Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Why do I see this as another expensive PFI farce wrapped up under a new name

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Why do I see this as another expensive PFI farce wrapped up under a new name

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Sep 2023, 14:11
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,870 Likes on 1,231 Posts
Why do I see this as another expensive PFI farce wrapped up under a new name

Is it me or are we being hoodwinked again, is this the Navy's version of the Air Tanker? still they do have a helideck.

Although the Government would not be funding the vessels, they would be available as an additional maritime asset with lower operating costs than Royal Navy ships for some tasks. The first of the ships is expected to cost £150 million with the other two expected to cost “significantly” less.
But not ALL tasks.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/de...for-uk-4289125
NutLoose is online now  
Old 13th Sep 2023, 14:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 772
Received 561 Likes on 203 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Is it me or are we being hoodwinked again, is this the Navy's version of the Air Tanker? still they do have a helideck.
But not ALL tasks.
If your intention is to begin a serious discussion, why title the thread like a hysterical political rant?
Video Mixdown is online now  
Old 13th Sep 2023, 14:41
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,709
Received 37 Likes on 23 Posts
I see it differently, it suggests to me that they might free up some RN assets from task they currently do that could be done without military assistance (Aid to civilian powers type work - I have to say I have my doubts about that though)

It doesn't sound like any of the roles for these ships replicate dedicated naval tasking. I am struggling to work out the actual rationale for them, but i don't think it's on the MOD's budget
Davef68 is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2023, 14:46
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 529
Received 171 Likes on 92 Posts
Penny has been banging on about these for years - ever since she was i/c international aid.

That the announcement - which btw is nothing more than a press release trailing the idea and definitively not a funding commitment or build contract announcement - is timed to coincide with London International Shipping Week, screams attempt to generate publicity and interest for these in the maritime industry. It's no coincidence they have a "Donate" crowdfunding function on their page.

If you're interested, it's this lot.....

Britannia Maritime Aid | Ruling the Waves
Not_a_boffin is online now  
The following 3 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
Old 13th Sep 2023, 15:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,693
Received 902 Likes on 527 Posts
Let me just read back your order.

That's one white elephant to go, that will come in significantly over budget and later than promised followed by the cancellation of the other two, mid project, in an effort to cut our losses? Coming right up!
Ninthace is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2023, 16:35
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Peterborough
Age: 70
Posts: 259
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Pity the union flag is upside down!
uffington sb is online now  
Old 13th Sep 2023, 17:42
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 12 miles off
Posts: 357
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
If these boats are built they'll be built under a commercial contract. There will be no mid-contract goal post shifting which is usually the case once un-informed uniformed ruperts get in over their heads with ideas of moving from RN to Bae post contract.
If these boats are built they'll probably be owned and operated by a trusted "partner", think SERCO. They already operate most RN in port support vessels, and a few deep sea vessels.
If these boats are built they'll probably be laid down at a a Romanian or Turkish yard, probably with a massive input from an already respected supplier of govt vessels.
If
If
If
Akrotiri bad boy is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 07:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,438
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
We've been here before - the 6 "Point" Class Ro-Ro class built in 2002-2003 under a PFI deal run by the DLO

Gradually sold off as we pulled out of Afghanistan & Iraq - it was supposed to run to 2024 originally

They were built in Germany and at H&W Belfast - another bit of regional "aid" IIRC
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 09:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,709
Received 37 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
Penny has been banging on about these for years - ever since she was i/c international aid.

That the announcement - which btw is nothing more than a press release trailing the idea and definitively not a funding commitment or build contract announcement - is timed to coincide with London International Shipping Week, screams attempt to generate publicity and interest for these in the maritime industry. It's no coincidence they have a "Donate" crowdfunding function on their page.

If you're interested, it's this lot.....

Britannia Maritime Aid | Ruling the Waves
So completely different from the Voyager or Point class deals, other than they might be looking for some Govt contracts/funding

Re the Points - I think 4 of the original 6 are still on contract, the other two having been released and sold in 2011/12. There is a contract up for grabs for a 5 year Sealift contract from 2025 as a replacement/extension.(most likely an extension as I can't see someone coming in with a lower bid with new ships)
Davef68 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 10:03
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,438
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
yes there are still 4 on contract I think - so that's why they need new ones as the current lease runs out next year

No doubt it can be rolled over for a short time at eye watering cost
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 10:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Just north of Chester, UK.
Posts: 305
Received 15 Likes on 7 Posts
You might get more answers if your thread title did not allude to (P)ayment (P)rotection (I)nsurance and included a question mark at the end.
Captivep is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 10:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just outside Newbury
Age: 55
Posts: 289
Received 29 Likes on 5 Posts
If I can add, from direct personal experience, the 4 extant Strat Ro-Ros have been excellent and what's more, the company providing the service have been one of the most forward-leaning and wilco service providers I have encountered in my world of staff officering. Having been involved in a number of 'partnerships' where the SPs constantly pulled out the contract, Foreland Shipping were a breath of fresh air. As with all defence procurement progs, and that is pan-global examples, we assume all civ providers are there to frustrate and whilst some of the higher profile progs give plenty of evidence, the majority deliver. If we enter contracts looking to mitigate straight away, one will always find fault. A significant issue is that we are pretty bad at requirement writing, added to mission creep and the constant turnover of mil pers, we don't help ourselves.
Maxibon is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Maxibon:
Old 14th Sep 2023, 10:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 529
Received 171 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Davef68
So completely different from the Voyager or Point class deals, other than they might be looking for some Govt contracts/funding

Re the Points - I think 4 of the original 6 are still on contract, the other two having been released and sold in 2011/12. There is a contract up for grabs for a 5 year Sealift contract from 2025 as a replacement/extension.(most likely an extension as I can't see someone coming in with a lower bid with new ships)
Indeed. Completely different. Right this second, nothing to do with Government - or the MoD - because they're not announcing funding in any way shape or form. Penny is essentially doing a presser for BMA.

Four of the six Points are still in service and if you talk to their customer base they've proved very flexible and above all cheap (ETA - see Maxibons post above). The extension is basically covering the period between end of the extant contract and decisions on whether to combine the requirement with a future project (eg MRSS) or to hold a new competition for new builds Ro-Ro that will hit the required emissions control regs now coming into force.

Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 10:49
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 529
Received 171 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
yes there are still 4 on contract I think - so that's why they need new ones as the current lease runs out next year

No doubt it can be rolled over for a short time at eye watering cost
I'd hit reverse gear away from this discussion if you're going to post nonsense......any evidence for either of your assertions on utility or cost?
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 11:48
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,870 Likes on 1,231 Posts
Originally Posted by Captivep
You might get more answers if your thread title did not allude to (P)ayment (P)rotection (I)nsurance and included a question mark at the end.
I have no idea why I typed PPI, I meant to type PFI.... Doh

Corrected by your mod team to read PFI.
T28B

Last edited by T28B; 14th Sep 2023 at 14:17. Reason: Typo now corrected
NutLoose is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2023, 11:55
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Miles away
Posts: 115
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
"They will cover anything from disaster relief to research, ocean clean-up, operations to tackle illegal migration, hospital and medical training capability, as well as communication and accommodation"
Same rubbish we were sold for Britannia - she just never did!.
Procrastinus is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Procrastinus:
Old 14th Sep 2023, 11:55
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,204
Received 401 Likes on 248 Posts
Originally Posted by Maxibon
A significant issue is that we are pretty bad at requirement writing, added to mission creep and the constant turnover of mil pers, we don't help ourselves.
We have a similar problem on this side of the pond. (The requirements creep for the Presidential helicopter mess -discussed on PPRuNe somewhere a while back - is but one example.)
I have lately been reading up on a program I hated when it was initiated in 2002 - the LCS - and the unmitigated mess it created for our fleet in terms of squandered resources. (An old shipmate of mine, RADM Sam Perez, seems to have lost his shot at a third star when he pushed back against that loser of a program about a decade ago).
Here's hoping this program, if it gets off the ground, will be fit for its purpose.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Sep 2023, 07:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,438
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
I'd hit reverse gear away from this discussion if you're going to post nonsense......any evidence for either of your assertions on utility or cost?
I made no comments on utility NAB - in fact many of the "commercial" ships bought or operated have been a good deal - the "Argos" for example soldiers on forever

Most contracts or long leases have a rollover/extension provision - but it never comes cheap in my experience.

Penny M is, as other have pointed out, floating the idea of new vessels - and after 20 years it's probably worth thinking about but I have doubts that this Government is capable of taking any decision quickly
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2023, 08:17
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 859
Received 47 Likes on 22 Posts
They might be expensive, but probably half the price of a 'Military' asset. As we know, anything deemed military, automatically increases the price for like for like items...
Saintsman is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2023, 09:47
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 529
Received 171 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
I made no comments on utility NAB - in fact many of the "commercial" ships bought or operated have been a good deal - the "Argos" for example soldiers on forever

Most contracts or long leases have a rollover/extension provision - but it never comes cheap in my experience.

Penny M is, as other have pointed out, floating the idea of new vessels - and after 20 years it's probably worth thinking about but I have doubts that this Government is capable of taking any decision quickly
​​​​​​
Ahem.

"We've been here before etc.....

Gradually sold off as we pulled out of Afghanistan & Iraq - it was supposed to run to 2024 originally"
Not_a_boffin is online now  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.