The UK’s Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ship programme is under review following the takeover of Harland & Wolff by Navantia UK, with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirming that cost increases and timeline adjustments are still being assessed.
Responding to a parliamentary question from Mark Francois MP, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle stated that the first ship remains scheduled to enter service by 2031, but that the full impact of the shipyard ownership change is still being evaluated.
“On the current schedule, the first ship is expected to enter service by 2031 following extended first-of-class trials and equipment fits. However, extensive work is being undertaken to understand the full impact on the Fleet Solid Support (FSS) programme following the recent takeover of Harland & Wolff by Navantia UK.”
The FSS ships are crucial to supporting the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike Group, providing vital ammunition, food, and stores replenishment while at sea.
Cost Increases and Contract Adjustments
Maria Eagle confirmed that the MoD is working closely with Navantia UK to ensure continued delivery of the programme, but acknowledged that the contract has had to be renegotiated, with final details still to be settled.
“The Government has worked closely with Navantia UK on the future of the FSS programme and agreed with them the minimum changes to the contract necessary—on commercial terms—to ensure the programme’s continued delivery.”
She added that final cost changes are still under review, stating:
“The FSS team are working with Navantia UK to complete the detailed contract change, and it would be inappropriate to comment further due to commercial sensitivities.”
Impact on the Royal Navy’s Replenishment Capability
The delays and contract adjustments could have long-term implications for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA), which currently operates the ageing Fort-class replenishment ship RFA Fort Victoria.
RFA Fort Victoria is currently the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s only dedicated solid stores ship. However, due to resource constraints, it has been deemed a lower priority and remains alongside. As a result, Fort Victoria will not deploy with the UK Carrier Strike Group this year, with a Norwegian vessel set to take its place in supporting the task force.
The takeover of H&W by Navantia will be used as an excuse for any delay when the true reason is the unrealistic ‘no change contract’ set up by DE&S, signing a contract with a back of a fag packet design and expecting the winning bidder to take responsibility for shortfalls in capability when those shortfalls won’t be truly known until long after Navantia have gone. Ben Wallace tried to cut costs as they’re just ‘Support Ships’ but they’re much more than that when deploying world wide. Very worrying.
Back of a fag packet design are you joking ? It’s a BMT design so pretty well top of the line, it’s part of the same family of Aegir support ships as the RFA Tides, HNoMS Maude both of which will be supporting CSG25 oh and they designed the QE class carriers as well.
Great
[ 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐃𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐔𝐬 ]
Start your career with us today and work from the comfort of your home! No skills or experience required—just your dedication and a desire to succeed. Receive your payments weekly or monthly, depending on your preference. It’s a great opportunity to kickstart your career, earn a steady income, and enjoy the flexibility of working on your own terms! So Hurry and
Get Started Now.”….. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
🥕🍌🥂. What else do you offer… So hurry and give me your credit card number.
How about never coming on this site again. You’re in the wrong place.
The gov could have taken over H&W especially for £83m kept the skilled labouring skilled subcontractors,these could have been used for windfarms etc, but looks like Starmer & co decided industrialisation isn’t for UK it has to give it to EU n now the price goes up n delays start
H&W will probably be in the EU before the last of these ships could be built so I understand the Government’s reluctance to spend limited funds there.
Be surprised to see them ever being laid down,
Give it to roysth and if needed South Korea can make the hulls.
I actually liked the way we acquired the Tides, it still has the record for being the only MOD project to come in under budget and overall on time. But I think we are too far down the line for that idea, Navantia would sue the Arse of us.
And we do really need to get H&W back up and running for the MRSS and provide a realistic back up for the QE being Drydocked.
I think they still has issues, funnels and hydrants that meant they had to go into CL to be fixed. but yes we got the actual ships 🙂
Yes, they would have been in service by now and cheaper by that route.
But the Tides were not trouble free and these are much more complex than the Tides.
I’ve been saying build in Korea for many years, but someone told me the shipyards there are now so backed up with work it would take a long time. I still would put in an order for one FSSS so we can junk Ft Victoria as soon as it’s operational. If we eventually get 4 support ships this way, we can sell one to the continent because Europe needs more enablers.
or could have simply bought the proven Italian Vulcano. The French Navy dis and seems quite happy
We need them to go ahead down here at Appledore, so many times the yard has been let down. Would be good to get the sections started as soon as possible.
Can’t we just get an Amazon Prime subscription?
How hard could it be to modify those vans for the sea?
What, and be yet more reliant on the US? Be realistic, Peter.
Guessing you mean China?,,,,,,,,,
As I’ve said before government is essentially agreed to pay Navantia to take over H&W. So we have paid a Spanish government owned yard to be able to build a stake in the UK, what joke. And of course they will announce the final number when there’s other news to distract the public This decisions was taken based on ideology rather than logic and clear evidence that like the Tories they’re wedded to an outdated ideology.
The problem is that either you rebuild domestic shipbuilding or you don’t.
The other issue is that you need to be able to build a range of ship specs and sizes.
I’d have been in favour of a proper bulldozer job with a huge new yard with the space to set up a linear line etc
By deciding that RFA’s are now UK built again it has crated a problem as this isn’t the cheapest way to build nor the fastest as it is constrained by drumbeat.
Final problem is that these are quite complex ships – much more so than the Tides.
Exactly. Once BW made the decision to go with H&W, government really had to support that. And if that meant only guaranteeing the loan if H&W sold 51% of the shares to HMG to stop alleged shinnanegins, H&W would have bitten their hands off for that deal.
Hi SB, Fact is they decided to build in U.K so that they can have a Yard that can build, support & refit 20K+ ships, any I genuinely think that we do need a bigger yard than any of the ones we have. I like the idea of a blank sheet of paper yard but our Shipbuilding forefathers weren’t stupid, they built the old yards on all the optimum sites and most of those are now housing / retail parks.
By optimum I mean it has to have plenty of space, flat, suitable geology (bedrock preferably), excellent transport links, large population centre nearby, transferable skills available and above all else 24/7/365 access to deep water. Also it probably will need a massive Dry Dock for outfitting / refits etc which if one has to be constructed from new is Mega Money.
I have racked my brains as to where such a site is and IMHO it’s down to 3 choices that fit the bill, but all would require massive Government funding and Political resolve. I’ve listed them in order of the criteria above (and it’s just my stab at it).
1. The area around the disused KGV Graving Dock at Southampton, it has all the physical requirements. The issues would be High Labour costs for construction and the long term workforce and the necessity of purchasing part of the Container Terminal. But it’s sitting there doing nothing and it just has a Big Drydock just round the corner from Portsmouth.
2. What’s left of Inchgreen and that includes the Drydock. Issues are that it’s owned by Peel Group and the “it’s yet another yard on the Clyde” so SNP involved.
3. The former Swan Hunter yard site at Wallsend. Main issue with that one is the rather bad taste left in MOD / Treasury mouth left over from the Bay Fiasco.
On the other hand H&W Belfast already has all of the attributes so using them makes economic sense. Quite why HMG didn’t just take on the Physical ownership of the yard, upgrade the infrastructure and lease it out Navantia is a mystery to me. After all Ben Wallace was quite proud of being the Tory who Nationalised SFM, and look how well that is doing (they’re back in the gun making business).
What about mouth of the Thames, either Isle of Grain on the Medway or Tilbury/Thames haven.
Already loads of port infrastructure around that neck of the woods, easy enough to extend rail links from London.
Hi SB, Fact is they decided to build in U.K so that they can have a Yard that can build, support & refit 20K+ ships, any I genuinely think that we do need a bigger yard than any of the ones we have. I like the idea of a blank sheet of paper yard but our Shipbuilding forefathers weren’t stupid, they built the old yards on all the optimum sites and most of those are now housing / retail parks.
By optimum I mean it has to have plenty of space, flat, suitable geology (bedrock preferably), excellent transport links, large population centre nearby, transferable skills available and above all else 24/7/365 access to deep water. Also it probably will need a massive Dry Dock for outfitting / refits etc which if one has to be constructed from new is Mega Money.
I have racked my brains as to where such a site is and IMHO it’s down to 3 choices that fit the bill, but all would require massive Government funding and Political resolve. I’ve listed them in order of the criteria above (and it’s just my stab at it).
1. The area around the disused KGV Graving Dock at Southampton, it has all the physical requirements. The issues would be High Labour costs for construction and the long term workforce and the necessity of purchasing part of the Container Terminal. But it’s sitting there doing nothing and it just has a Big Drydock just round the corner from Portsmouth.
2. What’s left of Inchgreen and that includes the Drydock. Issues are that it’s owned by Peel Group and the “it’s yet another yard on the Clyde” so SNP involved.
3. The former Swan Hunter yard site at Wallsend. Main issue with that one is the rather bad taste left in MOD / Treasury mouth left over from the Bay Fiasco.
On the other hand H&W Belfast already has all of the attributes so using them makes economic sense. Quite why HMG didn’t just take on the Physical ownership of the yard, upgrade the infrastructure and lease it out Navantia is a mystery to me. After all Ben Wallace was quite proud of being the Tory who Nationalised SFM, and look how well that is doing (they’re back in the gun making business).
How about Teeside? The Tees already has the largest dry dock in the country, and right next to a nuclear power plant so it’s no stranger to security.
The problem is the spectre of recreating BSL by the back door.
But I agree it would have been better for HMG to have bought the H&W site and done the necessary.
Problem there is how badly HMG gets stung in rushed real estate deals…..camps for migrants etc…..Civil Servants are not business people and are constrained in the way they act.
The other worry is that H&W then needed ££££stupid spent on it and it turns into an HS2 style money pit. Things that sound logical and sensible often don’t pass a commercial sniff test.