UK warships are only built in UK shipyards.

Would you say its good business practice to enter into a contract/negotiations with a supplier who assumes they already have the contract in the back pocket?
 
AndyB1976 said:
Would you say its good business practice to enter into a contract/negotiations with a supplier who assumes they already have the contract in the back pocket?
Click to expand...
Who says they assumed that? Are they the only company on the Clyde with the capability of building them?
If so, they would be right to assume they would get the contract, considering the governments pledge/promise.
Sounds like the Scots could get shafted, so no change there then.
 
We buy American aircraft. Damn stupid idea if you ask me. But we're a nation of shop assistance & bankers, real industry isn't needed anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I wonder about the economics of buying capital items from the 'cheapest' source. So we buy from Italy and save lets say £200M but that means that £3800M leaves the country. If it was manufactured in house the ship builders would be generating employment in the UK with all the relevant taxes going to the treasury, the money would be spent in local businesses etc.

(Please note the above figures are invented for convenience and are not intended to resemble any person living or dead)
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Who says they assumed that? Are they the only company on the Clyde with the capability of building them?
If so, they would be right to assume they would get the contract, considering the governments pledge/promise.
Sounds like the Scots could get shafted, so no change there then.
Click to expand...

I don't know, are they the only company on the Clyde with the capability? I thought they were now the only operation capable in the whole of the UK.

As I said, 'assuming' they have the contract allows BAE to screw the UK tax payer to any tune they wish, otherwise it will only unleash the pent up rage of the rabbid nationalists who are clearly already foaming frenziedly at the mooth.

Still think its good business practice?
 
Peter69 said:
We buy American aircraft. Damn stupid idea if you ask me. But we're a nation of shop assistance & bankers, real industry isn't needed anymore.
Click to expand...
A direct result of Duncan Sandys and the 1957 white paper..
 
What ever happened to TSR2? (Ok, I know but if you don't there's a great documentary on youtube).
BAe aren't too bad. Ive5 worked for them 3 times.

I'm more worried about the Chinese building our nuclear power stations. Have you ever done business with them? The real negotiations start after the contract is signed. And please tell me why you'd want one built cheap!!!
 
I think seek good value for our money.
If our country cannot compete with Italy or Germany or France for that matter we should be asking why.
 
Last edited:
It's a press report, that doesn't tell anyone the whole story. The Head of the Royal Navy has said. MMmmm...ok, except the Head of the Royal Navy doesn't do the ordering of warships, the MOD does.
It's Government policy to order only warships built in the UK, so that's where they'll be built.
If BAE do what they always do, have the taxpayer over, then they don't get the order to design. If that happens then yes, the design work might well go to Italy, but even BAE aren't stupid enough to not bid at a price that ensures they'll get the contract to build them, given there's no other work for their yards.
 
ST4 said:
And chose foreign workers over British ones...
Click to expand...

Yes. Spin it for your agenda if you like.

It's a nice idea to use our defence budget to subsidise jobs but the costs of these projects are enormous and saving (say) 10% could be a hospital or two.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Yes. Spin it for your agenda if you like.

It's a nice idea to use our defence budget to subsidise jobs but the costs of these projects are enormous and saving (say) 10% could be a hospital or two.
Click to expand...

I have no agenda, but it's an emotive subject and a big job boost for an area in Britain that could really do with it. I think we ought to have these ships built in Britain and give British people jobs and a future in an area of Britain that needs it more than most. Given the whole yes/no it's also political dynamite that any government would be fully to ignore.
 
Peter69 said:
We buy American aircraft. Damn stupid idea if you ask me. But we're a nation of shop assistance & bankers, real industry isn't needed anymore.
Click to expand...


More compacted than just buying aircraft from the USA

BAE Samlesbury employs over 3,000 people, builds the fuselage and other parts for theEurofighter Typhoon and other aircraft including the American F-35 Lightning II and theT-45 Goshawk


As for a nation of shop assistance, we just happen to have the 2nd largest aerospace industry in the world.
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
Yes. Spin it for your agenda if you like.

It's a nice idea to use our defence budget to subsidise jobs but the costs of these projects are enormous and saving (say) 10% could be a hospital or two.
Click to expand...

The savings would have to be pretty impressive to justify putting up to eleven thousand people on the dole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
acetone said:
More compacted than just buying aircraft from the USA

BAE Samlesbury employs over 3,000 people, builds the fuselage and other parts for theEurofighter Typhoon and other aircraft including the American F-35 Lightning II and theT-45 Goshawk


As for a nation of shop assistance, we just happen to have the 2nd largest aerospace industry in the world.
Click to expand...

Many military procurement contracts have clauses stating that the winning overseas contractor must spend a certain %'age of the contract with suppliers from the awarding nation. For the life of me i can't remember the particular technical term, [edit - found it, the term is 'offset agreement'] but i am sure someone else will have a better memory than me. It will very likely be that if the contract is awarded overseas that a lot of the money will eventually be spent here.

Without spending a lot of time looking at the ins and outs of the matter i am unsure if buying these ships overseas is a good or a bad thing. It may well be that it will better to build in the UK. But if it costs billions more to do so, and we are just postponing the inevitable death of an industry, it will be better to bite the bullet now and spend those billions on investment in key future industries that will benefit our country significantly in the long run.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blank_Canvas said:
Sadly nobody completed the tender for the new tankers on time so they are being built in Korea.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware, but we should have. Its in the interests of our future industry, employment that we invest in building things here and our people.

The industry won't die unless we allow it to. We can build things in Britain, we have the space and people to do it.
 
Rapscallion said:
Many military procurement contracts have clauses stating that the winning overseas contractor must spend a certain %'age of the contract with suppliers from the awarding nation. For the life of me i can't remember the particular technical term, [edit - found it, the term is 'offset agreement'] but i am sure someone else will have a better memory than me. It will very likely be that if the contract is awarded overseas that a lot of the money will eventually be spent here.
Click to expand...


Without wanting to spark up the whole euro-debate thing again, does anybody know if such an agreement would actually be legal under current EU law? I can see an argument that stating they have to be built in the UK could amount to illegal aid.

ST4 said:
The industry won't die unless we allow it to. We can build things in Britain, we have the space and people to do it.
Click to expand...

It's a bit like Woolworths though isn't it? Everybody kind of liked them and most people were sad when they closed down. But not sad enough to actually go in and spend money so they had a viable business. If your entire industry depends on one order then you really want to make sure you get that order.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Without wanting to spark up the whole euro-debate thing again, does anybody know if such an agreement would actually be legal under current EU law? I can see an argument that stating they have to be built in the UK could amount to illegal aid.


Click to expand...


I have worked on projects in Holland where a UK company has had to spend a %'age of the contract value there, so I am pretty sure that it wouldn't be breaking any EU legislation.
 
Wouldn't be a wise decision with the elections coming up and after the Scottish referendum promises.
 
Laudrup said:
Wouldn't be a wise decision with the elections coming up and after the Scottish referendum promises.
Click to expand...
Countdown to crass politicing by Government minister denying the rumour and assuring the electorate that no Conservative government would permit such a decision..

10.. 9.. 8.. ..
 
I think this all smoke and mirrors from the pro-independence lobby. You can't promise any yard it's going to get the work. It's got to go out out for tender. To my knowledge this process haven't even started yet. Plenty of other places it could be built in the the UK Cammell Laird, Liverpool, BAE, Portsmouth. AP, Newcastle. The Clyde is not potentially even the best option.
 
UK company can't provide a competitive tender? Give it to the supplier that can do the best job for the right price.

It's not right that tax payers money should be spent subsidising industries living off the state. They should compete on their own merits or bugger off.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I think this all smoke and mirrors from the pro-independence lobby. You can't promise any yard it's going to get the work. It's got to go out out for tender. To my knowledge this process haven't even started yet. Plenty of other places it could be built in the the UK Cammell Laird, Liverpool, BAE, Portsmouth. AP, Newcastle. The Clyde is not potentially even the best option.
Click to expand...

It's not about the best option, it's about politics.
 
Alastair said:
Countdown to crass politicing by Government minister denying the rumour and assuring the electorate that no Conservative government would permit such a decision..

10.. 9.. 8.. ..
Click to expand...

You could be right. It might be a wise move though, agitate the locals about something that you've invented and then ride in to the 'rescue' saving the deal making you look like you're standing up for the little people.
 
AHILL said:
Really?

where did you get that pearl of wisdom from Steve?
Click to expand...

Skilled manual jobs, tradesmen (electricians, welders etc) managerial roles are all reasonably well paid. These people are net tax payers and will go from paying their way to the dole. This is a British industry with British workers and it should go to them not a contract overseas.

It's an outrage.
 
Sadly nobody completed the tender for the new tankers on time so they are being built in Korea.
Click to expand...

They aren't warships though, they are support vessels. Korea could build then in a quarter of the time, and at half the price, which is why Korea has a shipbuilding industry that is thriving and makes a profit, and why we can only build warships for ourselves.

Had the self centered Unions not gone far to far in the past, we'd still have a shipbuilding industry, but thats a different subject.
 
Brilliant, politicians overruling the experts once again.

And i don't think the latest news is as clear a commitment as people may think. the spokesman said the policy remains the same. Now for those who have listened to more than a few minutes of politician-speak, you will know a policy is a long way away from a firm commitment or guarantee. Time will tell.
 
Bernie174 said:
They aren't warships though, they are support vessels. Korea could build then in a quarter of the time, and at half the price, which is why Korea has a shipbuilding industry that is thriving and makes a profit, and why we can only build warships for ourselves.

Had the self centered Unions not gone far to far in the past, we'd still have a shipbuilding industry, but thats a different subject.
Click to expand...

They might only be a support vessel Bernie but they can carry a Royal Marine Protection team that can be deployed by helicopter or boat. Helicopter also has an anti submarine or ship capability. In addition they have an anti aircraft capability (phalanx etc).
 
Rapscallion said:
Brilliant, politicians overruling the experts once again.

And i don't think the latest news is as clear a commitment as people may think. the spokesman said the policy remains the same. Now for those who have listened to more than a few minutes of politician-speak, you will know a policy is a long way away from a firm commitment or guarantee. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

The politicians need to be reelected, the others giving their opinion usually don't. It wouldn't have made political sense with the Scottish referendum vows to have pulled the rug from under the Clyde.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top