BAE Systems has been awarded $20m to provide logistics engineering and integration support of the US Ohio class and UK Vanguard class submarines.

The firm claims the contract includes ‘support of future concepts’.

According to a release:

“Work will be performed in Saint Mary’s, Georgia (47.8 %); Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (30.9 %); Rockville, Maryland (11.7 %); Silverdale, Washington (3.2 %);Portsmouth, Virginia (1.07 %); Mount Dora, Florida (1.07 %); NewMarket, Maryland (1.07 %); Carlisle, Pennsylvania (1.07%); Mooresboro, North Carolina (1.06 %); and Mesa, Arizona (1.06 %), with an expected completion date of Sept. 30, 2020.”

The contract notice also adds:

“United Kingdom funds in the amount of $3,652,728, are being obligated on this award. Subject to the availability of funding, fiscal 2020 operation and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $16,214,375 will be obligated.

No funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was a sole source acquisition pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1)(4). Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting Activity.”

14
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
9 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
LiampkcasimirStretchAndy Pjulian1 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
IKnowNothing
Guest
IKnowNothing

I have three degrees including a Doctorate. I find those contract statements almost indecipherable!

fen tiger
Guest
fen tiger

THE Three Degrees?

IKnowNothing
Guest
IKnowNothing

Nah – not nearly that good 🙂

Mark
Guest
Mark

Almost or Totally.
I only have an HND , but I can see that the approx $20M, will be spent with “a company” in each location listed. split by the % shown in brackets. It is important to note that in American politics, it is important for members of the Senate and Congress to “bring home the bacon”. Getting Govt dollars spent in your constituency goes a long way to getting re-elected.
As for the 2nd part, the UK has committed $3.6M, and the US Navy will fund the rest, if they can find the money.

pkcasimir
Guest
pkcasimir

The reason that the statement “subject to funding” is included is that the US Congress has not passed the 2020 US Defense Appropriations Bill and the Pentagon cannot legally obligate funds that have not been appropriated by Congress. It’s a legal technicality and has little to do with the availability of funds which undoubtedly are included in the 2020 DOD Appropriations Bill. Once that appropriations bill or a CR is passed the funds can be legally obligated.

Ron
Guest
Ron

So the UK government supplies 15% of the monies but no work is carried out in the UK?
Possibly I am wrong but when I look at where I see the work being carried out I do not see a UK work base.

julian1
Guest
julian1

But it is BAE, a UK listed company. In the same way that Boeing and LM have operations in the UK (not so substantial, yet), BAE have substantial operations in the US. Indeed, it is why they are as big and global as they are and probably the reason why the DoD spends so much money with them.

Cam
Guest
Cam

Yeah BAE is a true giant these days, America helped make it so, but I hate how BAE merged with lots of UK company’s and then they stop producing what those company’s did! We have lost so many great british company’s this way and now we have one giant company! We should start making armoured vehicles again for a start, Alvis Vickers produced so many different kinds and they should still be building them!!

Ron
Guest
Ron

julian1, I understand that BAE is a UK listed company but lets look at this in a diffrent way. Trump has said that the Uk must look after it own interests when it came to the situation in the Gulf. The UK has said that no warship construction is to be undertaken in a foreign country. Both of these points I understand and agree with. Yet the Vanguard class our most top secret subs are to have upgrades done in the US, why? Is the technical expertese in the UK so bad, I don’t think so otherwise companies such as… Read more »

julian1
Guest
julian1

I’m guessing they base the work there for economies of scale. The US subs would never go to Barrow/Faslane and it makes no sense to duplicate capability. at the end of the day, BAE need to complete the work as efficiently as possible, so it makes sense to locate the work in the location of greatest critical mass. I assume these are mutual/shared components within differing sub designs. If we didn’t make decisions like this, the cost of the V-fleet would be greater than it is. I would prefer to focus developing T26, Typhoon, F35B business

Andy P
Guest
Andy P

I’d guess you’ve got the right of it with the ‘scale’ aspect, not to mention that the V boats are on the way out, not sure if the Dreadnoughts will be part of the same programme or not but it will be The States that its aimed at. Nothing wrong with a wee trip to Kings Bay for a few weeks, its hardly LA or Nu Yoik but its a run ashore.

Stretch
Guest
Stretch

Unfortunatly yes the techincal expertise in the UK is so bad. Years of laying staff of at Barrow & not building any significant subs meant that when it came to building the 1st raft of Astute, BAE needed to call on Electric Boat’s knowledge to dig them out of a huge hole. The other issue here & it’s always a favourtie of the US will be ITAR, I suspect the services being procured here most likely relate to the boats missles & launch tubes etc, most of that is American proprietary & whilst they lend it to us, they do… Read more »

BB85
Guest
BB85

I agree with Ron. The UK is benefitting from EOS joining with the US reducing the over all cost. But if we are still contributing 15% of the budget we should be getting some of that back through work on the UK. The US prob bent us over a barrel and said it was a strategic national industry so all of the work had to be in America knowing we could not deliver it ourselves without spending double the money.

Liam
Guest
Liam

Small beer in terms of spending. Presumably it’s to help fund some future facilites at Groton.