Defence is big business and make no mistake, defence contractors are not scared of playing games, or applying subtle (or not so subtle) pressure to make sure they get get their own way.
It is fascinating to watch them at work and see the different methods they employ.
To see two examples of the art lets look at one maritime and one land programme that is ‘pre main gate’ i.e., money has been spent on development but no production orders have yet been placed.
The Type 26 Frigate and the Future Rapid Effects System Specialist Vehicle Scout.
Both have an uncertain future, if not in their entirety but certainly in their numbers.
Pressure can be applied in multiple ways, carrot or stick.
BAE, with the Type 26 Frigate, have opted for the stick.
General Dynamics, with FRES SV Scout, have opted for the carrot.
The games they play.
Perhaps BAE’s stance is just a reflection that the only way for UK ship building is decline. Even if the T26 design is an export success, how much of the RN work would be done in UK shipyards…?
Warship building is a key capability for an Island nation – the government should ensure that there is a constant drumbeat of work to support this not requirement spikes. Also, closing yards south of the boarder is madness when Scottish independence is looming.
Re BAE and its Portsmouth yard:
If the Government is not living up to the terms of the deal that was sealed with the CVF contract and industry merger then i don’t blame them.
If they are in breach of contract then sue them.
I suspect the former rather than the latter………..
Portsmouth yard could be kept busy with something far less expensive than frigates if the Future Force Protection Craft program is funded.
If the first boat is to be delivered by 2016 as currently planned, the order would probably need to be placed soon enough.
There is also the LCU MK11/ Future Fast Landing Craft project that they could talk about.
More importantly, this Planning Round is supposed to give the go-ahead to the first 2 ships of the MARS FT procurement.
The hulls will be bought from abroad as we know, but the fitting of RAS kit and other equipment would follow in UK shipyards. I guess Portsmouth would be a choice…?
General Dynamics carrot seems to be a bit limp. We’re spending around a billion £ to development what is essentially an off the shelf vehicle. From what GD has said, it won’t actually be built in the UK. And after all that we’re going to export these things to who exactly? The market is awash with types that won’t be as expensive – it’s difficult to see the “used by Britain” stamp being that effective.
“The hulls will be bought from abroad as we know, but the fitting of RAS kit and other equipment would follow in UK shipyards. I guess Portsmouth would be a choice…?”
Who is the winning bidder and is BAE part of that bid?
The Government have totally renagred on the DII agreement. The ship building has taken a big hit on this. The government it only wanted to default on the 15 year build deal but also the biggest single part ig that namely CVF. BAE quite rightly refused and have been punished with reduced numbers of T45s Typhoons and missing out on FRES SV despite having a working prototype.
Gab – You are completely off-base. Despite any comments from BAE, there is no connection between BAE and the current MARS Tankers. They are not even one of the bidders! Portsmouth will not be doing anything for the MARS Tankers, but some UK suppliers will be providing sub-systems such as self defence etc. Maybe BAE will be involved with that, but it won’t require a shipyard.
What BAE are trying to cover up is the fact that they have completely failed to build their export business in the shipbuilding sector. The MOD promised a minimum workload (which does not need 3 yards) and BAE were going to use exports to keep their yards busy. Since then, the Trinidad and Tobago sale fell through, Oman have got sick and tired of the delays and Brazil have just bought those T&T boats. Chile does not seem that interested either and no one is putting money down for the Global Combat Ship. Now they are trying to capitalise on the ‘Scottish issues’ to scare the politicians into fronting up some build work outside of the MOD requirements.
This is all old hat for anyone who deals with them. Sadly, the politicians like to play the game…
Re BAE shipbuilding: BAE is big enough to be “cut loose” and left to fend for itself. HMG could buy its products OTS, with minimum modification (it seems to be the austerity driven direction of travel). If the BAE Shipbuilding arm collapses through lack of work, then HMG could nationalise it and drive all RN work through that way. At least the costs would be fully transparent, then. And possibly the only industry ripe for Nationalisation would *be* defense, what with the production spikes, IP issues and very restrictive export rules . . .
P.S. I didn’t know the spell checker here was for English(US)? It seems to require a ‘z’ in nationalisation?
DD
Spellchecker?
Thunk defence. See? What spellchecker? lol
@Observer: Ah, sat at a different desk today. Must be Firefox underlining everything in red!!