Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:...still favourable configuration...
If it meets the requirements within the budget envelope, who would argue?

Build five and the LSS conundrum is solved too.

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by NickC »

State of Cammell Laird, extracts from Jan FT article

Cammell Laird, founded in the 1820s, closed in 1993 but was revived as a repair business in the following years. John Syvret, its owner, brought back the Cammell Laird name in 2007 and it began building small vessels, as well as a section of the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. Mr Syvret was executive chairman and owned 25 per cent. Bought out by Peel Group, the property and investment group owned by John Whittaker, and DWS, the asset management arm of Deutsche Bank, invested an undisclosed amount in 2019 that prevented the 200-year-old company running aground. They drafted in David McGinley from shipbuilder A&P, which is part of the same group, as chief executive.

The Birkenhead yard ran up £37.4m of losses on the £200m contract to build the 128m/15,000t Sir David Attenborough. The accounts for the year ended March 31 2019 show that shareholders had to put in “substantial additional funds” because of “significant cash flow pressures” The group’s auditors signed off the business as a going concern only after “taking account of the ongoing support confirmed by the company’s owner” The sale of Laird was part of the deal when Australian Super, a pension fund, invested in Peel Ports in February. It took a 25 per cent stake, leaving Peel with 37.6 per cent and DWS with 37.4 per cent.

It is bidding for a £1bn contract to build at least two naval support ships for the UK, in a consortium with BAE Systems, Babcock International and Rolls-Royce. It was not intending redundancies among the 900-strong workforce.


https://www.ft.com/content/a48d1515-066 ... b435e15ba7

jonas
Member
Posts: 974
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by jonas »


User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1219
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

We've got crocuses in the garden. It's spring now.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SKB »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I make it two and a half weeks... but what :think: do I know

The follow up for the Command Paper was due before the summer (am I repeating?) but now it is for the late summer.
- this delay is more understandable than the FSS perhaps (once again) overshooting the runway... and coming back 'later'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Could it be that the "Piggy Bank" in the MoD is already empty even though they were supposed to proceed with the FSS by restarting the competition, and so are hoping to get some extra funding on the quite in order to support UK Ship building? It would be quite embarrassing to run the competition, choose a winner and then have to put the contract on hold as there is no money to actually order the ships! :)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Could it be that the "Piggy Bank" in the MoD is already empty even though they were supposed to proceed with the FSS by restarting the competition, and so are hoping to get some extra funding on the quite in order to support UK Ship building? It would be quite embarrassing to run the competition, choose a winner and then have to put the contract on hold as there is no money to actually order the ships! :)
More likely is that they can't drum up enough entrants to have a competition. For the Type 31, they leaned on Atlas Elektronik,a tiny bunch of UK based electrical engineers, to put forward a farcical 3rd entrant just to make up the numbers. The company was later rewarded with a contract for their regular products.

I suspect the same problem when the Type 32 comes around. No one will bid except Babcock's. Bae is still pissed at putting considerable time and money into the Type 31 bid that was pre-ordained to go to Babcock's.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2545
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Could it be that the "Piggy Bank" in the MoD is already empty even though they were supposed to proceed with the FSS by restarting the competition, and so are hoping to get some extra funding on the quite in order to support UK Ship building? It would be quite embarrassing to run the competition, choose a winner and then have to put the contract on hold as there is no money to actually order the ships! :)
More likely is that they can't drum up enough entrants to have a competition. For the Type 31, they leaned on Atlas Elektronik,a tiny bunch of UK based electrical engineers, to put forward a farcical 3rd entrant just to make up the numbers. The company was later rewarded with a contract for their regular products.

I suspect the same problem when the Type 32 comes around. No one will bid except Babcock's. Bae is still pissed at putting considerable time and money into the Type 31 bid that was pre-ordained to go to Babcock's.
Did they put in a serious bid? I suppose they must have met the minimum requirements, but they didn't exceed them like Babcock did ("here you go, checks all the boxes plus here's a shit load of extra space offering you better sea keeping, endurance, range, flexibility and scope for through-life upgrades").

Was the BAE offer more competitive than Babcock? Commonality of systems is one, but did they "push the boat out" so to speak, with their bid?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1219
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

dmereifield wrote:Did they put in a serious bid? I suppose they must have met the minimum requirements, but they didn't exceed them like Babcock did ("here you go, checks all the boxes plus here's a shit load of extra space offering you better sea keeping, endurance, range, flexibility and scope for through-life upgrades").
In November 2018 MoD agreed to fund three bids for the Competitive Design Phase of the Type 31e Frigate competition. Atlas Elektronik UK were one of those three bids and they received £5 million to fund detailed design work.

We don't know what Atlas delivered for that £5 million and we won't because it is covered by FoI proof commercial confidentiality terms. But it always seemed difficult to imagine how they would overcome IP issues to support the export agenda and they never publicly partnered with a shipbuilder.

The other two teams (Babcock and BAE - both multi £billion global operators) launched modest marketing campaigns, held events for potential suppliers, provided indications of key partners and final assembly locations etc.

Atlas did none of that. Making the Competitive Design Phase shortlist (£5m? Thank you) seems to have been the prize.

The same probably applied to other potential "designs" like the Spartan from Stellar Systems who had never designed a warship but would no doubt have given it a shot for £5 million.

So who is interested in FSS? There's Navantia who have partnered with Harland and Wolff to provide a UK veneer. Then there's the "UK consortium" (BAe, Bacock whoever) who seem to have decided on complete radio silence for now. Then who???

The MoD's problem may be that Navantia is the only seriously interested player.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Could it be that the "Piggy Bank" in the MoD is already empty even though they were supposed to proceed with the FSS by restarting the competition, and so are hoping to get some extra funding on the quite in order to support UK Ship building? It would be quite embarrassing to run the competition, choose a winner and then have to put the contract on hold as there is no money to actually order the ships! :)
More likely is that they can't drum up enough entrants to have a competition. For the Type 31, they leaned on Atlas Elektronik,a tiny bunch of UK based electrical engineers, to put forward a farcical 3rd entrant just to make up the numbers. The company was later rewarded with a contract for their regular products.

I suspect the same problem when the Type 32 comes around. No one will bid except Babcock's. Bae is still pissed at putting considerable time and money into the Type 31 bid that was pre-ordained to go to Babcock's.
Did they put in a serious bid? I suppose they must have met the minimum requirements, but they didn't exceed them like Babcock did ("here you go, checks all the boxes plus here's a shit load of extra space offering you better sea keeping, endurance, range, flexibility and scope for through-life upgrades").

Was the BAE offer more competitive than Babcock? Commonality of systems is one, but did they "push the boat out" so to speak, with their bid?
Don't forget that Babcock's was "helped" by the MoD/Treasury quietly telling them that the A120 was a no go against Leander, and to find another design pronto.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2545
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Could it be that the "Piggy Bank" in the MoD is already empty even though they were supposed to proceed with the FSS by restarting the competition, and so are hoping to get some extra funding on the quite in order to support UK Ship building? It would be quite embarrassing to run the competition, choose a winner and then have to put the contract on hold as there is no money to actually order the ships! :)
More likely is that they can't drum up enough entrants to have a competition. For the Type 31, they leaned on Atlas Elektronik,a tiny bunch of UK based electrical engineers, to put forward a farcical 3rd entrant just to make up the numbers. The company was later rewarded with a contract for their regular products.

I suspect the same problem when the Type 32 comes around. No one will bid except Babcock's. Bae is still pissed at putting considerable time and money into the Type 31 bid that was pre-ordained to go to Babcock's.
Did they put in a serious bid? I suppose they must have met the minimum requirements, but they didn't exceed them like Babcock did ("here you go, checks all the boxes plus here's a shit load of extra space offering you better sea keeping, endurance, range, flexibility and scope for through-life upgrades").

Was the BAE offer more competitive than Babcock? Commonality of systems is one, but did they "push the boat out" so to speak, with their bid?
Don't forget that Babcock's was "helped" by the MoD/Treasury quietly telling them that the A120 was a no go against Leander, and to find another design pronto.
Fair point, but did BAE really put their backs into it? From a capability md value for money perspective, is Leander better than A140?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

An easy one, that: No is the answer
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2545
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:An easy one, that: No is the answer
Bloody hell, a straight forward answer...with no riddles??? What's wrong with you? And, an opinion that aligns with mine. I'm going to go lie down...

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

RichardIC wrote:
In November 2018 MoD agreed to fund three bids for the Competitive Design Phase of the Type 31e Frigate competition. Atlas Elektronik UK were one of those three bids and they received £5 million to fund detailed design work.

We don't know what Atlas delivered for that £5 million and we won't because it is covered by FoI proof commercial confidentiality terms. But it always seemed difficult to imagine how they would overcome IP issues to support the export agenda and they never publicly partnered with a shipbuilder.
What are you on about? Atlas Elektronik UK's parent company is TKMS (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems) the German defence company who have built/designed most of the German Navy's ships and submarines.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1219
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

tomuk wrote:What are you on about? Atlas Elektronik UK's parent company is TKMS (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems) the German defence company who have built/designed most of the German Navy's ships and submarines.
Exactly. Read what I wrote again.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:Fair point, but did BAE really put their backs into it? From a capability md value for money perspective, is Leander better than A140?
Will Babcock's be able to produce the ships at the contract price point? Hope so but the jury is out.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2545
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Fair point, but did BAE really put their backs into it? From a capability md value for money perspective, is Leander better than A140?
Will Babcock's be able to produce the ships at the contract price point? Hope so but the jury is out.
Fingers crossed. If they do, in your view, does that mean that A140 was the better option for the RN than Leander?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Fair point, but did BAE really put their backs into it? From a capability md value for money perspective, is Leander better than A140?
Will Babcock's be able to produce the ships at the contract price point? Hope so but the jury is out.
Fingers crossed. If they do, in your view, does that mean that A140 was the better option for the RN than Leander?
Assuming the role needs filling, and assuming Babcock's pulls it off: yes :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I'm just remembering that this contract is the last of 3 major ones that were decided by competition and went to the bidder that had zero experience and won based on a pile of sparkly slides, politics, and marketing promises:

1. Ajax and GD(UK) - over budget & late (although Runningstrong strongly disagrees with the first) - "British to its bootstraps"
2. Warrior CSP - over budget, late and cancelled - "Warrior doesn't need a new turret we'll use the old one"
3. Type 31 and Babcock's - "we'll export plenty of them which will further reduce costs and benefit the 3 locations where they will be built: North Devon, Northern Ireland, and Scotland".

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Ron5 wrote:
Will Babcock's be able to produce the ships at the contract price point? Hope so but the jury is out.
Fingers crossed. If they do, in your view, does that mean that A140 was the better option for the RN than Leander?

Assuming the role needs filling, and assuming Babcock's pulls it off: yes :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I'm just remembering that this contract is the last of 3 major ones that were decided by competition and went to the bidder that had zero experience and won based on a pile of sparkly slides, politics, and marketing promises:

1. Ajax and GD(UK) - over budget & late (although Runningstrong strongly disagrees with the first) - "British to its bootstraps"
2. Warrior CSP - over budget, late and cancelled - "Warrior doesn't need a new turret we'll use the old one"
3. Type 31 and Babcock's - "we'll export plenty of them which will further reduce costs and benefit the 3 locations where they will be built: North Devon, Northern Ireland, and Scotland".
I really liked the Leander, despite expecting to hate it from the outset. I reckon it could have been a credible, throwaway light frigate. Plus the whole non standar CMS and radar/sensor fit we are planning for A140 really puts me off. I think it is a mistake and I hope we correct it pronto with T32.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

dmereifield wrote:Fingers crossed. If they do, in your view, does that mean
Ron5 wrote:Assuming the role needs filling
Ron5 wrote:and assuming Babcock's pulls it off
This x-examination is not proceeding as they are generally meant to: you form a "V" and end up with a yes, or no.
- you don't add assumptions, to turn the 'V' upside down :lol: to be a 'Y' looking like a Xmas tree, with so many added assumptions hanging off it

A light hearted comment, of course :!:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ion-again/

LONDON - Britain has relaunched a £1.6 billion ($2.27 billion USD) competition to build three logistic ships to support the deployments around the world of the Royal Navy aircraft carriers and other surface ships.

The Ministry of Defence issued a contract notice inviting companies to register an interest in bidding for the work to replace aging Fort-class logistics vessels..

A contract to build the ships, known here as fleet solid support vessels, is expected to be awarded within two years the MoD said in an announcement May 20.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

3 :thumbup: is good; they must have some indication - after so many iterations - that it is possible within the budget.
SW1 wrote: expected to be awarded within two years
If they are not coming from Korea, the first one will not be built in a year. And you will need two to be able to retire the active Fort - though arguably, it could be around for a few more years as among other things the aviation capability would be v valuable in supporting LitM
...meaning that the Points could truly be the means for projecting an army 'brigade'. What kind of BCT? Light, surely, but how would the capacity match the other types? For Europe, the Op 'Lift' would undoubtedly be of a shuttle type, so not so relevant, but for any other destination
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

jonas
Member
Posts: 974
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by jonas »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jonas wrote:UKDJ's take
quite rightly focusses on what 'integrate' means. The (minor) military fitting out done at British yards for the fleet oilers certainly would not pass that threshold, or would count as window dressing anyway.

'a significant proportion of the build and assembly work' makes for an interesting parallel with the Hobart Class: rather than blocks, take a hull across the sea(s) to be finished in-situ. That led to
1. Navantia having to send a 'surveyor team' that established that productivity early on was running at a third of what would have been expected at an established yard/ a work force with good experience from similar vessels, and then
2. sent a 'technical assistance' team to right the above problem

Were the 'integration' to be done, a similar 'priming the pump' could easily add another year to the schedule - already fairly drawn out :think:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply