A Private Finance Initiative provides the UK Ministry of Defence with four roll-on, roll-off (Ro-Ro) ships available to deliver military vehicles and other equipment around the globe. Here we look at these ships, plans to replace them and their tasks, including recent work to reinforce the British Army in Europe.
Background
The 1998 Defence Review identified a need for six Ro-Ro vessels to provide logistic support for Joint Rapid Reaction Forces and MoD freighting tasks. Reliance on ad-hoc charters or Ships Taken Up From Trade (STUFT) was seen as both expensive in peacetime and uncertain during times of conflict especially as the UK merchant fleet continued to shrink. Designated project SR(Sea) 7047, in October 2000, the MOD signed a 25-year contract with AWSR Shipping to provide six vessels, funded through a £1.25Bn Private Finance Initiative. AWSR was responsible for constructing the ships and providing all-British crews that are eligible to be called out as Sponsored Royal Navy Reservists (under the Reserve Forces Act 1996) if operational requirements demanded.
AWSR was a consortium formed specifically for the contract by Andrew Weir, Houlder Offshore Engineering Ltd, James Fisher & Sons plc and Bibby Line Ltd. It is now known as now Foreland Shipping Limited (FSL). In 2013, James Fisher plc sold its 25% shareholding in Foreland to the Hadley Shipping Group which now owns FSL in its entirety. The PFI agreement allowed FSL to generate revenue by employing two of the ships in the commercial market while ensuring that they are were available at 30 days’ notice for defence tasking in an emergency. The remaining four vessels were allocated to routine transport duties but remain property of FSL and the MoD is not under obligation to buy them when the contract expires at the end of 2024. The Treasury is the insurer of last resort for the ships that may have to enter war zones where normal marine insurance would be invalid.
On 23rd February 2022 in response to the growing Russian threat to European NATO parners, British Army vehicles were loaded onto FSL ships MV Hurst Point and MV Eddystone at Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre. They were delivered to Paldiski, Estonia less than a week later. The footage shows vehicles including MLRS, AS90, CARRV, and Warrior IFV which will join with 1,000 troops, Challenger 2 tanks and other armoured vehicles of the Royal Welsh battlegroup deployed from Germany.
Getting to the Point
The vessels were ordered from, Flensburger Schiffbau Gesellschaft (FSG) in northern Germany. FSG built 4 of the ships, all named after British lighthouses: Hurst Point (Delivered Aug 2002), Eddystone (Nov 2002), Longstone (Jan 2003) and Beachy Head (Aug 2003). Harland and Wolff, Belfast was subcontracted to build two ships; Hartland Point (Dec 2002) and Anvil Point (March 2003). Although the firm remains active in ship repair and offshore energy, Anvil Point was the last complete ship to be built by H&W to date. Construction and delivery was exceptionally efficient and all six ships were in service by 2003, around 18 months ahead of the original schedule.
The PFI partnership with FSL has been described by the NAO as “extremely effective” and the ships have proved generally very reliable in meeting the MoD’s logistic needs, reportedly no one has come across any defence equipment too large to be moved in one of the ships. In a classic ‘salami slicing’ move to save money, two of the ships, Beachy Head and Longstone, which offered a measure of spare capacity and resilience were released from the PFI and sold in the wake of the 2010 SDSR.
-
MV Hartland Point embedded with the RN Cougar 2012 deployment. Here unloading vehicles via mexeflote onto Royal Marine Landing Craft. Occasional direct involvement by these ships in naval exercises or deployments has become less frequent over the last decade. -
The rear upper deck of MV Hartland Point packed with vehicles during Cougar 2012. -
Midsection of the upper deck showing the wide variety of stores that can be carried. TEU containers, RM Offshore Raiding Craft, a RLC Combat Support Boat and Oshkosh wheeled tanker vehicles. -
The view for the stern of the upper deck – MV Hartland Point transporting US Army vehicles to Latvia in 2017. (Photo: US Department of Defence) -
MV Beachy Head in Helsinki, 2009. She was released from the PFI contract in 2011 and re-maned MV Williamsborg. She is now named MV Massimo Mura and is operating around Italy. -
MV Longstone shortly after delivery – seen here on charter to the civilian company Transfennica operating a RoRo cargo ferry service in the Baltic Sea. She was sold by FSL in 2011 and re-named MV Finnmerchant (Photo: Wolfgang Hägele, 2003). -
The Flensburger Ro Ro
Sometimes referred to as the “Point-class” after the lead ship, they are painted in a distinctive green, white and yellow livery and with handsome lines, the vessels are easy to recognise. The vessels are based on the Flensburger Ro-Ro 2700 series design, FSG having already built several examples for other customers prior to the order from AWSR. The recent construction experience and their relatively simple design meant the ships were built in an average of just 18 months, a world away from the demands of complex warship projects.
With an overall length of 193m and able to carry 13,000 tonnes of cargo they are large vessels. Their three spacious vehicle decks have a total of 2,606 line-meters available, ie. they could accommodate a column of vehicles that would measure over 2.5 km if lined up nose to tail. Vehicles are typically embarked and disembarked over the very large hydraulically-operated stern ramp rated to 77 tonnes, although they do also have a cargo door and side ramp rated to 68 tonnes on the starboard side. The stern ramp has twelve 2.7m wide ‘fingers’ that are individually raised and allow loading using link spans that are narrower than the width of the main ramp. A 40-tonne pedestal crane allows to the self-loading or unloading of deck cargo.
They are propelled by two MaK M43 diesel engines driving two controllable-pitch propellors. Hurst Point, Anvil Point and Hartland Point have 7M43 engines and a maximum speed of 18 knots. Beachy Head, Eddystone and Longstone have the more powerful 9M43 engines and are able to reach 21 knots. The typical cruising range is about 12,000nm and the ship has two heeling pumps and flume roll stabilisation tanks but no active stabilisers. The ships are highly automated and can be run by just 12 people, the standard crew numbers 18-22 and they typically serve on board for 90 days before being relieved. Crew accommodation is on two decks below the bridge in comfortable twin or single berth cabins. There are also six twin-berth cabins to accommodate up to 12 passengers or vehicle drivers.
Point-Class-Ro-Ro-ship-PlanFlexible friends
A typical vehicle load for the British Army might comprise up to 220 of all types which can include Challenger 2 tanks, Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV), Spartan and FV432 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC), Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicles (CARRV), AS90 self-propelled howitzer, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and a mix of smaller logistic support vehicles and trailers.
Up to 668 TEU containers can be embarked. 72 TEUs can be placed in the lower cargo deck, 272 double stacked on the main deck and another 324 double stacked on the upper deck. There are reefer plugs available to support up to 30 refrigerated containers. In practice, cargos are usually a mix of vehicles and TEUs and there is great flexibility in what can be carried.
Since entering service in 2003 the six, and then four ships, have been kept busy on MoD tasking around the globe. The main role has been transporting equipment for the Army in Germany but in recent years there has been increased activity supporting the UK force’s presence in the Baltic States. Besides logistic support for European operations, the FSL vessels are important enablers for UK overseas military presence in Gibraltar, Cyprus and in the Middle East.
The ships also take on the role of the Falkland Islands Resupply Ship (FIRS). For the 8,000 mile round trip, a ship leaves approximately every six weeks from Marchwood, stopping at Ascension Island before arriving at Mare Harbour on the Falklands. FIRS delivers supplies such as food, large mail parcels, vehicles and other stores for the forces based at the Mount Pleasant Complex (MPC). The service also supports the wider Falklands community and is an essential link in the logistics chain for these remote Islands. On returning to the UK, the ship carries containers of wool, the island’s main export.
The 4 ships are also nominally available to the NATO Sealift Consortium which includes 11 European nations. With 4 ships (totalling 9,200 lane-meters) the UK is the largest single contributor to the consortium which has a total of 15 ships and a capacity of about 33,700 lm.
-
MV Hartland Point employed as the Falkland Islands Resupply Ship (FIRS) arrives in the islands on another delivery run, Aug 2021. (Photo: BFSAI) -
MV Hartland Point and MV Anvil Point alongside the Falklands Jetty at Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre, Southmpton, July 2020 (Photos: Andy Amor). -
The Falklands Jetty at Marchwood is 169m long and 33m wide, it has had two dolphin extensions and is capable of accepting ships up to 203m in length. The ships are loaded via the linkspan at the stern. Right: MV Hurst Point alongside, August 2021 (Photos: Andy Amor). -
MV Hurst point delivers equipment to Greece during NATO exercise Noble Jump, 2017. -
US Army tanks delivered to Latvia by MV Hartland Point in 2017. -
MV Eddystone delivers French Army equipment to Paldiski, Estonia as part of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence, March 2021. -
MV Eddystone operating with HMS Ocean during the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) (Maritime) deployment in 2016. -
MV Anvil Point on her way into Devonport, May 2021 (Photo: Kevin Kelway).
Future strategic sealift
In October 2021 the MoD issued a Request for Information (RFI) to interested parties for an “interim” Strategic Sealift (SSL-I) capability that will begin in January 2025 and run for at least 5 years. A more detailed Prior Information Notice (PIN) was issued in January 2022 to assist industry in preparing bids for the contract. The incumbent, FSL should be in pole position to win a contract extension but this may be dependent on how much needs to be spent on the existing vessels to extend their lives for another 5 years. There are other commercial operators with Ro-Ro fleets that could compete, although some adaptations to standard merchant vessels would have to be made to meet MoD requirements. The stipulation that the entire crew must be British would also add an overhead that many commercial operators are unused to, typically reliant on cheaper foreign labour.
The interim arrangement allows the MoD to put off the complete replacement of the service for a while but a permanent solution will have to be ready by 2030. The contract signed in 2000 is an example of a broadly successful PFI that has not excessively gouged the taxpayer but there is not the same political enthusiasm of the Blair government to embrace this method of funding anymore. Either a substantial sum must be put into the budget line for new ships or there will be a return to the less efficient ad-hoc chartering arrangements. Construction of new vessels funded by the Treasury, even if owned by a commercial entity, will also be more controversial than in the past if done in foreign shipyards. It will be instructive to see if there is any mention of this project in the National Shipbuilding Refresh document due to be published imminently.
The poor performance of the Russian Army in Ukraine so far appears to be in large part down to logistic failures, a powerful reminder of the importance of sustaining troops on the frontline with food, fuel and ammunition. UK strategic sealift ships have a very low public profile and are even less well known than the Royal Fleet Auxiliary but are critical to positioning and maintaining support to the British Army and NATO partners. The dramatic change in the strategic situation is likely to demand increasing reinforcement of land forces on the continent and a growing need for sealift vessels.
“The poor performance of the Russian Army in Ukraine so far appears to be in large part down to logistic failures, a powerful reminder of the importance of sustaining troops on the frontline with food, fuel and ammunition.”
Exactly this.
“3rd February 2022 in response to the growing Russian threat to European NATO parners, British Army vehicles were loaded onto FLS ships MV Hurst Point and MV Eddystone at Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre. They were delivered to Paldiski, Estonia less than a week later.”
And exactly that.
Any pivot to the Far East post the Ukraine conflict will require more transport than is available now.
Whenever I hear “Beachy Head” I can’t help but think about that old Amiga/DOS game “Cannon Fodder”.
The British public have, generally speaking, forgotten the importance of the Royal Navy when it comes to the future of their country and they never knew of, or have ever understood the importance of the RFA to the Royal Navy. On the other hand politicians do understand just how unimportant, in terms of votes, it is to maintain a credible Armed Force. . So what chance does the Strategic Sealift stand of replacing the Point Class ships, absolutely none- unless they are built as a political gesture on the Clyde/Forth or in Belfast for a disgraceful sum. Logistics are everything, anyone disagree?
Vlad The Mad might have a view on logistics?
I think that’s a bit negative. If things are so bad why did a class get built in the first place? At the time of build this was a “new” capability being brought in house.
Not really. Tony Blairs Private Finance Initiative cost the country dearly, especially when it came to building hospitals, but in the case of the six Point Class ships the country got exactly what had been asking for, on time, and at a good price. Of course the Governments since then, none of whom have the faintest idea of maritime strategy, and the general public who are also sea-blind, had no problem with the disposal of two of these ships, and a Bay Class, plus the manpower that went with them.
The critics of P.F.I. are many and they make a case; however, in 1997 over half of the N.H.S. hospitals were older than the National Health service established in 1948. In 1993 when Labour said it would raise Income Tax by one penny to fund a national hospital re-building programme it lost. The alternative to P.F.I. is raising taxes and no government that wishes to hold power or gain office can present any sort of case for tax increases the public won’t reject. P.F.I. has given the country new hospitals and potential.
The sea lift capacity argument is part of a wider problem of selling defence to the public. In the wake of the rape of Ukraine and easier task. I am for building in the U.K. as part of a national strategy. Better late than never, but this is very late. What else to do?
I disagree, PFI is in essence simply an expensive form of government debt that is conveniently kept off-balance sheet. It’s demonstrably much cheaper overall for HMG to just borrow the money directly, even Tony’s favorite audit commission say’s so. There are valid questions about sustainable spending and national debt, but tax policy does not come into this argument.
I get to see one of them alongside here on a regular basis. They are well used which is obvious from the rather battered paintwork and rust that is evident on them.
Operational not Decorational…
well get your paint brush out then and stop talking about it.
99 million to paint them no doubt!
Gunbuster is an Impressionist?
2030 again….
In 2030 we are going to have an outstanding army, navy and airforce, bristling with (insert sound byte here), but sadly more likely to be a chest with IOUs in it.
AA
Delayed to 2040! We need new gear yesterday! We need to expand the British millitary again, too many cuts have happened!. And Sending men into a potential war zone with sub par gear isn’t right! Iraq war did help get better and urgent gear but not enough. Warriors should be upgraded and Decision on Ajax ASAP, boxer bought in original numbers with something better than gpmgs,As90s numbers have been cut but a replacement will be needed and the Korean k9 thunder looks good maybe we should buy more from them, they do make good stuff these days and allot of it, their military’s far more powerful than ours! Nukes obv not included.
We need to slash foreign aid. Give only to countries in the Commonwealth who vote for us in international fora and then only for specific programmes time limited and fully audited. The money ‘saved’* can then be spent on urgent requirements here at home, including help for ex-services.
This may be of interest to everyone here. The Defence equipment plan 2021-2031
Microsoft Word – 20220215 EP21 draft content v1.1 FINAL OS (publishing.service.gov.uk)
ITS FSL NOT FLS…… ALSO I THINK U WILL FIND ITS 9 CYL ENGINES NOT 8…..
Really informative article thanks
Very interesting article. I have sailed in these as a deck officer and afterwards with the RFA. The service and availability of the point ships was amazing. Long periods at sea with very little time spent in refit or repair running to commercial requirements.
When compared to the RFA who are excellent at their jobs the amount of output from the point ships was much much better as well as better value for money.
Seeing both sides of the private v public service at sea there is a lot to be said for the point ships. The RNR and british seafarers requirement for the contract worked well resulting in a training program of British seafarers which are in short supply.
The RFA have a tendency of restricting themselves by having slow promotion and long rotations on board which make it less appealing to British seafarers which in turn has a large impact on ship availability. Selling the spare two point ships wary resulted in four full crews of Uk sailors not being employed and the UK lost 30% of its roro capacity.
Those ships were on private charter so costing the gov nothing.
The PFI in this instance worked very well and in my opinion should have formed a template for other naval services operated by both the RFA and the navy. A prime example of this could be civilian vessels such as DP supply ships that could be used to operate the new unmanned mine clearing systems. Survey ships and as a replacement for diligence. Navy Force protection and other specialist crews could be appointed as required.
I know everyone want to see ships with HMS or RFA written on the side but personally I would rather see British owed and run capacity even if a company is making a profit. I think you could get much more for your money if contracted and set up properly.
Don’t you just hate the powers that be, who sold off the fastest two ships and who never think we need redundancy. Such was the fate of the 4th Bay Class and the Best Fort Class. They shouldnt be let do this to any RFA or RN ship without the express passing of a Bill in Parliament itself. Thats the only way to stop it. Show them who’s in charge.
The powers that be are the ones in charge. By definition. And they know it. Meanwhile my MP doesn’t hold surgeries and doesn’t answer emails.
And the Rest they either sold or scrapped! Reducing our naval capability by almost a third! 12 destroyers for 6, sold three type 23s, scrapped newest type22s, mines cut by half, RFA left with one solid support RFA Victoria…etc ect
Really enjoyable article about a lesser known but clearly vital capability. Great pictures too.
How do these ships equal a £1.25bn PFI contract and that contract being ‘good value’. A quick internet search suggests these vessels cost £40m a piece… I know you have to crew, fuel and maintain them but wow…
On the VFM argument a lot is made about an aid ship but surely most of the HADR work can be done by these vessels largely unmodified…
(Must not mention we could have 6 new ones for less the the BS national flagship….)
I have always been doubtful about these PFI contracts. When these contracts get close to an end there should be a statement comparing the worth of these arrangements with more traditional forms of service delivery.
At the moment we are told they are good for us but that is never backed up with numbers. So it comes down to trust a politician.
For instance, given these vessels are built to commercial registration standards they will due to go through a serious survey at the 20 year mark. That survey will probably end their commercial value in first world nations but they will perectly saleable else where. I have recently seen 30 year old vessels sold into SE Asia.
Voyager……….>shudders<
My low opinion of Mr Cameron gets lower :-).
Great piece.
Almost 40 since the Falklands we couldn’t do it now no troops no matelots. I served before and after that conflict seen good oppos hurt not good and we still don’t look after our veterans shocking.
These will eventually end up being crewed by RFA personnel, or at least operate under the RFA umbrella…
The Rfa can’t even man the ships they have at the moment.
It’s almost like they deliberately recruit less so they don’t have to send ships to sea! I mean cutting the RN by 5,000+ then moaning about lack of crew was fun!
Having the RFA run these ships is a complete waste of resources. Keep the bays tankers and solids stores for the RFA. everything g is should be privately run to free up crew for the RFA. just pin down the contracts properly and ensure the crews are RNR. you can add force protection. Flight crew etc as required.
Week three and still no sign of a Ukraine related article on here.
Royal Navy connected? Not this war.
Surely theres other places to comment
Yes, Royal Navy, Black Sea, War in Europe, Historical envolvement in the area, Deterrent, History repeating itself, and yes there are other places to comment and all of them are concerned with current events in Ukraine rather than a bunch of bright green Ferrys. But don’t let any of that deter you from being your usual self on here.
That’s the entire British Army being loaded on the two ships at this point! Shameful how small we have let the once might British army get….Funking disgrace…we are the UK not some craphole pointless country…
There was a comment on ARRSE that basically said at one time the British Army had 180k personnel and field a full armed corps plus odds and sods brigades like 5th Airborne. Now there is a strength of 70k (60k, just pick a number) and we can barely field an armoured brigade.
There was no real vision post the Cold War. Blair wanted to be play carriers as he some himself as the incoming El President of the EU. That never happened as we know. For me the carrier project would be more valid if we had had procured a fast class of LPD to accompany the carriers. We could have rotated a commando through the ‘carrier group’ (one close combat company in the carrier with a small Tac HQ with the Junglies), the balance of the commando in the LPD, and odds and sods in the LSD(A) (engineers, artillery)) We should have put the Parachute Regiment on the same footing as the RM. Then put both into a division on their own. But what to do with the rest of the Army? I don’t know.
Don’t think that the Army Headsheds know what to do with the army either? Certainly not on the procurement front it would seem, wheels/tracked – who knows!!!
Actually, having just read the latest article over on TPL – NAO report into Ajax, might have been a tad harsh on the army. V interesting read.
Who might have been harsh on the Army? Ajax is a mess. I understand the idea some push that GD were chosen over BAE because BAE see HMG as an ATM. But we should have bought CV90. I am not sure in the age of drones etc. we need a 40 tonne plus recce vehicle. I am not sure all of them will be equipped with all those gizmos they were suppose to carry. We are desperate for a vehicle to do cavalry tasks. I can’t believe the Army pushed the Warrior refurb programme either. It was doomed to expand beyond safe bounds. All that we needed to do was to turn into an APC and never ever try to integrate that awful gun into a new turret. It’s a mess.
All customers overspecify everything; can’t blame the army for that. Blame instead the sales force that said yes to the laundry list. It should also have been up to the DE&S senior project manager to say no, but I have a sneaking suspicion there wasn’t one until after the contract had been signed.
Agree about CV90 and Warrior CSP. We still should buy CV90, but only about 300 for now. The rest goes on accelerating the Boxers. Including some with the awful gun and its awful turret (which the army has rejected on the Boxers). Well, the hell with what the army wants! It’s time it accepted some kit, like it or lump it. Warrior is going out of service and otherwise there’s nothing medium weight left.
I like Boxer. The UK should have never left the program. Infantry brigades based around Boxer IFV, Boxer cavalry variant with 120mm gun, and a 120mm mortar variant would have made sense at one time. (1 x cavalry, 3 x mech bats, 1 x 120mm mortar). The tanks could have been hived off into a couple of tank brigades (2(3?) x mbt, 1 x armourd inf bat, 1 x 120mm)
Saying all that a do wonder if the French Jaguar Griffon combo would be a better now.
I am just not sure now.
I never mentioned the army as ‘customer’. The whole reasoning behind the purchase was off even before specs were drawn up.
Boxer is very high end in terms of what it provides – v expensive. Rightly or wrongly the army have decided it’s for them, which is fine, however, given its price(£4-5 mill each) and we have just ordered 4 non specialised variants, will we have the budget to equip all the BCTs we need to if we are scrapping Warrior without a tracked replacement?
I can see Boxer being the Army’s version of the T26 saga. We wanted 13, split 8/5, but that was deemed too rich for our purse, so got 8 and 5 T31’s instead. I mean, do we need the ambulance version at some £4 mill a pop when something cheaper would have been just as effective. The French/Italians don’t use a VBCI/Freccia ambulance variant, they use a different vehicle for the role.
If we think we need a 120mm mortar, do we need to develop it on Boxer? Why not just buy the Polish Atmos version, we will only need about 60ish for 2 BCTs, save the development costs for more IFV/APC versions. I would say buy off the shelf for a MGS version too if we decided we needed one, only because development would be costly and MGS versions already exist. If commonality is what we are after, put the same engine/transmission as our Boxers have in them. It’s the only realistic way I can see us getting enough vehicles to equip our forces properly.
Hi mate,
Sorry wasn’t clear enough, I might have been a tad harsh on the army having read that article in TPL reference procurement. Clearly there is still blame to be attached to the MOD and Army top brass, however, given the constant changes enforced by political decision making, I shouldn’t be surprised if they were all going bald.
Yes agree with you, cant understand the need for a 40+ tonne recce vehicle either, especially when standard practise is for ‘lightweight’ recce troops, forgoing armour protection for agility! Not sure what they should have used instead, perhaps something with wheels.
They should have replaced Warrior with something like CV90, agree without that gun and its v expensive ammo!!!
Our trouble is that we are influenced by a 20th century view of our physical security. The large armies of WW1/2 run against our history. But because they were so personnel intensive their influence on society has been great. It is also easier for the man in the street to grasp the immediate violence of soldiering than the more esoteric principles of sea power. Even though there much, much more to ‘soldiering’ than trigger pulling and violence. Saying that modern British Army seems to be drowning in doctrine. For the life of me I still don’t understand the thinking behind ‘strike brigades’.
My reading on strike has been cursory, but I think the strike philosophy is speed, distance and exploitation. ISTAR finds enemy weak points at a distance. Deploy an infantry mass quickly before they can reinforce or counter. Pin them down using distance fires and wipe them out, with an armoured brigade follow up if necessary. Move on and do it again. Low logistics requirements mean you should be able to do this for days with minimal resupply.
Yes. The idea is we do this with others supplying the ‘force’.
And how many of the Army’s 70k are actually combat troops…10k!
I believe about 18-19 k are Infantry, not sure how many Tank,Arty and AAC numbers there are? I imagine that’s what you mean by ‘Combat troops’, as opposed to support troops, although the RA are classed as CS troops.
When did we start using the Oshkosh trucks for tank and fuel transporters?
Quite recently about 2000-ish.
Cheers, shame we couldn’t have built and made a modern Scammell Truck!. Or shame we couldn’t build modern British army trucks!, we need enough of them!., but hey buying tens of thousands German trucks will have to do!!! As the British truck industry is no more! It used to be huge now we make one kind and it’s not even British! Erf off!
Well you have to consider that the ‘war mongering UK’ can’t even build a rifle. Whereas ‘pacifist and war guilty Germany’ can offer everything from a rile to a tank and most things in between. One of the reasons why the Germans had a superbly equipped army was that they churned tax money through industry. They built weapons to keep themselves in work. Our prudent Treasury sort cuts everywhere and that is coming back to bite now.
‘In a classic ‘salami slicing’ move to save money, two of the ships, Beachy Head and Longstone, which offered a measure of spare capacity and resilience were released from the PFI and sold in the wake of the 2010 SDSR.’
The infamous Coalition 2010-2015. If the British armed forces ever needs a collective tombstone this is what should be chiselled into it.
So with all these ships the MOD is Hiring, what has happened to The Royal Fleet Auxiliary,that use to do all these Tasks,How do I know I worked on them for over 12 years and it seems to me,Things are going down Hill Rapidly ex P.O Steward
It seems they cannot crew their ships at the moment. They need to go for actual time for time, up their wages and maybe cut some of the B/S out… just a thought!