January 2010

FOI - MoD: Initial Gate decision

Tags:

Date:

4 November, 2009

Source:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com

'This is a Freedom of Information request. Has the Secretary of State for Defence made the 'initial gate' decision to proceed with the replacement programme for the Vanguard class nuclear missilesubmarines?
If so, have any contracts been issued pursuant to the 'initial gate' decision, and at what cost?'

BMT - Annual Review 2009

Tags:

Date:

11 May, 2009

Source:

http://media.bmt.org

'As a ‘tier zero’ contractor, BMT works closely with the UK MoD and is delivering major new projects for the US, Australian and Canadian navies.
BMT has also been selected by the UK MoD’s Naval Design Partnership as one of six companies forming its core team'
[p 6]

BMT - Operational Review 2009

Tags:

Date:

1 May, 2009

Source:

http://www.bmt.org

BMT source
'The group is respected for the independence and rigour of its work and this has led to our increasing profile in risk management. Our work has included a risk review for the Australian Customs Services’ fleet of vessels, an assessment of the environmental risks of the MoD’s future submarine project and calculating financial risks for investors in port facilities worldwide. '

RUSI - Beyond Artful: Government and Industry Roles in Britain’s Future Submarine Design, Build and Support, Whitehall Report 3-07

Tags:

Date:

11 June, 2007

Source:

http://www.rusi.org

'In terms of the UK’s strategic deterrent, the Government policy – supported by Parliament following a vote on 14 March 2007 – approved concept work for the successor to the current fleet of Vanguard classnuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).

Often to the exclusion of wider policy debate, industrial issues formed a central point around which the discussion revolved, with focus ranging from the proposed seventeen year timescale for the production of a new SSBN (hereafter referred to as SSBN-F2), to the technical and regulatory challenges inherent in supporting the Vanguard class beyond a thirty year service life.

As one commentator observed, ‘the future of Trident … becomes less a matter of pure strategy and more a sort of country dance in which tricky political and industrial steps must be made at precisely the rightintervals.'
[Introduction, p1]

MoD - The Defence Industry in the North-West: Investing in the Future, Barrow-in-Furness

Tags:

Date:

31 January, 2009

Source:

http://www.mod.uk

MoD source
Speech delivered by Secretary of State For Defence at the Defence Industry Conference, Barrow-in-Furness on 31 January 2009.
'We recognise the importance to industry of having better visibility of our future defence capability requirements. That is why we published the Defence Industrial Strategy in 2005 to give greater clarity about which industrial capabilities and skills bases we need to retain in the UK.
This visibility of our plans can be seen in the Government’s intention to build the successor nuclear deterrent. The anticipated injection of £10-15 billion at today’s prices should help ensure the viability of the ship-building industry for future decades, as will the work associated with the two aircraft carriers.'

MoD - Future Submarines Team

Tags:

Date:

1 March, 2007

Source:

http://www.mod.uk

The Future Submarines Team is the Ministry of Defence (MOD) team responsible for delivery of the successor deterrent submarine in accordance with the 2006 White Paper.

Babcock - HMS Vigilant contract award

Tags:

Date:

2 March, 2009

Source:

http://babcock-investors.production.investis.com

'Babcock will be working closely with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) throughout this project under new contracting arrangements. These arrangements are expected to be similar to those to be contained in the Terms of Business Agreement (ToBA) currently being negotiated with the MoD. The ToBA supports greater transparency of information and incentivises high standards of safety and quality delivered at lower than contracted cost.'

Babcock - Pre-close Trading Statement

Tags:

Date:

30 September, 2009

Source:

http://babcock-investors.production.investis.com

'The Terms of Business Agreement (ToBA) with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is progressing and we hope this will be concluded by the end of this calendar year. In the meantime, we continue to work with the MoD under the key principles agreed in 2007 and the long-term partnering structures we already have in place with them ensure significant efficiency savings for the Royal Navy and gain-share benefits for Babcock.'

Guardian - UK military chiefs clash over future defence strategy

Tags:

Date:

18 January, 2010

Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk

Guardian source
by Richard Norton-Taylor
First Sea Lord defends navy and insists Britain must keep 'hard power'

The battle over the future shape of Britain's armed forces will spill into the public domain tomorrow when the First Sea Lord launches a forceful defence of the Royal Navy in a bid to protect it from swingeing spending cuts.

RUSI - Capability Cost Trends: Implications for the Defence Review

Tags:

Date:

11 January, 2010

Source:

http://www.rusi.org

Royal United Services Institute

Future Defence Review
Working Paper Number 5

Malcolm Chalmers

'If the government that comes to power in 2010 were to accept the case for long-term budget guidelines, the MoD might reasonably hope to share the fruits of post-adjustment economic growth. The exact assumption made will be the subject of political debate. On the assumption that the government deficit can be reduced to manageable proportions by 2016, however, real growth of around 1 per cent per annum between 2016/17 and 2019/20 might be a plausible planning assumption for the core defence budget. This would allow the MoD to maintain non-Trident core spending in real terms, while also allowing the government to state that nucleardeterrent capital spending is not at the expense of conventional forces.34 It would be roughly comparable to growth in core defence spending during 1998-2008, more generous than Canada but less generous than Australia. It would be broadly consistent, albeit rather more generous, than historic patterns of UK defencespending, if one excludes the post-Cold War adjustment period.'
[p 14]