Nice tug, but I wonder if it has the pull/push engine power to be usefull – size does matter. Could be usefull positioning mexefloates and pontoons etc. from STUFT ships.
First thing that came to my mind is remote-control minesweeper/barrier ship; many (auxiliary) ships currently have room for 20ft containers aboard, so this tug or a variant could find future use.
MSR
May 29, 2014 12:05 pm
It could also have utility in the disaster relief role. A dozen such craft could have been useful in the Philippines. They could have been handed straight to the locals to provide mobility along the coast where inshore routes were blocked, to cross waterways and reach islands where the usual ferry craft have been destroyed or disabled, and for general transport of supplies and rescue of survivors.
A littoral pickup truck.
Then, when it’s all over, they form the basis of a rebuilt inshore fishing fleet to help reconstitute local economies and get people back to work and feeding themselves.
I see much to like and in the RN’s future ORBAT there will hardly be a vessel afloat that can’t accommodate one at short notice.
Red Trousers
May 31, 2014 1:45 am
I love the concept, and fully endorse the concept of a boat in an ISO. But does it have to be a Tug?
Would not a general workboat be better? Tugs are designed for pulling, pushing and shunting about big heavy things like useless Nellies, but there might be little need for that after a hurricane or tsunami blows through or washes over. What you might more need is a waterborne Bedford 4tonner to move stuff from a to b.
Still, very good to see.
Related, I spent some of today reviewing DFID’s future budget to see if my company can extract a few million off them and also contribute some cutting edge UK ICT/comms advantage to HA/DR. Depressing reading. Most of it is paying for consultants to perform UK-rules Due Diligence on foreign medical programmes. I had hoped to find programmes where UK industry could get involved. But they only want people with spreadsheet skills. I think I’ll have a word. DFID are not thinking broadly enough.
Chris
May 31, 2014 6:55 am
RT – I think you misunderstand the point of DfID. When last I took the time to review department spending (2003/4) the Department Expenditure Limit for DfID was £3.7bn, and the declared Central Government Own Expenditure for the department was £3.56bn. I took a leap of faith and decided the expenditure limit applied to all spending whether within central government or not (its not clear what fits within what but then accountancy is all about hiding truth isn’t it?) which means 96.22% of allocated funds pays for the central gov’t activities, presumably the Minister, chief secretaries, under-secretaries, private secretaries, international aid committee chair and members, committee secretary, international aid department admin and media office and the few hundred civil servants required to keep all that lot looking like they know what they are doing. That leaves 3.56% of budget to buy stuff, ship it round the world and operate/distribute the stuff that has been bought. Thus you can see the major need within DfID is for highly paid consultancies to help in the serious task of governing the department. Getting out into the world to do good is a tiny proportion of their invaluable work.
I would be interested if others have the knowledge to know if the above assessment is correct – I used Gov’t published figures so those ought to be sound, but the inter-relationship of DEL and declared expenditure is far from clear. If it is right, its scandalous; not that DfID was the only department that spent more within its own governance than on real-world spending – far from it – but it was one of the worst. Defence came in at about 80% Central Government Own Expenditure, but without the list of what’s included in that figure its pretty meaningless, for example if the wage bill of serving personnel is covered here then the figure is much more reasonable. The average, taking all DEL and all central government financing as a lump came out at 63% governance, 37% spend, although that figure in itself is hugely skewed by the Local Government budget which accounts for 15% of total DEL where over 99% is handed over to local authorities as ‘spend’ but of course much of that cash will fund the Local Authority Own Expenditure (if there is such an accounting element).
Gloomy Northern Boy
May 31, 2014 4:26 pm
@Chris – In my time Local Government had “establishment costs” to cover HQ and support costs and “costs of democracy” to cover everything from elections to the political element of decision making…they were on absolutely nothing like that scale, not least because most people in local government do something rather than talking about it…teaching children, shifting bins, sweeping streets, collecting rents, making repairs, inspecting meat, planning towns…not to sure about the last one, but the others are recognisable practical tasks… :-)
GNB
x
May 31, 2014 4:31 pm
Worst decision I ever made leaving local government. :(
Nice tug, but I wonder if it has the pull/push engine power to be usefull – size does matter. Could be usefull positioning mexefloates and pontoons etc. from STUFT ships.
First thing that came to my mind is remote-control minesweeper/barrier ship; many (auxiliary) ships currently have room for 20ft containers aboard, so this tug or a variant could find future use.
It could also have utility in the disaster relief role. A dozen such craft could have been useful in the Philippines. They could have been handed straight to the locals to provide mobility along the coast where inshore routes were blocked, to cross waterways and reach islands where the usual ferry craft have been destroyed or disabled, and for general transport of supplies and rescue of survivors.
A littoral pickup truck.
Then, when it’s all over, they form the basis of a rebuilt inshore fishing fleet to help reconstitute local economies and get people back to work and feeding themselves.
I see much to like and in the RN’s future ORBAT there will hardly be a vessel afloat that can’t accommodate one at short notice.
I love the concept, and fully endorse the concept of a boat in an ISO. But does it have to be a Tug?
Would not a general workboat be better? Tugs are designed for pulling, pushing and shunting about big heavy things like useless Nellies, but there might be little need for that after a hurricane or tsunami blows through or washes over. What you might more need is a waterborne Bedford 4tonner to move stuff from a to b.
Still, very good to see.
Related, I spent some of today reviewing DFID’s future budget to see if my company can extract a few million off them and also contribute some cutting edge UK ICT/comms advantage to HA/DR. Depressing reading. Most of it is paying for consultants to perform UK-rules Due Diligence on foreign medical programmes. I had hoped to find programmes where UK industry could get involved. But they only want people with spreadsheet skills. I think I’ll have a word. DFID are not thinking broadly enough.
RT – I think you misunderstand the point of DfID. When last I took the time to review department spending (2003/4) the Department Expenditure Limit for DfID was £3.7bn, and the declared Central Government Own Expenditure for the department was £3.56bn. I took a leap of faith and decided the expenditure limit applied to all spending whether within central government or not (its not clear what fits within what but then accountancy is all about hiding truth isn’t it?) which means 96.22% of allocated funds pays for the central gov’t activities, presumably the Minister, chief secretaries, under-secretaries, private secretaries, international aid committee chair and members, committee secretary, international aid department admin and media office and the few hundred civil servants required to keep all that lot looking like they know what they are doing. That leaves 3.56% of budget to buy stuff, ship it round the world and operate/distribute the stuff that has been bought. Thus you can see the major need within DfID is for highly paid consultancies to help in the serious task of governing the department. Getting out into the world to do good is a tiny proportion of their invaluable work.
I would be interested if others have the knowledge to know if the above assessment is correct – I used Gov’t published figures so those ought to be sound, but the inter-relationship of DEL and declared expenditure is far from clear. If it is right, its scandalous; not that DfID was the only department that spent more within its own governance than on real-world spending – far from it – but it was one of the worst. Defence came in at about 80% Central Government Own Expenditure, but without the list of what’s included in that figure its pretty meaningless, for example if the wage bill of serving personnel is covered here then the figure is much more reasonable. The average, taking all DEL and all central government financing as a lump came out at 63% governance, 37% spend, although that figure in itself is hugely skewed by the Local Government budget which accounts for 15% of total DEL where over 99% is handed over to local authorities as ‘spend’ but of course much of that cash will fund the Local Authority Own Expenditure (if there is such an accounting element).
@Chris – In my time Local Government had “establishment costs” to cover HQ and support costs and “costs of democracy” to cover everything from elections to the political element of decision making…they were on absolutely nothing like that scale, not least because most people in local government do something rather than talking about it…teaching children, shifting bins, sweeping streets, collecting rents, making repairs, inspecting meat, planning towns…not to sure about the last one, but the others are recognisable practical tasks… :-)
GNB
Worst decision I ever made leaving local government. :(