An article in The Herald has oddly claimed that shipbuilding on the Clyde has “been dealt a blow” as new support vessels aren’t going to be built there.
The problem? The were never going to be, BAE aren’t even bidding for them.
The headline seems to set the tone for the rest of the article with a glaring error, “Clyde yards suffer new blow as Royal Navy orders set to go abroad”, they’re not Royal Navy, they’re for the RFA.
The article even 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“, support vessels are not complex warships by any definition and the unions appear well aware of the fact that the Clyde is at capacity with the Type 26 Frigate build and had no intention of bidding for this work. The 40,000 tonne support vessels wouldn’t even physically fit on the slip alongside the Type 26 Frigate builds.
The unions are advocating that the build stay in the UK, not that it be done on the Clyde. 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.”
The article which also appeared in The Evening Times 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, 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.
They’ll be going to South Korea like the tankers as I don’t think any UK yard is considering a bid for them, we certainly aren’t.”
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 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 the Clyde isn’t bidding for it, the Clyde has no capacity to build the vessels and the Clyde wasn’t expecting them. Hardly “a blow”.
I would have thoughts since He works on the Clyde that they would know there will be no Ship building capacity until 2030 and we need to start building them soon. As we can’t wait another 13 plus years the the Fort-class replacements
More shoddy journalism and by a so called broadsheet
Same thing when the call it HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH…moment.
Why not build these new ships with proper welldecks, armaments and C2 comms so they can replace the Albion class vessels?
Good idea. This would make them warships and therefore built in the UK. I would have thought the obvious model was the aircraft carrier alliance: built in modules and assembled at Rosyth from A&P and Babcock modules plus BAE systems while Cammell Laird and Ferguson build Type 31.
It might yet happen. The Bay class have a well deck albeit a small one. These ships are likely to be much bigger so it should be possible. They would also make ideal disaster relief ships so funding at least 1 or 2 extra (inc crew running costs) from the aid budget would seem appropriate to me. For armaments I’d be pretty sure that they’d get the fairly standard RFA fit of twin Phalanx + twin 30mm.
If we cannot afford to operate ships we already have then good luck trying to get new ones brought by the MOD.
Spot on Ben.
The signs are positive so far
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-26.109855.h&s=speaker%3A25306
Because they cannot replace the Albion Capability by adding a well deck. The accom for 300+ marines and the lane meterage for the vehicles would make them a totally different ship probably in the 55K+ tonnes category.
Just for once I agree with the Union. Without in any way going along with the current Scottish efforts at labelling anything as victimisation. Underneath the Clyde bullcrap is the sensible comment that these ships should be built in the UK. And there are more suitable shipbuilders than just BAE for whom this sort of ship is really not their line of work. Forgive me if I repeat my reasons for saying this elsewhere: “It is absolutely a destructive and suicidal way of thinking that ‘foreign is better and cheaper’. We have, as a country, happily exported our jobs, investment… Read more »
Did u not read this article “No British Yard was interested in bidding
That’s because the MoD and Treasury have made it clear a British bid would be unsuccessful.
They could be built in blocks and assembled at Rosyth just like the carriers.
Yes they would have a higher price tag but a lot of that would come straight back to the UK Treasury in the form of Personal & Business taxes plus 20% VAT. Let alone all the social and industrial benefits to the UK.
The National Shipbuilding strategy was delivered a few weeks ago. First ship orders since will go to the Koreans. That tells you everything you need to know.
A British yard could not build them for anything like the same price (50% – 100% more ?) that’s why non will bid. If you want them built here presumably you would be happy to see half as many or will it be Father Christmas to the rescue ?
A British bid would include 20% VAT, Korean would not. That’s just one tax.
Ron5 – Exactly my point but better said.
The direct tax is around 40%, not including other taxes and benefits. It should be a non-starter in building UK taxpayer-funded, and UK consumer paid ships abroad. People need to understand the other complicate areas like tax clawback and cost should be given after many many factors are calculated in, (just putting a price against a foreign competitor in not accurate and unfair to the UK firms, which is what this eu like to see). They need to be, otherwise we will still get comments like they are cheaper by half, negating the fact that our energy and tax regime… Read more »
Peter – Yes I did (twice) but apparently you didn’t. Nowhere does it say that. The nearest is a quote from BAE saying “I don’t think any UK yard is considering a bid for them” In fact the MoD are saying “There will be an international competition to build the ‘Fleet Solid Support’ supply ships, which UK companies will be able to enter” So quite the opposite to your comment. So the test is whether the Government intends to make the NSS work as of now. We have massive dry docks in Belfast and all shipyards bar Tyneside are on… Read more »
Excellent.
If you put out that idea, which past Governments did, no UK consortia will bid, just to be rejected by their own government. Why the heck would you bid if the cards were stacked against you?! This UK government thinking is in the least, totally mad, and most, treasonous and suicidal industrial thinking, when we have an industry on the brink of success, instead they could kill it.
Peter French, Why was no U.K. yard interested in bidding? Because they have deliberately waged war against British shipbuilding (and EVERY other British industry) to the point where it is tiny, and uncompetitive, just like they wanted. This was planned all along. They knew this would happen, that is why they did it. Did they make sure ahead of time that British shipyards would be in a position to bid? No, because they wanted this, it was them who made sure we would be in this position. Now we know there isn’t the capacity will they ensure that there is?… Read more »
Glad to be able to totally agree with you Chris 🙂
Hear Hear
Another “fake news” sensationist non news headline by a red top newsheet and of course a Union outrage statement from an idiot who like this newspaper doesnt want to know the facts. No wonder they undermine any real issue they may have by drumming up something which has no fact Stupid
No, not stupid to point out the benefits of spending British taxpayer money in Britain.
The Herald still supports the Union rather than Independence though it has become more neutral. It’t the Sunday Herald did support Independence, maybe still does, with its sister paper The National actually supporting Indy.
The Herald takes up issues local to Scotland, and why should it not?
I would like to see 4 of these built to the same standards as the Tide class – but configured like the dutch JLSS Karel Doorman. I would be very happy if these were built in the UK – but if by building them in Korea it releases money to build more T26 or T31’s in the UK then so be it. These should be part of the NSS and therefore be built in the UK – but it has to be at a competitive price (not necessarily the cheapest). Having seen the tides though – they are great quality… Read more »
I think the tides are of good quality. However people who say “well domestic yards aren’t bidding” or “the Clyde and other builders don’t want the work” are being disingenuous. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that DSME had someone on the committee engaged in insider trading and sweetheart deals in exchange for issuing a contract that they would be the only concievable bidder.
You’ve been aboard the Tides?? I don’t think so.
I have been on a Tide boat and I will be sailing one back. The build quality is good and the machining tolerances are less than the UK. There are problems but there are problems in any new build ship and DSME are doing an excellent job. I would be happy to have FSS built in Korea but I think the politcial pressures to prop up failing industry that can’t compete with the rest of the world is too great, however just lik with the Tides and yards being busy they are now busy with the new frigates and no… Read more »
The tides are way over schedule and have been plagued with problems like the wrong wiring, etc. They do everything they can to keep that a secret whilst shouting from the rooftops about any British problems (deliberate and organized war against British industry which has been waged for decades and is still being waged to this day).
I really would like to see Cammel Laird become the home of the RFA in build and maintenance, perhaps we can have an RFA fleet of 12/13 vessels built at a rate of 1 every 2 years.
Surely this is good all round and would mean CL is RFA lead, Barrow, Subs, Clyde T26 and Babcock (other) T31’s lead yards.
Isn’t that what the NSS should have done?
Sorry – and Devonport (other) as our small vessels lead yard for everything under 30m.
“Devonport for everything under 30m”
You do realise the size if the drydocks in Devonport dont you?
Well it took HMS Eagle a 900ft /45K ton carrier when she dry docked for servicing…..They had to chip away one side of the dock and it left 3″ clearance either side of the vessel….I was aboard her.!
Well, the shed at Cammell Laird is 140 metres long, the Tides are 200 metres. It would need investment, and quite difficult there, as the slipways come each side I think.
I think I’ll probably go into shock when one of our wonderful newspapers get something right. We don’t seem to have any reporters these days. Just sensationalists making up their own rubbish. I do wonder sometimes is some of them can even read.
I think I’ll go into shock when Britain’s industries are supported.
That these are not currently under consideration by British Yards underlines my concerns about the NSS. Not enough sustained meat to allow UK yards to make it work. The NSS is a sheep in wolfs clothing and Govt is a disgrace.
100% agree. One big con job.
I thought the NSS was a good idea until, basically, instead of thinking as one does “it’s just unions and they would say that”, when they said that competition was a race to the bottom and would lead to shipbuilders going out of business. Then I realised they had a point. There’s not enough navy shipbuilding, even including the RFAs, to allow an open competitive tendering process in the UK, it does need “protectionism”.
Exactly! In spite of their lies they WANT British shipbuilding tiny and un-competitive.
Moving sideways, it’s just been announced that the Joint Helicopter Command is cutting back on training, particularly overseas, due to lack of resources. Good eh?
More, bigger cuts to come.
No UK yard will bid for the business.
So why don’t the unions form a workers co operative and use their members cash to fund it?
Talk is cheap, action to make things better is always someone else’s problem.
The unions need to stop moaning and do something for a change.
There’s quite a lot of support available from Government, both UK and Scottish, and councils for co-operatives, so this is a good idea.
Please dont differentiate when you say ” There’s quite a lot of support available from Government, both UK and Scottish”
I thought Scotland was part of the Uk so should not be seperated when you say things like that
It’s different levels of funding Baz, available from all 3 levels if they choose. There’s even EU funding on top, but not I guess for much longer.
Some good comments below the line. I didn’t comment on that article in the broadly Union supporting Herald (it came out for NO a few days before the date of the Indy Ref), as it was closed to comment, but did on a similar one in The National which completely supports Independence. Just so posters here know the political angles. The (trades) Union has a point though. If the RFAs were built in the UK then there’s less competition for the T31e, and more chance of BAE actually building them there – in theory. In practice it would need a… Read more »
Yes, exactly.
Agreed. The QEC ‘Alliance’ successfully rekindled UK ship building but it is still too fragmented and fragile to enable meaningful competitive tendering for FSS. Especially so since the most likely bidders would be Cammell Laird or Babcock, both of whom are bidding for Type 31. The government needs to step in here and make sure there is a UK ( consortium) bid for these ships. Considering FSS separately from Type 31 is tantamount to giving the business abroad and starving UK shipbuilding just at the point when it needs to grow.
Sorry Korean yards are like a production line, blocks are made to a specific schedule with
no delays, ships will always cost more money in UK yards as the customer always deviates from contract specification and the yard then makes up a figure trebles it and makes a bundle out of that change, look at the aircraft carrier and see the over runs with indecision from ski jump ramp, no skijump, etc etc etc it goes on and on. lets see what emerges from vibration problems on shafts, underwater coatings, flight deck coatings.
Yeah, the big problem is the incompetence of the contracts and too much indecision.
Yet the Tides were delayed. Don’t you read your newspapers?
Yes they were delayed (but still within the contract margins) due to no fault of Daewoo. The regulations were changed on cabling and the yard was forced to do some rewiring on the first of class. It made no significant affect on the induction into service process for the class.
Daewoo offered to build all four vessels in parallel and deliver at the same time. The RFA didn’t have the capacity to induct the vessels all at once. Ironically that lack of capacity meant rectification works was avoided on the whole class.
So do you keep up with the newspapers?
Seems to be a constant problem the UK yards face, which Sir John Parker picks up on. Introduce a change, the UK yards get the blame. The Mars ship tankers actually cost 766 million pounds, just the production of the hulls, as this was never been clawed back in taxes. They are not cheaper in any way.
Tha is what the digital shipyard is all about! A production line. Something ewe did years ago. We are re-learning. South Korea learnt from us, and so it goes.
Of course shipbuilding in the UK won’t get any form of subsidy, protection or investment because none of them are in the city of London so they don’t matter just like steelworkers.
Banks on the other hand will get bailed out by our politicians and to the tune of £billions because they all went to the same school and are all genuinely good chaps!
Soooo true.
Sadly, I pointed steelworks being hit in the future to John Redwood when 2007-08 bank bailouts happened. It does not take a genius, which I am obviously not. Did shipbuilding and steel making ever make the cost of living high, especially compared to banks and the square mile?
RBS is still a badun, and help asset strip many viable UK manufacturing firms.
Sjb – You started off making a valid point about subsidies and spoilt it by adding your rather sad Leftie cr@p on a) how the lack of liquidity was the issue in 2008, b) it was Labour ‘wot done it’ and c) the assumption that every politician went Eton. You might want to read up on what Quantitative Easing actually was, what it does and what it achieves. I doubt you know the UK Taxpayer made a substantial profit from what you call ‘bailed out Bankers’. Which does not excuse their irresponsible behaviour. The UK Government actually DID support steelworkers… Read more »
Bombardier and Hitachi are not British. It is just more of the same deliberate and organized war against British industry as what we are seeing here. Deliberately close every last British train maker down, knowing full well we will always need trains, then you can give every single British train order from now until forever to a foreign company. Same as deliberately make sure every single large British shipyard is closed down so when contracts like this come up they will go to foreigners. Just as was planned all along. It would be a million times better to set up… Read more »
The Tide Class job was only 4 ships. And that’s why a UK yard can’t keep the price down. We spend so much on design every time we need a new ship. The RN + RFA have 20 or so big ships each lasting 30 years or so. The last UK yard to accept a 4 ship job (Bay Class LSL) was Swan Hunter on the Tyne and look what happened to them. Those 20 ships are of 10 different designs but they all JUST CARRY STUFF. We just need one hull design with configurable spaces, one yard and one… Read more »
Tim agreed but where would the yard be located that’s the problem because that is where politics comes into it. If we are honest given the current size of the RN and even if it were to grow the number of Naval bases should be reduced but of course the MOD budget is as much about maintaining jobs as it is defending the realm. Personally I believe with modular construction we should still spread work around the UK and with our imminent vacating of the EU and its procurement rules we could try to reintroduce some merchant ship construction. This… Read more »
My RN fleet and suggested yards below… BAE, Barrow… • 12 Astutes. Four with an 8 cell VLS system for cut down Trident of 10 tons instead of 60, but still capable of 4000 km with 4 warheads. Would operate from Plymouth and Barrow. Coulport and Faslane to close. Cammel Laird, Liverpool… • 12 Multi Mission RFAs of 40t tons. A bigger version of the Point Class with 3 Chinook pads and fixed overhanging davits for LCM and RAS duties. All cargo would be vehicles or containers (including fuel storage) or modules for accomodation or similar. • 4 Aircraft Carriers… Read more »
I am on board with your plan (although have a slightly different fantasy fleet in mind) and would say this is doable over the 25 year horizon. For Patrol and MCM’s I also see one class of ship and realistically our patrol vessels should be old MCM’s in the last 10 years of their lifespan. I see no reason to remove work from Scottish shipyards as they are part of the union, but clearly if the UK invests in them then moving them and the nuclear bases out of Scotland will need to be funded by an independent Scotland. I… Read more »
Initially, I thought “not a bad attempt, Tim”; then I read about the closure of Scottish bases, and no orders for the Clyde, and it all just got a bit silly …….
Yes fine but this is my list. I think (1) BAE have had enough of our defence budget to the extream detriment of our entire industry and to the detriment of our services, (2) the Clyde yards have also had more than their share, and (3) the SNP are trying to get rid of us so much and winning votes for it that I think there will eventually be an IndyRef2. I can’t say that I want to lose Scotland at all but with 60% of the MPs up there wanting us to get out why should I feel obliged… Read more »
Hi Tim, The Clyde has been a centre of excellence for ship-building in the UK for over 100 years. Historically, that’s where most of the yards where situated, and that’s why the rump of what’s left of British ship-building is situated on the banks of the river. Scotland has made a huge contribution to the success of the UK, and continues to do so. (As regards taxes, my friend DadsArmy would probably jump in at this point, and mention oil revenues over the last 40 years. So let’s not go there!) The SNP is not Scotland; the majority of Scots… Read more »
At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious. The UK does have the scale to justify a number of yards, but it needs co-ordination and investment. I often cite Eddie stobarts who dont allow their fleet of vehicles to become so old that maintenance costs get of out control, but the UK we do. Carriers – 2 Complex warships (over 90m) – 19 Submarines – 11 Large Amphib and Support – 20 Medium build (30-95m) – 20 Small Patrol Vessels (under 30m) – 25 Enabling vessels and systems (Rhibs, Atlas etc) – 400 (estimate) Tugs – 20? Coastguard/Border Control… Read more »
Unfortunately we have tried the single source supplier route with no competition and that has seen huge cost increases. When will the public sector learn because it is not just the MOD that suffer from this affliction We have even bought overpriced OPVs that we do not currently need. The issue is not whether we have a few diversified yards that perhaps can build modules or complete ships but having a genuine long term pipeline for new ships and investment in developing a manufacturing base. All we have of course is continual new reports, procurement studies, consultations and of course… Read more »
The UK national Shipbuilding strategy? Building the new support ships overseas is not “a blow to the Clyde yards, it would be a blow to UK shipbuilding as a whole, and the answer would be that there is no UK National Shipbuilding Strategy, not with 5 Frigates and some subs. You cannot have a National strategy when you are abiding by EU and any other foreign rules that are killing UK industry, which others do not adhere too, and get around by saying the sailors are military and the ships are warships, aka, Germany Italy Netherlands have done this! BAE… Read more »
We are on the verge of something great or disaster, which is melancholy with huge contracts given away abroad, but we have some frigates to build, and big up what is little, which is something recent UK governments are happy with. I like many, are not! They even down and undermine our own industries to justify it, and some believe this.
Darren – have to agree with everything you have written there. I wonder if some bright shipbuilder will call the Government’s bluff and put in a bid price ‘netted off’ with the Income Tax, NI, corporation tax, VAT and all the other ways the Government claws a tax take that will return directly and indirectly to HM Treasury. And as I said above what price training young people, sparking an interest in engineering with school leavers and generating meaningful incomes for less well off communities. And the investment in a resurgent industry The reduction in welfare costs alone will probably… Read more »
Just replying to myself, I said: “Does that mean a UK firm places a competitive tender at 1.4 billion pounds, or South Korea places a tender at 600 million?”.
It is not 1.4 billion but1 billion dived by 60% (minus the 40% tax clawback) then add 40% and mutiply by 100 (%) tax clawback, makes 1.666 billion as a competitive tender from the UK, let alone every other benefit these ship contracts give.
Darren it is your last line that annoys me most because it is true
It’s not a new thing in Britain to undermine others to suit the others who are in the wrong or caused them the disaster. Stanley Goodhall or D’Eyncourt said they were being used as a scapegoat to cover the fact that Admirals at the time (Beatty most likely, who commanded the battlecruiser squadron!) were saying feed the guns as fast as possible and putting munitions in a dangerous place to make as fast as possible loading. The blame for ship losses was put on the Naval Architects, who were arguably the greatest warship designers of certainly the first half of… Read more »
Building, sorry.
This Country is on the verge of success in shipbuilding again. If those Fleet Solid Support Ships are spunked off abroad for a face price that is not value for the taxpayer, we have lost. But politicians say otherwise because they twist, lie and polish turds for a living (are they value for the taxpayer, along with doing up an old building for 6 billion quid for Westminster Palace that should be sold, but that will probably enrich their mates?). It is as simple as that. I sorry to be graphic.
I “am” Sorry for missing out words.
Excellent postings. For me there are two problems which are being avoided, but need to be faced full on. The first is an accounting change, whereby the MOD gets a kickback for economic activity it generates in the UK economy. There should be a way this can be done within all compeitive rules, perhaps simply by linking the activity with the next year budget according to some algorithm. So if 2020 building activity costing £1 billion generates £500 million worth of revenue in the economy, that £500 million either gets added to the next year budget, or treated as underspend… Read more »
I as a pro-united Britainer would wave the tax clawback, as I was born because of a united Britain, so was the RMS Queen Elizabeth (the greatest ship ever built ), so how could I ever hate Scotland? But if Scotland left, I would still support Scotland, because, for me, Britain is bigger than politics. For me, I’m into British shipbuilding. I know economics would say different. But they don’t seem to get involved in regards to building ships abroad in actual foreign Countries. Scotland will never be foreign.
For me, emotion and blood trumps politics. I don’t want to see Scotland ever hurt. I hate seeing the game playing to do with such an emotive subject such as shipbuilding, something Britain will be great at again. We are already, we have no realized it yet.
It sounds that the way a lot of you talk on here that you all seem very intelligent people and seem to know a lot of the things we discuss on here But and theres always a but regarding an independent Scotland If they do decide to leave this union i for one want no naval shipbuilding whatsoever to to be given to them Darren-” But if Scotland left, I would still support Scotland, because, for me, Britain is bigger than politics ” That may be true but it is politics that will have destroyed the union The MOD say… Read more »
Sorry, when I say “avoided” I don’t mean you Darren of course, I mean Gov / MOD etc.
Baz. You have very valid points, and I do get emotional about my Country, that’s why I do not speak out her union here. But we are still a multi-state Country and Scotland has all the rights as any other state in this Country, and I want to see Scotland thrive. The FSS ships will be more complex than the Tankers, but that does not get away from the fact that these are taxpayer funded ships that now have the rule as you say, foisted upon us that impedes a future invigorate improved UK shipbuilding industry. We just cannot abide… Read more »
I have seen first hand what massive job lay offs in the Steel,mining and shipbuilding industries have down to whole communities and it is not pleasant. I am supportive of these ships (and the whole fleet) being built in the UK and would go as far as stating these should be classified as Tax exempt for the purposes of fair competition. As I have said above – sequencing is the key to ensure the MOD can consistently spend £3bn pa on shipbuilding indefinitely. I do agree with the comment that the union needs skin in the game and should form… Read more »
Three big problems with that Pacman27. The first is financial and economic benefit. Income tax is devolved to Scotland, but National Insurance is not, nor is corporation tax. Also only 50% of VAT is devolved. So while the Scottish Government receives back somewhere around half the economic benefit to the economy, it’s the Treasury gets the other half. The second is also financial, there is a benefit to the defence budget of the UK, but Scotland pays for just 1/12th – 8.4%. So for its outlay in total, the Scottish Gvoernment gets considerably less than half in return. From the… Read more »
But Scotland gets more funding than any other part of the UK and the Scottish Government can decided to support a key industry if it decides to.
It has decided not to – £250m is not a lot over several years (for either government), but like on a lot of things the SNP make a lot of noise but are short on action.
It doesn’t work that way. The Scottish budget is roughly split into fiscal resource DEL which covers the running of the NHS, schools etc, day to day expenses, and the capital DEL to cover investment. Current capital DEL is around £2.8 billion, but was £2.7 bn in 2015-16. The Queensferry Crossing was just finished this year, and capital expenditure is used in full every year. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00491140.pdf (page 4). So slotting in £250 million would be a real burden, and would need to guarantee results of the investment, something that couldn’t be said for Scotstoun when in spite of building a… Read more »
Hi Dads Army 1. You are highlighting other choices they have made. 2. It could be spread over 5 or 10 years as a commitment to BAE to build it. 3. This is what the UK government does for other industries (most notably the car industry which has little uk ownership). 4. It shows that the SNP have an interest in these workers which from what I have seen to date they do not. The Scottish Govt can do this if they want to – just like the UK govt can fund defence better if it wants to. The fact… Read more »
Hi Pacman27 I think expecting the Scottish Government to pay or guarantee the £200 / £250 million for only a portion of the return in taxation and economic benefit, is as unfair as expecting the UK Government to fund the lot, with Scotland getting a portion of the economic benefit “Scot Free”, and even taking the risk of Scotland going Indy in 5 years and having their investment treated as “Thanks for that, very kind, it’s ours now”. The proper way I think would be proportionate, and with payback terms in case of Indy, depending on how many had been… Read more »
Yes.
Yes true. I am from Southampton and travelled up to Newcastle and Tyneside to see Swan Hunters in 2007, then 2008. It shook me terribly!
Am impressed and support the logic and feeling in these comments. The FSS ships ought to be built in the UK. I have written to No 10 on the web site to express this view since it seems to me only the PM can override both the MOD and the Treasury. Maybe it will have some effect.
I have also used the form on the no10 website to request these ships are built in the UK
TH does have a point – we need to be more vocal as a community – I am not a warmonger, but nor do I want our forces to have anything but the best.
I am emailing Harriot Baldwin tomorrow.
Also. Good luck. Keep it up!
And you Pacman27!
He should have said “this approach ensures foreign shipbuilding is kept afloat whilst ensuring our own is kept on its deathbed”.
No U.K. yards have bid because they waged a deliberate and organized war against British shipbuilding (and every other British industry) to the point where no large British shipbuilders exist anymore. They done this deliberately, they knew this would happen, that is why they did that. They can now give Navy order away to foreign countries forever and ever and ever, just like they wanted. They have deliberately made sure this happened. In every single one of our industries. It is sick, disgusting and a humiliation. It is not the job of our Navy to keep foreign shipbuilding alive and… Read more »
Stephen – Who exactly is this ‘they’ you keep mentioning? Or is this some conspiratorial imagination?
He probably means the UK government, eu and vested interests. Those interest probably make more money out of us by having stuff built abroad, while we still pay the same price and see areas destroyed. The MARS tankers should and could have been built here, instead, we saw BAE and BMT get into bed with a foreign shipbuilder. The ships did not seem to be cheaper and are late, we saw only a little tax return from this protected 160 million UK content bit. It is a big rip off, and we fall for it!
The “national shipbuilding strategy” is a f!*&king joke. Many, many, many of our Navy’s ships, large ships at that, will be built in foreign countries, that is our “national shipbuilding strategy” is it? In spite of their lies they what they REALLY want is to deliberately keep British shipbuilding tiny and uncompetitive. Canada also recently released a national shipbuilding strategy, in it they say EVERY Navy ship from the biggest to the smallest will be built in Canada, and have invested in shipyards to make sure this happens. THAT is a national shipbuilding strategy. Ours is just a disguised continuation… Read more »
Canada has been very active on the radio here, trying to recruit Clyde shipbuilders for a 30 year shipbuilding program in Canada. No idea how successful they’ve been.
You do realize that 10yrs in and several Shipbuilding strategies later they haven’t built a combatant or selected a single design?
You have read some of the comments on the conversation?
I have said in another thread what I think about the NSS. We have enough of a need to at least make us competitive – what we lack is consistency of ordering/scheduling and a commitment to fund £3bn of funding per annum. This is a win/win we get more for £3bn pa than we do with our current stop / start / indecisive progress and it gives industry a baseline from which they can build facilities and train a skilled workforce. Michael Porter (famed Harvard Academic) is very clear that in ordere to be successful in the export market you… Read more »
Strong domestic market…exactly. My grandmother used to say blow your own trumpet because no-one else is going to blow it for you. Here’s hoping Hammond at the Treasury takes defence decisions like the engineer he is rather than as an accountant.
Also, in order to be successful in your own national market, you need the belief and desire from your own government without outside toxic influences killing your potential.
Pacman27. I borrowed, nicked a little bit from you about Micheal Porter for another website, called the conversation. Forgot about the writer of the competitive advantage of nations. Had to use it.
Might be cheaper to build overseas but building at home keeps money in UK, helps balance of payments, reduces benefit costs, enables shipbuilders to thrive and bid for overseas work.
By way of comparison – South Korea build circa 160-200 major ships per year, which is the UK’s maximum government requirement spread over 25 years and suggests that without deep government commitment the UK NSS is destined to fail. It does not make me happy to state this – but the facts are that we cannot compete on the proposed scale and that we really need to accept this will be a national enterprise that will self finance over time (25 years). It also needs the union in to collective bargain and get productivity to where it needs to be… Read more »
I think South Korea is focused on China as it’s wage rate is possible the same as the UK’s. It was on a scale of 1-20, at 6-7 with Britain on 10 (Germany was 20) in 2007, and probably even closer to the UK now without the pound falling over that time. Yes, it depends on which ship types (existing and new) and how we embrace new tech. I don’t think we are looking for total dominance in world shipbuilding as in the previous centuries, and neither would we desire this I expect. But to start with all UK customer… Read more »
I guess you can sell a great design too, in which we have many great design centres, but sadly builders from abroad get the benefit. More UK shipbuilder and design team (the ones not belonging to shipyards, like Barrow etc) is required.
Are you commentators going to help this lecturer: https://theconversation.com/shipbuilding-in-britain-how-to-reboot-it-87031
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wd6Npdw_x0 This is a terrible development. Is anyone aware of it?
I was not going to comment on Armistice day, but this affects our armed forces and industries in a terrible way
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]
[…] it has been reported that the Clyde yards are not likely to bid for the contract as they are already at full capacity with the Type 26 […]