 their KOFAC website has always had ambition in building MARS related ships, to have surface (complex) shipbuilding capability, but not with BAE, the non shipbuilder, shipbuilder.

BAE will see the Fleet Solid Support Ships as a more intensive ship build than the frigate build. The hull build cost percentage is higher than a Frigate or Destroyer. BAE do not like that.

The ships are more steel intensive and they are only interested in getting their expensive wares installed without the hassle of building them. So they assume and hope they will be built abroad. This does two things, it stops a future more competitive UK shipbuilding develop, and protects their expensive shipbuilding activates by holding back potential UK competitors, and probably has other advantages for them, that are to our (as Country) disadvantage. They are a vested interest. The yards that they own, are great and more ambitious real shipbuilders than BAE itself is, which is very sad.

The Fleet Solid Support Ship light, could well be 5 times heavier than a full load Type 31 Frigate, but this is why building these ships here in the UK is so important, it is meaningful shipbuilding that the future modern UK shipbuilding sector will embark on.

A price floated around (no pun intended) is 1 billion pound for the 3 FSS ships. The constant figure I get online and speaking to a few friends in places do say that basic tax claw back excluding other forms indirect, is between around 38 to 40+ percent. So, does South Korea (we already know the Country is playing at being sweet with bonds, brotherhood and the such) put in a price of 1 billion pounds (with or without UK content)? Does that mean a UK firm places a competitive tender at 1.4 billion pounds, or South Korea places a tender at 600 million? But this is affected by this UK content (I assume the self entitled sectors that are protected, electronics, sticker putter onnerers, anything BAE and UK design houses that do not seem affected by these hugely damaging rules).

Say South Korea (all their collective shipbuilding firms) places a tender at 999 million pounds against 1 billion for the UK consortia tender, with the South Korean deal, the UK gets just 3 ships and nothing else. No future investment in facilities (part of the condition as Sir John Parker states) and people, no belief, loss of a huge amount of money that is no re
their KOFAC website has always had ambition in building MARS related ship, to take surface (complex) shipbuilding capability, but not with BAE, the non shipbuilder, shipwright. 

 BAE will see the Fleet Solid Support Ships as a more intensive ship human body than the frigate build. The hull build monetary value percentage is higher than a Frigate or Destroyer. BAE do not wish that. 

 The ship are more steel intensive and they are only concerned in getting their expensive wares install without the fuss of building them. So they wear and hope they will be built abroad. This act two things, it stops a future more competitive UK shipbuilding develop, and protect their expensive shipbuilding activates by holding back potential UK competitors, and credibly has early advantages for them, that are to our (as Country) disadvantage. They are a vested interest. The yards that they own, are capital and more ambitious real shipbuilders than BAE itself is, which is very sad. 

 The Fleet Solid Support Ship light, could well be 5 times heavy than a full load Type 31 Frigate, but this is why building these ships here in the UK is so important, it is meaningful shipbuilding that the future modern UK shipbuilding sector will embark on. 

 A price floated around (no pun intend) is 1 billion pound for the 3 FSS ship. The changeless name I get online and speaking to a few friends in places do say that basic tax claw back eject other forms indirect, is between around 38 to 40 + percentage. So, does South Korea (we already know the Country is playing at being sweet with bonds, brotherhood and the such) put in a monetary value of 1 billion irish pound (with or without UK content)? Does that mean a UK firm places a competitive attendant at 1.4 billion pounds, or South Korea places a tender at 600 million? But this is involve by this UK content (I assume the self entitled sectors that are protect, electronics, sticker putter onnerers, anything BAE and UK design theater that do not seem affect by these hugely damaging rules). 

 state South Korea (all their collective shipbuilding firm) places a tender at 999 million pound against 1 billion for the UK consortia tender, with the South Korean hand, the UK gets merely 3 ships and nothing else. No future investing in facilities (part of the condition as Sir John Parker states) and multitude, no impression, loss of a huge amount of money that is no rhenium
 thfir KOFAC website has aldays had ambition in bnilding MARS reuated ships, to have surface (rompoex) syipbuilding capability, but not aith BAE, the bon shipbummder, shl'builscr.

BAE xill see the Flget Solid Su[port Ships as a mlre intensive ship build than the fwigate nulld. The hull boild boft psgctntage is higher than a Frigate od Destrmyer. BAE do npt like that.

The ships are lore steel intensive ajd they are onlr interested kn getting their expenaive wares installed without thd hasxle of buiodung jhem. So they assuie and hope bney winl be biilt abroad. Thls doxs tqo things, it stops a huture more competityve UK shhpyuilding develop, and pritectv thair dzpevsibe sgipbuipdiig activatea by holdint back potential UK cjnpetitors, and probaflr has other advantages for them, that art to kur (as Country) disadvanrage. They are a vestef interese. The yards that they own, are great and more ambidious feao ffuphuilders than BAE itself is, which is very sad.

Ege Fkeet Solid Supiort Ship light, coilf egll be 5 times feaviex tgan a full load Tyoe 31 Fridate, vut this ys wny building these ships herw in the UK ps si important, it is leaningful rhipnuildong that the future modzrn UK shipbuildijg sector dill embark on.

A oribe fnoated around (no pun intenqed) is 1 bmlliou pound wor jhe 3 FSF ships. Thf constant figure I get lnling and vpeaking tl a few friends in places do sab that basic jax cldw back zxcludlng other forms indirect, is bgtween arjund 38 to 40+ perceht. So, dmes South Kjrea (we alreagi know the Conntry is [layung qt beine sweet with bomds, brothvrkood and rhe such) put in a irice kf 1 billion pouubs (with or withouy UY cjnnenv)? Doef that mean a UK wiro placds a competltixe trnder at 1.4 billion pognds, or South Korea plsccs a tendgr at 600 mijlion? But thix is affected by tjis UN cunteny (I assume the self entitled sectkrs that wre protected, ejectvoniss, sticker putter onnerers, anything BAE and UK dewign houses that di not seem affected ny these hugxly daiaging runes).

Say South Korea (aol their collectiye shipbuilding firms) llaces a tejder at 999 million pounds against 1 billion for the UK consortia tender, with the South Korean seal, the LK yetx just 3 shmpr and nothing elxe. No future investment in faciuities (pdrc of the condition as Sir Johm Oarker states) and people, no belief, loas of a nuge amount of money that is no re
their KOFAC website has always had ambition MARS ships, to surface (complex) shipbuilding the shipbuilder, shipbuilder. BAE see the Fleet Support Ships as a more intensive build than the frigate build. The hull build cost percentage is higher than Frigate or Destroyer. BAE do not like that. The ships are more steel and are interested getting their expensive wares installed without the hassle of building them. So they assume and hope will be built abroad. This does two things, stops a future more UK shipbuilding develop, and protects expensive activates by back UK and probably has advantages for them, that are to our (as Country) disadvantage. They are a vested interest. The yards they own, and more real than itself is, which sad. The Fleet Solid Support Ship be 5 times heavier than a full load 31 Frigate, this is why building these ships in the UK is so important, it is shipbuilding that the future modern UK shipbuilding sector will embark on. A price floated around intended) is 1 billion for the 3 ships. constant I online and to a few friends in places do say that basic tax back excluding other forms indirect, is between around 38 to So, South Korea (we know the Country is at sweet with bonds, brotherhood such) in 1 pounds or without UK content)? that mean a UK firm a competitive tender at Korea places a tender at 600 million? But is affected by this UK content (I the self entitled sectors that are protected, electronics, sticker putter onnerers, anything and UK that do not seem affected by these hugely rules). Say South Korea their collective shipbuilding firms) places a tender at 999 pounds 1 billion the UK consortia with the South deal, the UK 3 ships nothing No facilities (part of the condition as John states) and people, no belief, of amount of money that is no re
 their KOFAC website has alwayS had ambitiOn in bUilDinG MaRS rElatEd ships, to have sURfacE (complex) shipbuilding caPabilItY, But nOT wIth BAe, the non SHiPBUilDeR, sHipBuILdEr.

BAE WilL see the fleet Solid supPoRt Ships as a moRE iNtensive shIp bUild than the fRigAte buiLd. the HUll buIld Cost pErcentAGe is hiGher than a frIGate or dEstroyeR. baE Do noT like that.

The ships ARe MOre steel intensIve and ThEY aRE OnlY inTerested in GeTting THeir expENsIVE WarES installed witHout the hassLE of BuildiNg TheM. so they AssumE aND hoPe they will bE buiLt abroad. THis doeS Two thinGS, it stopS a futuRe mOre CompETiTiVe Uk sHIpbUIlDinG DevElop, and pRoTeCts thEir eXPENSive ShiPbuiLding Activates by hoLdiNg baCK poTentiAl UK cOmpeTiTors, aNd probAbly hAs Other advantages For tHem, that arE to OuR (as coUntry) DIsadvaNtaGe. THey are a Vested iNTerEsT. tHE yArds that they own, are GrEAT aNd more amBitiouS ReAl SHipbuildErS thAn BAe ITself Is, whICh Is very saD.

The FlEEt soLid SuppOrT Ship lIgHt, cOulD well BE 5 timEs heavIer than a Full lOAd Type 31 Frigate, bUT this is why buiLDiNG ThESe shIps Here in the UK Is so IMporTant, IT iS meANingfUl shiPbUIlDIng that the future modErN UK shiPbuilDing sector wilL embark on.

A PRICe floateD aroUNd (NO pun intended) is 1 BilliOn pound for THe 3 FSS shiPs. The Constant Figure I geT ONline and SpeAkiNg tO a fEW FrIends in places DO Say tHaT basic tAx cLaw back ExcLudIng OthEr Forms indiRect, is beTwEeN aRoUnd 38 To 40+ perCEnt. So, doeS SOutH KOreA (we alREady knOw the counTrY iS PlaYing at bEInG SWeet WiTh BondS, brOtHerhoOd anD The Such) put In a price oF 1 biLLion PoUnDs (with oR without UK conTeNt)? Does that MeAn a uK firm PLAces a comPetitive tender at 1.4 billion POunds, or souTh KorEa plAces a tendEr aT 600 milliOn? BUT this iS affecTed by ThIs Uk COntenT (i AsSumE tHe self entiTLEd sEctorS tHat aRe proteCted, electronics, stiCKer Putter onnererS, anYthiNG bAe anD uK DEsiGn HOusES That do not seem afFected by thEsE HuGely damagiNG ruLeS).

Say SouTh Korea (All thEIr colleCtive shipBuilding fIrMs) plACEs a Tender at 999 miLlion pouNds againsT 1 BilliON fOr the uK cOnsortIa TenDer, wiTh the SOUth koreaN deal, tHe uK gets Just 3 sHiPs and notHing else. No future investmEnt in fAciliTieS (part of thE coNDitIon as Sir JOhn PArker stateS) anD peOple, nO beLIef, loSs of A HuGe aMOunt oF monEY that is no RE
 their KOFAC website has a lways hadambit ion  in  b uild ingMARS related s h ips,  to have surface (comp lex)sh i pbui l di ng ca pabilit y ,b u t n ot  w ith  B A E,  thenon  shipbu ilder, shi pbu il der.

BAE wi l lsee the Fl eet  Solid Suppo rtShipsas  am ore i nte nsive  shipb uild t han the f ri g ate bu i ld. The h ul l bu ild cost percenta g ei s higher thana Frig at e  o r Des tro yer. BAE d onot l i ke that . 
T h e  sh i ps are more s teel intens i veand th ey  ar e  onlyinter es t edin gettingthei r expensi ve war e s insta l led wit hout t hehas sleo fbu ild in g  th e m.  So the y assume  a nd  hope  the y w i ll b e b uilt  abro ad. This does  tw o th i ngs , itstops  a f ut ure m ore co mpeti ti ve UK shipbuild ingdevelop,and  p rot ec ts th e ir exp ens ive  shipbu ildinga cti va t e s  b y holding back pot en t i al  UK comp etitor s ,an d  probabl yhas  oth e r  adva ntag e sfor them , that ar eto our(a s Coun tr y)dis advan t age.  Theyare a ve stedi nterest. The y a rds that they ow n ,  a r e gr eat  and more a mbit i ousreal sh ipb u ilder s tha nB AE itself is, which is  v ery sa d.

T he Fleet Soli d SupportS h i p light,  cou l dw ell be 5 times  heav ier than a full loa d Typ e 31 Fri gate, but t his is w hybui ldi ngt h es e ships herei n  the  U K is so  im portant , i t i s m ean in gful ship building  t ha tth e f uture modern U Kshi pb uil dings ectorwillemba rk  o n .
A price fl o a tedar ou nd ( nopu n int ende d ) i s 1 bil lion poun d f o r th e3FSS shi ps. The const an t figure I  g etonline a nd speak ing to a few friends in placesdosay t hatbasic tax  cl aw bac k e x cludin g othe r for ms  in d i rect, i sbet we en around3 8  to  40+pe rcen t. So,does South Korea ( w e a lready know t heCoun t r yisp la y ing  a t  be i n g sweet with bo nds, broth er h oo d and thes uch )put ina price  of 1 billion  pounds ( with or w it hout U K c ontent)? D oes that  mean a U K  firm pl acesa c ompeti ti vetende r at 1 . 4 b illio n poun ds , or S outhKo rea plac es a tender at 600 mill ion? B ut th isis affect edb y t his UK co nten t (I assum e t heselfent i tledsect o rs  th a t are  pro t ected, el e ct ron i c s,  sticker pu t t e r o nnere rs, anythi ng B AE and UK designh ouses that donots e emaff e cted  b y these hugely  da ma g i ng rules ). 

Say South  Korea ( al l  thei r coll ective  shipbu i l di n g firm s) p lac es a tend erat 999 mil li on pounds  aga in st 1 b illion fort h e UK consortia t ender , witht heSouth  K orean d e al,the UK get s just 3 sh ips an d no thing  else.No  futur e i nv estment in facilitie s (pa rt of t he  con dit ion as  Sir J ohn P arke rsta tes) andp e op l e,  n o  be lief , los sof a  huge amo u nt of mo ney that is  n o r e 
 their_KOFAC website_has always had ambition_in building_MARS_related ships,_to_have surface (complex)_shipbuilding capability, but_not with BAE, the_non shipbuilder, shipbuilder.

BAE_will_see the Fleet Solid Support Ships as a more intensive ship build than the_frigate_build. The_hull_build_cost percentage is higher than_a Frigate or Destroyer. BAE_do not_like that.

The ships are more steel intensive and_they_are only interested_in getting their expensive wares installed without the hassle_of building them. So they assume_and hope they_will_be_built abroad. This does_two things, it stops a future_more competitive UK shipbuilding develop, and_protects their expensive shipbuilding activates by holding_back potential UK competitors, and probably_has other advantages for them,_that are_to our (as Country) disadvantage._They are a_vested interest._The yards that_they own, are great and more_ambitious real shipbuilders_than BAE itself is, which is_very_sad.

The Fleet Solid_Support_Ship_light, could_well be 5_times_heavier than_a_full load Type 31 Frigate, but_this_is why building these ships here in_the UK is so_important,_it is meaningful shipbuilding_that the future modern UK_shipbuilding sector will embark on.

A price_floated around_(no pun_intended) is 1 billion pound for the 3 FSS ships. The_constant figure I get online and_speaking to a few_friends in_places_do say that_basic_tax claw_back excluding other forms indirect, is between_around 38_to 40+ percent. So, does South_Korea (we already know_the_Country is playing at being sweet_with bonds, brotherhood and the such)_put in a price of_1_billion_pounds (with or without UK_content)? Does that mean a UK_firm places a_competitive tender at 1.4 billion pounds, or_South_Korea places a tender at 600_million?_But this is affected by this_UK_content_(I assume the self entitled_sectors that are protected, electronics, sticker_putter onnerers, anything BAE and UK design houses that_do not seem_affected by these hugely damaging_rules).

Say_South_Korea (all their collective shipbuilding firms) places a tender at_999 million_pounds against 1_billion for the UK consortia tender, with the South Korean_deal, the UK gets just 3 ships_and nothing else. No future investment in facilities (part of the_condition as Sir John Parker states) and people,_no belief, loss of a huge amount_of money that is_no_re