What does it mean for the RN?

#1
This is in the news:

Devonport Dockyard

Apparently the MOD may withdraw it's contracts from the Dockyard's owners.

Haliburton are involved in some sort of share flotation.

Can anyone offer intelligent comment/interpretation?
 
#2
From the FT

Britain has made a last-minute demand that Halliburton withdraw the imminent flotation of its KBR subsidiary or face being stripped of its ownership of the Devonport naval shipyard.

MOD are not suggesting the closure of Devonport, rather they are pointing out that the companies ability to operate the yard will be removed if they do something the customer does not like. I fee certain a new operator could be found without toomuch bother.

Quite clearly the way Haliburton is promoting the sale has point MODs nose out of joint.

I do think this will affect the Halliburton sharehilders. What they have to sell is no longer as valuable

Peter
 
#4
Compared to the early 70s the yard is empty , yes I know the fleet is vastly differant now , I was in the St Budeaux workies tonight , fxxxxxxxxxg dead , in the 70s jam packed , theres is now no Matelots or Dockyard Maties enmass , South Yard is be'ing returned to the civilian side of life , some one said on here a couple of weeks ago that we will end up with a coastel defence force , god forbid , but it's on the horizon , I can't see the new super Carrier ever be'ing built , hold my breath , :x
 
#5
letthecatoutofthebag said:
This is just bluster..........., they will never close Devonport..... ...

They thought the same about Chatham, but they closed that yard, even though they spent untold squillions in building and maintaining a nuclear facility there.
As far as this government is concerned, I shuldn't trust a thing thay print or say.
 
#6
whitemouse said:
letthecatoutofthebag said:
This is just bluster..........., they will never close Devonport..... ...

They thought the same about Chatham, but they closed that yard, even though they spent untold squillions in building and maintaining a nuclear facility there.
As far as this government is concerned, I shuldn't trust a thing thay print or say.
Whilst I would agree nothing is sacred, but money comes pretty close. To close the yard you would have to show saving in some way, and with the costs so far on the nuclear facility it will be difficult for them to show a saving in moving that. What is quite clearly in jeapordy is the continuance of Halliburton running the dockyard side of things, and that could be messy and cost quite a few jobs in the short term even if they come back in the long term.

Peter
 
#7
It was reported in yesterday's FT that Halliburton have called the MODs bluff and are going ahead with the sale. It is difficult to envisage the Blair government acting in the strategic interest based upon past precident: after all if you can allow vitally strategic assets such as dockyards and the water and energy supply to be foreign owned, and almost agree to prevent governments from taking back control of vital industries (which HMG almost agreed to in 1997, but for the actions of a sharp witted civil servant) it is difficult to see how the government is going to practice its threat. Halliburton still have powerful friends in Congress and can lobby against British commercial interests in the US. Is the MOD really going to take that kind of risk? Their position must be to wait and see who buys the majority shareholding. If they had any sense, the Treasury would buy it back in Britain's stragic interests - mind you on past precident, that would probably be a prelude to closure!
 
#10
It could be argued that the refit capability could be done by BAeS Barrow. Suitable shiplift, nuclear registered site, no long trips the length of the country to Sellafield, plenty of room in the DDH shed once this batch of A boats is pushed out. Concentrates all relevant build and support effort in the one place (two if you count RR).
 
#11
Not_a_boffin said:
It could be argued that the refit capability could be done by BAeS Barrow. Suitable shiplift, nuclear registered site, no long trips the length of the country to Sellafield, plenty of room in the DDH shed once this batch of A boats is pushed out. Concentrates all relevant build and support effort in the one place (two if you count RR).
But where would the cost savings be ? Certainly not to the taxpayer.
I worked for BAe in Saudi Arabia in 80/90s on Supply support, and their costings for this support (which were, at that time, uplifted by 27.5 % on top of the 'cost' price) were not really cheap to say the least.
The yards, or anything at all that is a military concern, should be in the hands of the military, who would not be swayed by profits - you only have to look at the US supply system to see just how much profit is made there by the companies - anyone remember the torch that supposedly cost hundreds of dollars?
There was a lot of trouble a few years ago with problems on maintenance of frontline strike aircraft that were, allegedly, maintained by a 'reputable' company, I wonder if they ever sorted that out to anyone's satisfaction.
 

Top