxiliary shipbuilding track record from trusted NATO partner Navantia.
As a new defence challenger, Team Resolute is ideally positioned to meet the UK Government’s current requirements and provide a low-risk and value for money UK solution for Fleet Solid Support (FSS).
BMT’s unique design experience will reduce development time, whilst Harland & Wolff’s and Navantia’s joint unparalleled drydock capacity will minimise the FSS ships’ entry to service for the Carrier Strike Group. Alongside this, Navantia’s risk management experience with Australian and Spanish navies will assure delivery to cost, time and quality.
The team is committed to transferring world-class digital shipyard technology and knowledge to bring long-term economic benefit to the UK. The project aligns with the UK Government’s Net Zero 2050 carbon emissions strategy and vision. It includes several naval, commercial and offshore renewable opportunities potentially worth an additional £1bn to the UK economy over the next five years.
Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑10 Oct 2022, 19:25
The UK yards could then confidently bid for the MRSS contracts around 2030
They will need a large backer.
I am expecting Navantia to be the prime contractor supported by BMT.
There is another option and that is for HMG to invest in a mega-yard somewhere in the UK. This would involve concentrating all Auxiliary, Amphibious and any additional commercial shipping construction on one site. Such a yard would be operated by BAE or Babcock.
A mega-yard would be the most efficient way for the UK to build these large vessels but it also would leave the treasury exposed to massive state funded bailouts if times got hard. This is the main reason why the mega-yard approach won’t happen.
I've always liked the concept, just sceptical about the ability of our government to manage it. I think we'd have another British Leyland on our hands. The MOD main building owning a big shipyard, presumably in Merseyside? (Lets face it - it couldn't be in Scotland. ) The Scousers would walk all over them and before you know it Taxpayers money would be financing the 21st century equivalent of Red Robbo
The French built 3 LHDs when they wanted to boost their economy, so why not the UK. I think you could argue that these one off investments could be justifiable reasons to borrow.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
”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
Last time I checked Belfast and was in the U.K. and the largest dry dock facility we have. Good to develop it further I assume appeldore would be involved too.
Repulse wrote: ↑19 Oct 2022, 17:21
The French built 3 LHDs when they wanted to boost their economy, so why not the UK. I think you could argue that these one off investments could be justifiable reasons to borrow.
Do we know how successful that was?
I wonder if the recent issues with the POW will change our strategy, she couldn't go into Rosyth if there was half a FSS in the dry dock. Would we want to have at least one dry dock in the UK that could support our carriers available at all times or is that just unrealistic?
The best compromise is to facilitate a joint bid between H&W and Cammell Laird. It woul support two deprived parts of the UK, sets up UK PLC for the Amphib replacements in the 2030s and ensures an element of future proofing if the Union disintegrates.
Building both RN and RFA fleets entirely in Scotland is bonkers going forward.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Oct 2022, 19:49
The best compromise is to facilitate a joint bid between H&W and Cammell Laird. It woul support two deprived parts of the UK, sets up UK PLC for the Amphib replacements in the 2030s and ensures an element of future proofing if the Union disintegrates.
Building both RN and RFA fleets entirely in Scotland is bonkers going forward.
The problem is both H&W and Cammell Laird have no cash to make a bid. Somebody else would have to bankroll the bid. Should BAE buy Cammell Laird so it can be a sister yard of Barrow like in VSEL days? Or Babcock buy H&W?
tomuk wrote: ↑19 Oct 2022, 20:36
The problem is both H&W and Cammell Laird have no cash to make a bid. Somebody else would have to bankroll the bid. Should BAE buy Cammell Laird so it can be a sister yard of Barrow like in VSEL days? Or Babcock buy H&W?
Interesting question.
Navantia will bankroll the bid because most of the work will be conducted in Spain!
I don't see an alliance between Navantia and BAE or Babcock for the FSS competition. However, do BAE and/or Babcock really want Navantia in the middle of the Amphib builds? Seems unlikely.
Babcock has the capacity at Rosyth to build the FSS vessels but adding scheduled and unscheduled maintenance/refit work of QE and PWLS seems like a stretch too far. Purchasing H&W Belfast would seem like a duplication of sorts for Babcock and Appledore was seen at least until very recently as surplus to requirements.
I really can't see BAE being interested in purchasing H&W Belfast simply due to all of the other work that yard undertakes which is far removed from BAEs core focus.
Much more likely in my opinion is for Rosyth to become the UKs mega yard by default especially when the Amphib replacement programme begins with a new dry dock eventually being constructed on the south coast to accommodate QE and PWLS.
Gotta realise cammell laird already hand in glove with BAe barrow building forward sections of astute and dreadnought if we go with bae design gotta be lairds no chance H&w got skills that lairds have….. 3 fss 6 mrss 10 year build 10 year RFA contract gotta go back to basics chaps
These users liked the author wirralpete for the post: