New RFA Tankers To Be Built In South Korea

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

There is no chance that the knock on effects will not have been considered by the government.

 

That's a bit naiive. Look at the size of government and all of it's different departments - they're not exactly known for joined up thinking.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

you do realise this decision would not have been made at that level...dont you..?

 

 

As you were obviously part of the tendering committee, why don't you inform us of who made the decision and at what level.

[Thedelldays]

As you were obviously part of the tendering committee, why don't you inform us of who made the decision and at what level.

it would have been done at MoD procurement level....which is hardly the "governement'

 

why the snide comments...?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

That's a bit naiive. Look at the size of government and all of it's different departments - they're not exactly known for joined up thinking.

 

I think people do underestimate the intelligence of those in office, even those jokers who were in last.

[Window Cleaner]

I think people do underestimate the intelligence of those in office, even those jokers who were in last.

 

Anyway knowing things like that comes from the Civil Service rather that their political masters.

[SimonC]

Fair point.

 

Rolls Royce...I agree - although I wish they had made the one that exploded on the runway in Toronto a few years ago properly.

 

Air Canada...'you won't wanna get off'.............Oh yes I f**king will!

 

Could have ended up with one less Bournemouth fan in the world that day, and we need everyone we can get

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

it would have been done at MoD procurement level....which is hardly the "governement'

 

why the snide comments...?

 

So in fact this can't be attributed to the Government then? At what level of money would you have to go above procurement level?

[Thedelldays]

So in fact this can't be attributed to the Government then? At what level of money would you have to go above procurement level?

when talking about nuclear deterrent....that is because of the political nature of it......

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

when talking about nuclear deterrent....that is because of the political nature of it......

 

So the OP is frankly incorrect then?

[Thedelldays]

So the OP is frankly incorrect then?

in the sense no.

nothing is ever too late...no work has started, no one has laid a sheet of metal...the powers at be (from above) could quite easily step in and change this....easily

[pap]

There is no chance that the knock on effects will not have been considered by the government.

 

Have to disagree. For an 18 month old, this government has a disturbing amount of previous for ill-considered policies.

 

Look at the jip they got for their crude idea for means-tested Child Benefit, rightfully in my opinion. It's not even a great Conservative policy. I don't see how, on the one hand, they say they believe in families - yet on the other, their policy hits the traditional ( perhaps now archaic ) notion of having a single bread-winner in the house with a full time parent.

 

Or the neat idea to give massive corporations millions of hours of free labour. Or the 158Bn budget over-spend.

 

This government doesn't really know what its doing. Can't see how it'd be any different here.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

in the sense no.

nothing is ever too late...no work has started, no one has laid a sheet of metal...the powers at be (from above) could quite easily step in and change this....easily

 

So now we're saying that every large tender that doesn't go to a British company should be intercepted prior to work beginning, by the government. Proper government intervention in what should be a free trade country. You start doing that and countries will start rejecting tenders from our country straight off.

 

You have to agree that this is a dangerous precedent to set, no?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Have to disagree. For an 18 month old, this government has a disturbing amount of previous for ill-considered policies.

 

Look at the jip they got for their crude idea for means-tested Child Benefit, rightfully in my opinion. It's not even a great Conservative policy. I don't see how, on the one hand, they say they believe in families - yet on the other, their policy hits the traditional ( perhaps now archaic ) notion of having a single bread-winner in the house with a full time parent.

 

Or the neat idea to give massive corporations millions of hours of free labour. Or the 158Bn budget over-spend.

 

This government doesn't really know what its doing. Can't see how it'd be any different here.

 

I'm not getting into this, but why the hell shouldn't people work for their benefits? Personally I'd prefer to see people have to do work that helps the community, and not work that benefits corporations (unless those corporations have to pay the tax and NI on those employees (but no wages)).

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

So now we're saying that every large tender that doesn't go to a British company should be intercepted prior to work beginning, by the government. Proper government intervention in what should be a free trade country. You start doing that and countries will start rejecting tenders from our country straight off.

 

You have to agree that this is a dangerous precedent to set, no?

 

Hardly, other countries already do this - in spades. Why has South Korea got a competitive shipbuilding industry? Becuase for decades its Government have supported S. Korean companies through aid, grants and tax breaks that have enabled companies to invest in large-scale long-term facilities.

 

You think that British manufacturers have a completely fair crack at US Government contracts or French military contracts?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Hardly, other countries already do this - in spades. Why has South Korea got a competitive shipbuilding industry? Becuase for decades its Government have supported S. Korean companies through aid, grants and tax breaks that have enabled companies to invest in large-scale long-term facilities.

 

You think that British manufacturers have a completely fair crack at US Government contracts or French military contracts?

 

We're not even saying have a fair crack, we're just taking away the ability for foreign companies to win tenders over here.

 

We have not got 2 pennies to rub together, yet as ever people are telling the Government to subsidise the building of ships which potentially shows no economic advantage to the country? Madness.

[pap]

I'm not getting into this, but why the hell shouldn't people work for their benefits? Personally I'd prefer to see people have to do work that helps the community, and not work that benefits corporations (unless those corporations have to pay the tax and NI on those employees (but no wages)).

 

And that's fair enough. Another thread for this anyway. However, your thoughts ("why the hell shouldn't people work for their benefits?") kinda sums the problem up. On the surface, how could anyone disagree with you? In practice, what actually happens is that the amount of paid hours disappears from the economy and more people end up staying on benefits. Sounds great on paper. Utterly counterproductive in practice.

 

Same thing with these orders going to South Korea. Superb, you might say. A bargain. Problem is, you're not only giving the order for the tankers to South Korea. You're giving away the supply chain, and those that depend on the supply chain, many of which will be employing British workers and therefore British taxpayers.

 

I'm sure that the Conservatives will paint this as good value for the economy, but it really isn't once you start applying the merest scintilla of common sense to it. If we're going to continue with this capitalist lark, we need to put demand in our economy. Sending large orders to the other side of the world seems nonsensical in that context.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

And that's fair enough. Another thread for this anyway. However, your thoughts ("why the hell shouldn't people work for their benefits?") kinda sums the problem up. On the surface, how could anyone disagree with you? In practice, what actually happens is that the amount of paid hours disappears from the economy and more people end up staying on benefits. Sounds great on paper. Utterly counterproductive in practice.

 

Same thing with these orders going to South Korea. Superb, you might say. A bargain. Problem is, you're not only giving the order for the tankers to South Korea. You're giving away the supply chain, and those that depend on the supply chain, many of which will be employing British workers and therefore British taxpayers.

 

I'm sure that the Conservatives will paint this as good value for the economy, but it really isn't once you start applying the merest scintilla of common sense to it. If we're going to continue with this capitalist lark, we need to put demand in our economy. Sending large orders to the other side of the world seems nonsensical in that context.

 

If we broke it down, how much of the £800m do you think stays in the UK? Materials are probably sourced overseas for the most part. I'm not sure of the breakdown on resources and pay to staff when building something like this?? Anyone any idea?

 

I think after all costs are taken into account that are effectively accessed by the Government, you're looking at 30%? Which means the bid would have needed to have been within £240m to even break even. There is a good chance it could have been higher...

[TopGun]

So in fact this can't be attributed to the Government then? At what level of money would you have to go above procurement level?

 

TDD is not right because any purchasing decision of that magnitude would have to be in line with government policy signed off by the top politicians and civil servants at the MOD in the first place before the procurement committee get hold of it. The same senior politicians and civil servants would also sign off (or not) on the ultimate decision of the procurement committee for something as expensive as this. They don't want yet another purchasing cock up at the MOD!

[pap]

If we broke it down, how much of the £800m do you think stays in the UK? Materials are probably sourced overseas for the most part. I'm not sure of the breakdown on resources and pay to staff when building something like this?? Anyone any idea?

 

I think after all costs are taken into account that are effectively accessed by the Government, you're looking at 30%? Which means the bid would have needed to have been within £240m to even break even. There is a good chance it could have been higher...

 

 

You would be surprised. A big part of my work involves using computer tech to identify shortages for a discrete manufacturing firm. An unfortunate consequence of that is I've found out more than I ever wanted to know about supply chain. One thing I can tell you is that it isn't all about the cheapest headline cost. Lead times have a big part to play. It's all well and good being able to order stuff incredibly cheaply from the Far East, but on some components, you're looking at a 3 month transit time for maximum cost effectiveness.

 

Then you need to consider the inspection routines. When building something, especially for the first time, you'll need to put it through a rigorous inspection process to ensure that the goods are up to spec. There's no getting around it, either - there are civil authorities ( FAA would be a good example ) that'll essentially close your business if you're not making the grade. So you order your parts from the Far East, get them in, and find out they're not up to scratch. What do you do now? Well, you either send them back to get reworked by the supplier or pay someone locally to rework them on contract rates. Either way, the entire proposition is not looking so cheap anymore.

 

One more thing that'll result in the same problem are engineering changes. Bills of Material for discrete manufacturing change, and change often. If your stuff is already on a boat, and in transit - you've got to rework it on-site so that it fits the new specs.

 

So it's something of a fallacy to assume that it's cheaper to source everything from outside, especially when fabricating complex or uncommon stuff ( I think we can safely put ships in that category ). A good 60% of the vendors we use are in Britain or Ireland. Incredibly short lead times, responsive to change, speak the same language, and are in the same time zone. So, yep - cost is ultimately the driver - but a lot of firms are starting to realise that the bargain-basement prices you get from the Far East come with a hell of a lot of add-ons.

Edited 23 February, 2012 by pap

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

We're not even saying have a fair crack, we're just taking away the ability for foreign companies to win tenders over here.

 

We have not got 2 pennies to rub together, yet as ever people are telling the Government to subsidise the building of ships which potentially shows no economic advantage to the country? Madness.

 

Not really. People are actually saying: "We understand that a British built RFA might not have been as cheap as a S Korean one but do other factors make a British build option the right choice - safeguarding jobs, minimising benefits etc?"

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Not really. People are actually saying: "We understand that a British built RFA might not have been as cheap as a S Korean one but do other factors make a British build option the right choice - safeguarding jobs, minimising benefits etc?"

 

Agreed, which I alluded to in post 67. I just thimk we need all the economic facts about this prior to:

 

A) Saying the Government is at fault for this contract going elsewhere;

B) Saying that the contract would have been, overall, beneficial to the British economy.

C) As said earlier in the thread, we didn't even submit a tender, and we don't have the expertise for this kind of job.

Edited 23 February, 2012 by Dibden Purlieu Saint

[Wade Garrett]

In terms of the tender issued to which Siemens and Bombardier responded, it is "totally what counts." The tender has criteria that are specific and certainly do not include potential welfare costs to the families of employees laid off by Bombardier. Nor should they. If Bombardier offers a class product at a competitive price, then the Ministry of Transport and other buyers abroad will buy it. As it stands, Siemens and Alstom sell the most new passenger train units because they have the best products at good value for money.

 

If you read my post properly you'll see that I recognised the tender conditions. I don't agree with them though. I repeat, the French and Germans would never issue contracts like these overseas. It allows their own countries companies to grow and expand, while having a positive knock on effect to their local economies.

 

 

I don't believe for one minute that Bombardier couldn't match the quality of Siemens or Alstom.

[aintforever]

It is madness, this country should be investing in this sort of industry. Even if they cost more to build here the benefit to the economy as a whole would make it worthwhile.

 

Just giving it to the cheapest bidder is short-sighted and retarded.

[Jonnyboy]

What next? People having a pop at Thatcher for refusing to pour tax payer's money down the drain to prop up the failing mining industry?

 

Sigh....

 

[Jonnyboy]

It is madness, this country should be investing in this sort of industry. Even if they cost more to build here the benefit to the economy as a whole would make it worthwhile.

 

Just giving it to the cheapest bidder is short-sighted and retarded.

 

As with everything these days, the share-holders want their fat cut to be at a maximum so the cheapest bidder is chosen.

[Window Cleaner]

As with everything these days, the share-holders want their fat cut to be at a maximum so the cheapest bidder is chosen.

 

Do the RN actually have share holders?

[Jonnyboy]

Do the RN actually have share holders?

 

You got me, but I wouldnt be surprised.

[moonraker]

I have a little bit of ITK about this contract. The ships are required to meet international legislation by 2018/19, the UK shipbuilding capacity could not meet this requirement due to T45 and QEC contracts, no British tenders were submitted, the Koreans have a track record of delivering on time to budget unlike BAE. The price is not £800 m it is £465m of which £150 will be spent in Britain additionally the special military fits and through life support will be British a sum likely to be at least double the ship build costs. The competition was started by the Labour Government whose 2005 Defence White Paper stated that commercially designed ships for the RFA and RN could be built abroad. The 3 tenders received were 2 from South Korea and 1 from Italy. The Wave class were years late and massively over budget. This is a British Design and the IPR remains British with export opportunities for upwards of 30 similar ships based on normal design fees this equates to a potential in excess of £150m of exports into the UK economy for design rights alone, on top of that there will be a lot of British equipment/systems e.g. RR, Hamworthy BAE.

[pap]

I have a little bit of ITK about this contract. The ships are required to meet international legislation by 2018/19, the UK shipbuilding capacity could not meet this requirement due to T45 and QEC contracts, no British tenders were submitted, the Koreans have a track record of delivering on time to budget unlike BAE. The price is not £800 m it is £465m of which £150 will be spent in Britain additionally the special military fits and through life support will be British a sum likely to be at least double the ship build costs. The competition was started by the Labour Government whose 2005 Defence White Paper stated that commercially designed ships for the RFA and RN could be built abroad. The 3 tenders received were 2 from South Korea and 1 from Italy. The Wave class were years late and massively over budget. This is a British Design and the IPR remains British with export opportunities for upwards of 30 similar ships based on normal design fees this equates to a potential in excess of £150m of exports into the UK economy for design rights alone, on top of that there will be a lot of British equipment/systems e.g. RR, Hamworthy BAE.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this. I've checked the "peeved-meter" and it has gone down a notch.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

1 - The reason BAE did not bid for this work is because they are fully committed to building our new aircraft carriers until 2016-18

2 - Even had we the spare capacity to build these ships here, it would still have been massively cheaper to give the job to the Koreans

3 - The purpose of the defence budget is to facilitate the defence of the nation - not to prop up failing industry's.

 

The decision to construct the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's 4 new 'MARS' class oilers aboard almost certainly offers the Navy the best chance of getting these much needed new tankers on time and budget, while simultaneously providing the hard pressed UK tax payer with proper value for money for once.

[trousers]

It's amazing how some actual facts and knowledge can transmogrify an irrational knee-jerk discussion into a measured and rational one....

[TopGun]

I have a little bit of ITK about this contract. The ships are required to meet international legislation by 2018/19, the UK shipbuilding capacity could not meet this requirement due to T45 and QEC contracts, no British tenders were submitted, the Koreans have a track record of delivering on time to budget unlike BAE. The price is not £800 m it is £465m of which £150 will be spent in Britain additionally the special military fits and through life support will be British a sum likely to be at least double the ship build costs. The competition was started by the Labour Government whose 2005 Defence White Paper stated that commercially designed ships for the RFA and RN could be built abroad. The 3 tenders received were 2 from South Korea and 1 from Italy. The Wave class were years late and massively over budget. This is a British Design and the IPR remains British with export opportunities for upwards of 30 similar ships based on normal design fees this equates to a potential in excess of £150m of exports into the UK economy for design rights alone, on top of that there will be a lot of British equipment/systems e.g. RR, Hamworthy BAE.

 

For right or wrong reasons, there's the answer to the OP's question.

[TopGun]

If you read my post properly you'll see that I recognised the tender conditions. I don't agree with them though. I repeat, the French and Germans would never issue contracts like these overseas. It allows their own countries companies to grow and expand, while having a positive knock on effect to their local economies.

 

 

I don't believe for one minute that Bombardier couldn't match the quality of Siemens or Alstom.

 

Bombardier have to prove themselves rather than moan about losing out to Siemens. They have, as mentioned, gained a smaller train unit construction contract since losing the Cross Rail contract to Siemens. It keeps Bombardier in lesser work at Derby at any rate for a few years by when there will be new contracts let to replace the desperately old (and potentially unsafe) diesel commuter units known as Pacers that were based on Leyland bus chassis. There are lots of them all over the country on local services and they have to be retired by 2020 on EU safety criteria. Bombardier (a Canadian company, lest not forget) has opportunities in UK rail if it does it right.

[trousers]

trousers, is that a

 

 

or a

 

 

or some other sort of face palm?

 

Neither. It was a "there goes yet another headline grabbing OP jumping to conclusions in order to have a dig at the government without researching the background" kinda facepalm.

 

I'd recommend getting some 'putting words in people's mouths' training from Verbal. His success rate is 30% and improving.

 

;-)

[Verbal]

It's amazing how some actual facts and knowledge can transmogrify an irrational knee-jerk discussion into a measured and rational one....

 

But then along comes the Daily Mail:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105670/MoD-rejected-offer-build-Navys-tankers-Britain.html

[trousers]

But then along comes the Daily Mail:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105670/MoD-rejected-offer-build-Navys-tankers-Britain.html

 

How many times do I have to tell you? Stop reading that bloody right wing tripe of a rag! FFS.

[trousers]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Yep, let's give the job to an Italian company on the back of a promise to outsource much of the work to the UK. Afterall, the Italians are great at running a national economy so building a few boats 'on time, on budget' should be child's play for our European cousins...

 

Sigh.

[saintbletch]

Neither. It was a "there goes yet another headline grabbing OP jumping to conclusions in order to have a dig at the government without researching the background" kinda facepalm.

 

I'd recommend getting some 'putting words in people's mouths' training from Verbal. His success rate is 30% and improving.

 

;-)

 

I see.

 

For the record I don't intend putting anything in your mouth trousers - least of all words - well perhaps words are not quite the last thing I would want to put in your mouth. Anyway, that's why I asked if it was another sort of face-palm.

 

I like reading your posts, perhaps I can ask you to post more than just the face-palm in future. It comes across as a bit arrogant and know-it-all. And I know you're not a know-it-all.

[trousers]

I see.

 

For the record I don't intend putting anything in your mouth trousers - least of all words - well perhaps words are not quite the last thing I would want to put in your mouth. Anyway, that's why I asked if it was another sort of face-palm.

 

I like reading your posts, perhaps I can ask you to post more than just the face-palm in future. It comes across as a bit arrogant and know-it-all. And I know you're not a know-it-all.

 

I know.

[Sheaf Saint]

For right or wrong reasons, there's the answer to the OP's question.

 

A point which I made in post #3, but that still wasn't enough to stop nearly two pages of reactionary nonsense and insults.

 

Don't know why I am surprised really.

[TopGun]

A point which I made in post #3, but that still wasn't enough to stop nearly two pages of reactionary nonsense and insults.

 

Don't know why I am surprised really.

 

Well, it's quite entertaining.

[Thedelldays]

A point which I made in post #3, but that still wasn't enough to stop nearly two pages of reactionary nonsense and insults.

 

Don't know why I am surprised really.

oh right...you are right and everyone else is wrong

 

sorry about that

[Sheaf Saint]

oh right...you are right and everyone else is wrong

 

sorry about that

 

No, not everyone. Why do you have to take such a defensive position to everything?

 

I heard Vince Cable talking about it on R4 the other day so posted what I knew, but some posters decided to ignore this very important point and proceeded to apportion blame on the government for not choosing a British bid that was never even presented.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

No, not everyone. Why do you have to take such a defensive position to everything?

 

I heard Vince Cable talking about it on R4 the other day so posted what I knew, but some posters decided to ignore this very important point and proceeded to apportion blame on the government for not choosing a British bid that was never even presented.

 

Before you get too carried away with yourself, it was also pointed out that it was made clear during the tender process that the decision was going overseas. Some then wondered if would have been better for the Govt. to have been more favourable to a domestic build even though it would have been more expensive.

[moonraker]

Before you get too carried away with yourself, it was also pointed out that it was made clear during the tender process that the decision was going overseas. Some then wondered if would have been better for the Govt. to have been more favourable to a domestic build even though it would have been more expensive.

 

The tender did not make it clear that it would be an offshore procurement only that an offshore procurement was possible.