Royal Navy contract goes overseas
A MAJOR £452m contract to build four new fuel tankers to supply the Royal Navy has gone to a firm in South Korea.
The Ministry of Defence said no British shipbuilders submitted a final bid for the work.
It’s a bitter blow to 1,300 BAE Systems workers in Portsmouth who are fighting to hold on to their jobs once their work ends on the navy’s new aircraft carriers in 2014.
Prospect union official John Ferrett, who represents 300 BAE staff in Portsmouth, said: ‘It’s work we could have done with here in the UK. That no British companies put in for the work is an indictment on our capacity which has already reduced and could be reducing further. I think this could be the shape of things to come.’
The new Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) tankers are due to enter service in 2016 to replace existing naval supply vessels.
The MoD announced today that they will be built by Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering in South Korea.
The MoD’s procurement chief Bernard Gray said: ‘The competition for the contract sought to engage shipbuilders from across the globe. I believe the winning bidder’s solution will offer the UK the best value for money.’
British companies, including BAE Systems, had been involved in talks to produce the tankers but none submitted a final bid for the build contract.
A BAE spokeswoman said: ‘BAE Systems did not take part in the MARS competition once the MoD made it clear that they required a derivative of a commercial ship and, through an international competition, sought an available commercial design which we did not have.’
The MARS tanker will be able to simultaneously refuel an aircraft carrier and destroyer whilst undertaking helicopter resupply of other vessels.
They will support deployed amphibious, land and air forces close to the shore, will be able to operate helicopters and are planned to enter service from 2016, replacing existing Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) single hulled tankers.
At over 200 metres long, the four tankers will be approximately the same length as 14 double decker buses and can pump enough fuel to fill two Olympic sized swimming pools in an hour.
The MoD said the tankers are part of a multi-billion pound investment programme for the Royal Navy, which includes Type 45 destroyers, Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers and Astute Class attack submarines, which employs thousands of people in the UK.
Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Peter Luff, said: ‘Over the next decade, the Government will be investing billions of pounds in our maritime capabilities to ensure that our Royal Navy remains a formidable fighting force. This project will inject up to £150 million into UK industry and support and maintenance will also be carried out in the UK. The Government remains committed to building complex warships in UK shipyards.’
Commodore Bill Walworth, Head of the RFA, said: ‘We are delighted the RFA will be able to operate these world class vessels. These fleet replenishment tankers will be flexible ships, able to operate with the Royal Navy and Armed Forces in conflict, and are designed to allow for upgrades and emerging technologies meaning that they have been designed with the future in mind.’
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 42 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
rompeypompey
Saturday, March 3, 2012 at 10:26 PMGood news this, though it seems a shame The News have put a negative spin on it. Double hulled tankers to replace a fleet of ageing single skinned tankers, which if commercial would be illegal. Shame they couldnt be built British, or is the shame the fact that no British company tendered a final bid? Lets hope they come out on time and on budget, then it will cast a large question over the carrier project which is looking like costing double the original estimate.
ConDems Out!
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 10:54 PM@wizard of oz... speaking honestly, I've found most 'Left' people within Labour (so you can forget Bob Crow and a few others who haven;t been anywhere near in ages) are, as are the vast majority of trade unionists, entirely realistic. Michael Foot was a great man and he really "sacrificed" himself (at least politically) as he thanklessly strove to keep Labour in one piece as its various factions sought to self-destruct. To be honest, the people you find in Labour ranks who want to "re-write history" in the Party's favour are the (usually middle-class) kids who go to Party meetings (they are almost exclusively all 'Blairites' by the way) because they see the opportunity of a career into the future. Ask them about life experience, union work etc and they tend to offer blank looks.
wizard of oz
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 01:10 PMIm just saying that 1983 general election would have not resulted in a Labour victory, Falklands or no Falklands. I know you are sensible enough to acknowledge that ConDems Out, but most on the left do not. ( they just imagine why anyone would reject a left wing government) Labour had swung to far to the left under the increasing influence of Militant Tendency....... Labour had to move to the centre for any hope of winning an election. Just a shame you had to have a closet Tory (Blair) as leader to help you achieve that victory.......Any MP who falsified his expenses, by accident or deliberately (thats the way it is in the real world), should no longer be an MP or have any of the entitlements that ex MP's enjoy. But as that would 90% of them, that was unlikely to happen. John Mann one of my favourite Labour MP's, just him and Alisitar Darling.
ConDems Out!
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 12:21 PMYeah, everyone knows it was Kaufman who said that... but I don't see the particular significance? There was infighting inside Labour then and the policy on uniliateral nuclear disarmament (and in particular, the abandonment of Chevaline) was causing ructions. As for Kaufman, I agree with you. Been around too long, too greedy and too arrogant. Just makes me wonder why the MPs who were prosecuted were picked out when plenty of others all around haven't been. More Labour MPs like John Mann are needed - as we've agreed before.
wizard of oz
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 12:07 PMThe answer is Gerald Kaufman, met him once not a very nice man. Did well out claiming MP's expenses though, paying £8,865 for a 40-inch LCD television and £1,461.83 for a luxury rug imported from New York City. It wasnt his fault, he has a self diagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder apparently, shame he didnt tell the electorate before they voted for him.
ConDems Out!
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 11:13 AMOkay, let's clarify this. Labour was in a total mess in 1983. I doubt they could have won the election. Thatcher's government was, until the Falklands, detested. But for that, she'd have lost. We'd probably have ended up with a coalition or a minority government involving Tories andor the SDP.
wizard of oz
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 08:38 AMWho described the Labour partys left-wing 1983 election manifesto as the "The longest suicide note in history"?.....Thats why Labour lost the 1983 election not the Falklands, time to face the facts and admit the truth and stop hiding behind the Red flag.
wizard of oz
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 08:09 AMWhen someone says I am misrepresenting the policy of the last Labour Government, I have the right to publish the facts which support my statements. The fact is that Government said UK shipbuilding WAS NOT an essential core industrial activity - so shipbuilding orders may go over overseas. Our shipbuilding industry has been destroyed over the past 50 years, by a whole combination of reasons. Unlike our foreign competitors who export over 50% of their shipbuilding we export none. Its no good crying now about this order, its to late UK shipbuilding as a viable industry is dead. Action should have been taken in the sixties to make that industry competitve........Thatcher, how the left love to live in the past, and New Labour got it right we must be competitive in the global market if we wish to be to maintain our standard of living in the long term. Areas where we are not should closed down and resources invested in areas where we are.
Hibernian
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 10:57 PMAfter reading the comments on here, one thing that has come to mind is the double standards this government use. First they complain about loosing an order to supply the Indian airforce to the French , then blantantly give a procurement of Navy tankers to the Koreans. How does that work when in these times of continuing job losses, that this government doesn't protect the workforce. As for wizard of oz, please stop bantering on who is to blame for the mess, both the Tories and Labour are to blame, because all they did whilst in power was to protect themselves and do nothing for the welfare of the country. If they did then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. This is not just the last previous Labour governments but the previous Tory ones too. For once I just wish those bloody idiots that are suppose to represent the people of this country face reality and start making cuts in their ivory tower population. The biggest drain on this country's finances are those in Parlaiment itself. The members need to be drastically reduced. Instead of making cuts to the defence budget, how about cuts to the MPs wages, number of MPs, number of Lords too. But the pm and his cronies like the last Labour government know when they are on a good thing. Instead of trying to apportion blame , would it not be better to call for a reduction of MPs and members of the house of Lords above the reduction to the armed services. Are those in Parlaiment going to defend these shores should armed conflict occurr, I think not, so why should they be defended in reducing the armed services to such an extent that it may not be able to defend this country. That is what you should be asking wizard of oz instead of harping on who is to blame.
bladesblue
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 09:17 PMOf course it went abroad. The Government specification ruled out each and every ship builder in the UK. Like all Industry in this Country the official policy is any thing but British. In France they protect industry, including Yoghurt making and refuse to allow any non french company to enter the market.
ConDems Out!
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 09:06 PM@wizard of oz... I've been away all day and just come back to this. You know why Thatcher won in '83... it was largely due to ill-founded patriotic fervour following the Falklands War... a conflict that she should in fact have taken responsibility for allowing to take place when it could have been easily avoided. She was and is poison. Her devotees just don't see it.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 02:53 PMThe Defence Industrial Policy (DIP) was founded on the importance of equipping our Armed Forces efficiently with the tools they require to meet the challenges they face. This remains the fundamental starting point for the DIS. Each year a large proportion of the defence budget is spent on procuring and supporting equipment. It is these activities that in effect define and delimit our industrial policy. Above all, our relationship with the defence industry must be rooted in project performance – ensuring that reliable and supportable equipment is developed and delivered within time and price constraints. It is not just the magnitude of Government defence spending but the efficient use of those defence resources that enables the UK to have the most effective armed forces in Europe. It is not in the interests of the taxpayer or our Armed Forces for an industrial policy to dilute this fundamental principle. We also need to recognise, however, not only individual project priorities, but the complete interaction between Government and industry. And we need to be aware of the cumulative impact of potential decisions about individual projects on industry.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 02:25 PMMORE DIS 2005......We recognise that simply maintaining a minimum sovereign industrial base is not likely to be attractive to industry or to represent good value for money.........Working with industry we will define a Core Work Load that not only would sustain the key capabilities, but also offer value for money and be commercially viable, allowing industry to scale its core capacity accordingly........The Core Work Load will contain all activity unique to submarines. For surface ships it is possible that only a proportion of the total programme in any given period may be required to sustain key capabilities.........Projects within the maritime programme that exceed the Core Work Load requirement may be widely competed and potentially undertaken OFFSHORE if it does not prejudice the key capabilities........Our shipbuilding industry needs to renew itself and there is a window of opportunity to do so, now. By taking this opportunity head on and tackling the challenges it presents, there can be a fundamental shift from seeking profit through volume, to profit derived from excellent delivery, long-term support, and the continual improvement of the military capability available to the front line.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 02:05 PMWhy should the UK defence budget be used to subsidise UK industry? Our troops need the best equipment available at the most affordable price, because the defence budget is limited.. UK shipbuilding is not an essential industry to our economy, both current and former Governments made this quite clear. The economic benefit of using UK industry to build overpriced inefficient military equipment is in the long term an uneconomic one, where we are unable to compete in a global market our resources . When was the last time the UK had a major warship export order?......1975. We have shown over the past fifty years we are unable to build warships on time and to budget so no one wants to buy them...... It is better for the workers and the economy in the long term to be deployed in areas were we are competitive. Otherwise we would still living in mud huts and making bows and arrows.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 02:04 PMFrom the Labour Governments Defence Industrial Strategy 2005.......In a change to the previously stated Defence Industrial Policy (DIP), there is no absolute sovereign requirement to construct all our warship hulls onshore. We have revised our approach which concentrated solely on hull construction, now to consider sovereignty of the highvalue capabilities needed for our operational independence.........There is no requirement for fabrication of basic structures in the UK per se;.........the management and overhead of an offshore fabrication effort becomes less attractive when the high value aspects of a programme significantly outweigh the low order fabrication costs. This is especially true when a high level of outfitting is conducted at the same time as block construction........The build of warships extends beyond the simplistic view of steelwork and its assembly, incorporating an amalgamation of skills, facilities, technologies and knowledge. In particular, it is the high complexity, value added aspects of ship build and platform integration that must be maintained under UK sovereignty:..........
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.