InfraStrata, the firm buying Harland and Wolff, has signed a memorandum of understanding with Navantia.
Navantia say that the agreement with InfraStrata at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast will allow them “to work on the Fleet Solid Support Ships and other offshore projects”.
Navantia are participating in this tender in partnership with BMT. The rationale for this, say Navantia, is that “BMT has proven naval design and engineering capability, including support ships for the UK (Tide Class) and Norwegian (HNoMS Maud) defence ministries, and as design partner in the Carrier Alliance”. The firm adds that “through the combined strengths of their partnership, the Navantia-BMT proposal assures low technical risk, budget viability and timely delivery”.
The design being offered by the Navantia team and pictured above originates with BMT. Read more about the Navantia and BMT teaming agreement here.
According to a press release from the firm:
“Navantia has just signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the British company InfraStrata that basically seeks collaboration in the program of the three Fleet Solid Support (FSS) vessels for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, as well as exploring opportunities for collaboration in other areas, especially in wind for the fields of the United Kingdom.
John Wood, chief executive of Infrastrata, said:
“Navantia is world renowned for its shipbuilding capabilities and offshore infrastructure expertise and experience, and therefore has access to significant commercial opportunities in these sectors. The combination of Navantia’s footprint in these sectors and Harland & Wolff’s fabrication and other support capabilities offers the ideal commercial environment to bring large and challenging projects to successful fruition.”
According to Infrastrata the Spanish shipbuilder would be able to utilise the assets at the yard to support its tender for a £1.5 billion contract for the three new Fleet Solid Support ships. Navantia earlier said that its intention is to enlarge UK supply chain involvement.
The £1.5bn competition to build up to three Fleet Solid Support Ships for the Royal Navy was recently suspended.
Competing for the work was a British consortium consisting of companies Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce (forming Team UK) and international bidders Fincantieri (Italy), Navantia (Spain), Japan Marine United Corporation, and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (South Korea).
Fincantieri and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering had already withdrawn, according to the Financial Times. This left only Team UK, Navantia and Japan Marine United Corporation.
The Ministry of Defence said in a statement:
“It is clear that the current approach will not deliver the requirement. We are now considering the most appropriate way forward for the procurement project.”
It is expected that the project will be restarted in early 2020. Navantia say that “during this transition period, and waiting for the new requirements for the FSS project to be published, Navantia continues working to better position itself in the reopening of the contest, where the English industry participation is predicted crucial”. Presumably, they mean British industry, given they’re teaming up with a shipyard in Belfast which is categorically not in England.
It has also been reported that some regard the suspension as a first step to reclassifying the vessels to be exempt from EU laws, allowing them to be built in the UK rather than overseas.
Good news for Northern Ireland and the UK. There should never be any alternative but a British yard unless there is a crisis situation and no capacity. Any other option simply delivers a killer blow to UK shipbuilding, and the opportunity to create excellence.
It would be if only navantia just want to sell some sort of intellectial property, but with the UK the opposite is noramlly the case. I don’t trust them. They built the Aus Supply ships on a slipway berth. What pre assembly on slipway berth techniques(i.E. fabriacation, with sub, unit, block all outfitted assembly) can they learn us in the UK?
Let’s hope we get 3 built in the uk, that’s allot of work. It was 12 New RFA tankers and solid suport ships that were originally planned or was it 14 the Royal Navy said it needed? Anyway with far less frigates and destroyers why bother with that many, maybe 7 total is a good number to save money running the 12/14.
Yeah. I’m not an expert but from looking at Wikipedia to contrast what the RFA might end up with vs the French replenishment capabilities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_French_Navy_ships) there’s just no comparison even if the UK does end up with 4 x 39,000 tonne tankers (the Tides) and 3 x presumably at similar-sized FSS ships. Wikipedia lists the French replenishment fleet as consisting of 3 x 17,900 tonne Durance class replenishment oilers and nothing else (is that really correct?).
I do really hope that the FSS build does stay at 3 though and not get cut to 2, a possibility muted when the original £2bn budget announcement was made a while ago now. I assume the Forts will all disappear as the new FSS ships come into service and on the “can’t be in two places at once” principle, especially when one of those places might well be in maintenance, replacing 3 Forts with 2 new vessels, however much bigger they might be than the ships they are replacing, seems to me to be leaving us far too open to possible availability issues.
Edit. I see that, again according to Wikipedia, the French Navy is planning to replace the 3 Durance class – “The Durance class will be replaced under the FLOTLOG project by four derivatives of Italy’s Vulcano Logistic Support Ship, to be delivered in 2022-29” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_French_Navy). Italy’s Vulcano class is a 27,200 tonne mixed fuel & dry stores vessel. Even after that evolution it still leaves the UK far ahead in terms of replenishment capabilities. (I’m not having a go at our French allies, I just always find them the most immediate interesting comparison in terms of a similar-sized economy that actually tries to maintain a credible military.)
Yeah it’s interesting isn’t it, how can France get away with a tanker fleet half our size! Maybe because ours are used as part of nato all the time. France is listed as a more powerful millitary than the UK on almost every list, but I’m not so sure when you factor in all other assets ect.
Their carrier won’t be drinking tonnes of fuel every time it deploys and they only have 1 of them. That’s the main reason their refueling fleet is so much smaller. Its still surprising considering how active the French are in the South Pacific they must have refueling options ready out there.
The issue with that is you still need to send tankers for their escorts and for the air wing (at least until we get nuclear-powered planes anyway)
They’re also severely lacking in StratAT, and heavy RW capabilities. It’s the entire reason that we’ve got Chinooks and C-17s in the region in Op NEWCOMBE – to support Op Barkhane.
IIRC they borrowed StratAT from basically everyone in NATO during Op Serval.
Ships that get used more often and that carry large loads do wear out sooner.
Never heard about a £2bn budget. Before it was £1bn, but is this net or gross?
Sorry, that was almost certainly me getting the number wrong. I just remember a press release that gave a definite budget with weasel wording about building at least 2 but hopefully 3 (or something like that). I think I meant to say £1bn. If it did end up only funding 2 ships and my nonsense (£2bn budget) was right then £1bn a ship is nuts. Clearly I mis-remembered and meant to say £1bn.
Very interesting, so could that be blocks built in Spain with final assembly in Belfast? It would solve the problem that H&W don’t have a covered Panel fabrication shop or a workforce with recent experience doing that side of things.
Or it could include blocks built in other UK yards, with or without Spanish block builds. If Navantia won the contract then it wouldn’t have to exclude Cammell Laird for example, just because they are part of a competing bid now. It might even include Appledore if the yard is successful in re-starting, in addition to other UK yards. Lots of possible block build “balls up in the air” wrt T31 and FSS build.
The other strategic benefit for the UK would be having H&W being commercially viable while maintaining a dry dock large enough for the carriers. Even if never used for the carriers it would provide strategic redundancy in addition to Seaton Port – Teeside, Rosyth and Birkenhead. It might avoid the need for new/extended dry dock capability at Portsmouth or the more extreme makeovers likely required for Inchgreen or a resurrected King George V Dock in Southampton.
Cue the SNP and the betrayal of Scottish shipyards in 10, 9, 8……..
Nothing ever stops jimmy crankie from the snp will always moan, you should count yourselfs lucky she’s never of the news channel in Scotland
Good thing we wont have to listen to her for that much longer the scots will vote for independence next year and all the ship building and mod jobs will be brought back to england, i have never been anti Scottish but im that sick of the anti english snp i now think the sooner the scots go their own way the better, i know not all scots share the snp,s stance and the last referendum saw the remain vote win but i think the mood in Scotland is far more anti english now, but i also think a lot more english could,nt a give a shit if the scottish vote to leave and may actually welcome it now.
We are better off united, I think the media exaggerate the idea that Scottish people want independence.
The media is so dangerous.
Steven, ” …… I think the mood in Scotland is far more anti-English now”. No – it’s not.
But based on your comments, it seems the mood in your own
front-room is certainly more anti-Scottish!
Im not anti Scottish no and i dont dislike the scottish people at all,but im sick of the snp,s constant anti english crap, if it was the other way around would,nt you be the same,so as i said earlier i just think we would be off without scotland now ,but i also think there should be a united ireland, and im not anti irish either
Ah, right gotcha, so not anti Scottish etc but in an article that doesn’t even mention Scotland/The SNP/Scottish shipyards/Independence you still manage to latch onto a comment by someone and work yourself up over the Goddamn Jocks……
Its all sounding a bit “I’m not racist but…..”
Just with Jocks…..
No your totally wrong I’m not racist at all never have been never will be,but i believe the united kingdom will eventually break up and i dont think its a bad thing,each country should stand on its own two feet,run its own affairs,not be governed by anyone else and not rely on anyone else
Totally missed my point but I’m not surprised. I mention racism even as an analogy but WOOOOAHHHH !!!! “I’m not racist, honest”
If I get you right then you’re not for alliances or the like, just countries standing on their own two feet, no need for NATO or economic alliances or the like… Real avant garde thinking there Steven Greenall.
The Country is the UK and we are trying to do this by leaving the vile empire known as eu. Do you think the UK the most successful Nation State the world has ever seen, cannot stand up on it’s own two feet anymore?
The Country is the UK and we are trying to do this by leaving the vile empire known as eu. Do you think the UK the most successful Nation State the world has ever seen, cannot stand up on it’s own two feet anymore?
Speak for yourself mate, I’m British to the core and believe passionately in these islands as a United Kingdom. We would all be diminished if the separatists get their way. The SNP do not represent a majority view.
Loving that despite absolutely zero/zilch/nada mention of Scotland in the article some still manage to work themselves into a fury over Wee jimmy. Then picking up the ball and running with it into a full anti-Jock jizz-inducing frenzy. Despite accepting that “not all scots share the snp,s stance and the last referendum saw the remain vote win”…….
Its a good job we’re all open minded and frightfully sophisticated on here eh ? No axes to grind, no sirree….
Need a facepalm gif really.
I Did a bit of digging and have confirmed what we suspected all along ……you are an snp paid up party member and were seen leaving the party conference in Aberdeen on 15th October!
If this is aimed at me mate, I can assure you I’m no fan of the SNP, equally when the ‘bashing’ goes past the party and becomes a bit of an anti Jock rant (especially on an article that has sod all to do with Scotland) I do get a bit fed up with it. It happens fairly often on here sadly.
I know life is simpler if you can just have goodies and baddies so I’f I’m not with you I must be against you but I find that a bit childish to be honest.
No no not at all my man , my response was clicked onto mr Stevie g or at least I thought I did. I at no time have ever insinuated you are an snp party member. It is mr g who is within that category. Apologies for any confusion.
No probs mate, the posts do get a bit mixed up on here sometimes and the post you were replying to a a few up.
I don’t think that anybody in scotland can say it’s a betrayal of there yards ,they have all ready been given all the naval orders what about all the other uk yards.
At least give them a chance to get all shouty about it before saying they’re going to get all shouty about it. You’ve maybe noticed but there’s an election going on and RFA’s has slipped waaaayyyy down the stuff to get all shouty about, even for the SNP.
I’m just looking forward to next March when it will be open season on Alec Salmond. From what I hear, lots of anecdotal stuff that he’s been a bit ‘handsy’ for a long while.
All you cats who are desperate to have a pop at all things Jock will have a field day, he’l make BoJo look like a feminist.
They will be built in Spain & the final rivet in Belfast
My thought exactly
I don’t care where they are built as long as they get built and an order actually gets placed.
What I am curious about is the upto 3 part, what is the number conditional on? Either we have a need for 3 or we don’t.
You should care where they are built. It has huge implications for the future.
British Shipyards, as we know, have always been a breeding ground for militancy, that’s why we haven’t built civilian vessels since the dismal, militant 70s.
Jeremy Corbyn’s support for Cammell Lairds to go on strike this year, was just another reminder of Far Left lunacy and its disposition to industrial suicide.
Only happy to report that common sense won the day at Lairds, with the workers and management deciding to collectively negotiate the (disputed) interim 12 week period between contracts.
Democratic Unions are the voice of the working man, Militant Unions are the Grim Reapers of British Industry.
Let’s hope that H&W, a shipyard with a remarkable history, will one day stand on its own two feet again!
Ah yes I remember the glorious days of the 70s in the shipyards when a man was employed to carry non existent rivets round the yard .
Or the the panel welding team for the port side going on strike because the starboard side panel welders had done some welding on the port side .
Or the best job going shop steward spending your day in the pub whilst be paid by the ship yard.
Weak management, union militancy and political interference destroyed ship building in this country.
No deal!
Given H&W haven’t done such work in quite some time and the workforce is tiny (circa 150) at this stage along with the lack of investment I can’t see how this could be viable without massive external investment and costs added on to the project.
And of course the minor fact of what happened the last time a RFA was built in Belfast…
Time for a rethink on these me thinks
£1.5bn for three ships is too much.
We can buy 6 Float on Float off vessels commercially and then build mega modules to provide the load.
This gives the UK scale and flexibility for the same price.
Alternatively we can buy 4 Karel Doormans for this price, An SSS should come in around £300m max, and we need to be far more inventive in our solutions for support ships generally.
We have the hull form already (Tide/Aegir) so are halfway there and we have a long term requirement for 16 hulls on top of the tide class and we need to think carefully about what we do.
My preference is 2 classes of ship
Class 1 (8) – Float on Float offs with Mega Modules
Class 2 (8) – An enhance KD class of ship with S2S connectors and CB90s for a joint helicopter, amphibious, replenishment role.
If we do this strategically the whole fleet can be brought in under £6bn, probably much less. and spread over 20 years this is equates to £300m spend per annum. Surely that represents value for money and the drumbeat so desperately needed in the UK shipbuilding industry.
Really don’t get your KD obsession. It is basically a small LPH merged with a sealift ship and with some refuelling capacity.
We have 2 massive carriers, so hardly need or could fill the helo capacity, and even a cursory look at the number of rigs shows it can’t restore or refuel much beyond a frigate.
If you are a very small navy, with 2 LPDs that provide landing craft and troop accommodation – and need something which can refuel accompanying pair of FFDD/OPVs, provide a big boost in helo numbers plus the lane meterage for vehicles that your LPDs lack (and you have no RoRos) – it is superb at filling those gaps. It is literally however the ship you would only ever buy 1 of to top you up in areas you are weak.
Imagine a squadron of this – enough lane meterage for 1st Division, but no troop accommodation, no heavy landing craft, an empty hangar (all the helos on QEs) and unable to even touch replenishing a QE or the 4 T45/23 likely to be in support.
For a “money no object” case, it would be good supporting a MCM task force if you had the US style Airborne capability and wanted to be able to refuel half a dozen MCMVs plus provide UUVs (although the large lane meterage would be mostly wasted) – but then a version of the LSS would be far more suited to that.
The split between stores and fuel for fleet support ship types is very sensible for a fleet that has both task forces/capital ships requiring specialised and high capacity types, and one which wants to sustain forward a mini task force (i.e. our East of Suez presence).
A FloFlo with modules seems equally inappropriate given the entire point of the Tides and Forts/FSS is they are constantly mobile.
Your argument doesn’t stack up I’m afraid
We don’t need massive tankers for QEC as we have the tides
A KD is better than a bay hands down and better than the forts and can lap replace the albions and argus
If we don’t need the capability of these vessels then that is fine but as a replacement for a number of vessels that keep getting mothballed I think the KD class or similar is perfect
What I am not suggesting is it replacing FFT’s. but for solid stores and all the other platforms I think it is better than everything else we have and far cheaper to build and operate at volume
Saying something doesn’t stack up without even addressing a single point is hardly an argument!
Better than a Bay at what? It doesn’t have a dock, has massive hangarage that we don’t need and a small tanking ability we don’t need either. It has a lot of sealift which we have a fair amount of already and isn’t a priority (RoRos/Bays). The Bays provide troop accommodation and some additional landing craft/mexeflote (latter of which KD also doesn’t have) – all of which we do need.
What would be good is to build a permanent hangar structure on the back of the Bays (not massive, just enough for 1-2 as a minimum), which is also a massive deficiency of the Albions.
Compared to an Albion it can’t carry any troops (its non crew accommodation is taken up by the medical and aviation personnel), 1/4 of the landing craft and none of the larger or next generation of catamaran/hovercraft types. It doesn’t have the command capabilities of the Albions either.
It would be an awful replacement for the solid stores ships as it doesn’t carry very much! and has just transfer 2 rigs – look at the FSS images for a comparison – and replenishment evolutions take a long time even with Fort class ships with multiple rigs.
Look at the Navy that designed and purchased it and you can see why it is the way it is and why that suits them. It is a single hull type of design for a Navy which can’t afford to have multiple oiler-replenishment-sealift-helo carrier ships. We can because we already do. If you want more of those capabilities (helos, tanking, sealift, amphibious) then you buy 1 or more LPH, AO, RoRo as we have with 2 massive carriers, 6 tankers and 4 roro ships, 3 Bays with more sealift, docks, troops and landing craft plus the 2 Albions with command, troops, large dock and lots of landing craft.
To replace Argus, Medical and Aviation roles – convert another merchant along the LSS lines. 2 more in addition to the SF ships, with 1 as the forward deployed MCM mothership in the Gulf (providing Command, UUVs and Aviation support) and 1 in UK waters would be far more useful than KD with 2km of lane space & a 6 helo hangar. Probably cheaper too. I’d name them the Ranger class, Black/Gray for the SF ships, Blue/Green for Home/Gulf ones and perhaps Red for a DfiD funded HADR ship.
If anything the BMT Ellida concept seems more promising, offering a much more significant solid stores capacity, a proper dock and a hangar sized more like the number of helos we’d actually deploy away from a carrier (1-3).
Hi Pigeon,
A KD is better than a bay in the capability it brings, it does have command capabilities, it also has 2x LCVP’s and can accommodate up to 350 troops if required, then you add in the medical and aviation capabilities and it is clearly much better.
Add on top the stores capability and you have something special I think and hence why I keep pushing it.
Unfortunately the UK really can’t afford to have specific hulls now and I would remind you that the Albion class was almost retired this year due to lack of use and cost (not the capability they undoubtedly bring)and even today we have 3 or 4 RFA/amphibious ships tied up for non maintenance reasons (so excluding tide).
We do have the ships you have listed, but these all need replacing and in my opinion we should replace all of these large vessels with an improved KD class, if you like Ellida fine – but it is a design whilst we can alter the KD and apply lessons learned.
As for small tanking ability – it is 9m litres of fuel – that’s enough to provide for the whole T45 fleet at once and enough to provide a carrier all its diesel, twice over and 1/3 of its aviation capacity. so hardly pitiful.
I would argue a well dock is not needed if we adopted S2S connectors and used the steel beach.
My main aim is to standardise the fleet, increase capability and reduce cost. you do this by creating assets that are in constant use and are therefore difficult to get rid of.
The RFA have lost a lot of ships since 2000, something like a KD or Ellida would certainly help them build up mass.
If it needs more rigs, fine – give it more rigs, if we don’t need the aviation facilities also fine, but actually this vessel is pretty spectacular in what it presents and I would rather have 9 of these sitting in the littorals ready to deploy marines via air and sea than a set of bays and RORO’s.
Its a choice and a compromise, the UK actually can’t afford a dedicated amphibian fleet anymore, not least because these ships will always be a target for cuts.
Indeed Andy
The key question is how those ships could even leave the yards with these faults.
These ships help protect us and the people building them should have pride in their work. I suspect the individuals involved are still working in the yard and have not been fired as they should have been.
Could be wrong, but doubt it
Agreed it is embarrassing that ships left the yard with faults ,but let’s keep the head here bad workmen are every where , covering botch jobs , unwilling to take the time to do it right first time. Individual s are at fault here not BAE or sabotage by Scots Hope ALL the work remains in British yards would like to see it using British made steel , Andy R the lowest price is not always the cheapest long term, keeping skills and employment in our towns and cities will payoff long term. Hope to return to the day when our workers take pride in their work and provide world class products
Now come on, the ships were not glued together with 2 part araldite adesive glue, but that maybe the future with more development?
You don’t see articles from US or China, because any smaller issues, they keep it quiet.
The UK is not all of a sudden gluing metal ships together with adhesive. GRP use certain glues. If you were to visit VT’s Portsmouth facility in 2006 with the bow section of HMS Daring in the hall, you would see a few quality control chalk marks saying grind out and do again, or words to the effect (VT’s Portsmouth had a automated panel line, but did not have panel lines for welding curved panels or have a unit panel line be it for curved structures or 3d units, so I assume was all done with other means of welding, including by hand. So in terms of quality for all UK shipyards, it is extremely high and not stuck together with glue. The electrical panel connected with glue was identified and rectified, but we tend to do our dirty washing in public unlike other nations.
Buying from abroad is not cheaper/better value and on time as can be seen with the Tide MARS ships. If you want a Fleet Solid Support Ship at around 40,000 tons full load, you are not going to get one for 300 million quid (before tax). Just with ordinary inflation (not including extra inflation that comes with any military ship, especially Destroyers and Frigates) for the Fort George class, put that figure higher at around 330 million pounds. If two ships are built, will this in effect make them more expensive than building a series of 3 ships, along with need for extra maintenance as two ships will be worked harder?
You have to ask yourself why Navantia want this contract so badly. They are not doing for UK industry!
Navantia speak of great British design but not great British shipbuilding, because wait a minute, this Country has just built two super carriers in a very short space of time. Huge and complicated and something we have not done for a very long time, so why are we not making kudos out of our shipbuilding prowess? We should be!
How much would Harland and Wolff really be involved in? France had or wanted involvement with the carriers in which they tried to fool the UK government at the time into building more than 33% and even suggested building final assembly in France. There is no reason why Harland and Wolff cannot be involved with the UK consortia and also is not Harland and Wolff on the winning bid for the type 31s?
Australia supplied steel for it’s supply class built at Navantia Spain, we would supply nothing in terms of main material. Australia is also supplying steel for it’s Type 26 Frigates including the all important flat thin steel (complete BS) the UK (or rather contractor BAE) bought via dent from Sweden!
The euro to the Pound is only 1.17 now so imports from eu must be less attractive which must be a good thing is it not?
We really need to stop being suckered in by these foreign competitors (especially state owned and backed ones, which means all but our own) and also does the Treasury and MoD themselves and with their actions, give value to the taxpayer and are they value for the UK taxpayer? Less ships built over a longer time period and happy to pay more in the long term for short term savings (which mean more expense and less value), design changes, fluffing about in general etc…
The UK government need to be strong intelligent and positive about this as this will give the much needed spur UK industry desperately needs and deserves, but UK industry must do it’s bit and invest to compete, which we can! To do other is suicidal.