Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

I would agree build the SSS and MRSS at CL they have a Dry dock big enough for the job
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Lord Jim

User avatar
wirralpete
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:16
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by wirralpete »

And the skills necessary to build from scratch pal 👍😎

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

They have a great base and if they got a 9 ship contract over 16 years and then the follow on MLU they could invest in skills and the yard

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 09:19 I would agree build the SSS and MRSS at CL they have a Dry dock big enough for the job
They might have a dock large enough but I can see two issues;

(1) if the dock is being used for build is there still capacity for maintenance of the other RFAs on contract and other work such as on T45

(2) CL is setup to build and launch ships on a slipway. The largest of CLs docks, and I'm assuming the one you could build the SSS, in is furthest away from the construction hall and only has modest cranage capacity how are you going to get the blocks from hall to the dock and how are you going to crane them in?
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 10:34 They have a great base and if they got a 9 ship contract over 16 years and then the follow on MLU they could invest in skills and the yard
Again this required investment is my concern. On Sir David Attenborough they made a big loss and had to be bailed out by their parent company Peel Group and the long-time MD was sacked and replaced by management from sister company A&P. Where is the appetite and ability to investment coming from?

Now don't get me wrong I'd love for CL to be building again, my Great Grandfather and his brother both served on merchant ships out of Liverpool. In actual fact CL built one of the two ships he was on which were torpedoed, ironically H&W built the other. But it it s a big commitment to build SSS and if it were to go badly it could kill the yard again.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wirralpete wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 09:22 And the skills necessary to build from scratch pal 👍😎
Very positive stuff but IMO building the 3 FSS at CL by within 5 years would be a HUGE ask for the yard.

If BAE want to collaborate with CL to build the FSS vessels why involve Babcock? The simple reason is because CL and Govan/Scotstoun can’t cope with a build of that size within the prescribed timescale without involving Rosyth.

Combining the facilities of both CL and H&W makes complete sense IMO. Floating blocks between Belfast and Liverpool is perfectly viable if the political will existed.

My preferred outcome.

1. All RN escorts built in Scotland
2. All RFA and Amphibs built at H&W and CL
3. All Submarines built at Barrow
4. All OPVs and patrol craft built at Appledore
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 19:22 makes complete sense

My preferred outcome.
Indeed but not so easy when the yards are owned by four very different companies and the Treasury\MOD keep insisting on competition.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

tomuk wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 19:12
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 09:19 I would agree build the SSS and MRSS at CL they have a Dry dock big enough for the job
They might have a dock large enough but I can see two issues;

(1) if the dock is being used for build is there still capacity for maintenance of the other RFAs on contract and other work such as on T45

(2) CL is setup to build and launch ships on a slipway. The largest of CLs docks, and I'm assuming the one you could build the SSS, in is furthest away from the construction hall and only has modest cranage capacity how are you going to get the blocks from hall to the dock and how are you going to crane them in?
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 10:34 They have a great base and if they got a 9 ship contract over 16 years and then the follow on MLU they could invest in skills and the yard

Again this required investment is my concern. On Sir David Attenborough they made a big loss and had to be bailed out by their parent company Peel Group and the long-time MD was sacked and replaced by management from sister company A&P. Where is the appetite and ability to investment coming from?

Now don't get me wrong I'd love for CL to be building again, my Great Grandfather and his brother both served on merchant ships out of Liverpool. In actual fact CL built one of the two ships he was on which were torpedoed, ironically H&W built the other. But it it s a big commitment to build SSS and if it were to go badly it could kill the yard again.
With investment they could build a new build hall between docks 2 & 3 the two biggest docks and if they got the SSS and MRSS contacts they would be worth about 6 billion so investment could be found

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

There's no easy answer, thanks to the decades of no orders. Chancellors over that period should be behind bars esp. that rat Brown.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by GarethDavies1 »

And Osbourne too then
These users liked the author GarethDavies1 for the post:
Ron5

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 19:22
wirralpete wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 09:22 And the skills necessary to build from scratch pal 👍😎
Very positive stuff but IMO building the 3 FSS at CL by within 5 years would be a HUGE ask for the yard.

If BAE want to collaborate with CL to build the FSS vessels why involve Babcock? The simple reason is because CL and Govan/Scotstoun can’t cope with a build of that size within the prescribed timescale without involving Rosyth.

Combining the facilities of both CL and H&W makes complete sense IMO. Floating blocks between Belfast and Liverpool is perfectly viable if the political will existed.

My preferred outcome.

1. All RN escorts built in Scotland
2. All RFA and Amphibs built at H&W and CL
3. All Submarines built at Barrow
4. All OPVs and patrol craft built at Appledore
If you mean as primary builders, that sounds good to me with each having a specialisation of what type of ship they are building, and there should be enough work for each based on the recent 30 year shipbuilding plan, so long as each of the batches are planned and ordered at a good regular timetable - i.e. good old drumbeat.

I say primary builder because there is nothing stopping all yards, but especially CL and H&W getting some work out of each order by building blocks, such as they already did with aircraft carriers. That should also help prevent overloading any one yard whilst leaving others short of work.

But is there sufficient UK government work, (including RN and other agencies and including initial build plus subsequent repair & maintenance work), to keep both CL and H&W fully occupied without needing to take on commercial work??

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 19:37 ….the Treasury\MOD keep insisting on competition.
Where has that got the UK commercial ship building industry?

The Tides went to Korea and a substantial amount of the FSS work looks to be heading to Spain.

Many other countries around the world are able to maintain a national ship building capability without setting ridiculous rules to ensure the work goes abroad.

By creating a commercial ship building alliance between H&W and CL an element of competition is maintained. Both yards can bid for work share. If one yard screws up the other yard slots in to complete the vessel.

With Rosyth and Govan competing for escorts, CL and H&W competing for work share on the RFAs and Amphibs that leaves Appledore competing against the bigger years for the smaller patrol craft. IMO that is enough competition to ensure the UK taxpayers get value for money.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 Oct 2022, 21:58
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.
Funny thing - the biggest UK submarine export in the last 30 years is BAE barrow supplying front and rear pressure domes to..Navantia. And in Australia BAE shipbuilding has integrated the Canberra class LPD with hulls supplied by ... Navantia. Small world

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Nothing new.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... val-ships/

Save money or save British jobs. That is the dilemma facing Rishi Sunak as he prepares to make a decision on who will be given a £1.65bn contract to provide three massive supply ships to the Royal Navy.

The so-called “Fleet Solid Support” (FSS) vessels will provide Britain’s new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers with everything from munitions to food and spare parts.

A number of foreign companies are in the running to build the new ships including an Anglo-Spanish bid from Harland & Wolff and Navantia, the state-owned Spanish shipyard.

Indian shipyard Larsen & Toubro, which includes UK company Leidos Innovations, is also a contender, as are incumbent military shipbuilders BAE Systems and Babcock which have bid jointly as Team UK.

Team UK claims it can create around 2,000 UK jobs directly from the contract and a further 1,500 in the supply chain. The consortium estimates around £650m will be returned to the Treasury through direct or indirect taxes.

While the official deadline is March, a decision on who has won the contract may come sooner.

Sources close to the UK industry are concerned that the Spanish bid is the frontrunner, meaning that less work will be available to British shipbuilders. The Team UK bid is understood to be more expensive because of higher wage costs compared with their foreign rivals.

“Not one ship has been delivered in the UK on time on budget in decades. And it seems everybody just gets rewarded for failure,” says John Wood, the owner of Belfast’s Harland and Wolff shipyard.

“When you look at the new mood music that’s coming out of Government, there’s a new dynamic and it’s all about getting the very best value for money, and the best practices to deliver that.”

Wood claims that a win for his consortium could help transfer much needed shipbuilding skills to the UK from Spain. While not all of the work will be carried out in homegrown shipyards, he believes the transfer of knowledge will help the UK bolster its shipbuilding industry and allow it to take advantage of export opportunities driven by a weak pound.

“You’re going to find it’s going to make it more expensive to acquire things offshore and that is going to make the UK a bit more attractive, with work going the other way, rather than out of the UK abroad, it’ll be coming here,” he says.

A source close to the shipyard said up to 60pc of the work could land in Britain.

Ian Waddell, leader of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) doesn’t believe this will be enough.

“The Government’s got a clear choice here, it either takes a logical decision and ensures that this work is done in the UK and that it supports the shipbuilding strategy and yards are struggling for work, or allows effectively the offshoring of warship build.”

Fears are mounting that Sunak may opt to save money after he refused to back a promise to spend 3pc of national output on defence.

The CSEU wrote to Sunak in the summer asking him to commit to building the ships in the UK. It pointed out that £355m of income and corporate tax income is at stake.

Defence bosses are more sanguine. One describes the deal as big in tonnage but not profitability because of the ships’ lack of weaponry.

The contract is being closely watched because shipbuilding is seen as a talismanic industry in the UK, says Stuart Young, Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University and an expert in defence procurement. This could give a UK-focused bidder the edge, he says.

“I think in the current circumstances for building overseas the optics aren’t too good.”

But there are bigger trends in military spending which need to be observed to make the right decision in any defence contract other than simply who offers the cheaper bid, he says.

When it comes to defence spending, moving from 2.2pc of Britain’s economic output to 3pc is not the leap it might first seem to be, he explains.

The ever-increasing technical demands of big purchases like submarines and attack aircraft lead to larger sticker price increases over time.

“Historically, defence inflation has run at one and a half to two times the normal inflation rate.” He says a 30pc larger budget does not mean double the number of jet fighters or ships – it is more like 10-15pc.

The Government, he adds, could opt in future programmes to be more conservative in the capability it demands rather than asking for products that can do everything, everywhere.

“We tend to go for the gold-plated solution. And you could quite easily get 80pc of the capabilities you need for 50pc of the price.”

Babcock, Serco and Leidos declined to comment. A government spokesman said: “The contract for the Fleet Solid Support competition will be awarded to a UK business, either solely or as part of a consortium, promoting growth across the UK shipbuilding sector.”

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I thought that Larsen & Toubro had pulled out (as did Damen) leaving just the Navantia / Harland & Wolf and Team UK consortiums?

For Team UK, BAE are currently busy with T26 and Babcock with T31. Aftrewards there was talk of T83 and T32 but as of yet, nothing concrete. I still hope that if one shipyard gets primary work on building FSS, that there is scope for other shipywards getting some secondary work, building blocks and sub-assembles. I hope that CL Birkenhead and H&W Belfast can get some secondary FSS work out of this so that all British yards have enough work to keep their experienced skilled workforce

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by TheLoneRanger »


"Defence bosses are more sanguine. One describes the deal as big in tonnage but not profitability because of the ships’ lack of weaponry."

Well - this approach of simply following profit and maximising at the expense of all other considerations has led the UK to the point where so much of our ship building industry has been decimated by attempting to "maximise profit" at the expense of industrial capability.

If the UK no longer has the ability to build platforms to "host weapons", then where does the defence industry bosses propose their weapons be hosted on ??

The following also highlights another fundamental flaw in the UK's defence procurement programmes and why we spend so much and get so little in return ... There needs to be a fundamental rethink in the way the UK procures weapons systems. Specialise where we think there is significant military advantage and commoditize where there wont be... ie buy off the shelf. The original Apache procurement programme is a perfect example of gold plating aswell .. ( the list is long i know .. )
"The Government, he adds, could opt in future programmes to be more conservative in the capability it demands rather than asking for products that can do everything, everywhere.

We tend to go for the gold-plated solution. And you could quite easily get 80pc of the capabilities you need for 50pc of the price.”
These users liked the author TheLoneRanger for the post:
serge750

Bongodog
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Bongodog »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 17:01

"Defence bosses are more sanguine. One describes the deal as big in tonnage but not profitability because of the ships’ lack of weaponry."

Well - this approach of simply following profit and maximising at the expense of all other considerations has led the UK to the point where so much of our ship building industry has been decimated by attempting to "maximise profit" at the expense of industrial capability.

If the UK no longer has the ability to build platforms to "host weapons", then where does the defence industry bosses propose their weapons be hosted on ??

The following also highlights another fundamental flaw in the UK's defence procurement programmes and why we spend so much and get so little in return ... There needs to be a fundamental rethink in the way the UK procures weapons systems. Specialise where we think there is significant military advantage and commoditize where there wont be... ie buy off the shelf. The original Apache procurement programme is a perfect example of gold plating aswell .. ( the list is long i know .. )
"The Government, he adds, could opt in future programmes to be more conservative in the capability it demands rather than asking for products that can do everything, everywhere.

We tend to go for the gold-plated solution. And you could quite easily get 80pc of the capabilities you need for 50pc of the price.”
I think you've misunderstood the defence bosses quote, it's not that we don't have the ability to build weapons platforms, we do and the T26 shows this, its the fact that the FSSS is close to standard shipbuilding with no unique features that ensure profitability for a UK yard over one anywhere else

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 17:01
Well - this approach of simply following profit and maximising at the expense of all other considerations has led the UK to the point where so much of our ship building industry has been decimated by attempting to "maximise profit" at the expense of industrial capability.
I don't believe your analysis is correct the military ship building industry is decimated because the government doesn't order any ships it is as simple as that.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

Maybe we should take a leaf out of Italys book be honest and say x% is funded from the Industry/Levelling up budget the payoff is in 10 years

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

That doesn't sound much like Italy's book. Fincantieri is currently 70% owned by the Italian state and billions of euro/lira have ben poured in over the years.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Poiuytrewq

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Now team UK think that 650 million would come back to HMT in Taxes now HMT should be able to do the sums and if this is true then it needs to work out what would come back on a over seas order as some would come back and then work out the difference

Now if the difference is say 450 million then if team UK's bid comes in at 1.9 billion and the overseas bid comes in at 1.6 billion then the UK bid is the better bid

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Oct 2022, 10:09 Now team UK think that 650 million would come back to HMT in Taxes now HMT should be able to do the sums and if this is true then it needs to work out what would come back on a over seas order as some would come back and then work out the difference

Now if the difference is say 450 million then if team UK's bid comes in at 1.9 billion and the overseas bid comes in at 1.6 billion then the UK bid is the better bid
What overseas order? 60% of the team resolute bid would be done in the U.K.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 31 Oct 2022, 10:35
Tempest414 wrote: 31 Oct 2022, 10:09 Now team UK think that 650 million would come back to HMT in Taxes now HMT should be able to do the sums and if this is true then it needs to work out what would come back on a over seas order as some would come back and then work out the difference

Now if the difference is say 450 million then if team UK's bid comes in at 1.9 billion and the overseas bid comes in at 1.6 billion then the UK bid is the better bid
What overseas order? 60% of the team resolute bid would be done in the U.K.
well lets wait and see we do remember that type 31 was going to be built in 3 yard and come together at Rosyth that didn't happen

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Simply the Navantia team shall better provide the expected TAX "refund".

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SD67 »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Oct 2022, 10:09 Now team UK think that 650 million would come back to HMT in Taxes now HMT should be able to do the sums and if this is true then it needs to work out what would come back on a over seas order as some would come back and then work out the difference

Now if the difference is say 450 million then if team UK's bid comes in at 1.9 billion and the overseas bid comes in at 1.6 billion then the UK bid is the better bid
This "money coming back to the exchequer " argument presupposes that the people employed by Team UK are all currently economically inactive, and all will in future pay tax in the UK. More likely is that they are either highly skilled and therefore currently already paying tax, or that they're Romanian contractors arranged through an agency in which case the amount staying here would not be much. The reality is we have chronic skills shortages and taking on a project that doesnt make financial sense is not going to be mopping up unemployment it will more likely divert a scarce resource from T26/83/31 etc
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
SW1

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by leonard »

It's seems that the decision has been made and the rumors in this regard are becaming increasingly more lauder !!!!!

Post Reply