This is important because the UK restricts the building of vessels classified as warships to British shipyards.
The £1.5bn competition to build up to three Fleet Solid Support Ships was suspended last year and an update was due this autumn.
Speculation mounted regarding the status of these ships (and whether or not calling them warships was a slip of the tongue) after Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told the Commons:
“I intend to announce the procurement timetable for the warships in due course, after market testing has completed. We intend to encourage international partners to work alongside UK firms for the bid, which will build on the success of Type 31.”
This was notable as it seemed to go in the face of earlier statements and comments that stated these vessels were not warships and as such, able to be tendered for build outside the UK.
Well, it wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It was confirmed again.
Stephen Morgan, the Shadow Minister for Defence, asked via a written parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s planned Fleet Solid Support Ships are classified by his Department as warships.”
Jeremy Quin The Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded with confirmation:
“As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said during Defence Oral Questions on Monday 21 September 2020, the procurement timetable for the warships will be announced in due course, after market testing has completed. We are open to the principle of international partners working alongside UK firms for the bid.”
Previously the Government had argued that the new Fleet Solid Support Ships were not warships and as such, were eligible for international tendering rather than being restricted to British shipyards.
The definition of warship used by the Government had been previously challenged by people from all sides of the political spectrum. For perspective, according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea article 29:
“For the purposes of this Convention, “warship” means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.”
However, the National Shipbuilding Strategy defines warships as solely destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers.
This definition was also highlighted during a debate on the topic in Parliament last year with Stuart Andrew, then Minister for Defence Procurement, saying the following about the Fleet Solid Support Ships:
“It is not a warship by definition, for the simple reason that the definition is based on the UK’s requirement to retain the ability to design, build and integrate frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers for reasons of national security, ensuring that the complex nature of the construct is an important part of it from the very beginning. We will continue to have this argument—unions are coming to meet me very soon to discuss it.”
This position appears to have changed.
Ross Murdoch, GMB National Officer and CSEU Chair, said:
“It looks like the Government has finally acknowledged what GMB has always said – these are warships. There is no reason to now hide behind any treaty – they must be built in UK.”
The UK Defence Journal, SavetheRoyalNavy.org and other commentators as well as GMB and other shipbuilding unions long campaigned for the £1billion FSS contract to be given to UK shipyards – producing a report highlighting the estimated 6,700 jobs created or secured if the orders were kept in the UK.
Due to the aforementioned delays, the MoD expects that there will be a delay of between 18 and 36 months to the first new Fleet Solid Support Ship entering service. You can read more about this here.
And more importantly when will they announce that the order has been placed.
I can’t help thinking this is just another excuse to further delay the expenditure.
It’s nuts that the defense of our nation, and the reputation of our armed forces is used as a way to satisfy trade unions.
They being the MoD which due to it’s set up does not allow it to work effciently, intelligently and in the interests of the UK taxpayer. The Build Back Better’ speech and understand the tax claw back reality, means this needs to change.
it really depends on how much tax is actually clawed back. You will get income tax for staff and some profit (not a lot due to how companies manage tax arrangements). You would think it would be a pretty easy calculation. who knows if those calculations are already done or not though, it could well be that overseas is still cheaper.
By the time they ****** about with classification the project will be dead centre of the Chancellor’s gun sights! The Koreans would have built at least one by now!!
But they would not, and it would be more expensive.
As you well know Darren, it was meant as a way of expressing my exasperation with just how long it’s taking just to establish the nomenclature, let alone real ships!
WHY would you place ads directly over your lead picture? The adverts on this site is the ONLY reason I stopped coming here each week. It was overkill. Placing adverts now directly over the very thing we’ve come here to read seems utterly pointless. I was led here by Google news, but now gave to go elswhere to view the graphic.
Good question as I’ve inexperienced the same issue. I’m not a fan of being followed around the internet by adverts in any case, particularly since so many refer to an interest from yonks ago (we had a bathroom fitted way back, but I still get adverts for toilets). Still, I accept they can help a site defray some of it’s costs.
However, I would be surprised if UKDJ expected a large advert to be planted right over their image, as if it’s the most important thing on the page. This is likely an example of Google’s astounding conceit, and is just another example of why even the USA wants to trim its wings – together with one of two of its IT cousins.
Had a related issue with STRN last year where the advert insisted on banging up right over what you were reading no matter how you tried to cancel it. That site may have forwarded my concern as the issue went away. For now, try going out of the site and re-entering.
Hi Gavin. My best is the Mail Online which posts an advert over the top of a main article every time and if you delete same it asks you why, in the interest of improving the viewability of the news, you have deleted it. One option I always click on is Covers Content-why? Because it covers content!! They thank you for your feedback and nothing is or ever has been done about it!!
It’s a strange old world….
On going from the above, in an effort to toilet train Google, I did try down selecting on feedback. However, the options are designed just to deposit other crap on you basically i.e. there was no option covering ‘Thanks, but I’ve long since installed a WC’, or expletives to that effect.
Incidentally, now on the laptop my adblocker has done its duty and removed it, however I rarely power this up now, and use the tablet for 90% of internet reads…oh well, I do appreciate that a site needs its income to cover costs, but it is extremely excessive on here now.
It is worth thinking on this for a moment.
I was, as part of the day job, having to review some demolition photos of a major industrial site that was closed and partially demolished in 2009. We are looking at a project on the site.
The type of equipment that was in there was shockingly out of date. I mean some of it was obviously 1940’s era and a bit was even older. This was the same on a lot of industrial sites I have come across – mind blowingly inefficient.
The trouble was the inbuilt resistance (and I don’t just mean workforce) and cost to change.
A lot of that is to do with how difficult it is to get tax relief on industrial investment. Not so much of an issue in Germany.
There are big pluses in knocking old facilities flat and starting again with an idealised and optimised set up.
Now we can, hopefully start on rebuilding the UK’s shipbuilding in this spirit but ONLY in an ultra modern way, automated water jet cutting, welding robots and plate forming with none of the baggage and old school thinking.
With BREXIT it is vital that the UK doesn’t keep trying to solve problems by throwing labour at them but by proper and thoughtful investment in automation so that the output is competitive. We will never compete with 2nd and 3rd world on labour costs so that is the only route to success of the “e” bit of NSBS.
Obviously there is a a good % of the work that can only be done by highly skilled people.
I’m trusting that this decision may link into the infrastructure deficits that we face these days. No matter how good a combatant platform may be, your overall defence security is not enhanced if you do not have sovereign control over its support vessels.
In that respect, your likely on a hiding to nothing if you cannot manufacture all your platforms in sufficient numbers to replace losses during any prolonged conflict. That ability gave the US the edge during the 20th century, of course, alongside the strategic and tactical competence of its Allies.
I fear the West’s peer opponents may have stolen the churn advantage, so let us hope we at least have the warfighting competences still to hand, whilst we try to address the former.
another missed opportunity I fear,
a fleet of 12 FLO FLO’s with mega modules may be a much better spend, we do seem to like to spend money on dedicated platforms.
So let me ask a question, what do these do that a Tide cannot do, whilst I acknowledge mixing weapons and fuel is not a good idea, we already do it, so that isn’t it.
The beauty of Flo Flo’s is they can be what you need when you need them, we can replace all the RFA (non tide) platforms, Point, Bay and Albion Classes and have far more flexibility.
12 Flo Flo’s would cost circa £1.2bn and you can go crazy on the mega modules if you want to.
take a look at think defence article if you don’t think this will work, it is light years ahead in its thinking.
For me the UK has to be more innovative with its defence budget, which is still good.
It doest always have to be fancy or gold plated, as seen by the Iranians with their speedboats and the Russians with their artillery.
I don’t disagree with the UK having to be innovative, but IMO FLO-FLO is not the answer. These vessels are far too vulnerable when stopped in the water in a world of proliferating AIP subs, pervasive surveillance with LEO satellite networks and long range increasingly stealthy/fast and sophisticated anti-ship weapons. We’d need a high end AAW and ASW capability in depth to defend them in this state and as stationary targets they would still be more vulnerable. They are also too inflexible, requiring low sea states to operate, something we certainly can’t assume in the North Sea or off the coast of Norway for example in what would be their primary deterrence mission.
I suspect the reason the first competition for FSSS was called off was high cost due to trying to do too much with the one platform. FSSS should be focused on its primary role now that we plan on maintaining a CSG at all times.
For Albion, Bay, Point replacements we should IMO look to a larger version of the US LAW program. I will copy-paste my thoughts on this from the T31 gun article below this post.
This is an article on LAW.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33299/navy-wants-to-buy-30-new-light-amphibious-warships-to-support-radical-shift-in-marine-ops
In case you’re interested in my thoughts …
Its the definition of what we mean by amphibious landing that needs to be qualified IMO.
Landing against established defensive positions is not practical, creating unnecessarily high casualties, and its not required. No country can defend an entire coastline today with land troops, so there will be significant gaps. We can also fly light troops over a coastal force, but we do need to be able to re-supply them. We also need to be able to land heavy equipment and vehicles, and more troops, all of which we can’t fly in. Norway being a specific example. All of which means we don’t need NGS for amphibious landings, but we do need a much more flexible and survivable amphibious capability to avoid that need.
What this drives IMO is replacing the Albion, Bay and Point classes with vessels that can directly land on a beach, as well as off load in port during peacetime, because we cannot assume Ro-Ro port facilities will always be available, or safe even if they are available. We also need to reduce the time amphibious vessels spend landing equipment and men, which makes them very vulnerable to modern long distance weapons. Using conventional dock landing ships with fast connectors like Caimen 90 Fast is still too slow, with the ships still very vulnerable.
I am not just advocating a return to conventional LSTs though. We need a solution that enables rapid transit and disembarkation of men and materials to reduce the risk of targeting, and we need to support a larger number of smaller ships to reduce the consolidation of devastating potential losses, if we lose a fully loaded large ship like an Albion class vessel.
The Light Amphibious Warships (LAW) that the USMC are considering is the closest to what the UK needs IMO (see link in my previous comment). However, we would need something larger and faster with higher sea state capability as our only amphibious vessels. We are building a 25 knot navy today with every new vessel from a River Batch 2 up to a carrier, including logistics vessels, capable of those speeds, or close to them. A UK LAW should support similar speed IMV to keep up with a CSG or amphibious group based around a carrier, and to support rapid deployment.
The Sea Transport stern landing vessel design supports a faster ship with much better sea keeping and rapid disembarkation. A scaled up version of the concept ship of around 4,000-5,000 tonnes, with a 1x or possibly 2x Chinook capable flight deck for either organic or lily-pad ops would be my choice. Such a ship, designed to commercial rules for a 15-year military service life to keep costs down, with very low crewing requirement, might also be the basis for the Littoral Strike Ship and might also handle other tasking such as mission module based MCM and littoral ASW. It would be ideal for HADR, and at the end of its 15-year RN/RFA service life might be sold for either military or commercial use as a ferry to less wealthy nations. It would also be an ideal ship to be produced in numbers by UK shipbuilding.
Glass Half Full, while I don’t dispute your logic on these ‘mini Albions’, cost will play a part. More ships equals more fuel, more crew (training time, pay etc) to get X from A to B. This will have a big factor on things.
I’ll admit my proposal isn’t fully formed but here’s some additional thoughts.
Ref more fuel. It depends a lot of how many of the “old fleet” we start with and replace with the UK LAW+ option. If we use LAW+ to replace Albions, Bays, and Points that’s nine significantly larger ships (some of which we haven’t been fully utilising). If we also use LAW+ for mission module based MCM then pick a number between 1-13 Hunts and Sandowns to replace. We could have a fleet of 15-20 LAW+ and still have fewer hulls, albeit with far greater flexibility in terms of roles and missions that can be supported. Note that I also see additional T31 platforms supporting MCM and ASW mission module based roles, to maintain and even increase these capabilities across the fleet. Clearly a LAW+ would consume more fuel than the current MCMV but on a fleet-to-fleet comparison perhaps not, especially with modern platforms designed for efficiency.
Crewing is really a function of what is required to be supported. IIRC an Iver Huitfeldt only requires about 20 crew for a non-operational transit. Clearly, the more roles and capabilities the LAW+ support the greater the crew, but for a modern, highly automated, basic fast transport amphibious role we don’t need a large crew.
Not sure I follow your point fully, the utility of a FLO FLO with relevant module allows for the uk to improve its overall set of capabilities, perhaps it isn’t suitable for every role, but it is suitable for hospital, solid stores and fuel with the appropriate mega modules and I would also suggest some literal rolls as well as RORO duties.
These vessels can operate in all sea states, it depends on the task how efficient they are but that is no different for dedicated ships as well
I do think the MOD should be modelling ideas like this as not only does it give us scale, it can also be revenue generating if handled properly.
Any ship that stops in the water is at risk of being attacked, the design of a FLOFLO’s may actually help it survive and I am sure we could harden it if required.
I personally believe any ship you put in the littorals you should expect to lose, so might as well be inexpensive and have loads of them. Mass is what we are missing and I do think there’s a massive opportunity for some innovation here.
I see the RM’s future going back to its roots of raiding and would buy 100+ CB90’s and have them land across a wide coastline and disrupt, If we need a big set piece operation then FLOflos with ship to shore connectors are by far the best solution IMO.
Everything has its limits and budget and for me the key is how do we get a mass capability within a sensible budget.
I think the uk has to choose wisely instead of trying to have a little of everything
Sorry if I didn’t explain my point well.
The issue I see with FLO-FLO, or any large ship, stationary in the water in time of conflict, is its increasing vulnerability to targeting. The trend to pervasive LEO satellite networks in the 100’s or 1000’s is going to change the ability for ships to “lose themselves” in the oceans from surveillance. We should assume they will be under continuous surveillance in the perhaps not too distant future.
If they cannot escape surveillance, and then have to remain stationary for any period of time to perform their role, they risk being successfully targeted by long range cruise and ballistic missiles as well as AIP subs. To try to prevent that we will need high end AAW and ASW escort assets, in significantly larger numbers than we have today. Even with those additional assets, we also do not yet have a really good defence response to conventional ballistic missiles at all stages of their flight, SM-6 and SM-3 notwithstanding. We certainly don’t yet have a good response against maneuvering hypersonic missiles. So we have to assume we will sustain losses as you observe. Losing a number of smaller ships may still allow the mission to go ahead, losing even one large ship carrying many personnel and large amounts of equipment could kill the mission.
To try to mitigate that risk, the use of much smaller, faster, transports capable of beach landing means we avoid stationary torpedo targets and we are on the beach as a static target for far shorter than an off-shore vessel using ship-to-shore transfer. At sea such platforms can travel as part of a CSG, leveraging the defence in depth. Even apart, their speed and size make them a harder target to hit.
So if FLO-FLO are too vulnerable for amphibious ops or reinforcing Norway with army units and equipment after a hot war breaks out, then building them now for a FSSS role doesn’t make sense to me.
can’t say I disagree with you on this, as I was a champion of us having an Absalon v2 with ability to put 8 CB90’s to sea full of Marines.
but if the RN/RFA are insistent upon big ships, then I do feel as though FLO FLO’s with Mega Modules is the way to go.
It gives us high volume, low costs, lots of flexibility and the ability to make some money as well.
We have the Goliath crane already (albeit in the wrong place imo) so have the ability to move mega modules. We just need to decide what we need when.
Why are they so expensive? 4 Tide class 500/600million
Well when you are designing a ship that’s meant to carry 7,000 cubic meters of ammunition I imagine it’s worth spending the money, look at Beirut. I also think that the Tide bill was only for building, not fitting out etc, so a good question is what’s inlcuded in that 1.5 billion.
There is a diffrence between a Tide class which is basically a oil tanker and a FSS ship which is a floating warehouse for everything from a light bulb to a guided missile. I would imagine the weapons storage areas would need cooling/heating (constant temp control), extra fire protection, possible kevlar armour, special handling equipment etc. This is what would drive the cost.
I also suspect that there would be some form of engine and hull noise reduction technology built in. A Tide as I said is an oiler with RAS equipment, I would think that RAS stations could be bolted on to some other oiler if needed. If not or if we do not have that ability to take up an oil tanker from trade and attach three to four RAS postions then it is something that should be looked into.
An FSS is a specilised ship highly important to a battlegroup and would need almost warship passive and active defence systems. They cannot be replaced easily. It is my opinion that the future FSS should have a hanger for four Merlins and 24 Sea Ceptors as well as two CIWS, two 30mm with LMMs and mini guns. Might sound a bit much for a supply ship but they are possibly more important than an OPV or light frigate. If I was an enemy I would kill the supply ships first as that would hinder a battlegroup to carry out its operations.
One of the most short sighted cuts that the British Government ever made was to scrap Fort George, god she was only 18 years old. The second most stupid thing is that the Forts were not equipped with Sea Wolf, later Sea Ceptor as they were designed to be. Fort Rosalie for example is now 42 years old and still ready to go to sea, although she cannot replenish the QEs so to scrap Fort George, well stupid.
I sometimes wonder if the RFA, transport aircraft of the RAF and the road transport of the British Army could not be used to save and generate income by transporting Government needed supplies or Government urgent supplies. It is possible if these assets were to be used in this way they could generate enough money to become cost nutral.
By the way, what about the two Wave’s? Possibly they could be rebuilt as the Littoral Strike Ships.
How much life do the Waves hulls have left in them given both are 20 years old now? But yes in theory that would be an interesting idea (though I think the LSS concept is pretty much dead now which is a shame).
I don’t think that using RLC road transport is a terribly good idea, Covid-19 has kind of shown, at least on the med front, that embedding military assets in civilian structures creates issues when you need to surge (quite aside from the increased wear and tear on military assets which are ageing in a lot of cases anyway).
“though I think the LSS concept is pretty much dead now which is a shame”
Agree, as I was a big supporter of the concept.
I was reading in the DSC Equipment report 2019-20 earlier, that they were looking at a 600 million cost for the two vessels. Unbelievable.
To me the LSS are SF floating bases, using STUFT if necessary and converted like the USSOC examples. How can they cost so much? No wonder we cannot afford kit in any amount.
Ah, GMB, the nations most useless TU
Everyone is so happy they will be built in the UK, I am far more concerned they get built. The Royal Navy is not a job creation program.
This is good news in many ways on the condition that the Government does not use it to delay the project even further.
In reality if the British Government got its act together there is enough RN projects present and up coming to keep shipyards working for the next ten years.
Possiblie and realistic projects:
1. 3x FSS ships
2. Albion/Bulwark/Ocean replacements for example with 1x Wasp class and 2X San Antonio class ships or three Canberra class ships.
3. 2x Littoral Strike Ships based on the FSS ship or Point class
4. Bay class replacement possibly with its half sister Rotterdam L800
5. Point class Sea Lift replacements could be used for Government critical cargos.
6. 2-3 x hospital/humanitarian ships either new build or convertions (International Aid Budget)
7. 2-3x UAV/ROV mother ships either new build or convertions. If Albion and Bulwark was to replaced soon they could be used for converstion, (Trade and Industry Budget)as they could also carry out technical concept testing/ equipment demonstrations.
8. Archer/Scimitar/Revenue Cutters replacements, these replacements could be of several types to fulfill the needs of overseas patrol such as in the Falklands/Caribbean, quick response such as Gib/Cyprus and Oman/Aden, or UK homewaters. My suggestions for these would be for larger overseas patrol ships would be the Holland or Visby class, for quick reaction response the Skjold class and for home waters the Armidale class. Where would the budget come from, well Home office/FCO, Treasury as they would take on the revenue cutter role. They would also then let the blue water frigates and destroyers do there job as fighting ships of the fleet. They would combine with the Fishery Protection Squadron and would become a type of armed coast guard.
Nice to have if needed:
1. Heavy maintance repair ship with flight deck training capability, possibly based on Ocean.
2. Hospitality/ entertinment ship, we had one of these for the BPF in 1945 for crews of smaller ships to have some down time. I have forgotten the name of the ship but even the Americans wanted her.
Overall cost is about £12 billion over a 10-15 year build time for everything means about one billion per year. This build program would give about 12,000 front line jobs and another 40,000 support jobs if built in the UK. Then there is the knock on effect, people, families with well paid stable jobs buy things such as houses, cars, go shopping etc. This creates more work, increasing tax returns and reducing unemployment. About 50% of the investment would be returned to the treasury in the form of taxes and/or benifit payments saved. So the real cost to the State would be about £6 billion.
The other advantage is if British shipyards were at full capacity they would invest, become more efficient which would or could reduce costs thereby making them more promising on the international market.
I know fanticy fleets, but is it really, some of the ships mentioned are due for replacement studies, some others have been spoken about in the Halls of Whitehall. All Ive done is to compile them in a single list and given them a time frame with estamated overall cost to show what can be done for how much and the results of it being done.
I’ve always thought the ‘Frigates, Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers’ definition was odd anyway. What about Minehunters, Amphibious Assault Ships and Patrol Vessels. They are all warships in the Royal Navy aren’t they? Would we outsource their replacements? I suspect not.
Buy net from abroad that’s all you get. Buy gross from the UK, the UK gets money back. Up to One and a half for the price of one and a half (40-50%). The more the UK government itself buys from the UK producing firms the more savings.