Building of new Fleet Solid Support Ship to start next year

But it was then slowed again by the F35B/C jig….

Indeed.

Agreed, the Con/Lib coalition just took a bad idea then doubled down on it then the Troy’s post 2015 went even further.

In fairness to labour and the 2010 Tory coalition government we were fighting two expensive wars then the economy fell off a cliff but there is zero excuse for SDSR 2015 being a further hatchet job when the deficit was small and the economy was growing just before the Brexit cliff.

Osbourne at the time was crowing about getting UK government spending to 1930’s level despite the fact the NHS and Pensions didn’t exist back in the 30’s.

The guy is an absolute scum bag along with Cameron, they screwed this country up for decades.

Agreed, I’m only thankful that it was a coalition government, and the LibDems had some moderating effect on it all- although it almost killed them off as a party.
Have no time for this austerity schtick, when it’s been proven time and again that the opposite is what gets economies back on their feet quicker. Absolutely, moderating that spend once the economy picks up is the key, but it’s not irresponsible or impossible.

I think they were a moderating effect on cuts except in terms of defence. They wanted bigger defence cuts and the Lib Dems are the reason our Vanguard SSBN’s are being worked to death.

In the end it’s hard to see what the coalition government actually cut other than defence by 0.5% of GDP.

They were also responsible for increasing the aid budget by 40% when the country was in its worst financial crisis for 100 years. That’s a real genius move.

I think the Lib Dems earned their demotion to the UK’s soon to be 5th biggest party.

They cut a lot more than just defence.

• The police suffered a 20% budget cut and lost over 20,000 police officers

• Education was cut, including funding to primary and secondary schools, and university funding was cut, resulting in the £9,500 a year tuition fees

• Funding to local councils was cut, resulting in closures of libraries, leisure centres, and the diabolical state of the roads.

Sunak has now recruited 20,000 police officers and is crowing about it! Incredible hypocrisy.

And yet that is also spin as its not increase in overall police numbers as every year there is a large number of new police officers to replace ones leaving.

I think police numbers are becoming increasingly irrelevant, most criminals aren’t actually worried about being caught as there’s no punishment of any consequence, there’s part of the establishment that actually portray the criminal as the victim. I don’t see Labour being any tougher on criminals than the Tories, may be even weaker. So niether party will get my vote.

Starmer is the former head of public prosecution. Can’t see how he won’t be tougher. Main issue is the Conservatives cut all the courts and so not enough of them now to keep up and so criminals get away and police focus on less cases. Plus police numbers per capital being sliced since the Conservatives got in.

The CPS are the softest of all the justice agencies. From personal experience they will take any opportunity to drop a prosecution and deliberately create masses of paperwork for Police officers to navigate in the hope the officers give up and drop the case. Unless the suspect is a Police Officer in which case the CPS will do all it can to prosecute.

How much of that is a need to filter due to lack of courts? There has been a significant reduction. Plus they can’t send more to prison until they release a load which is currently happening. The whole system is broke. Not sure any party will fully fix it but I have more faith in someone that understands it doing so.

Well Labour’s 2019 manifesto wasn’t strong on crime, certainly signaled less people would end up behind bars. You can put 1 million more offices more judges but if they don’t treat criminals like criminals it’s not going to protect the public. Look at tge example where the fitness levels for officers has been lowered. Will Labour reinstate it so they are actually fit enough to chase a criminal? Nope. Both parties are a standing joke.

Just putting people behind bars isn’t the solution, dealing with the motivators for crime is. The US has by and far the highest number of people behind bars per capita but also the highest crime rate of developed economies, mainly because they have insane disparity between rich and poor. Ours is pretty low, we don’t need to change into the US.

I lived in the middle east and my neighbour could leave all his site tools worth thousands in the back.of his open back pickup all night. They don’t exactly have programs that cuddle criminals. You get caught you go to jail. Just using US as an example is flawed. You speak to shop workers here they’ll tell you those shop lifting are nicking a pot noodle for their lunch but high end items to sell. Why because there no deterance the police catch them and then just ban them from that shop, there litterally no disincentive. Labour’s not going to change that especially if like you say they believe that they’re a victim of circumstances. Some even think its OK to nick from capitalist supermarkets. Sorry but I disagree so won’t be voting labour or tory, both wedded to out of date ideologies from the last century. Both are contributing to the collapse of society.

I don’t think fraudsters are that worried about being caught either.

Unless it is bloody obvious plod are not interested.

As one of those recruited officers I would like it to be known that Sunak saying they have recruited 20,000 new officers is just how many got through the door it doesn’t take into account those older officers who have left or those new officers who have left the jobs after joining due to lack of support/benefits terrible wages and overwork due to lack of staff.

It is literally just saying 20,000 officer have been recruited over all it is not an increase in numbers.

Although Blair was the twat that bought the Univeristy Tuition fees in,of course after selling the lie to parents and pupils that further education was the only way to go and creating the education cash cow. conveyor belt that now exists.
Once in it was far easier to increase the fees ending up wth the high levels of debt for students and the requirement for unis to subsidise funds with foreign student fees leading to where we are with Chinese influence in Universities.

Blair was the utlimate con man.
He was the master Cameron merely the padawan .. two sides of the same coin …wankers both.

Agreed, both should be done for treason!

No they aren’t the core reason the Vanguards are being flogged to death ! It is because zero SSN were ordered to follow up on the Vanguards. That delay kicked the SSN project down the timeline, then that was slowed down the result is overall we are about 12 years behind where we should have been.
It’s like playing Billiards, you need one ball to get to where it hits the next so that one then hits the 3rd.

But stand there with your cue in your hand !

The really crazy thing is that whilst we cut Defence, France and Italy actually increased it, because they used it as a direct boost to their economy via industrial growth.

UK prefers Tax cuts funded by cuts.

What killed the Lib Dems was their reversal on university tuition fees. Nick Clegg’s “we’re so sorry” videos were doing the rounds at the time and were quite popular.

Just remember to read and understand the whole of Keynes, to grow your economy you need to spend money in your economy. Buying Korean support ships, German police cars, American jets and Chinese army uniforms supports other people’s economies and shrinks yours by reducing demand and money available in your economy. Spending on the royal navy started the industrial revolution, spending in the 1930s on infrastructure got us growing after the great depression.

100% agree with you on that Dave

Whilst we cut everything France built 2 extra Mistral LPH, Italy more FREMM, submarines and an Aircraft Carrier.

Once things picked up their industry was able to export on the backs of those orders.

There is a cultural difference at play. You have to believe in yourself. By and large the French do and the Brits don’t. Something we need to work on.

It is the terrible political and treasury memories of picking winners with

– British Leyland
– British Shipbuilding

That is the comment you get all the time if you propose doing anything.

Hence the approach of screw your eyes tight shut, cover your eared, sing la la la la loudly and pray the private sector can sort the mess out.

How the government chooses ‘winners’ is above my pay grade. From the example you give it sounds like the selection process is flawed – based on financial criteria rather than strategic technology and sovereign capabilities. Maybe also too focused on short term rather than long term? The French seem to be able to manage it. e.g. Airbus

“The picking winners” strategy wasn’t that bad at picking winners, it was what happened next that was the problem. Leyland Motors was a reasonably well run and profitable car and commercial vehicle firm, but was then forced to takeover most of the failing auto firms in the UK, but wasn’t allowed to stop making any of their underperforming models or close any of their hopeless factories. So the strategy basically ended up being “pick winners and then cripple them”.

Interesting. To borrow from CJ, I didn’t get where I am today without realising that shooting yourself in the foot is a signature characteristic of the British establishment:-)

100%, why do no UK politicians seem to get that? Spend money on UK products and services in a recession, open factories get the country moving and build your way out of a recession. Then save money in the good times. They always do it backwards! We need a new system of government, not just a new government, as Starmer isn’t the answer! Plus sack all of the civil servants in Whitehall and the MOD. Then start again, the gravey train needs to stop!

I agree, wholeheartedly. My family hails variously from south Wales and the north east of England- both areas once industrial powerhouses but now near wastelands because of government economic planning (or complete lack thereof).
I fully understand the political need to close the pits etc. so I’m not arguing that. But to shutter the industries of entire regions, without putting in place alternatives, is negligent to the point of criminal in my opinion.
But, as you point out, government investment and support could have retained skills in industries that would have fed the economy and have us in a better position now. I know it’s not the perfect comparison, but Germany proves you can be a 1st world country and have an economy with a large industrial sector- transitioning to goods and services to the extent we’ve done is unnecessary and a move to enrichen the friends of government rather than the wider nation.

and yet Cameron is back in the fold and as Foreign Secretary to boot..you couldn’t make it up.

see my answer to SB re Vanguard replacement delays.

I made the mistake of watching the Megaprojects video on the QE’s. It pretty much left me fuming.

Oh mate? Not seen.

Don’t give him the views is my advice.
Thinks that “the only reason QE doesn’t have cats is cost (it was originally designed with them don’t you know!)” that “the UK has no surface escorts” that “no other carrier doesn’t have self defence missiles” and that if QE had “RIM-116 it could shoot down incoming missiles before the escorts had to step in” and that “we should have bought the proper vertical take off F-35C variant.”

It only takes a modicum of knowledge to thoroughly rip it to shreds, but sadly most of his viewership doesn’t know anything about it.

Hmmme

The Astute drumbeat was deliberately slowed by Cameron / Osbourne?

SB the deliberate slow down was initiated by Des Brown in March 2008 when £139 million was removed from the Astute programme for the next 4 years. That added 9 months to each of boats 2-4 build times. It also delayed the ordering of any long lead items for boats 5-6. The knock on effects are still with us and hence Dreadnought being late.

FYI the overall extra cost to the entire programme for that “saving” was estimated at over £539 million.

Not saying the next pair of idiots didn’t make it even worse in 2010 but in this example they are just Domino’s in a long line leading back to the 1990’s.

Its one of the main reasons I see AUKUS as a stabilising factor for U.K. Nuclear Naval industry.
It stops Ministers tinkering with things they don’t understand as the Political consequences could be devestating.

Agreed, they should leave the defence and the budget with people who understand it. They only care about things in a 5 year window. Then if they lose, they just pass the problem on to the next government. This needs to stop, and they need to get serious about building up our manufacturing capabilities!

Yes, understood. Good post.

Well I guess it depends on where to start blaming the clown sequence……?

Yep it’s a tough one 🤔 First one I can think of would be Charles II for a really major cut that came back to whack us.

To be honest it’s probably not the individuals it’s the Political system we use.
Defence spending is a long term commitment over decades, Politcians can be in power for less time a Lettuce keeps in the fridge. So it’s counter intuitive to let someone who is in post for only a few years at most to make changes that have effects 30 years later, without a real mechanism for checks and balances.
Heck in US if Mr President sends his annual shopping list to Congress and they don’t like it, they just change it and send it back. But that tends to involve Pork Barrel politics, which we don’t want.

I do think there are options but it involves Grown Ups. 😞

I’ll take Naval for example, what would happen if a Force Target Level was set and agreed by the various parties. The NSBS is modified to achieve that over the usual 25/30 year cycle and it is codified into Law to achieve it by the Target Date.
Then the DS just administers it in the most cost effective way possible and it has to be funded no quibbles it’s the Law.

No SDSR, no short term cuts or any tinkering without Parliament modifying the Law.

And yep that’s pretty well what Italy does, which is why if you take a look at what they have achieved in the last 20 years explains a lot.

If you set aside Nuclear Weapons / Subs and large Carriers Italy is heading towards having the largest and most modern Navy in Europe.
No better example of effective project management than Italy’s FREMM’s, they are extremely well equipped and armed and have been very cleverly exported. The result is that they were supposed to build 8, they are just about to get no10 and ordered 2 improved versions.

We need 3 FSSS for the availability and maintenance cycles. It also gives us the capacity to send them on Nato taskings or patrol duties.

More always better but do we need an extra one at the expense of an amphibious ship because it looks to me that’s what is coming down the pipeline. I think we could live with two given we only have one now.

We don’t even have the funding for MRSS currently, there is going to be a gap before its production either way and we’re already down to 4 amphibious vessels than the 6 we technically have. Either way they’re not going to cut a third vessel at this point. Would more than likely have clauses in the contract and we’d lose money.

Good god you chat some absolute garbage..

We need 4 or more if all the predictions about 2028 being aligned by Xi, Putin and the mad mullahs, to start kicking off trouble that will involve the Western, Middle Eastern and Pacific pacts. I will never understand how ministers who claim they don’t know more than us minions do with respect to the political ambitions

Which is why we have a National Ship Building Strategy to stop the boom and bust of History and ensure continuity of workload.
We essentially have now got 3 production lines for the 3 main types of Warship.
BAe Barrow for Submarines
BAe Govan / Scotstoun for Frigates and Destroyers (Rosyth is going to be a challenge to keep going unless we enlarge RN).
H&W Belfast For anything Large such as FSS, MRSS, CV etc etc and they also have a Drydock for maintenance of same.

And if you want to know why we are building 3 FSS it’s because the RN / MOD have studied it for over a decade right the way back to the MARS project and have decided we need 3.
They don’t ever get any more than what is needed.
As for saving money for an Amphibious ship, MOD funding doesn’t work that way.

The 3 FSS are in the Funded Equipment Plan, for the present period. NSBS has the MRSS project to start definition stage next year, so I’d bet that the build start for them will be right after the FSS at H&W.

Simple reason for that is there is nowhere else is left to build them !

They shouldn’t have been built domestically. It was an insane decision. OK if the order was placed a decade ago and plenty of time before the carriers hit service but insane post Russia invasion of Ukraine.

The country needs to be realistically ready for war, I doubt it will happen but its the most likely in my life time.

We need to be able to build ships larger than 10k tonnes to replace the Forts, Amphibs and eventually the next carriers.
All of these are in the NSBS, so we need a yard that can build them and maintain as well.
Only facility that fits the bill and actually still exists is H&W, so yes we could have bought the FSS from Korea for half the price (they are just a bigger version of the BMT Tide design).
But then what ? Same again for the 6 MRSS ?

If you want a shipbuilding industry it costs simple as that, and sometimes you have to feel the pain.

You are absolutely right ABC. The UK is about the only developed country that doesn’t have a government-led and government-backed industrial strategy. That, coupled with lack of institutional finance for industry and a total reliance on the City boys and private sector to fix things, led to foreign takeovers, asset stripping and closure of a large swathe of our manufacturing sector.

We are learning the lessons very late, but the national shipbuilding strategy is definitely the right way forward. We concentrate resources in 4 yards, get investment into modern equipment and get a good training pipeline going.

It will take time. The French, Italians and Spanish have been patiently doing just this for ages and all three now produce very capable ships that are winning export orders. Government backing and a degree of protectionism have been essential to this. The fact that we are bringing in Navantia to lead the FSSS project tells us a lot.

We are still in the game.on the warships side with some export orders for T31, T26 designs and future AUKUS, but need the capability to build larger ships and H&W is the best yard for this.

It will take them some time to get new equipment installed and to train and grow their workforce, but that is the price to be paid for decades of government lack of interest and inertia and MOD dithering.

We just need to be patient. Alas the navy will just have to wait, but that is the cost of the very late ordering of the FSSS, specs and contracts should have been done 5 or more years ago.

We need to resist our usual short-termism, which would see us rushing to Korea for a quick fix replenishment ship, then a quick-fix MRSS and so on, as you say.

The NSB is the right way forward and one that gives us much better resilience in any future war scenario, as well as creating Brit jobs and prosperity. HMG has actually got this right for a change and we need to stick to the task.

And if NI joins Ireland?

There is still a good majority.in NI in favour of the UK status quo, though that might of course change one day.

If it did change, then we will be in exactly the same position as we would if Scotland ever votes to secede from the Union – we’ve put a lot of our shipbuilding eggs in one basket!

Two options at that point: either accept that we’re now importing most of our ships, albeit from British-owned yards in the case of Clyde and Rosyrh; or switch production to new yards in England, including Cammell Laird.

Latter would be pretty expensive. CL would need some capital investment and could maybe become the escort builder, though gather their yard is on the small side. I’m not sure that we have a deep water port to match Harland other than Plymouth.

Ahhh, ok, I’d read the majority was now gone. Must have read SF propaganda.
Good.

Reopen the shipyard in Portsmouth or somewhere else.

The river batch 2 were build with the sole reason of keeping BAe docks open, im sure they could come up with something else if there was a desire to actually create a sustainable industry or protect the nation.

We want a shipyard capable of building auxiliaries, ordering from abroad always causes a Ruckus. You have to start somewhere.
And there really aren’t any applicable projects, still got years till any new building programs and haven’t had any since the FSSS.

Also if you actually looked at how the work is bring distributed, Navantia is doing very large portions of the ship, and if H&W can’t keep up they can take on more of the work. Go read the Navy lookout article on it.

So lets get this straight, you think we should have ordered a placeholder vessel, out of thin air, in order to tide H&W over while FSSS waits for Govan or Rosyth to get freed up, or goes to a completely overseas contractor?

That’s not supporting British Industry, and likely will mean FSS would be even more delayed since neither UK yard will be able to start work for years.

(Also going to point out the Navy doesn’t have unlimited money, where is the 250million for a River Batch 3 going to come from? Not building FSSS?)

Mmm not so sure about the last sentence the Lease costs are now heading towards C$800 million. Canada just P’s money up a wall, their costs to produce anything are just off the scale.
But Canada 1st rules.
Fact is virtually nothing is Canadian it’s all derived from foreign designs just built in Canada.
So you have a UK T26 design, the motive power has to be built abroad, then the design is expanded (at great cost) to accommodate US AEGIS tech and weapons systems.
The great shame is that Canada had a perfectly healthy design and build capacity and let it just die, by not ordering follow-ups to the Halifax Frigates.

There is an option in the contract to buy the Asterix once the other ships are commissioned.

The Canada 1st strategy maybe under review after Canada’s interest in the Korean KSS-III subs. They would be built in Korea if that ever materilalized.