Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

A civilian-manned fleet owned by the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

Fleet Solid Support ship contract.
Government defies Industry, Unions, independent advice and good sense.
Four international shipbuilding companies (and a UK consortium) selected to compete for the F.S.S. contract.
Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce have formed the UK consortium competing for the FSS.
They will be pitted against Fincantieri, Navantia, Japan Marine United Corporation, and Daewoo Shipbuilding.
See - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ship ... 0P9QGoXc_s
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

Fleet Solid Support Ships

Once again, people are claiming that shipbuilding on the Clyde has been “betrayed” as new support vessel work might go overseas.

What’s the problem with this claim? It’s Rosyth that is hoping for the work, not the Clyde.

We reported recently on rumours that work on the Fleet Solid Support Ships could go to Spain to silence Gibraltar claims, which appears to have brought this topic back into focus.

This article from last year could be where this confusion originates as despite the headline ‘Clyde yards suffer new blow as Royal Navy orders set to go abroad’ it says “unions had hoped the vessels would be constructed in yards across the UK and leave the specialist yards on the Clyde to built complex warships“, while the headline says that it’s a blow to the Clyde (people love to just read headlines rather than whole articles) the article itself goes on to explain that contrary to the headline, other UK yards would benefit from the work.

Another issue with this is pretty simple, the 40,000 tonne support vessels wouldn’t even physically fit on the slip alongside the Type 26 Frigate builds.

The unions and the UK Defence Journal have been advocating that the build stay in the UK, not that it be done on the Clyde as the company themselves say.

“BAE Systems is focused on the manufacture and delivery of the two QE Class carriers, the five River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and the first three City class Type 26 warships, as well as continuing to develop and upgrade combat management systems on all Royal Navy ships. Taking account our current and future workload, including Type 26, our shipbuilding capacity on the Clyde will be full until the mid 2030s.”

I also spoke to a source intimately involved with shipbuilding in Glasgow regarding capacity:

“I think it’s the obvious answer from an industrial point of view but the question is capacity. There isn’t any at Govan while T26 is in build.”

Additionally, politicians from many parties have been advocating that this work stay in the UK.

Stewart McDonald, MP for Glasgow South and SNP Spokesperson for Defence, told me last week in reference to news that the work could go overseas instead of to Rosyth:

“If UK and Scottish Shipbuilders are overlooked as suggested, then it will represent another betrayal of the workforce from which the Conservatives will not deserve to recover.”

In addition, Paul Sweeney, MP for Glasgow North East and All-Party Parliamentary Group for Shipbuilding & Ship Repair Vice-Chair, also told me recently in reference to a recent debate:

“It was telling that the Defence Procurement minister made no reply to the questions raised about the Fleet Solid Support ships in the debate this week and perhaps this is the reason why. The economic case for building the £1Bn FSS programme in the UK is self-evident and it nothing more than laissez faire Treasury dogma that is denying British industry this opportunity when it is the most beneficial option for the British economy and the long-term sustainability of the British shipbuilding industry.”

Jude Brimble, GMB National Secretary, said:

“The Royal Fleet Auxiliary contracts are the key to unlocking the country’s massive shipbuilding potential. But Ministers refusal to put the UK’s interests first will mean that instead of a massive programme of shared economic and employment re-distribution, our firms will be competing against each other for slivers of complex warship work. It beggars belief that the Government wants to give this golden opportunity away to foreign competitors when working class communities up and down the country are crying out for decent work.”

Compounding this confusion last year, the First Minister of Scotland stated that the international tendering for auxiliary vessel contracts is a betrayal for the Clyde, despite the yards having no interest in them, having never been promised them and the fact the vessels couldn’t physically fit on the slipway.

Speaking during First Minister’s Questions, she said:

“That work should be on the Clyde, I argue that that work was promised to the Clyde and should definitely go to the Clyde. We should be very clear. What we are now seeing develop around that work and the future of the shipyards is nothing short of a blatant betrayal of Scottish shipyards. During the referendum, promises were made to those shipyards by the Tories, and indeed, by all the unionist parties—the shipyards were told of promises of work for years to come. The unionist parties specifically said that, if Scotland became independent, it would not be able to secure that work for the Clyde, because contracts could not go to “foreign countries. It is an absolute betrayal and I hope that we will hear all parties across the parliament stand up for shipbuilding on the Clyde.”

Sturgeon said the move was an “absolute betrayal” in light of promises made in the run-up to 2014’s independence vote. There are three key problems with this:

The Clyde is at capacity with the River class and Type 26 Frigate builds and has no intention of bidding for this work.
The 40,000 tonne support vessels wouldn’t physically fit on the slip alongside the Type 26 Frigate builds.
The only vessels “promised” were warships, such as frigates and destroyers.
An article which also appeared in The Evening Times last year also points out that unions are demanding the vessels are built in the UK, as seeking an international tender “undermines the national interest” however none of them are advocating for the 40,000 tonne support vessels be built on the Clyde which is expected to be at capacity until into the 2030’s, long after the date the vessels will be required.

We spoke to a contact at the BAE yard in Govan at the time, who told us that the article was a bit surprising as no one at BAE expected the vessels would be built on the Clyde:

“Calling this a blow is a very strange choice of words. It [the article] came as a surprise frankly, I don’t think anyone here considers this any sort of blow especially as we were never going to be building them and BAE have no intention of bidding for them.”

Other than procurement activity undertaken during the World Wars, the UK has not had a complex warship built outside of the UK since the start of the 20th century at least.

All of the Royal Navy’s new complex warships are being built in UK shipyards however merchant vessels for the RFA are not included in this and can be (but I don’t think should be) tendered overseas.

An MoD spokesperson said:

“There will be an international competition to build the ‘Fleet Solid Support’ supply ships, which UK companies will be able to enter, with a separate UK-only competition for customisation work and trials. This approach ensures the best value for money for taxpayers.”

The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 confirmed that three new large Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) Solid Support Ships would be acquired for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, to replace the single-hulled RFA Fort Victoria, which entered service in 1994, and RFA Fort Rosalie and RFA Fort Austin (both dating from the late 1970s). The Solid Support Ship is designed to carry a wide range of stores to support other ships with ammunition, food and explosives to replenish naval ships at sea. They will have extensive aviation facilities, with 2 flight decks, one at the stern and one spot on top of the hanger. They will have the ability to to replenish at sea via 6 replenishment stations, three on each side as well as using helicopters for vertical replenishment.

The ships are expected to enter service in the mid 2020s.

In summary and as a point of clarification in response to remarks on social media about this topic, the news of the work going overseas (if true) would impact Rosyth and not the Clyde. The Clyde isn’t bidding for this work (Rosyth is), the Clyde has no capacity to build the vessels (Rosyth does) and the Clyde isn’t hoping for them (Rosyth is).

Confusing the issue doesn’t help.

From - https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/support ... I3EK6yBXZo
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
User avatar
Little h
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Little h »

A thread in this forum already exists introducing this class of ship, titled:-

Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

by Pelican » Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:01 pm
Fleet Solid Support ship contract.
Government defies Industry, Unions, independent advice and good sense.
Four international shipbuilding companies (and a UK consortium) selected to compete for the F.S.S. contract.
Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce have formed the UK consortium competing for the FSS.
They will be pitted against Fincantieri, Navantia, Japan Marine United Corporation, and Daewoo Shipbuilding.
See - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ship ... 0P9QGoXc_s
Little h
User avatar
jbryce1437
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:28 pm
Location: Roker, Sunderland

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by jbryce1437 »

Little h wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 2:39 pm A thread in this forum already exists introducing this class of ship, titled:-

Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

by Pelican » Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:01 pm
Fleet Solid Support ship contract.
Government defies Industry, Unions, independent advice and good sense.
Four international shipbuilding companies (and a UK consortium) selected to compete for the F.S.S. contract.
Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce have formed the UK consortium competing for the FSS.
They will be pitted against Fincantieri, Navantia, Japan Marine United Corporation, and Daewoo Shipbuilding.
See - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ship ... 0P9QGoXc_s
Thanks Harry, threads merged.


Jim
HMS Raleigh 1963 , HMS Collingwood 1963 & 67 , HMS Ark Royal 1964-7, HMS Undaunted 1968-71, HMS Victory (Fleet Maintenance Group) 1971-72, HMS Exmouth 1972-74
JEM, EM, OEM, LOEM, POOEL
Then 28 years in the Fire Brigade
Retired since 2002
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

:oops: :arrow: Jankers ;)
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

Defence Secretary drops big hint UK shipyard will win new Royal Navy support deal
See - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... fKP4m0PXew
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

Parliamentary report recommends building support ships in UK

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair has launched a report on the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

The report is attached.

The report states that the industry is already facing significant redundancies as the aircraft carrier programme runs down, with the subsequent loss of leading-edge skills. Once lost, these skills cannot be quickly regained and the UK’s sovereign capability to produce complex warships will suffer accordingly, as will the UK’s ability to project naval power.

The APPG states that “it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the Royal Navy receives its equipment from a leading-edge supply chain and support structure and is therefore able to maintain its operational advantage.”

The report further calls on the Government to factor in revenue returned to the Treasury when scoring bids between domestic suppliers and foreign competitors and to acknowledge that many foreign shipyards receive both direct and indirect state subsidies.

The report also states:

“The Royal Navy depends on support ships operated by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) during deployments. Royal Fleet Auxiliary Solid Support Ships are designed to carry a wide range of stores to support other ships in the fleet including munitions, fuel and supplies. To maintain a sovereign naval capability, consisting of all types of ships, building vessels operated by the RFA is crucial for the retention of skills needed for future warship production. Despite this, the National Shipbuilding Strategy states that only Royal Navy destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers will continue to have a UK-owned design and be built and integrated in the UK.

As such, the Government has decided to open the procurement process for three new Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships out to international competition with Navantia, a Spanish state-owned shipbuilding company, considered the frontrunner. The MoD states that European Union protectionism rules prevent the FSS contract being run as a UK-only competition.

The Government also believes that it can obtain lower costs and force higher levels of efficiency from domestic shipbuilders by tendering on the international market. Despite concerns raised in Parliament and by trade unions, the Government has no plans to issue any further definitions for the purposes of the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Research conducted by GMB shows that ‘warships of all kinds’ are not subject to compulsory competitive tendering.

Article 346 of the Lisbon Treaty states that ‘Any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material.’ The MoD alone is responsible for its definition of
warship.”

Based on evidence from experts in the field, the report calls on the Government to ensure domestic yards receive the Fleet Solid Support Ship Contract in order to ‘retain the skills needed to construct, refit and upgrade complex warships in the future’.

From - https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/parliam ... 7a9WmpK8lw
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

Two of the five bidders for the Fleet Solid Support Ships have now withdrawn.

In November last year, the list of bidders for the contract was published.

The British consortium consists of companies Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce (Team UK) while the international bidders were Fincantieri (Italy), Navantia (Spain), Japan Marine United Corporation, and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (South Korea).

Fincantieri and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering have now withdrawn, according to the Financial Times.

This leaves only Team UK, Navantia and Japan Marine United Corporation.

The report states:

“The commercial terms and conditions of the competition are understood to require bidders to put in significant funding in advance — a requirement that would help those bidders with access to government financing.”

This comes after the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair launched a report on the National Shipbuilding Strategy, with a special focus on the Fleet Solid Support Ship work.

The report can be downloaded here. If you want a brief summary you can head here for a run down of the recommendations.

The report states that the industry is already facing significant redundancies as the aircraft carrier programme runs down, with the subsequent loss of leading-edge skills. Once lost, these skills cannot be quickly regained and the UK’s sovereign capability to produce complex warships will suffer accordingly, as will the UK’s ability to project naval power.

The APPG states that “it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the Royal Navy receives its equipment from a leading-edge supply chain and support structure and is therefore able to maintain its operational advantage.”

The report further calls on the Government to factor in revenue returned to the Treasury when scoring bids between domestic suppliers and foreign competitors and to acknowledge that many foreign shipyards receive both direct and indirect state subsidies.

The report also states:

“The Royal Navy depends on support ships operated by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) during deployments. Royal Fleet Auxiliary Solid Support Ships are designed to carry a wide range of stores to support other ships in the fleet including munitions, fuel and supplies. To maintain a sovereign naval capability, consisting of all types of ships, building vessels operated by the RFA is crucial for the retention of skills needed for future warship production. Despite this, the National Shipbuilding Strategy states that only Royal Navy destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers will continue to have a UK-owned design and be built and integrated in the UK.

As such, the Government has decided to open the procurement process for three new Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships out to international competition with Navantia, a Spanish state-owned shipbuilding company, considered the frontrunner. The MoD states that European Union protectionism rules prevent the FSS contract being run as a UK-only competition.

The Government also believes that it can obtain lower costs and force higher levels of efficiency from domestic shipbuilders by tendering on the international market. Despite concerns raised in Parliament and by trade unions, the Government has no plans to issue any further definitions for the purposes of the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Research conducted by GMB shows that ‘warships of all kinds’ are not subject to compulsory competitive tendering.

Article 346 of the Lisbon Treaty states that ‘Any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material.’ The MoD alone is responsible for its definition of warship.”

Based on evidence from experts in the field, the report calls on the Government to ensure domestic yards receive the Fleet Solid Support Ship Contract in order to ‘retain the skills needed to construct, refit and upgrade complex warships in the future’.

See - https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/two-bid ... u4_0NmI7Qg
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

Two bidders drop out of Fleet Solid Support Ship competition
Two of the five bidders for the Fleet Solid Support Ships have now withdrawn.

In November last year, the list of bidders for the contract was published.

The British consortium consists of companies Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce (Team UK) while the international bidders were Fincantieri (Italy), Navantia (Spain), Japan Marine United Corporation, and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (South Korea).

Fincantieri and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering have now withdrawn, according to the Financial Times.

This leaves only Team UK, Navantia and Japan Marine United Corporation.

The report states:

“The commercial terms and conditions of the competition are understood to require bidders to put in significant funding in advance — a requirement that would help those bidders with access to government financing.”

This comes after the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair launched a report on the National Shipbuilding Strategy, with a special focus on the Fleet Solid Support Ship work.

The report can be downloaded here. If you want a brief summary you can head here for a run down of the recommendations.

The report states that the industry is already facing significant redundancies as the aircraft carrier programme runs down, with the subsequent loss of leading-edge skills. Once lost, these skills cannot be quickly regained and the UK’s sovereign capability to produce complex warships will suffer accordingly, as will the UK’s ability to project naval power.

The APPG states that “it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the Royal Navy receives its equipment from a leading-edge supply chain and support structure and is therefore able to maintain its operational advantage.”

The report further calls on the Government to factor in revenue returned to the Treasury when scoring bids between domestic suppliers and foreign competitors and to acknowledge that many foreign shipyards receive both direct and indirect state subsidies.

The report also states:

“The Royal Navy depends on support ships operated by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) during deployments. Royal Fleet Auxiliary Solid Support Ships are designed to carry a wide range of stores to support other ships in the fleet including munitions, fuel and supplies. To maintain a sovereign naval capability, consisting of all types of ships, building vessels operated by the RFA is crucial for the retention of skills needed for future warship production. Despite this, the National Shipbuilding Strategy states that only Royal Navy destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers will continue to have a UK-owned design and be built and integrated in the UK.

As such, the Government has decided to open the procurement process for three new Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships out to international competition with Navantia, a Spanish state-owned shipbuilding company, considered the frontrunner. The MoD states that European Union protectionism rules prevent the FSS contract being run as a UK-only competition.

The Government also believes that it can obtain lower costs and force higher levels of efficiency from domestic shipbuilders by tendering on the international market. Despite concerns raised in Parliament and by trade unions, the Government has no plans to issue any further definitions for the purposes of the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Research conducted by GMB shows that ‘warships of all kinds’ are not subject to compulsory competitive tendering.

Article 346 of the Lisbon Treaty states that ‘Any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material.’ The MoD alone is responsible for its definition of
warship.”

Based on evidence from experts in the field, the report calls on the Government to ensure domestic yards receive the Fleet Solid Support Ship Contract in order to ‘retain the skills needed to construct, refit and upgrade complex warships in the future’.

See original article which contains links to other info:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/two-bid ... c5nM9pWzTI
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
User avatar
Pelican
Posts: 9734
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Proposed Fleet Solid Support Ships

Unread post by Pelican »

From: Savetheroyalnavy.org

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, in partnership with BMT, are set to unveil their Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ship concept at DSEI in September.
They are one of 3 foreign companies bidding against a British consortium to build two or three support ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
BMT designed the Korean-built Tide class tankers and elements of that design likely to be included in their FSS concept.
See - https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ToCK9rlDWI
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “The Royal Fleet Auxiliary”