Planning permission has been granted and work is ongoing for a huge expansion of the BAE Systems yard at Govan.

The former ‘wet basin’ has now been filled in preparation for the construction of a massive shipbuilding hall, just beside the current smaller halls.

Here’s a video.

I recently reported that planning permission had been granted for a huge new shipbuilding hall at the BAE Systems site in Govan, with work on the first ship to be built in the facility starting soon.

Huge Glasgow ‘frigate factory’ planning permission granted

It is hoped that Type 26 ships 3 to 8 will be assembled in this facility, with the first two being put together outdoors.

HMS Glasgow is shown below when she was being put together on the hard standing, adjacent to the wet basin area after she was built in sections in the existing build hall and joined together.

Image George Allison

The new drydock/build hall would allow ships to be built indoors, protecting them against the elements and would form part of an effort to modernise the yard to make it more attractive to future orders.

Project Background

In their Govan Assembly Hall planning consultation, BAE say that at present, full ships longer than 75 metres cannot be constructed undercover at Govan, something which is a major constraint to their business. Shown below is the current arrangement, the ā€˜SBOHā€™ is the facility in which ship hull sections are currently built before being moved outside and welded together.

According to the consultation:

ā€œAs such, BAE Systems intends to develop a new ship building hall which is capable of meeting the United Kingdomā€™s ship building requirements. This necessitates the construction of a new ship building facility in Govan,Ā one that will allow for at least two ships to be built simultaneously under cover and in single hull format.

ā€œThe opportunity to provide a new modern ship building hall of this nature would allow BAE Systems to adopt improved shipbuilding techniques together with improved construction access and state of the art, dedicated, on-site office and amenities accommodation.ā€

Indicative Visualisation of Proposed Ship Building Assembly Hall
Indicative Visualisation of Proposed Ship Building Assembly Hall

The Ship Building Hall and Supporting Accommodation

The firm state that the shipbuilding hall will occupy part of the existing shipyard wet basin and will provide accommodation to allow for at least two ships to be built simultaneously under cover and in single hull format.

Proposed Elevation 1 ā€“ Scale 1:250

In terms of dimensions, the proposed shipbuilding hall will be approximately 81 metres wide, 170 metres long and 49 metres high to the building ridge line.

Proposed Elevation 2 ā€“ Scale 1:200

This represents a massive expansion of capabilities and capacity at the yard, as letā€™s not forget, the original build hall will still be available for use.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

106 COMMENTS

  1. Any minute now there will be a complaint from Mr. Yousaf about the lack of investment in Scotland and U.K. shipbuilding. Such is lifeļ»æšŸ˜“ļ»æ

    • I was waiting for someone to come on here complaining about ships not being built in England for the hundredth time.

      I guess all nationalist play the same broken record šŸ˜‚

      • Hang on what in those actual comments suggests a Nationalist argument that all ships should be built in England, even by implication? No idea what those contributors think about where ships should be built but at worst they are a prospective claim that building them in Scotland isnā€™t being truthfully recognised or appreciated by the Scottish political leadership. Best to read the actual words I think rather than substitute ones own to simply rewrite history to suit oneā€™s prejudices.

      • The recent announcements of massive investments in Barrow (and Derby) may silence those for a while.

        Talking of Derby, I only just spotted last week’s announcement of funding for Rolls Royce micro-reactor, ready in 2029 for a moonshot. It’s on the commercial side of Space UK’s programme so I was a bit late picking it up. I was talking to a Rolls Royce guy about the underlying tech last year and it’s a whole generation ahead of their SMR programme. And now it’s to deploy on the Moon. How cool is that?

        The US Artemis program also has three candidate reactors, from Westinghouse, Lockheed Martin and IX, but obviously I’m rooting for Rolls.

        • I live in Derby and it would be fair to say I do have a vested interest in this. But in the last month this old Town (sorry City) is absolutely Banging.
          AUKUS, SMR, Moon Reactor and New HQ for GBR.
          We just need the Rams to remember where the Goal is and jobs a good un.

  2. Question is how long do they need to let that fill settle before building on it? for normal houses it usually 4/5 years and me thinks building the shed with associated cranes etc and 2 x T-26 will weigh a bit more than a few affordable housing flats and 2/3 bed semi and 4 bed houses?

      • Not nonsense at all, unless piles are driven down to the bedrock, the ground beneath a buildings foundation has to be left to settle before the rest of the building is completed.
        In this case it would depend on what sort of foundation the floor of the wet basin has if any.

        • I do wish people with no expertise would stop making stupid comments, which assumes that the people at BAE, who are in fact qualified in these matters, are idiots. They have obviously done the structural calculations and have begun work to a deadline.

        • Obviously nonsense because you suggest BAE donā€™t know how to build a ship building hall. So why make yourself look childish.

          • At no point have I suggested that BAE don’t know how to build a ship hall.
            As you said no doubt BAE are working to a deadline which they are fully capable of meeting, however the op’s question is still perfectly valid as we do not yet know when the hall is expected to be completed.

            It was little under 4 years after HMS Glasgow was laid down that her fore and aft sections were moved outside and joined together, so for the third ship to be joined together inside the new hall the hall would need to be completed in the next two years. So while it seems unlikely that the fill will need 4/5 years to settle it could be left for an number of months or maybe as long as a year without affecting the build schedule.

      • I suspect the comment is aimed at the fill, not the concrete layer on top. Roman concrete is still curing 2500 years after it was laid and is stable. I would think, from a non-structural engineers perspective, I would drive piles in places where cranes and other lift assets were to be placed and lay enough concrete around where the ships will sit on their plinths (or whatever the word is).
        cheers

        • Fair question must admit itā€™s not what I was quite expecting it to be done and will be interested to see the whole process.

      • It isnā€™t concrete that has been used to fill the basin. It looks to me more like Type1 MOT made from recycled aggregate.

        As I donā€™t know how it was put in I donā€™t know if it was compacted or not or if it was put in wet or dry.

        What that looks like, to me, is the first stage in creating a piling mat that is safe to put heavy machinery on top of.

        But what I can say is that you are not going to build a critically aligned facility on top of that fill. As others have suggested it will be compressing and stabilising for a good while.

        It will almost certainly be piled with a concrete raft on top. Although as piles donā€™t generally go down to bedrock and they work by fluid friction that doesnā€™t mean the raft doesnā€™t deflect. Concrete is surprisingly bendy!

    • Interesting thought, myself living in a new build there is a 5 year period after construction that you will need to have building inspectors come in and check for subsidence. However during this period it is perfectly fine to go about the daily routines etc, the flooring on this particular building will have been designed in such a way as will most likely have several layers of concrete to mitigate the risk of ground pressure from above with appropriate for future weight bearing foundations.

    • Civil Engineering is not my bag but I’d imagine the infill will be tampered and compacted, Piles will be driven in and a Concrete slab put on top.

      • Yep estate near me was filled, compacted left for 5 yeats. then had 20m piles driven in concrete foundations beams laid across pile top and then pre-cast concrete laid on top of these and the bricks etc, they have been built for 4 years and still complaining about cracks due to settling, also sewers had to be be redone because they settled to!!! So how long 1000’s of tons of fill dumped on top of riverbed will take to fully compress with huge concrete slab and Frigate shed is got be be a guess.

    • Take a look at Bramley More dock in Liverpool. Everton FC,s new home. The dock was filled in with sand from the Irish sea. Pilings were then drilled into the sand and the stadium was being built within weeks.

    • It will be a fill material laid and compacted by roller in layers so won’t settle (as long as it was done properly….)

    • Not a civil engineer, but have a look at the timeline for Everton’s new stadium at Bramley Moore Dock.

      Infilled, piled and construction all started in very quick succession. Perhaps point load of pitch v ship is different, however the fabric of the stadium is far greater than ship building shed.

      1st October 21 infil of fluidised sand began – 450000 cubic m
      20th October 21 piling began for 2500 concrete piles

    • Hopefully rather than just a blob of landfill, there’s piling beneath to make it rest on rock. Then a reinforced base of concrete should be on a solid foundation rather than waiting for saturated landfill to dry out. Says me, NO engineer!

    • It depends on the fill material. It looks like a graded aggregate material (i.e.crushed rock with blended fines) has been used, this should consolidate well in layers to form a very solid and stable base. Such construction is very well understood as it’s been used in road building etc.for centuries. Soil infill of most types is a very different beast.

    • I was thinking the exact same thing. From the aerial photo, it looks like they’re using rollers to compact the layers as they go, and if they’re using something like well-graded aggregate, there shouldn’t be too much settling after that (nowhere near as bad as soil settling).

      I’m still not sure why they didn’t develop this ‘frigate factory’ on the desolate land on the other side of the wet basin where they wouldn’t have to fill a basin at all, then they’d still have the wet basin to do fitting out etc

  3. And as I mentioned in the other thread BAE are also applying this month for fast track permission to clear a major part of the Barrow site with the demolition of Warehouse B36 (one of the largest buildings on site and adjoining the dock basin), in anticipation of future redevelopment.

    • SSNr is going to be a fast paced programme with an obvious need to get first 2-3 subs in service asap. The Chinese threat, already severe is likely to reach a critical level in the 2030s so we really need our SSN numbers boosted to +10 subs asap.

      • I’m not sure it’s so much SSN(R) (I guess now AUKUS), as the Astute program being so glacially slow. The Astute class took on average more than twice the build time than any of the preceding classes.

        A combination of loss of shipyard workforce, organisational changes/ loss of admiralty oversight/project management, loss of specialist designers, a haphazard project start, changing the design mid class and increasing build and safety standards (that BAE didn’t exactly help its subcontractors to adjust to)… All came together to make the build time so ridiculously long.

        I don’t think we’ll get back to the roughly 4-year build time we had before (and the US still has), but I think 6 years is probably more likely than the 11 years Artful and Audacious took.

        • Why ever not 4 years?

          Where there is a will there is a way.

          You could increase throughput by 10% by working Friday afternoon for starters.

          The you have a 70% uplift in workforce which you would hope would drive another 70%+ increase in productivity.

  5. Good progress but I donā€™t see the same progress in replacing Warrior. I see our Swedish fairy god mother has sold us some Archers. How about some CV90s? I see the UK build rate for the supposed ( and as yet cannon-less) Boxer replacement is a less than stunning 50 per year! The numbers and ISDs arenā€™t adding up?

    • According to Forces News its an even worse 3 a month build rate. 260 by 2030.
      Build rate will have to be doubled if we want anymore than 623 before 2040.

      • I think the best thing could be a government owned plant with basic equipment for building vehicles that as part of contracts awarded the plant is rented to the contract winner, then the next contract winner takes over when jobs done.
        Obviously it takes a steady amount of contracts for vehicles.
        As I know very little about vehicles production lines I donā€™t know if it has any benefit over what currently happens.

        • Great idea- it would end BAEs monopoly on UK defence procurement whilst avoiding the shambles that is Ajax.
          The issue with our armoured vehicle fleet is even though they came into service decades apart, all are being replaced at the same time which I assume is a large part of the slow build rate at Telford because there is no certain future for them.

          • The irony is that BAE’s monopoly largely came about due to consolidation of industry due to lack of orders. BAE themselves hardly gained from this which is why they have refocused their activities overseas. I’m not sure that the obsessive focus on competition has improved the situation, as Ajax shows. It’s much like the situation in UK train manufacturing which due to boom and bust cycles now has far too much capacity to be sustainable.

          • Unless you have sufficient orders (like a US company, or German ones which manage to get significant overseas sales) I don’t think privatised defence companies work especially well.
            I think it worked better when the admiralty designed our ships and then contracted out to yards to build them.
            Or just have defence companies in which the state has a controlling stake (like many European countries have).

          • If commentatorā€™s would look up from their navels for a bit and cast their eyes around the world they would notice that itā€™s pretty much the same everywhere! Even in the US! You tend to have 1 or 2 huge companies in each sector and a few minnows. The exceptions tend to be parts of huge conglomerates, like GE or Boeing. As an aside, in my junior days I once had a Fund Manager towering over me berating me for having the temerity to suggest that Boeing was a defence stock and explicitly excluded from the client mandate. Shows my age, but after an email response (ccā€™d to his boss) he did apologise. I digress, conglomerates and mega-corps together with state owned or tri-national joint ventures, are the way of the defence . This is no accident , but a factor made necessary by the long lead times, high risk and investment requirements and feast/famine.

        • That’s more or less the approach taken for shipbuilding in Australia. Seems like a good system, because it allows for some degree of competition without the inefficiency of duplication. Also maintaining an experienced and consistent skills base.

          • Having an interest in Australian defence and reading a couple of their blogs, the locals donā€™t seem to share your view that everything is rosy in Defence down under.

          • Maybe so, but what’s the alternative? Australia is never going to be a major exporter with their cost base.

      • Itā€™s to be expected for the initial build rate. As everyone is learning the process of what works and doesnā€™t when manufacturing the Boxer. In a years time, the production speed will have ramped up from lessons learned.

    • Forces news has some videos on YouTube of the first boxers being started. 2 guys hand welding 2 wee bits together.
      Made me wonder how difficult it would be for a car/truck production line to be capable of building military vehicles. Or at least the bits that are best done by robots.

  6. Congrats to whoever is working on that ‘factory/shed/thing… Massive amount of work gone on so far. Hopefully they can complete the building as quickly as they drained and filled the dock underneath.

    • It will be interesting to compare that to how quickly Starbase built their Megabay a matter of months in their case and they seem to have had no problem creating a surface on far from solid ground there to immediately support rather heavy stacking of Starship booster sections.

    • The footprint looks OK for the Type 26, I just hope there is enough margin factored in for the possible Type 83,you wouldn’t want your design team constrained by the size of the site.

  9. its amazing the motivation to get this done when the opposition turn up with an all new frigate factory after stealing BAE of its rightful dues to build all UK escorts.

    fingers crossed we can now have the continuity of warship ordering that can keep the two yards in clover.

    type 32 and type 83 orders in batches and in the right timeframe and offered to both yards should keep them nice and honest.

    The only problem we have is that the massive delays on escort building in the 2010s may push warship building into another feast and famine cycleā€¦with lots of orders and building now until the mid 2030s to catch up on all the lost building time/expanding the fleet and then it drys up again from the 2040s.

    The problem is the size of the fleet needs to a balance of industrial strategy + fleet requirements to do the job itā€™s asked + capital funding + ongoing fundingā€¦.HMG has never quite got it right. Because sometime you just need to have a slightly bigger fleet than you many have wanted and end up having some increased in year costs because in the end it works out more efficient that way ( shutting yardsā€¦making skilled personnel redundant then rebuilding the yard and capable is just not efficient..steady as she goes drum beat of production is always the way to go as well as having a bit of competition so you can offer contracts out to different yards.

    If we are looking at each yard taking 2 years to build and launch a hull then about the same time to fit out and hand over we can see that each yard can be working on 2 ships each ( one hull being constructed and one fitting out)
    You can then commissioning 1 ship a year into service ( you would stager from each yard) so as not to overburden the RN in commissioning. This would allow you to run a fleet or 24 escorts with a definite decommissioning by its 25th birthday.

    then you have Barrowā€¦if your capacity is one nuclear submarine every three years ( with 3 building) and your building to be decommissioned after 24-25 years then you can only really sustain a fleet of 9 boats so if they are looking to build Australian boats and have a a UK fleet of 12 boats there needs to be an up tick in nuclear boat production to more than one commissioned every 2 yearsā€¦we did it in 70s and 80s with a boat launching every year or second year.

    large vesselsā€¦we actually have quite a demand for large none complex hulls which will keep every other yard in beans for decades. HMG just needs to recapitalise these larger vessels in a more timely way.

    • If and itā€™s a big if orders can keep coming steadily the shipyards can keep improving, driving down costs and export orders may come.
      There has to be a follow on after type 31 and that will need to come before the last one is finished.
      If the yards are to be:
      Clyde: for top tier ships
      Barrow: submarines
      Rosyth: escorts and other vessels
      Belfast: large vessels, RFA
      Belfast needs to prove itself but hopefully there will be enough work for there and rosyth.
      There are also all the maintenance yards, smaller boats and the big yards often use smaller Ship builders, fabrication shops to help them.

      • Problem with that is it means thereā€™s no competition. Better to have BAE and Babcock battling for high and low end ships. Both should submit proposals for T32 as they have and both should be preparing for T83.
        Without it they become lazy as is seen with BAEā€™s recent wake up call. With competitive shipyards foreign orders will come.
        Cammell Laird had a proposal a few years back for a 400m dry dock and dock number 5 is big enough already so with two dry docks at each they could compete for civilian ships as well.

  10. Looks to be proceeding well. Shame they could not remove the old buildings at the back and increase the length though.

  12. Can’t come soon enough to ensure we can build faster whenever the PM/COC allow funds to get what we need built. Read in Warship World a couple of months back the T32 & T83 is as yet unfunded & stalled. By the late 1930s we were building furiously for the navy. Here & now we’re moving at snails pace & starving essential programs of funds.

    • The problem with that is we then run out of orders. The History of British Naval shipbuilding is one of Boom and Bust and that is largely responsible for the dire state we were in 10 years ago.
      The secret to building good ships at a reasonable price is to build at an agreed Drumbeat of orders. This allows the builders to invest long term in facilities, training and technology. Also the MOD/ Treasury is tied into contracts that penalise under ordering.
      You just need to look at the investment by BAe in Scotland and Barrow to see what happens when you have 20/30 years work ahead. Long term investment, security fir the workforce and supply chain.
      Besides which you just canā€™t quickly up the tempo of builds due to the constraints of the facilities and workforce.
      But what you can do is increase the overall numbers by incrementally adding some uplifts in numbers to existing orders. Then let the builders accelerate the process with extra shifts and increasing apprentice numbers.
      At present we have a force of 13 Frigates and 6 Destroyers and are planning to replace on a 1 to 1 basis.
      If there was the Political will and finance you could probably uplift to say 16 and 8 over 15/20 years.
      The big challenge and opportunity we have just taken on is AUKUS as our part in those builds is providing the necessary mass to enable investment.
      And that results in cheaper builds so in theory we could uplift the U.K. SSN(R) buy.

      • 1 sub every 2 years
        1 frigate (t26/45) every 2 years
        1 frigate (t31) every 2 years
        1 multi mission patrol every 1 year
        1 large RFA/Amphib every 18 months
        100 enabling craft every year (atlas, rhibs, tugs etc)

        this is the drumbeat we should have – and its affordable.
        for corvette looking at something around the new X class

        probably cost Ā£5bn pa all in, every single year.

          • Ha. You are right

            Personally I donā€™t care what they call them as long as they build them

            With a Ā£50bn pa defence budget we seem to get very little for it and just keep on making poor decisions that drain money (now doing same with HS2)

            Time we started sticking to a plan imo

        • Large ship every 18 months seems too ambitious unless weā€™re planning to build cruise ships as well.
          30 years divided by 18 months means weā€™d need 20 such ships.
          3 FSSS, 4 tides, 6 MRSS gives 13, 15 if the waves are replaced (nothings to my knowledge been said about the programme since it appeared in the NSS.)
          On the topic of cruise ships there are various British cruise lines that could be given incentives to buy British in the 2030s once H&W gets going and leaves the opportunity for Cammell Laird to join in.

          • 4 points, 3 bays, 2 albions, 1 Argos, 1 ocean, 2 LSGs, 3 SSS + 4 Tides , 2 waves + anvil point = 23

            Could have counted others such as forts,Scott, diligence and orange classes but havenā€™t

            Replace with 14 MRSS (karel doorman type vessel), 6 FFT + 5 FloFlos + 5 MROS for good measure and thatā€™s 30 ships or 1 pa over 30 yrs

            There is plenty of requirements and I think they should all be built at CL

            Optimal is probably a 25 year lifecycle with a single major overhaul at year 13 then look to sell Soon after.

            100 ship navy should be our target and as sir John stated and T26 proves. Get the drumbeat right and the costs start coming into the right cost envelope.

            Real challenge is quality and making sure we donā€™t go down the route some British endeavours do where we make ourselves uncompetitive

          • On cruise ships I often wonder how they can build such high end vessels with top class finishes and azimuth propellers for far less than a T26

            I know weaponry costs a fortune. But so does the finishing of these ships which are just huge.

            Something to learn from that space I think

      • No matter how many times you repeat this. Some moron will keep coming to the site and repeating ā€œitā€™s too slowā€. It would be nice to have a moderator that binned some of these silly posts.

        • They do not understand that even the richest countries cannot just build at speed continuously and maintain a viable industrial base.
          The best example I can think of in recent years is the USN, during the the cold war they were building Submarines at a hell of a pace.
          The Los Angeles Class of 62 boats were built over a 24 year period 1972-1996 or 2.6 pa.
          At pretty well the same time 1976-1997 they built 24 Ohios or 1.14 pa. Average that out is 86 boats in 25 years or 3.44pa.
          Then the peace dividend happened and orders slumped, the US build capacity contracted and the supply chain shrank.
          Now the US has to replace those boats with new ones and is struggling to achieve even 2 pa.
          Overall numbers can be increased but to do it and sustain that you need a well planned incremental increase and a replacement strategy.
          A typical example is Japan in 2010 they committed to increase their active Submarine fleet from 16 to 22. To achieve this slightly increased the drum beat of orders and delayed the decommissioning of a few by a year or 2. It has taken them 13 years but they now have 22 moderns boats plus 2 for training and they will all be replaced boat for boat going forwards.

          • Thanks for your examples, people on these blogs seem resistant to engaging their brains before typing.

  13. I’m intrigued to know how they will dock the barge to launch Cardiff & Belfast. The photos of HMS Glasgow show the barge goes right up to the corner of the existing key, which the new infill goes well past (into the space where the barge needs to go) I’m guessing some piling to form a new key edge will be required and the excess fill dredged.

    • Once the new Shed is built the Ships will roll out of the door straight onto the Barge,no need for any turning etc,that’s the way i see it.

    • Giving it more thought, i think that should the new infilled area be completed in time for when the two halves of Cardiff are joined up outside ,this process will be carried out there rather than the space on the Slipway side as was the case for Glasgow with work ongoing for the Shed construction around it.Once Cardiff is floated off the Shed work will be finished and Belfast will be fully joined and made ready for float off under cover of the new building ( all speculative of course ).

  14. Good Morning All. The appointment of Mr. Yousaf as SNP leader and hence First Minister caps the recent decline of the SNP but for Unionists the challenge remains to promote the many good reasons for maintaining the centuries old United Kingdom. Scottish Nationalism will remain a legitimate political aspiration in Scotland so the appointment of this chap might only offer temporary respite for those of us who cherish the UK and its institutions such as our Armed Forces.
    Second as per Sonik and other comments on the build per George’s article above, engineering solutions depend very much on local conditions but the engineering and construction teams on a project of this size will be well versed on what is required. Here in SA we are witnessing a rapid decline in standards and every day I have to witness construction horrors. From my office window i am looking at a dry stack wall under construction breaking all the rules-building on an uncured foundation, ignoring the maximum allowable angle of inclination, using uncompacted earth fill etc.. As Sonik says proper graded fill (as G5 in SA) consolidated and compacted in layers is the slower but only correct method for this system. As for swamps and wetlands the problems are much greater. A former wetland here in a Durban industrial estate houses some engineering disasters-massive surface beds that have sank from their original levels leaving the bases of the columns 2 metres above the original floor
    Cheers from Durbanļ»æšŸ˜³ļ»æ

    • IMHO and I speak as a proud Scot who is pro Union. The best argument for the Union is the uplift in U.K. shipbuilding which is going on right now based on U.K exports and alliances.
      If any Nationalist can convince me that Scotland would have a share of the Tri Partite T26 build, T31 exports or involvement in AUKUS if it wasnā€™t part of the UK Iā€™d be dumbfounded.
      If Scotland were to gain independence you would very quickly watch 2 things happen the rapid obliteration of Shipbuilding in Scotland and an exodus of workers to southern climes.

      • Hi Rodney. Thanks for your reply and I agree with what you say. The Union has to be broadly acceptable to all the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in terms of what it provides economically, through a feeling of a shared identity that also accommodates regional differences in culture and background and connections through family, institutions, geography and a broadly shared language. The words Shipbuilding and Scotland have for many years been synonymous and the revival of the Scottish industry is wonderful to witness. It was of course the same in NI from where all my family hail. I have lived in Africa for most of my life but my identity was forged irrevocably in the mid 1950’s when my Aunt took me down to the Shankill on the 12th of July. I never learned to have any ill feelings towards Catholics but did learn to love the Union Jack almost as a religious icon.
        That simple-heart over head.
        Cheers

  15. I hope they join it to the current building so they can move sideways in a production line, keeping it all undercover.

    would seem a missed opportunity if they don’t and the relative additional expense is minimal for maximum payoff.

  18. Several regiments and the RAF today showing off their new regimental badges with the ER II to CR III monogram and change from female crown to a male crown. They will be worn for the first time on Coronation Day.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here