Search this Topic:
Jan 4 17 1:53 PM
GeorgeC2006 wrote:I like the essential concept of 'Set and assured capital budgets for the next 30 years'. Any £&@?ing idiot could run a shipbuilding strategy with guaranteed levels of money for a generation and a half. We might not have a written constitution but one the unwritten principles is that no parliament may bind the actions of a future parliament...
And yet we have the Parliament Acts, the Human Rights Act, and a great many other acts that constrain the actions of Parliament - they could in principle be repealed by a future Parliament, which would then no longer be bound by their provisions. There's no reason why a National Defence Act could not be similarly written with appropriate provisions for funding, force structure et cetera. The Naval Defence Act of 1889 shows that it can be done if the political will is there.
Jan 4 17 2:04 PM
Jan 8 17 11:32 PM
Jan 14 17 10:42 AM
Jan 15 17 6:05 AM
Jan 15 17 9:39 AM
reiverman wrote:Easy to whine about it, but reports aren't white papers.
Jan 15 17 1:22 PM
Jan 15 17 2:29 PM
Jan 15 17 2:40 PM
sealordlawrence wrote:It's not even a conundrum; the NSS report is so far detached from reality that it was irrelevant the day it was published; not helped by the way it criticised both Navy Command and BAE, those two are hardly best friends and yet JP managed to annoy them both. I suspect his report will simply be discarded and in a few months time we will all have forgotten it was ever written- there is certainly no political constituency to try and turn it into policy.
One thing to watch is MARS Fleet Solid Support; its the ideal bone for government to throw at the non-BAE UK shipbuilding industry. It would provide plenty of yellow jacket/hard hat photo ops, would keep the unions happy, would burnish Theresa May's industrial strategy credentials and DSME have hardly covered themselves in glory on the Tide class thus making the import option less attractive than it was a few years ago.
Jan 15 17 3:33 PM
Jan 15 17 4:58 PM
Nauticus27 wrote:Yes I'd agree that looks like a potentially plausible scenario, although I think the issue with the Tides may be overstated. There was a bit of a balls up in getting the wiring to meet the latest legislative requirements which has delayed the first of class by a few months - hardly unusual, and not as bad as the shenanigans attached to the UK build of parts of the Bay class (eg Largs entered service 28 months later than planned). I understand the aim is still to meet the target date for getting all four Tides into service, which if they achieve it (I accept that it hasn't happened yet, so we'll see) would stack up pretty well..
Jan 15 17 11:16 PM
eldritch wrote:...I also don't think that Tides fiasco was a 'bit of a balls up' it is a major %!*$ up... I'm afraid that the 'value for money case', came back to bite the MOD in this instance....
...I also don't think that Tides fiasco was a 'bit of a balls up' it is a major %!*$ up... I'm afraid that the 'value for money case', came back to bite the MOD in this instance....
Jan 16 17 12:55 AM
RFA Tidespring on sea trials off South Korea
Four tide class tankers are being built by DSME in South Korea for
the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. They are urgently needed to replace and
ageing fleet of old vessels, some of which have already decommissioned.
Building them aboard has been highly controversial but appeared to be a
sensible solution, given the lack of capacity in UK yards and cost
benefits. Large scale fraud uncovered at DSME and the company’s
temporary bankruptcy, together with the delays have badly damaged the
case for building future RFA vessels abroad. The first vessel RFA
Tidespring was originally due to arrive in Falmouth for final fitting
out in January 2015. Sources
say Tidespring performed well on sea trials but the MoD has been
entirely silent about the cause of the delay whether it is technical or
manpower related. However the MoD does insist all four ships will be in
service by 2018 and that they will not have to bear the costs associated
with the delay.
Jan 16 17 2:51 AM
Jan 16 17 10:13 AM
Nauticus27 wrote:I don't think I've muddied the waters. Nor have I disregarded the delay to Tidespring, it's just that I don't think it has torpedoed the VFM case of the programme in the way you suggest. The article is out of date. The delay has been explained, and the issue shouldn't recur as it can be addressed during build for the remaining vessels. DSME's travails are a concern and we'd doubtless want to look at how they are faring before placing any future orders with them, although they've now been bought out and bailed out by KDB and it's looking as though the remaining vessels will be delivered on schedule. Mentioning the rework costs being borne by the shipbuilder is relevant because it means the rework hasn't cost the MoD and hasn't damaged the VFM case. At present, the sole impact for the UK has been a 12 month delay in the first of class transiting to the UK. Nothing else, and no extra cost. Much as we all might prefer to see these ships built in the UK, I don't think that counts as a major %!*$ up, especially when compared with other recent acquisition programmes.
Jan 16 17 11:27 AM
Jan 16 17 1:34 PM
Jan 16 17 2:09 PM
Jan 16 17 2:24 PM
Jan 16 17 2:30 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.