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.

But not ALL tasks.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/de...for-uk-4289125

If your intention is to begin a serious discussion, why title the thread like a hysterical political rant?

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

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

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!

Pity the union flag is upside down!

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

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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 have no idea why I typed PPI, I meant to type PFI.... Doh

Corrected by your mod team to read PFI.
T28B

"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!.

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.

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

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...

​​​​​​
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"