If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.

chanelyacht said:
No, they're not - the Shannon is a jet drive boat, as has been mentioned by I believe a few dozen posts before this. Jets are not propellers.

The production cost of the Shannon is £1.5m - so about the same. The launch and recovery cradle and tractor is about £900k.

So your comparison aimed at showing RNLI overspend is, I'm afraid, an epic fail.

The RNLI are not unquestionable - but please get your facts right before you post.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you have misunderstood my post and I' m sorry if I wasn't clear. Maxi 77 stated that I had got the figure wrong and that the boat ( which I had compared with the Shannon) was €1.5 million. That is not the case.

The boat that costs €1.5 million is not the Vedette Classe 1 (€670 000) but their NEW 17m80 all weather boat coming into service next year, which, I pointed out, was still a lot cheaper than the equivalent-sized RNLI boat at £2 000 000. Both of THESE boats have the same propulsion technology.

Ps Re-reading my post I think I was perfectly clear.
 
Last edited:
Sybarite said:
I have listened to clips by the admiral (retired) who is the volunteer president of the SNSM who has spoken about how carefully they have to manage costs in their service.
Click to expand...

Surely, this is the whole point of the difference between the two organisations? Nobody (as far as I can see) is disputing the competence of crews, or even management, of either. But the RNLI has the resources to research and specify what they believe to be the best possible solution for each rescue scenario that they face, whilst the SNSM are limited by the costs that they can justify/afford - inevitably that means compromise to some degree.

I note that it is now being suggested that for AWBs the french pay about 1.5M Euro, for a boat broadly equivalent to one the RNLI pay £2M for. To my mind, that is not such a huge difference, especially if the RNLI one is specifically designed for the purpose, whilst the SNSM one is a (heavily, I presume) modified "production" boat.

I don't think the RNLI is perfect, or above criticism - indeed the crew often whinge about management - but never about the level or design of equipment, or the training provided by the organisation.

I guess that what I'm saying is I don't see how the tight budget of the SNSM can be held up as a positive attribute agailnst the RNLI's ritches.
 
Last edited:
mikefleetwood said:
Surely, this is the whole point of the difference between the two organisations? Nobody (as far as I can see) is disputing the competence of crews, or even management, of either. But the RNLI has the resources to research and specify what they believe to be the best possible solution for each rescue scenario that they face, whilst the SNSM are limited by the costs that they can justify/afford - inevitably that means compromise to some degree.

I note that it is now being suggested that for AWBs the french pay about 1.5M Euro, for a boat broadly equivalent to one the RNLI pay £2M for. To my mind, that is not such a huge difference, especially if the RNLI one is specifically dedigned for the purpose, whilst the SNSM one is a (heavily, I presume) modified "production" boat.

I don't think the RNLI is perfect, or above criticism - indeed the crew often whinge about management - but never about the level or design of equipment, or the training provided by the organisation.
Click to expand...

You need to be careful about using "AWB" on here. It has another meaning.

To read your post you would think that the French are adapting glorified pleasure boats as lifeboats. They aren't. Have a look at the photos in the references I posted near the beginning (post 57) of this thread.

http://www.snsm.org/presentation-de-la-flotte

These are super boats and unless somebody can PROVE to the contrary, they appear as fit to the purpose as the RNLI boats. I don't know whether or not they share the same development as say pilot boats, but if they do, and that results in economies of scale why for Heaven's sake not? Incidentally if anyone doubts the seaworthiness of pilot boats they should google pilot boat tests in F10 in Ireland.

http://m.youtube.com/?reason=8&rdm=3671#/watch?v=eLIzp3WLpQE&desktop_uri=/watch?v=eLIzp3WLpQE

As well as being super boats, the French are undertaking to further upgrade their whole fleet with state-of-the-art technology over the next few years.
 
Last edited:
Sybarite said:
You need to be careful about using "AWB" on here. It has another meaning.

To read your post you would think that the French are adapting glorified pleasure boats as lifeboats. They aren't. Have a look at the photos in the references I posted at the beginning of this thread. These are super boats and unless somebody can PROVE to the contrary, they appear as fit to the purpose as the RNLI boats. I don't know whether or not they share the same development as say pilot boats, but if they do, and that results in economies of scale why for Heaven's sake not? Incidentally if anyone doubts the seaworthiness of pilot boats they should google pilot boat tests in F10 in Ireland.

As well as being super boats, the French are undertaking to further upgrade their whole fleet with state-of-the-art technology over the next few years.
Click to expand...

But they are intended & designed for completely different purposes.

Isn't it time to stop digging the hole?

You have been told about 6 times what the difference is. & that it is critical to the operational requirements of the sites where a carriage boat will be deployed.

Give us all a break, please. We know your opinion & we have explained its limitations. What is the point of the endless repetition of the same erroneous argument?
 
Searush said:
But they are intended & designed for completely different purposes.

Isn't it time to stop digging the hole?

You have been told about 6 times what the difference is. & that it is critical to the operational requirements of the sites where a carriage boat will be deployed.

Give us all a break, please. We know your opinion & we have explained its limitations. What is the point of the endless repetition of the same erroneous argument?
Click to expand...

If you would only read what was written we had moved on and were discussing the 56' all weather boats. So kindly keep your patronising remarks to yourself.
 
Sybarite said:
The boat that costs €1.5 million is not the Vedette Classe 1 (€670 000) but their NEW 17m80 all weather boat coming into service next year, which, I pointed out, was still a lot cheaper than the equivalent-sized RNLI boat at £2 000 000. Both of THESE boats have the same propulsion technology.
Click to expand...

The RNLI lifeboat with a production cost of £2m was the Severn class, which is significantly different in design and build to the SNSM class.

The Tamar cost £2.4m, but again, the French boat will have nowhere near the same amount of control technology, crew comfort innovations, or fly-by-wire systems that the Tamar has.

The Shannon costs £1.5m excluding launch system (launch systems will not, for example, be built for relief lifeboats - there will already be one on station) and incorporates much of the technology designed for the Tamar - there is very little redesign of systems between the two boats.

The SNSM 17.8m boat is also a lie-afloat boat, so does not need the same hull design as the slipway lauched Tamar - hence the cost differential.

How many of the new generation RNLI boats have you been on / operated - or are you bean-counting from the sidelines?
 
chanelyacht said:
The RNLI lifeboat with a production cost of £2m was the Severn class, which is significantly different in design and build to the SNSM class.

The Tamar cost £2.4m, but again, the French boat will have nowhere near the same amount of control technology, crew comfort innovations, or fly-by-wire systems that the Tamar has.?
Click to expand...

Do you know this for a fact or not? The President of the SNSM stated that it would have state of the art technology.

Just to correct other false impressions being given. It was specifically designed as a lifeboat by an independant naval architect.

The SNSM will own the moulds making subsequent models more economical and it is planned to build 40 of them. I'm talking now of the large all weather boat

:http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/le-nouveau-fleuron-de-la-snsm-remet-sibiril-flot

Here is the SNSM. Press release :

http://www.snsm.org/sites/default/files/DPlancementCTT.pdf
 
Last edited:
Sybarite said:
You need to be careful about using "AWB" on here. It has another meaning.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that there was supposed to be a :D after this, or similar. I'm sure we know what "AWB" means in this context.

To read your post you would think that the French are adapting glorified pleasure boats as lifeboats. They aren't. Have a look at the photos in the references I posted near the beginning (post 57) of this thread.
Click to expand...
I never meant to imply they simply went to the boat show and selected a MOBO of the right size - I assumed they started with someting designed for extreme sea use. However, at the end of the day, it won't have been designed specifically as a lifeboat - so there will be some shortcomings when compared with something that is.

http://www.snsm.org/presentation-de-la-flotte

These are super boats and unless somebody can PROVE to the contrary, they appear as fit to the purpose as the RNLI boats. I don't know whether or not they share the same development as say pilot boats, but if they do, and that results in economies of scale why for Heaven's sake not? Incidentally if anyone doubts the seaworthiness of pilot boats they should google pilot boat tests in F10 in Ireland.

http://m.youtube.com/?reason=8&rdm=3671#/watch?v=eLIzp3WLpQE&desktop_uri=/watch?v=eLIzp3WLpQE

As well as being super boats, the French are undertaking to further upgrade their whole fleet with state-of-the-art technology over the next few years.
Click to expand...

I never said the French boats weren't in any way fit-for-purpose - and I'm pretty sure no-one else did either. All I suggested was that something designed for a specific purpose is likely to be better at it than something that isn't.

Despite their reputation for over-engineering, even modern RNLI AWBs sometimes sustain damage from the sea conditions encountered off our shores, so I I'm not surprised they are designed to be the best possible with available technology.

My main point really (although I omitted it originally, and had to edit it in later) was that the SNSM has to work within cost constraints, whilst the RNLI doesn't (within reason). Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the SNSM slimmed-down financial model can be held up as better than the RNLI's ritches. I'm sure that given the choice the Admiral (retd.) at the head of SNSM would far rather have special dedicated designs for his boats.
 
Sybarite said:
You need to be careful about using "AWB" on here. It has another meaning.

To read your post you would think that the French are adapting glorified pleasure boats as lifeboats. They aren't. Have a look at the photos in the references I posted near the beginning (post 57) of this thread.

http://www.snsm.org/presentation-de-la-flotte

These are super boats and unless somebody can PROVE to the contrary, they appear as fit to the purpose as the RNLI boats. I don't know whether or not they share the same development as say pilot boats, but if they do, and that results in economies of scale why for Heaven's sake not? Incidentally if anyone doubts the seaworthiness of pilot boats they should google pilot boat tests in F10 in Ireland.

http://m.youtube.com/?reason=8&rdm=3671#/watch?v=eLIzp3WLpQE&desktop_uri=/watch?v=eLIzp3WLpQE

As well as being super boats, the French are undertaking to further upgrade their whole fleet with state-of-the-art technology over the next few years.
Click to expand...

And how does this boat overcome the need for carriage launch, you do seem to avoid this
 
mikefleetwood said:
My main point really (although I omitted it originally, and had to edit it in later) was that the SNSM has to work within cost constraints, whilst the RNLI doesn't (within reason). Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the SNSM slimmed-down financial model can be held up as better than the RNLI's ritches. I'm sure that given the choice the Admiral (retd.) at the head of SNSM would far rather have special dedicated designs for his boats.
Click to expand...

While the logic of your argument is sensible the results do not always end up as the logic suggests.

Its not a direct comparison but the UK built battleships without cost or weight restrictions. The Germans had weight restrictions but many would feel that overall their battleships were superior.
 
mikefleetwood said:
My main point really (although I omitted it originally, and had to edit it in later) was that the SNSM has to work within cost constraints, whilst the RNLI doesn't (within reason). Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the SNSM slimmed-down financial model can be held up as better than the RNLI's ritches. I'm sure that given the choice the Admiral (retd.) at the head of SNSM would far rather have special dedicated designs for his boats.
Click to expand...

I don't want to put words int Sybarite's mouth, but perhaps the point is that organizations that are so awash with cash that they don't need to worry about being efficient tend to become inefficient and wasteful.

It happens in business. There's no reason to think it wouldn't happen to a charity.

If money is no object and "only he best will do", why stop at in-house boat design? Why not design and build dry suits, life jackets, engines and crash helmets in-house?

Really, I think all Sybarite has done is point out something that looks on first blush to be wasteful and ask whether there is a better way.
 
bbg said:
I don't want to put words int Sybarite's mouth, but perhaps the point is that organizations that are so awash with cash that they don't need to worry about being efficient tend to become inefficient and wasteful.

It happens in business. There's no reason to think it wouldn't happen to a charity.

If money is no object and "only he best will do", why stop at in-house boat design? Why not design and build dry suits, life jackets, engines and crash helmets in-house?

Really, I think all Sybarite has done is point out something that looks on first blush to be wasteful and ask whether there is a better way.
Click to expand...

An analogy: the Americans for their space movement, spent $ 1m developing a pen that they could write in all conditions in space, upside down, weightlessness etc.

The Russians used a pencil.
 
mikefleetwood said:
I'm guessing that there was supposed to be a :D after this, or similar. I'm sure we know what "AWB" means in this context.

I never meant to imply they simply went to the boat show and selected a MOBO of the right size - I assumed they started with someting designed for extreme sea use. However, at the end of the day, it won't have been designed specifically as a lifeboat - so there will be some shortcomings when compared with something that is.



I never said the French boats weren't in any way fit-for-purpose - and I'm pretty sure no-one else did either. All I suggested was that something designed for a specific purpose is likely to be better at it than something that isn't.

.
Click to expand...

But it was designed specifically as a lifeboat by an architect who also designs pilot boats. He also designed the VC1 which was the example I used at the beginning of this thread.
 
chanelyacht said:
The Tamar cost £2.4m, but again, the French boat will have nowhere near the same amount of control technology, crew comfort innovations, or fly-by-wire systems that the Tamar has.
Click to expand...
Somewhere in this techno superiority debate you have lost sight of the fundamental issue. Do people die in French waters for want of another £100 million in their rescue service budget?

I believe the nanny state environment engendered by the Coast Guard and RNLI will ultimately be counter productive due to self sufficiency atrophy.
 
Sailfree said:
While the logic of your argument is sensible the results do not always end up as the logic suggests.

Its not a direct comparison but the UK built battleships without cost or weight restrictions. The Germans had weight restrictions but many would feel that overall their battleships were superior.
Click to expand...

Except when they actually had to fight
 
bbg said:
I don't want to put words int Sybarite's mouth, but perhaps the point is that organizations that are so awash with cash that they don't need to worry about being efficient tend to become inefficient and wasteful.
Click to expand...

I expect you are right and that was the original point he was trying to make.

However he started off with a superficial comparison between two boats, that turned out to be built to completely different requirements - the only attribute in common being their similar sizes.

He then moved on to compare the two services' AWBs - but here the cost difference is not so headline-grabbing. And again there are differences in the basic requirement.

He even quoted the head of the SNSM as saying that he had to work within "cost constraints".

To be honest, I'm not sure what the argument is about - the French seem to be happy with the way SNSM is run, and the Brits seem happy with RNLI.

Perhaps the RNLI would benefit from a less "top heavy" management structure - but then, perhaps the SNSM would benefit from a more "professional" management to generate greater income.

I have often heard the argument that the RNLI ought to buy in boats from outside builders (rather like the SNSM do), but this is always countered by the argument that the RNLI designs boats for specific conditions, and uses it's resources for continuous research and improvement of it's designs - in a way that an external manufacturer cannot afford to do.
 
There are many reasons why the RNLI is planning to build its own boats. They have traditionally used outside builders, but the number capable of doing this in the UK has shrunk as the emphasis has gone towards luxury MOBOs rather then high speed commercial craft. They believe that they have both the expertise in design and the ongoing requirement to support a viable boat building business that will meet their needs.

What really makes it feasible though is the availability of waterfront property in Poole with the redevelopment of the Holes Bay waterfront to build a facility. Remember Poole is also the home of Sunseeker, so there is a huge infrastructure of specialist businesses and availability of skills in the local area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top