The Ministry of Defence is to put the order for Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ships out to international tender at the end of this month, this has been met by accusations that the government have somehow “betrayed” the Clyde yards.

Current government policy is that Royal Navy warships are built in the UK but orders for Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships can go overseas as they’re not ‘complex warships’. According to the ‘National Shipbuilding Strategy’ document, there are three tenets regarding UK shipbuilding policy that impact on the build location of contracts:

  1. For reasons of national security, all Royal Navy warships (destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers) will continue to have a UK-owned design, and, will be built and integrated in the UK. Warship build will be via competition between UK shipyards. But international partners will be encouraged to work with UK shipyards and other providers to produce the best possible commercial solution.
  2. All other naval ships should be subject to open competition (provided that there are no compelling national security reasons to constrain a particular procurement to national providers). Integration of sensitive UK-specific systems will be done in the UK, where possible after competition between UK providers.
  3. Defence will take account of wider factors (including the impact on UK prosperity) when making these procurement decisions.

Support vessels like the solid support ships are eligible to be constructed outside the UK as only ‘complex warship’ construction (such as destroyers and frigates as outlined above) must stay within UK borders.

A recent article in The Herald had claimed that shipbuilding on the Clyde has “been dealt a blow” as new support vessels aren’t going to be built there. The problem? The were never going to be, BAE aren’t even bidding for them. Another article even says “unions had hoped the vessels would be constructed in yards across the UK and leave the specialist yards on the Clyde to built complex warships, support vessels are not complex warships by any definition and the unions appear well aware of the fact that the Clyde is at capacity with the Type 26 Frigate build and had no intention of bidding for this work. The 40,000 tonne support vessels wouldn’t even physically fit on the slip alongside the Type 26 Frigate builds.

The unions are advocating that the build stay in the UK, not that it be done on the Clyde and this is something we agree with. There are strong arguments to build these ships in the UK.

Jude Brimble, GMB National Secretary, said:

“The Royal Fleet Auxiliary contracts are the key to unlocking the country’s massive shipbuilding potential. But Ministers refusal to put the UK’s interests first will mean that instead of a massive programme of shared economic and employment re-distribution, our firms will be competing against each other for slivers of complex warship work. It beggars belief that the Government wants to give this golden opportunity away to foreign competitors when working class communities up and down the country are crying out for decent work.”

The article which also appeared in The Evening Times also points out that unions are demanding the vessels are built in the UK, as seeking an international tender “undermines the national interest” however none of them are advocating for the 40,000 tonne support vessels be built on the Clyde which is expected to be at capacity until into the 2030’s, long after the date the vessels will be required.

We spoke to a contact at the BAE yard in Govan, who told us that the article was a bit surprising as no one at BAE expected the vessels would be built on the Clyde:

“Calling this a blow is a very strange choice of words. It [the article] came as a surprise frankly, I don’t think anyone here considers this any sort of blow especially as we were never going to be building them and BAE have no intention of bidding for them. They’ll be going to South Korea like the tankers as I don’t think any UK yard is considering a bid for them, we certainly aren’t.”

An MoD spokesperson said:

“There will be an international competition to build the ‘Fleet Solid Support’ supply ships, which UK companies will be able to enter, with a separate UK-only competition for customisation work and trials. This approach ensures the best value for money for taxpayers.”

The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 confirmed that three new large Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) Solid Support Ships would be acquired for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, to replace the single-hulled RFA Fort Victoria, which entered service in 1994, and RFA Fort Rosalie and RFA Fort Austin (both dating from the late 1970s). The Solid Support Ship is designed to carry a wide range of stores to support other ships with ammunition, food and explosives to replenish naval ships at sea.

They will have extensive aviation facilities, with 2 flight decks, one at the stern and one spot on top of the hanger. They will have the ability to to replenish at sea via 6 replenishment stations, three on each side as well as using helicopters for vertical replenishment.

The ships are expected to enter service in the mid 2020s.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Lewis (@guest_411001)
3 years ago

It’s just typical media sensationalism. Then the people who don’t bother to do any research go on their twentieth anti Tory rant that day in the comments.

The work should stay in the UK yes, but if no UK shipyard bids then people howling over ‘betrayal’ should sit down. What’s ironic is that the people who call this betrayal are only interested in calling it that to make them look like they’re supporting jobs. In reality they despise the armed forces.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_411013)
3 years ago
Reply to  Lewis


Like many an MP who know not the difference between a ship and a boat ( ssn ) or those MPs that wail when their local base faces closure.

Yes closing the base is bad, but the local MP complains because of jobs, not the wider defence interest about which they care not.

Stephen G.
Stephen G. (@guest_411070)
3 years ago
Reply to  Lewis

It is time to rebuild British heavy industries and support them, like other European countries do.

andyreeves (@guest_411287)
3 years ago
Reply to  Lewis

scotland complaining? they’re lucky to get the work at the pace produce anything, this kind of work should go to english yards or harland wolff in belfast

Thomas (@guest_411759)
3 years ago
Reply to  andyreeves

Care to add some basis to this? It otherwise just seems like a petty jibe at Scotland. They are all British yards and what matters is the work for warships stays here, in the U.K.


[…] post The Clyde hasn’t been ‘betrayed’ over new support ships – They’re not even bid… appeared first on UK Defence […]

Thomas (@guest_411760)
3 years ago

More generally, this shouldn’t be a huge shock. The RFA are building tankers in Korea and have been for a few years.

I agree that this work should be done in the U.K. a big issue is that we are loosing the skills to do this type of work, and it is only compounded by a National Strategy that permits it.


[…] problem with the “Clyde betrayal” theme is that it is just not based on the evidence. As outlined in the Glasgow-based UK Defence Journal, three main facts undermine the Nationalist argument. First, the Clyde is already at capacity […]


[…] problem with the “Clyde betrayal” theme is that it is just not based on the evidence. As outlined in the Glasgow-based UK Defence Journal, three main facts undermine the Nationalist argument. First, the Clyde is already at capacity […]