Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has launched a competition to build three new Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships to provide vital support to Royal Navy operations across the world.

The vessels will provide munitions, food, stores and provisions to support the UK Carrier Strike Group at sea.

According to a Ministry of Defence news release:

“Building on the commitment made in the recent Defence Command Paper to create a shipbuilding renaissance, the competition will help revitalise British shipbuilding by requiring a significant proportion of the build and assembly work to be carried out in the UK. With a £24 billion multi-year settlement to modernise our Armed Forces, the competition is an exciting moment for UK industry to design and deliver a world-leading capability, securing highly-skilled jobs and boosting homegrown skills.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“As Shipbuilding Tsar, I am delighted to launch the competition for these crucial Fleet Solid Support ships. These vessels embody our commitment to a truly global presence by supporting the Royal Navy’s operations around the world. The competition reaffirms our dedication to invest in shipbuilding and support jobs across the UK maritime industry.”

The Government say that the successful bidder will work in partnership with international companies but would be required to integrate the ships in a UK shipyard.

“The Government has already pledged to double the investment over the life of this Parliament to more than £1.7 billion a year, providing a pipeline of work to sustain jobs and skills around the UK. This will be further supported by a refresh of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, to be published this summer setting out the Government’s commitment to the UK shipbuilding enterprise and its supply chain.”

DE&S’ Director General Ships, Vice Admiral Chris Gardner, said:

“The launch of the Fleet Solid Support competition presents a really exciting opportunity for the shipbuilding industry to support the design and build of a new class of ship that will primarily resupply our Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.

It is also another step in implementing the National Shipbuilding Strategy and increasing our domestic maritime construction capacity and capability alongside the Type 26 and Type 31 programmes already underway.

The FSS ships will join the QEC Task Group, carrying out replenishment at sea to supply stores and ammunition to sustain operations, which is essential to meeting the UK’s defence commitments. To do this the ships will be able to transfer loads of more than two tonnes at a time while at high speed.”

The manufacture contract award is expected to be made within two years, following approvals.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

112 COMMENTS

  1. What does “integrate the ships in a UK shipyard” actually mean? Put together blocks or build them from scratch.

      • Now, now, Captain, you know very well Bae Systems Shipbuilding has moved to Gorilla Glue as it’s primary construction medium.

        As a countermeasure, I hear the latest Chinese Anti Shipping missiles have surgical solvent warheads….

    • Indeed…the Tide Class were ‘integrated in the UK’…

      There are 2 ways of looking at this:

      • Its a betrayal of UK shipbuilding
      • There are a limited number of UK shipbuilders and this could keep them honest/competitive in the procurement

      • Out of interest, why would it be a betrayal? No British shipyards bid for the Tides, so there was no other way they would have been built.

        ideally, certainly, the ships should be built in a British yard, and in the final analysis they have to consider wider criteria than simply cost. Generating jobs in the U.K. will of course generate tax revenue, so let’s hope a U.K. build happens

    • I think its to allow the Navantia bid to pass muster. They plan to invest in the H&W facility and workforce, but build first hull in Spain and then final two in Belfast (after workforce upskilled). All will be fitted out in Belfast.

      • I think it sounds very much like it is a done deal, otherwise why mention the international companies.
        Bit embarrassing if they build one of the ships in Spain though, after all whats been said.
        Couldn’t cammell laird build them?

        • I think the idea is they would upgrade H&W facility but to save time build first hull in Spain while Belfast upgrade is underway. Cammel Laird must be odds on favourites to get the MROS contract after building Boaty, but yes maybe bring them into consortium.

        • Cammel Laird has enough ship building contracts for the next 20 years. If Navantia follows through with its promises to invest heavily in H&W and Appledore then that is surely a good thing for the shipbuilding industry as a whole. I’m under the impression that the first hull will be built in Spain but using a great deal of labour from Belfast and Devon who will then take those skills back home for the build of the next two hulls. Of course, with more contracts in the offing for MRSS then that is more potential for those yards.

  2. Wonder if this will end up with H+W/Navantia, if so does that mean Navantia build blocks in Spain then barge them back to be integrated at H+W?

      • Need to replenish dry stores less often than refuel and Littoral Strike Groups will have own Multi-Role Logistics Vessels. So one FSS with each CVSG and one in training / refit. For fuel need two fast tankers with CVSG and two more with LSGs, one in refit and one supporting FOST.

    • No problem with commitments, Andy. The timescales are beyond one Parliament. Still, the only issues that should affect the latest pronouncements, regardless of Party, are a) the world shakes hands; b) we go broke. The first’s a miracle, the second negotiable.

  5. A question for the group.
    What if we’re to give these contracts to Commonwealth nations like Australia or Canada (doubt NZ has the capability)?

    I know it’s not perfect and we’d be better of building them ourselves, but this would have them built in friendly nations and could speed up their constructions and not constrain UK shipbuilding efforts on T32, etc.

    • South Korea is a friendly nation and brought outrage for the betrayal of UK jobs. There is nothing special about the common wealth other than historic ties, we don’t even have trade deals with them. We have way better ties and trade deals with France and Spain than Australia/new Zealand these days

      Personally I think our armed forces need the kit and who makes it is irrelevant. Just get best value for the tax payer, where ever that comes from and be done with it
      .

      However, now that the decision has been made to integrate in the UK, let’s get a quick contract and build rate and not another decade of negotiations and renegotiations.

      • You’re not wrong South Korea built the Tides very quickly and from what I’ve heard they are very good ships.

        The reason I chose Commonwealth countries was to appease those who say that we should support UK jobs and not have countries like France or Spain build them. A compromise so to speak.

        • The Tides had huge issues. HV Cabling was a big problem. For once the MOD contract was watertight and the builder was on the hook for the fixes.
          They where late and when they came to the UK they needed a 100% underwater repaint because because the anti foul paint was gone as they had been sat doing nothing in S Korea whilst they sorted out the issues inside

      • Well, if one believes the hype over increasing levels of international belligerence, which has presumably informed the requirement for increased warship capacity and even the UK’s definition of warship, who builds them and where becomes a strategic issue.

        • They are being classed as warships therefore can only be built in the uk. Besides. Weve left the EU now so dont have to put the ships out to international tender unless we chose too. As they are warships they will be built in uk. Only issue is who builds them and at what price. I’m hoping H+W.

          • No intrinsic issue either with H&W, beyond the not insignificant already voiced one of current financial resilience. Seems inevitable that H&W would come into the mix, should shite hit fan at any time, so not taking account of potential regarding site size/drydocks/craneage, plus a smidgeon of et-al, could be an error.

            Assessing the BMT/Navantia offer, presumably fairly advanced in concept, even with one of three built in Spain whilst investment and workforce training is addressed, seems efficient with regard to both risk and speed of delivery, whilst still satisfying the strategic transfer of skills requirement. It’s a common enough settlement with these contracts.

            The above are some factors, but clearly not all, so we’ll have to wait and see. Hopefully not anywhere near the two years mentioned, what with only Fort Vic on hand. Overall, though, who does what – in this country – is a nice problem to have!

          • The UK could have avoided international tenders if they had wanted to even in the EU (as many others do), the UK choose not to however.

    • Have the these FSSSs been designated as warships? If so, then current UK policy is that they should/will be built in UK yards.

      • Yes Crabfat you are right. Warships IFR ran an article on this. Due to EU beligerence they had to be classed as warships to prevent legal action from EU yards claiming ships had to be built in France or Spain.

        • Although no fan of the EU, Mr Bell (sorry we have to be so formal), cannot really blame Europe for this one (they have to be right some of the time). It was Westminster that narrowed the definition of warship to combatants, not Brussels. Suspicion, probably justified, was so UK could get out of the implied commitment to build RFAs here. Likely that the conundrums we now face over investment/risk, already discussed, stem directly from this aspect.
          Rgds

    • I’m sure the Naval shipbuilders here in Australia would love the extra work, but the reality is that it is pretty flat out building up the infrastructure and workforce for all the new ships/submarines planned for the RAN, have a look at the attached PDF:

      https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Naval_Shipbuilding.pdf

      Currently under construction, on order, or planned:

      9 x Hunter class FFG
      12 x Attack class SSG
      12 x Arafura class OPV
      8 x Modified Arafura class MCM
      21 x Guardian class PB
      6 x Cape class PB
      2 x Joint Support Ships – hybrid LPD/AOR
      1 x Pacific Support ship
      Numerous other support ships, LHD landing craft replacements, replacement Army watercraft, etc.

      Plus sustainment and upgrades of existing ships and submarines.

      Anyway, not that it would ever happen, can’t see the UK placing orders here in Oz.

      Cheers,

    • As a Canadian who has been involved in this in the past, I can say that Canadian capacity is currently limited. Two Joint Support Ships (Berlin-class variants) are being built at the Seaspan Yard in Vancouver and the Davie Yard in Quebec converted a merchant vessel into an “interim AOR” a few years ago. However, both those yards are either fully engaged (Seaspan) or will be shortly (Davie which is likely to specialize in future icebreakers). Therefore, I am honestly not sure where they would be built now. The Irving Yard in Halifax specializes in warships and therefore excess capacity is likely limited. Canadian building costs are also enormous so I am not sure we would be at all competitive even were there to be capacity.

  6. Get on with it. Losing George was outrageous instead of the older Forts.

    As is the norm the new low, 3, becomes the benchmark, where we once had 4. However, great news.

    I’ve no issue really with some oversees work content as long as 3 are built. All UK would be fab but if that won’t happen or no capacity exists so be it.

    • In this case the cut might be justified. The navy is a lot smaller now, and so probably does require less supply ships

      • Agree, it’s not one I fret over too much compared to others.

        Just pointing out the similarities with all the other ships acquisition plans. 13 frigates is now the aspiration before T32 and even that is down from the 20 it should be.

        They are maintaining bare minimum while talking of expansion.

        Still, just an observation, not a snipe or moan for the sake of it like some.

    • Even in the 1960s there were only two large solid support RFAs to support the carriers (Resource and Regent), everything else was supported by tankers carrying extra dry stores or by COD. Three smaller FSS were built in the 1970s, but divested to the USN in favour of two more large Forts. The Fort Victorias were interended as multi-purpose ships to carry fuel, stores and provide an ASW helicopter group and air defence for an ASW task group of Type 23s. They were to replace the smaller Rover class tankers and 6 were planned. The Fort Rosalies also had a very useful troop transport capability to support the amphibs when they only had the smaller Fearless class LPDs and Round Table LSLs. So given the uplift in tankers its a gain really.

      • The newer Forts and T22s were my fav ships for a while, with the plan for 6, with VL Sea Wolf and supporting ASW groups in the N Atlantic.

        Uplift in Tankers, as long as the Waves are retained, bigger and better vessels, yes.

        I still remember the Ol, Leaf, Tide, and Rover Tankers.

        I wasn’t aware of the 3 smaller that went to the USN?

        • Ness class: Lyness, Stormness, Tarbatness.

          It’s crucial to remember that the Tides and future Solid Support Ships are being built to specifically support the carriers. Part of the requirement is for simultanious replenishment, with the Tide on the port side, and the SSS on the starboard side (dropping supplies straight into the hangar). That’s why the Tide class have dual rigs on their starboard side. The fall in number is regretable of course (and it can be explained through a number of legitimate reasonings), but we’ll end up with three Solid Support Ships capable of supporting the carrier, rather than one.

          The Waves are being retained. I can imagine they’ll be crucial for supporting the Littoral Groups, FOST and other deployments. With the older Forts falling by the wayside, I just hope they can push Wave Ruler back into operations again.

          I keep editing this, but it’s worth mentioing that the extra tanking and stores capacity will be extremely helpful if the plans to build the littoral ships and (in particular) extra frigates come to pass.

          • Its what makes us still a blue water navy. Most of our peers do not have this level of capacity for deployed operations.

          • The Tides are on a different level to what they replaced.

            Let’s hope these are too: they seem to be a lot bigger from the CGI’s that have been put out. I haven’t seen tonnage mentioned anywhere.

            The really good thing in this announcement is that the number 3 appears to be a commitment and not an aspiration.

            I am a little worried about giving this to H&W given the lack of honed skills there TBH. I’d be happier, and I know this won’t be popular on here, going the route of the Tides, just to get them built and in service fast.

            I jus don’t see where the skilled guys are girls are going to come from to fabricate these ships in the UK as well as all the T26 + T31 work going on at the same time. You risk creating a massive problem with skills shortage & gaps, wage inflation.

            Personally, I think, welding blocks together made in Spain is a waste of time and increase costs and risks for little or no benefit to the UK.

            I worry that this turns into a mirror of the CalMac ferry disaster when politics drives, industrial strategy which drives MOD procurement. The MOD budget can’t be expected to cover off that risk.

            Ramping things up can only go so fast and a proper long term plan needs to take account of the viable ramp rate.

          • Navy Lookout mention 40,000 tonnes for these ships. Even if that is only an inital figure guessimate it seem likely these are going to be big and hopefully capable vessels.

            Timscale excepted, it all sounds very promising.

            Cheers CR

          • Great explanation, thank you Lusty, as always.
            Ness class…., they must have passed me by don’t recall them at all.
            There was some fear the Waves would go so relieved they remain. Brazil I think?

          • A lot of hype was drummed up about Brazil. It was claimed they would take Cyde, Waves and T23s. Two of those claims have been proven false, and to be honest, I can’t see them taking a few knackered 23s.

      • Good point. If these ships are now classed as warships can we fit them with sea captor, 57mm and 40mm guns (like the type 31s) and a decent hangar space and helicopter flight deck for Merlin and chinooks?
        Then they could sail into harm’s way with a little less risk and be used as virtual warships for low risk anti piracy patrols.

        • Being classed as warships could have legal/political issues regarding access to foreign ports. As long as the weapons are for self defence only this might be OK. Equipping RFA with offensive weapons would be problematic and would require a much bigger crew and more time in port undergoing servicing.

      • Interesting post, I’m always trying to track the evolution of the RFA over the years.

        But a couple of issues, the RN had 2 more stores vessels, Resurgent and Retainer that lasted to 1979/80. So the carrier force did have 4 ships.

        The 3 Ness class were from the mid 60s, stored 1 for air and 2 more general. In ‘79 conversion of 1 to amphibious LPA was cancelled.

        Not sure why they went so early, they also had troop accomodation.

        The Fort Is with their troop capcity seem to be amphibous support roled? Did they work with the Invincibles? I assume once a ship is stored for air or amphibious support, de-storing parts/weapons is a big deal.

        In the last few decades the RN seemed to like Fort II east of suez, providing fuel, stores and weapon replentishment to the frigate/destroyer, plus helo support (transport) and as a SF platform and as a Task force afloat HQ (CTF151?) – I get the impression that has led to the LSG idea and the MRSS – and the QE support is an ad hoc measure becuase the Fort Is cant do it.

    • Hi DM, I can understand your point what you seem to forget is the intention of building possibly 6MRSS. These ships could have RAS points, I think the Elidda type has two RAS postions, Damen with the Enforcer or for that matter the Crossover Logistics/Amphibious can have RAS installed as well. SO you could fing the situation where the three FSS ships are being supplied by 6 MRSS.

    • Agreed. We are currently in a very difficult position with one vessel available to support the carriers. If the fire on board Fort Victoria had been any worse, CSG21 might have gone clean out of the window. If the H&W/Navantia team need to build the first hull in Spain, and the remaining two at H&W (investing heavily in that yard to return it to major ship building capability) so be it, but construction needs to proceed at pace.

  7. I think (hope) this government has got the message.Boris and Co. are doing things unheard of under David Cameron. Whether parts are made overseas doesn’t worry me in the least as long as the shipbuilding skills remain in the U.K.

  9. The Navantia bid almost makes most sense, British design with some degree of commonality to the Tides, first build in Spain (acceptable with UK Blocks) with 2nd and 3rd in Belfast (with Spanish blocks as well as other UK ones eg CL). This Frees Cammell Laird for the research ship and hydrographic replacements and ?Royal Yacht and maybe FSS blocks. BAE for T26 then T83 and Babcock T31 then T32.

      • Some mention was made over the past couple of months about building a new Royal Yacht and naming it after Prince Philip.
        It was also said that if one was built it would be bigger than the last one and it would also be used to promote the UK.
        No suggestion who would build it or what it would look like.
        I think that they should just Charter one of the many luxury yachts that is available on the market if and when needed.

        • I’m not convinced that us prols (and certainly not this one) will be jumping for joy at paying for the Royals to be getting a new yacht and then for the RN to crew it.

          As for charter…. It lacks the class that they’d be looking for with a royal yacht. Its a thing of the past for this suburbanite.

      • Would prefer Deoartment of overseas aid budget going to a uk hospital/ disaster relief/ auxiliary helicopter carrier type vessel. A replacement for Argus. Something similar to San Juan class/ Adelaide class.

        • Might be hard to justify after robbing the ‘poor foreigners’ budget to spend on defence already, not that I’m against it personally. Might not fly with the public though.

          For the record, I reckon some sort of Argus/Diligence type replacements wouldn’t be amiss and could be great for disaster relief stuff. Maybe the new small landing ships will be able to fulfil the role.

    • Appledore needs to be given some work. Eg contribute towards type 31 and 32 builds. Would like the RN to think about an armed patrol boat for close in warfare like the USN cyclone. We could really use 12-15 of these for Gibraltar and English channel patrols.

    • There is a national shipbuilding strategy due in a few monnths. H&W own Appledore so one would assume the Navantia bid will give them work too. Its also a British design from BMT, so plenty of UK input and some useful technology and skills transfer from a major yard to get Belfast shipbuilding going again. MRSS will follow, a six ship contract which will need plenty of UK capacity to fulfill. In the meantime there will be sub-contracts for Type 31 and Type 32 and the MROS, as well as upgrade work for Type 45, with Type 83 coming along next decade.

  10. So on top of BAE Glasgow (maxed out with T26) & Rosyth (maxed out with T31 and HMS QE refit upcoming) we are going to build 3 FSSS, up to 6 LSS, a Royal Yacht (?) & a spy ship. Seems we will need both H&W and Cammell Laird. Such a shame we let Appledore go under; that sized yard would really fit in with any Royal Yacht project.

      • Les, that’s good news. Now let’s get Appledore to build the Royal Yacht. A nice long high quality build, lots of apprenticeships and a beautiful vessel.

        • Not sure if Appledore would be big enough for a Royal Yacht, what Appledore could get if the Government get around to it is a replacement for the P2000 class.

          • Appledore is the last English Shipyard to actually build a whole Warship though………. She has built many Ships over the years including a few that were too big to fit inside, She also built Sponsons and the Bows for the two Carriers, Devon has many skilled workers and North Devon is such a nice place to relocate to. Appledore has still got a lot to offer despite what some on here will have you believe. 🙂

        • As a young Kid, my Grandad visited Appledore when they were building the Golden Hind…. he was invited due to his service in WW2 (HMS Kelly and a few others … not all of them were sunk !!! )….. He managed to “borrow” a lump of wood from an old mate who was working on her and I still have it tucked away, I also have the Ship’s Bell from his old Flower Class Ship Azalea too. ( the story of how he came to find it in his Kit Bag is a bit shrouded in history to be honest but it now sits on the stairs ) …… Waiting for the usual response to this from someone with superior knowledge of me and my Grandad’s service history. 🙂

          • Have a painting on my wall of HMS Kelly off Namsos Norway 1940, signed by Mountbatten. Good ship and lots of history, the stories your granda could tell you must have kept you entertained for some time. As for a ships bell falling into the kit bag, like it.

          • I read the book HMS Kelly a few times when I was much younger. An amazing story. I would love to see that name back in the fleet.

            Cheers CR

        • What would a royal yacht do? Yachts went to places before air travel took off. And as I see it fancy parades stuffed with VIPs won’t be going on for quite a while yet.

    • Rob, when you say 6 LSS I think you mean 6 MRSS.

      You can add to the list of the T45 replacement the T83, I think the concept phase is to start in about two years time. The upcoming T32s which is meant to be some form of frigate mothership. I think the government want these by the end of the decade. As it has been mentioned that this project will go to Rosyth I would think it would be something like the Absalon. Then you have the Bay possible two Bays being converted to LSS trial ships and the on going battle of hospital ship no hospital ship. Oh and don’t forget the possible replcements for Albion and Bulwark and the Carrier extended refit for the installation of a Cat and Trap, that could be around 2025. As the Bays are only trial LSS platforms they will also then need to be replaced. I suppose with some tweeking the MRSS, LSS, Hospital ship? and spy ship could all be one design say the Ellida built in two yards. If all of these projects get of the ground in the numbers needed and in the time frame British shipyards will have their order books full until 2040. Then?

      • Start again. You need to rebuild a fleet every 30 to 40 years. The reason we are so far behind at the moment is we forgot that.

  11. God, can we just get on and build them. I would like to see them built in the UK but now I am at the point of build them anywhere and equip them here if need be. Yes Fort Vic is a good platform, but she has lost a lot of capacity when she was rebuilt with a double hull. She is also getting old. We will need the FSS ships by about 2023-24.

  12. It’s all in the detail. 3 ships rather than the feared for just 2. Good news. Let’s get this done. Harland and Wolff Belfast should get the work with yards around uk contributing potentially.

    • There was definately a budget back in 2019 as you cannot go to tender without a budget. I suspect that the planned budget has now been uplifted given the plan appears to be for 3 ships rather than 2, plus possibly 1. An article Navy Lookout also suggests that these ships will be 40,000 tonnes or there abouts so big capable ships as well. I would hope that the budget has at least been given some serious consideration…

      Cheers CR

        • Thanks for the link DP, nice video of the RFA at work.

          Procurement costs normally include an initial support package which might include spares, training and perhaps the first (post trials) refit. So the build cost might be lower say £400m each. The problem is these types of announcement can be a bit loose with the details…

          Whatever the details happen to be £1.6b for three potentially large and capable support ships doesn’t seem too bad to me, assuming they can keep the damn programme on schedule and to cost. That means the MoD / DES need to get the requirements nailed down, stick to them and then focus on cost and timesclase, so hopefully they’ll write a similar contract for these ships to that for the T31 frigates which include a clause(s) which blogged any late changes to the requirements freeing Babcock up to get on with the job. It also throughs most of the risk for delays onto the contractor 🙂

          Cheers CR

  14. An interesting and well supported topic!
    I have two things to add. One-the myth that yards in Asia pay their workers ‘a bowl of rice a day’ is just that, a myth bt having said that a broad range of manufactured cars, ships etc. from the East are well built and good value.So the simple question is-can British workers match the quality and productivity? They should be able to-there is nothing inherently different in the Hom0 sapiens from the East compared to those from the West.
    Second-would be nice to revive some work at Harland and Woolf to spread the love throughout our United Kingdom, and because that is where my family come from.
    ps it’s my birthday today 22 May 1949 vintage but PLEASE no gifts, no greetings!😎

  15. H&W doesn’t currently build ships. It is primarily used for wind turbine production, so the work force is going to need a lot of new training. I do not have an issue with this, but I am concerned what happens to this workforce after the three ships are built. The Spanish are not going to care about them, so the U.K. gov need to ensure these new skills are not wasted.

    • Very valid point , it would be a limited contract for the workforce that would be recruited over any above the current one .
      We can only hope that through the building of the three ships (if they get the contract) that gain other contracts .

    • I suspect one benefit for the govt. is that the company is very heavily focused on using its dockyard assets for civil projects including cruise ship servicing and the offshore industry; the latter including legacy oil and gas and offshore wind. Infrstrata is also pursuing the Islandmagee gas storage and the Floating Storage and Regasification Unit Project, the former being the reason for acquiring H&W in the first place.

      Infrastrata and H&W still have to execute on a lot of this, but the last thing the govt. and MOD need is another shipyard wholly or largely dedicated to military vessel servicing and production only.

      Another major benefit in having H&W operating as a viable shipyard business are the large dry docks for the carriers, which may avoid the MOD having to pay a significant cost to convert a dock down in Plymouth or being reliant on Rosyth.

  16. Funny world. With Aircraft we make parts & sections but once the Qatari typhoons are done we won’t build on any scale a complete aircraft for probably 10 years until tempest is in full production and some sections will be built by partner nations. We’ll happily buy US P8s, Wedgetails etc. Do these facts get any political band width, no even on this site its barely mentioned by posters. Yet ship building, you mention being part of an international consortium and its toys out the pram time. Like I say funny world.

  17. The need for 3 FSS indicates the intent to have both QE carriers operational at the same time (one FSS for each plus one spare). If there was only going to be 1 QE operational (deployed) at a time there would only be a need for 2 FSS?

  19. These are the usual Bollox from ‘here today gone tomorrow’ politicians. We just need to order all three from either Cammells or H & W and get on with it . We haven’t had a decent maritime-minded PM since James Callaghan.

  20. “The Government say that the successful bidder will work in partnership with international companies but would be required to integrate the ships in a UK shipyard”.

    Is the successful bidder to be from a UK shipbuilder or BMT type firms? What does integrate the ships at a UK shipyard mean? Something like the Tides at A&P Falmouth? Manufaucture the ships in a state backed firm from Spain or heavily backed yards from the far east which mean vitually no tax back on these contracts, or do what is correct which mean the UK.

  21. Shipbuilding strategy is a complete farce because all the work has gone to Scotland with nothing south of the border, definitely not what the strategy advised. Closure of appledore in n devon vospers in portsmouth, total joke and farce.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here