Back to news

May 8, 2020 | International, Naval

Britain to restart competition for fleet solid support ships, but who’s allowed to bid?

By: Andrew Chuter

LONDON — Britain is set to restart a competition later this year to build up to three large logistics ships to support deployment of the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier fleet, having suspended the procurement effort last year.

Ministry of Defence officials are refusing to give an exact date for the restart, despite Defence Secretary Ben Wallace recently telling the parliamentary Defence Committee that he thought it would take place in September.

“It will be, I think, in September, but I can correct that if I am wrong. We are hopefully going to reissue the competition sooner rather than later,” he told lawmakers.

A Defence Committee spokeswomen said the panel is still waiting on a concrete date from the MoD.

“Following the session with the secretary of state for defense, Ben Wallace, the committee wrote to the department asking for clarification on a number of issues, including the timing of the Fleet Solid Support program. The committee has not yet heard back from the Ministry of Defence,” she said.

The competition to build up to three 40,000-ton vessels in a requirement known locally as the Fleet Solid Support program was expected to have been worth as much as £1.5 billion (U.S. $1.9 billion) at the time the competition was unexpectedly terminated Nov. 5.

The MoD said at the time that it took the action due to a failure to find a value-for-money solution in negotiations with shipbuilders. In his evidence to the committee, Wallace described the program as “ effectively delinquent.”

The warships, which will be operated by the Royal Navy's logistics supplier, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, are a key element of Britain's plan to replace aging Fort-class ships with modern support ships to supply ammunition, dry stores and spares to aircraft carrier strike groups and other maritime task groups.

The program had been mired in controversy since the Conservative government opted to open the design to international competition, rather that adopt a “Buy British” policy. The move caused an outcry from politicians, industry and unions who believed naval logistics vessels should be included in the list of warships, like frigates and destroyers, that are off limits to foreign shipbuilders.

Ministers and procurement officials argued they had no choice but to follow European Union competition rules, which say logistics ships are not warships and are therefore subject to regulations requiring open competition.

Critics pointed out that other European Union member states have previously blocked foreign bids for similar ships.

Industry executives suspected the the cash-strapped MoD was running an open competition to keep the procurement cost to a minimum, following in the example of its purchase of four new fleet oilers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary built by South Korea's Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering.

The U.K. has now left the European Union but is in a transitory period where trade rules still apply. That period is currently set to end Dec. 31.

The MoD declined to answer Defense News' question on whether the new competition will be held under EU rules, or whether the U.K. will exempt itself from the rule, opening up the possibility for a British-only bid.

Defence Procurement Minister James Heappey told Parliament this year that the MoD is reviewing the procurement strategy, the requirements and the schedule ahead of the competition restart.

MoD officials said this week that the review is still underway.

Defense consultant Howard Wheeldon of Wheeldon Strategic Advisory said with the new coronavirus taking its toll on the country's economy, there should be no question that the procurement is limited to local business.

“Having pulled the plug on the original plan, and with potential new U.K. players back in the fray, such as Harland and Wolff, the MoD would risk a very damaging backlash if it tried to do another foreign deal — and rightly so,” he said. “Buying on the basis of lowest cost is rarely the right solution for defense equipment procurement. The new world order that I see emerging elsewhere allows freedom to put national interests first. Thus for the U.K., the right decision on future solid support ships is that these vessels should be British-designed and -built.”

What about the original competition?

The MoD brought the original competition to a close on the eve of the Conservative government calling a general election for Dec. 12, 2019. Campaigners took that as a sign the government was moving toward a “Buy British” policy.

Their position was reinforced last autumn when the MoD published an updated, independent review of the nation's national shipbuilding strategy, which advocated for a policy change that would see logistics ships and other types of vessels added to the list warships closed to foreign bids.

The review, conducted by former shipbuilding chief executive John Parker, said Britain was not currently adopting “the right strategic approach” in allowing ships like the fleet solid support vessels to be built overseas.

By the time the MoD suspended the competition, two of the five short-listed bidders remained: Navantia of Spain; and Team UK, a consortium of BAE Systems, Babcock International, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce.

A BAE Systems spokesperson told Defense News on Wednesday that the company is waiting for the MoD to show its hand on the procurement process, and in the meantime remains focused on its commitment to build Type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy.

“We are engaged with our U.K. partners and await guidance from the MoD on next steps in the procurement process for the Fleet Solid Support program. We have a long-term commitment to shipbuilding in the U.K. with continuity of production in Glasgow through into the 2030s, and we are focused on delivering our existing commitments,” the spokesperson said.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/05/07/britain-to-restart-competition-for-fleet-solid-support-ships-but-whos-allowed-to-bid/

On the same subject

  • U.S. Air Force Faces Next-Generation Engine Funding Crisis

    September 24, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    U.S. Air Force Faces Next-Generation Engine Funding Crisis

    Adaptive engine technology faces its first major funding crisis as a 13-year-long, $4 billion investment by the U.S. Defense Department approaches a key milestone. Senate appropriators have threatened to reduce the fiscal 2020 budget for the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) by nearly one-third. The $270 million cut would be “pretty devastating,” says David Tweedie, general manager of GE's advanced combat engine program. https://aviationweek.com/defense/us-air-force-faces-next-generation-engine-funding-crisis

  • Navy Awards Ingalls 6 Destroyers, Bath Iron Works 4 in Multiyear Deal; Ingalls to Build Both 2018 Ships

    September 28, 2018 | International, Naval

    Navy Awards Ingalls 6 Destroyers, Bath Iron Works 4 in Multiyear Deal; Ingalls to Build Both 2018 Ships

    By: Megan Eckstein The Navy awarded six of its next Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to Ingalls Shipbuilding and four to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, in a combined $9-billion purchase right at the end of the fiscal year. The two companies had been competing for work in a five-year multiyear procurement (MYP) deal that would cover at least 10 Flight III destroyers. The contracts span Fiscals Years 2018 – which ends on Sunday – through 2022. “These contract awards are further evidence of the Navy's continued delivery of lethal capacity to the nation with a sense of urgency while ensuring best value for the taxpayer,” Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said in a Navy news release. “The Navy saved $700 million for these 10 ships by using multiyear procurement contracts rather than a single year contracting approach. We also have options for an additional five DDG 51s to enable us to continue to accelerate delivery of the outstanding DDG 51 Flight III capabilities to our Naval force. We executed this competition on a quick timeline that reflects the urgency in which the Navy and our industry partners are operating to ensure we meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy.” Ingalls Industries' contract is worth $5.1 billion and covers two ships in FY 2018 and one a year in FY 2019 through 2022. It also includes options for additional ships, which may be subject to a future competition with BIW. Bath Iron Works' contract is valued at $3.9 billion and covers one ship a year in 2019 through 2022 – and none in the short-term in 2018. According to the Navy statement, “each shipbuilder's contract contains options for additional ships in FY18/19/20/21/22, providing the Navy and/or Congress flexibility to increase DDG 51 build rates above the 10 MYP ships in the Navy's FY 2018 budget request, if appropriated.” Lawmakers in the House and Senate armed services committees have pushed for faster acquisition of the destroyers, and in the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act they authorized the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract with the two builders for as many as 15 destroyers – three a year, compared to the previous shipbuilding rate of two a year. The lawmakers on the appropriations committees only provided money to buy two ships in 2018, but they did fund three DDGs in the 2019 spending bill, which the Senate passed last week and the House passed this week. It is unclear if that third ship in FY 2019 would have to be competitively awarded or if the Navy would be allowed to select a shipyard based on schedule, performance or other factors – the contract announcement notes the options “may” be subject to a competitive process. Program officials had been mum during the competition on their acquisition strategy and how to handle options for additional ships. All the ships covered under this pair of contracts is for the Flight III configuration, which is built around the powerful AN/SPY-6(v) Air and Missile Defense Radar. “This procurement will efficiently provide Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability for our future fleet while strengthening our critical shipbuilding and defense industrial base,” DDG-51 program manager Capt. Casey Moton said in the news release. “The Navy is proud to be working alongside the dedicated shipbuilders at BIW and Ingalls to continue to deliver these warships to the fleet.” Moton told USNI News in a December 2017 interview that the contracts would be structured in such a way that additional ships – beyond the previous two-a-year rate – could be added easily if the Navy deemed it a priority in its spending request or if lawmakers wanted to add in more funding. With this contract award, the two shipyards – who, for a time after the production line had restarted remained neck-and-neck on contract awards and deliveries – will further diverge. Ingalls Shipbuilding was awarded a contract in June 2017 to begin work on its first Flight III ship, DDG-125. Two months later, Bath Iron Works was awarded a contract that would have the yard build DDG-126 with a Flight III configuration but DDG-127 in the older Flight IIA design, like the rest of the ships in the previous multiyear procurement contract. Though Navy and congressional officials would not comment while the competition was occurring, Bath Iron Works had been challenged to balance the Arleigh Burke-class program and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program. Keeping DDG-127 – which Congress incrementally funded in FY 2016 and 2016 – at the Flight IIA design would help ease the yard into Flight III production. The yard will not be building any new destroyers in FY 2018, according to the contract announcement, whereas Ingalls will take on two Flight III ships. https://news.usni.org/2018/09/27/navy-awards-ingalls-6-destroyers-bath-iron-works-4-in-multiyear-deal-ingalls-to-build-both-fy-2018-ships

  • Drones militaires : la Cour des comptes pointe les échecs français

    February 26, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Drones militaires : la Cour des comptes pointe les échecs français

    Projets européens avortés, achats de matériels américains, retards multiples : les armées peinent à s'équiper de systèmes aériens téléopérés. Par Guerric Poncet Dès 1964, les armées françaises ont expérimenté de premiers modèles de drones. Mais plus d'un demi-siècle après, force est de constater que la France est à la traîne, et pas qu'un peu. Si on la compare avec des États de même rang militaire, comme le Royaume-Uni par exemple, le constat est sans appel : Paris aligne cinq drones Reaper (armés depuis fin 2019) et quelques dizaines de drones tactiques et légers, là où Londres dispose de dix drones Reaper (armés depuis 2007), d'une cinquantaine de drones tactiques et de plusieurs centaines de drones légers. Dans son rapport public 2020, la Cour des comptes pointe cette défaillance majeure, expliquant que « la France a tardé à tirer les conséquences de l'intérêt des drones dans les opérations militaires modernes ». Pour les sages, « l'effet conjugué des mésententes entre industriels, du manque de vision prospective des armées et des changements de pied des pouvoirs publics ont eu pour conséquences, dommageables et coûteuses, de prolonger la durée de vie de matériels vieillissants ». Ils ont aussi « conduit à l'acquisition de matériels américains aux conditions d'utilisation contraignantes et restrictives ». Ainsi, les premiers drones Reaper acquis en 2013 par la France pour répondre à l'urgence opérationnelle dans la bande sahélo-saharienne ont été prélevés sur des lignes d'assemblage destinées aux forces américaines. Ils ont donc fait l'objet de restrictions d'utilisation drastiques qui ont beaucoup compliqué leur début de vie opérationnelle. Par exemple, leur déploiement hors d'Afrique subsaharienne étant verrouillé, « pour rapatrier un vecteur aérien de Niamey à Cognac (où se situe l'escadron de drones 1/33 Belfort, qui opère les Reaper), un accord américain préalable, attendu de longs mois, a été nécessaire », racontent les sages. 2 % du budget des programmes d'armement « Les investissements liés aux programmes d'acquisition se sont accélérés ces dernières années, surtout depuis 2015, mais restent encore limités (...) en termes d'efficacité et de coûts », soulignent les sages, en référence notamment aux longues négociations entre les industriels européens et le ministère des Armées, qui juge les programmes excessivement coûteux et répète qu'il ne signera pas tant que les tarifs n'auront pas été revus nettement à la baisse. Mais l'appétit des industriels n'est pas le seul problème : « rapportés aux investissements annuels du ministère des Armées dans les programmes d'armement sur la période récente, les montants totaux dédiés aux drones n'ont jamais représenté plus de 2 % de l'effort global », explique aussi le rapport. Pour ne pas être éjecté des grandes puissances aériennes mondiales, il va donc falloir changer de braquet sur les drones. « L'important investissement, de l'ordre de 800 millions d'euros, réalisé pour acheter des drones américains, n'est que la première étape d'efforts financiers conséquents à venir », prévient le texte, qui pointe en particulier le retard pris par la Marine nationale dans le domaine des drones aériens, en raison des arbitrages effectués par le ministère notamment. « Les besoins (de la marine, NDLR) sont portés par la surveillance maritime de la deuxième plus vaste zone économique exclusive (ZEE) au monde, après celle des États-Unis », rappelle la Cour, qui espère l'aboutissement rapide d'un « système de drones tactiques à décollage et atterrissage vertical ». Les marins devraient être équipés d'un drone par navire d'ici 2030, mais en l'absence d'un programme suffisamment avancé à dix ans de cette échéance, la promesse semble difficile à tenir... sauf à acheter, de nouveau, hors d'Europe. « Des résistances d'ordre culturel » chez les aviateurs Le rapport relève aussi les nombreux échecs de projets européens de drones MALE (moyenne altitude, longue endurance) comme EuroMALE, Advanced UAV/Talarion ou Telemos, et les « difficultés qui s'amoncellent » pour le nouveau programme MALE en cours de développement. Pour les quatre pays partenaires (Allemagne, Espagne, France et Italie), ce dernier projet « présente des enjeux stratégiques qui vont largement au-delà de l'acquisition des matériels », car son succès ouvrira ou fermera les vannes de la coopération — et donc de la souveraineté – européenne dans le domaine. Pour le ministère des Armées français, les négociations doivent être bouclées début 2020, pour une notification du contrat mi-2020, car la situation est critique. « Il serait difficilement compréhensible qu'en 2028, les armées françaises ne soient pas dotées d'équipements aussi performants que ceux d'ores et déjà disponibles sur le marché », martèle le ministère dans sa réponse, publiée en annexe du rapport de la Cour des comptes. Enfin, les sages pointent des problèmes qui ne sont pas directement liés aux programmes d'armement, dont « des résistances d'ordre culturel, en particulier au sein de l'armée de l'air, dans la mesure où les drones bousculent les équilibres actuels qui placent le pilote au cœur du dispositif aérien ». Avec les restrictions budgétaires, les heures de vol d'entraînement se font rares, et les missions opérationnelles sont méticuleusement réparties entre les pilotes au sein de l'armée de l'air comme de l'aéronavale : ils craignent logiquement que l'arrivée massive de drones n'empiète sur leurs platebandes. https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/drones-militaires-la-cour-des-comptes-pointe-les-echecs-francais-25-02-2020-2364337_23.php

All news