The Ministry of Defence has advised that the Fleet Solid Support (FSS) programme remains on course, with production of the first vessel due to start later this year, despite the collapse of Harland & Wolff and its subsequent takeover by Navantia UK.
In a series of written parliamentary answers on 7 September, Defence Minister Luke Pollard told MPs that “successful delivery of the Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ship programme, which is currently in the design phase, remains a priority.”
He said the acquisition of Harland & Wolff by Navantia UK following its administration “has provided greater certainty to the delivery of the FSS programme and protects the UK’s shipbuilding capability, and the supply chain that supports this, now and over the long-term.”
The minister confirmed that design work is advancing and that “production of the first FSS ship is expected to begin later in 2025, with all three vessels bolstering the Royal Fleet Auxiliary over the coming decade.”
Pressed by Labour MP Jayne Kirkham on the delivery timeline, Pollard said the impact on approved cost and in-service dates was still being assessed but would be “mitigated as far as possible.” Any revised figures will require re-approval and will be shared through official channels when available.
Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked about recent progress on the programme. Pollard pointed to resumed investment in Belfast, where recapitalisation of the yard restarted in the spring following Navantia UK’s takeover. “This investment will further strengthen UK capability, modernising the shipbuilding facilities in Belfast and leading to increased productivity and capacity,” he said.
He also confirmed that Navantia UK has begun work on a new £8 million transport barge at its Methil yard in Fife. The vessel will allow FSS modules to be moved between sites, enabling distributed construction across multiple yards.
Pollard reiterated that commercial sensitivities prevent further disclosure at this stage but insisted the programme remains a priority for both government and industry.
its nice to talk. but surely what the country wants to know is WHEN.
and how many, that would be nice.
How many is three and has been for some time.
The how much for three is strange that it is shrouded in secrecy as it really should be disclosed.
The when the first one starts trials is a puzzler.
This has been a shambles from the moment they chose to scrap the newer Fort George, leaving the older, slower, smaller, Fort Rosalie ( Grange ) and Fort Austin.
With those two long sold off, no FRS for the RFA for best part of a decade.
The talking has gone on for years with this program and build still hasnt started.
The 3 will be great assets though, once they’re here.
Sadly like many ships they should have been started a decade ago. But your correct when the RFA get them it will be good.
are they going to use trains now then? On track, whose track, what track?
3 ships doesn’t seem enough to attract much investment, especially as they’re almost starting from scratch. I wonder if Navantia knows something we don’t.
I do wonder about the Belfast yard, there is a lot of money going into it as a big ship final assembly yard.. so what is the next order ?
I suppose it depends on the MRSS and how complex that is. From a purely using yards sensibly for greatest efficiency you would have to have Belfast go from FSS to MRSS to New tankers.
Hi Jonathan As I see it there is a deliberate and rather well thought out strategy behind this, quite how we have managed that is “beyond the Ken of us mere mortals” but itis starting to bare fruit.
Now take a step back and look at the overall picture 🤔
We have 2 competitive yards in the Surface warship business, that competition has driven down costs, increased efficiency and is now producing exports and further investment for expansion. That’s product steam 1.
The investment in the DNE, combined with the unfortunate state of the US nuclear submarine industry has resulted in external investment and an expansion of capacity to support SSN export orders. That’s Product steam 2.
Now we have Navantia re structuring and re invigorating the +15k tonne surface support and auxiliary capability industry and that’s the big surprise and a huge opportunity. We have 3 FSS on order and as there is no way the Clyde has capacity to provide MRSS they are the obvious buicer and so we now have Product Stream 3 +.
The reason I call it 3+ is that a reinvigorated H&W yard is able to compete with Babcock and take over the QE maintenance contract, which lets face it is a complete no brainer as it just doesn’t have the limitation’s of Rosyth.
So to summarise, god knows how we have done it but the future of U.K. Naval shipbuilding is looking not too bad.
We just need someone to put some focus on the non fighting -6k ships, such as MCMV motherships, survey ships, OPV etc etc.
And that last tranche of smaller combatants is were we can re-invigorate some of the English yards like appledore.
In reality if the RN and RFA surface was properly capitalised ( every 25 years…. 32 major surface combatants, 20 small combatants, 2 carriers, 6 amphibious and logistics vessels, 3 stores ships and 6 oilers ) you would need 2 major surface combatant yards, 1 large vessel yard and a small combatant yard each producing a vessel every 18 months or so even before adding outside orders.. it was only because of the catastrophic lack of recapitalisation over the last 20 years that UK naval shipbuilding almost died.
Very nicely summed up wether by pure luck or great management maybe a bit of both! Things are coming together rather well and maybe a very bright future.
FFS Ships “Still on’t Rack”.
Should have had 2 x TAKEs back in 2016 which would have kept the Solid support capability on track when the QEC came online. It would then have meant the old AFSHs and AORs could have been retired and we would have saved time money and managed a proper CSG integration with Solid support and the Tides.