BAE Systems has submitted a planning application that would see the ‘Ship Block Outfit Hall’ at its Govan shipyard in Glasgow expanded.

The expanded 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.

The firm submitted a Planning Application Notice to Glasgow City Council with the purpose:

“Erection of extension to ship block and outfit hall, demolition of buildings to accommodate extension and associated works.”

What would that look like? Here’s a very high-quality diagram.

A BAE Systems spokesperson said:

“A programme of investment is already underway to improve the infrastructure that enables the safe design, construction and commissioning of the complex warships that we build for the Royal Navy here in Glasgow. As part of this activity we are exploring further opportunities to modernise our facilities and ensure we are best placed to deliver current and future customer commitments.”

An online consultation will start soon and plans are expected to be able to be viewed online from mid-December to mid-January. It is understood that there is no publicly available cost just yet for the proposed development.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
87 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Steeper
David Steeper
2 months ago

Does anyone know if this would speed up construction on site ?

Last edited 2 months ago by David Steeper
Andrew
Andrew
2 months ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I suppose it would as poor weather must lower productivity. But unless things have changed in the last few years I understand they are deliberately building the T26’s on the slow so as to maintain continuous construction on the site.

David Steeper
David Steeper
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Thanks. Not what I wanted to hear but what I expected.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Maybe there is some forward planning here due to some potential new future builds? Bringing the schedule forward, exports, T83, and even 1/2 joking, more T26s and a couple more T45s v2?

Tim Hirst
Tim Hirst
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Absolutely no chance of a T45v2. More T26 either for the U.K. or direct export is possible. With the T45’s getting big upgrades they could probably run on a few extra years if there was demand for additional T26.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Tim Hirst

The T45 Hull’s have a lot less miles on them than they were designed for: so far.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
2 months ago

Agree. Due to delayed commisioning and in service dates for QE class carriers. Plus power and propulsion failures has meant the type 45s have little mileage on their hulls and must be in a decent material state. I think there might be some mileage in squeezing out a couple more type 26s after current 8 built, especially if lethargic building rate is sped up. I think we could get upto 11 or 12 type 26s before construction switches to type 83s in the 2030s. Surely 12 is doable with unit cost falling now Australia, Canada have purchased the design? Unit… Read more »

Meirion x
Meirion x
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I think we could do with a least 2 more T26’s.

eclipse
eclipse
2 months ago
Reply to  Meirion x

I think the possibility of Type 26 Batch 3 AAW is existent. We have a shortage of Type 45s, and since construction of Type 83 is still 10-15 years away, this could be an interim, number-boosting solution. Get rid of the Sea Ceptor silos, replace it with 24 more Mk.41 VLS and you end up with a ship that can carry 8 FC/ASW, 32 Asters, and 32 Sea Ceptor. If it’s possible to fit a better radar… great. Even 2-3 of these would help.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago
Reply to  eclipse

Yes, I think 2 (maybe 4?) interim AAW Type 26s would really bolster the fleet and availability of these ships especially to a CSG. And even additional ASW T26 or even T32s if they’ll have ASW ability.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The danger with that notion is HMGs bean counters will say “look the RN has air defence ships, we dont need to fund a new purpose built destroyer” and hey presto we will be left with 4 ships instead of 8 needed.

Steve M
Steve M
2 months ago
Reply to  eclipse

Fitting ‘better radar’ wouldn’t even be necessary, the primary T-45 should be able tocontrol the missiles from a T-26 AAW frigate? Aegis has 1 primary ‘god’ role which can control direct all SM-2’s in fleet.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steve M
andy a
andy a
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve M

I believe the RN cut the co operative part out to save cash? I happy to be told Im wrong but sure I recall that.

Steve M
Steve M
2 months ago
Reply to  andy a

Why would i not even be surpised 😔

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  andy a

They did.

But like everything electronic it will have evolved and gotten cheaper/better over time.

This is the sort of thing you can add pretty fast as it is conns and software.

Fused battle space, which Cooperative engagement is part of, is on the buzz word list. So it could well be funded IRL.

Richard Newcombe
Richard Newcombe
2 months ago
Reply to  andy a

Not wrong.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve M

Then you would be better off with some T31+ with Mk41 VLS or Aster VLS as silo boats controlled from a T45 or even a radar fit on QEC as the mast is even higher.

If all you are doing is cuing AAW launch then what do you need an ASW quiet and expensive T26 hull for?

I hope this shed extension is really also about increasing fleet numbers and build rhythm.

There does seem to be a renewed urgency about doing stuff to move things forward rather than hand wringing and managed decline. Which is refreshing.

Steve M
Steve M
2 months ago

agreed, i posted before we should look at getting some 100m bulk freighters turn into drone ships put loads of VLS in them. you could load vls depending on mission requirements (AAW-Aster/Sea Ceptor, Atk – tomahawk/ FCASW or mix)

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago

Will Aster be able to be loaded in MK41 VLS? I thought the Aster DCN(?) silos are a slightly different spec? Hopefully there’s some cross-loading abilty at least for future missiles.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Aster currently is not qualified for use in MK41 VLS,although it has been mentioned that going forward MBDA have plans to do so.

Callum
Callum
2 months ago
Reply to  eclipse

While I’m in favour of a couple more T26s, your logic is faulty. The eighth T26 is still 15 years away; why is an interim design needed when construction on the actual T83 should begin then?

As for the whole “just replace SC silos with Mk41”, you can’t. Half the SC silos are behind the funnel in a very tightly packed location. The space forward of the present 24 Mk41 cells, based on the Hunter and CSC, can only fit another 8 cell launcher for 32 cells total.

Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  eclipse

Any extra Type 26s would come in the same timeframe as the Type 83s.

It will be a choice whether to build more Type 26s or Type 83s after the second batch of Type 26. The first T83 could come operational about a year after an extra AAW T26 would, so I don’t think it’s worth it as an interim measure. Especially as it would delat the Type 83.

Much cheaper and faster to upgun/upsensor Type 31s to AAW as a backup if we feel that’s needed. The Iver Huitfeldt has 32 Mk 41 VLS. The Type 31 is FFBNW.

andy a
andy a
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Exactly upgunning the T31 to fight peers is the way to go, no need to pay for the whole t26 full monty.

Richard Newcombe
Richard Newcombe
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Yes. Maybe . No . No chance .

Sisyphus
Sisyphus
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Here is an idea to maintain continuous construction… build an extra T26. Good news about this development.

Andrew
Andrew
2 months ago
Reply to  Sisyphus

Yes quite. I personally think it is both possible and proportionate to double the Royal Navy’s budget, in which case I would be building another 8.

I suspect with the current crop of politicians though this will only happen though if a large scale war broke out and then it will be too late.

andy a
andy a
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Lets be honest even with 16billion more over 4 years they are still actually cutting the cash that pays salaries and actually services the kit and pays for parts.

Mark B
Mark B
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Surely they will want to show capacity to build. Bidding is tricky when your order books are full and I am not sure they wish to encourage the competion? Is there not a danger other companies will be able to demonstate a quicker/cheaper build?

Richard Newcombe
Richard Newcombe
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Been told to more like.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I think the extra cash for MOD’s equipment budget is allowing BAe and Babcock to speed up – so the investment is driven by that. Yes working on two ships undercover will have an impact on productivity. The new shipbuilding strategy should also give a timeline on getting T83 in the water, and that is almost a shoe-in for BAe to build as follow-on (given that Type 32 will probably go to Babcock) I should think. Competition is most likely to be about the design authority, not which yards build them.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Meirion x
Meirion x
2 months ago

Any idea what the buildings at the rear,
to be demolished are?

Last edited 2 months ago by Meirion x
tomuk
tomuk
2 months ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Fairfields Engine Works, Category A listed.

“The finest surviving engineering works in Scotland and

perhaps in Britan “(Hume, 1976, p24). It is probable

that no other similar building, employing an internal

cast-iron frame, exists on such a scale anywhere else in

the world

Meirion x
Meirion x
2 months ago
Reply to  tomuk

Ho dear! The planning app. might be rejected by GCC, unless, BAES could move the Fairfields building somewhere else?
Thanks for this info Tomuk!

Last edited 2 months ago by Meirion x
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Meirion x

I’d imagine GCC would bend over backwards at the aroma of proper investment and modern facilities there.

It means the yard has a good future.

And better working conditions/productivity.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  tomuk

The Cat B listed crane was demolished in the last modernisation.

It is highly likely it would be moved/donated to a heritage centre.

tomuk
tomuk
2 months ago

Being Cat A listed makes it the equivalent of Glasgow Cathedral or the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh.

I believe Kvaerner applied for a similar extension in the past and it was thrown out.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  tomuk

Times have changed wrt listed buildings.

If GCC say no the end of the yard is written in lights. Production would be moved elsewhere, where a big shed and crane would be welcome.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago

Apart from John Hume, a renowned Glasgow historian of industrial architecture/archaeology, I doubt many people know the engine sheds exist. (Several years ago, I did attend a rather good talk Prof Hume gave – I recommend his work if you’re interested in the UK’s industrial past). As the buildings are located within the BAE complex – the public can’t visit them. I suspect the engine sheds won’t stop a major redevelopment of the site. What isn’t affected are the old offices and boardroom of the Fairfield Company – restored through the efforts of the redoubtable Paul Sweeney (Glasgow MSP) and… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Hi Alan, As a disabled person who is now getting rather long in the tooth to boot, I have a love hate relationship with old buildings. History is important and so are the buildings that played a crucial role in that history and from that prespective they should, where possible, be preserved. However, the rules at the moment fossilise these buildings to the point where it is impossible to bring them up to modern usable standards. A case in point, I once went to find a job just after I had been made redundent. I up me best suit on… Read more »

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Hi CR
Thanks for your post which I once again enjoyed reading.

I agree – a building needs a context, and should be fit for modern living, including access for all. The needs of the disabled have not been well catered for ……….

I do wish to retain historic buildings, if possible, but they must have a context – and I don’t see the point of reconstructing these particular engine workshops in a completely different location!

If their demolition allows for a new covered facility at Govan, I will happily stand aside – and allow your bulldozer to pass 😀!

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Thanks Alan,

Better save me pennies for that bulldozer 😉

Cheers CR

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  tomuk

Strangely I cannot find the application online at Glasgow.gov.uk unless it has not been registered yet.

It will be publicly visible if and when it is registered.

I agree with other posters that I won’t involve the offices which would be controversial just the engine sheds which are not accessible anyway.

I see the engine sheds being donated to a heritage museum with a budget for their restoration.

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago

Interesting posts – thanks for that.

Either they’ll be knocked down, the road-facing facade retained in some way, or they’ll be methodically taken apart, logged and as you note, stored/donated. I’m the sort who’s saddened by their loss, but we need to modernise facilities to aid both their productivity and longevity. I’m sure the blokes that erected them and worked in them would agree.

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

To add, the same goes for Alan. thanks. 🙂

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

Many thanks, Lusty.

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

You’re more than welcome.

It’s always a pleasure to read informative and thought-out posts, rather than the blunt/dismissive/trolly ones. I knew of the existence of buildings on the site, but I was unaware of their status, so thanks for that. 🙂

Expat
Expat
2 months ago

Looks like BAe reacting to Babcocks investment at Rosyth. Babcock have trumped BAe investing of the back of a much smaller T31 contract saying to build hulls efficiently you need to have a proper facilities and use the latest techniques.

Last edited 2 months ago by Expat
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Exactly my thoughts too.

andy a
andy a
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Hope to god they make a succes of the t31 and hopefully get more orders. A total monopolly is good for no one

Gareth
Gareth
2 months ago
Reply to  andy a

Absolutely; BAe have abused the tax payer enough times. They need to know that there’s always the possibility that they might lose out on government contracts to someone else.

Challenger
Challenger
2 months ago

Nice to see they are thinking ahead. Efficiencies in production could provide some wiggle room to speed up the T26 schedule and potentially squeeze something between them and T83 if called upon.

Rob
Rob
2 months ago

Seems a no brainer. Didn’t the local Govt want a frigate factory on the Clyde? Well this is a Frigate factory on the Clyde and now we have one at Rosyth too!

How about one in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?

tomuk
tomuk
2 months ago
Reply to  Rob

Well there is an old one at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, a small one at H&W Appledore, one hardly used one at Portsmouth Dockyard and the largest dry dock in the UK at H&W Belfast.

Steve M
Steve M
2 months ago
Reply to  tomuk

Isn’t this dependant on possible outcome of Scottish IND ref2? Can’t build complex warships in ‘foriegn’ countries?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve M

This made me curious like you on a few counts too. Is this relaunch of the ‘frigate factory’ that Bae cancelled as much based on the fear of Scottish Independence as other factors. Is it different? On either account what’s changed to spur this change of mind, simply Babcock’s developments forcing them to do so despite the insecurity of potential independence or do they have indicators from Govt that it can’t take effect for such a time period that immediate investment is still worth it. And laterally is some prospect of foreign orders enough to move the investment line between… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Spyinthesky
Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Spyinthesky
The perspective is slightly different from north of the border; one can never say never of course (it remains a hypothetical scenario, like many other things), but it is 99.5% unlikely that there will be a Scottish secession (IMHO).
Indeed to put this in context, it’s perhaps more likely that Northern Ireland would leave the UK before Scotland – her constitutional position today is much more perilous.

andy a
andy a
2 months ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Course the powers that be said that no major country could leave the EU??

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago
Reply to  andy a

Hi Andy, Fair point, perhaps – but I do think Brexit and Scexit are two different beasts. The United Kingdom is a single unitary state, the EU is not. The EU/UK have 30-40 years of economic integration; UK/Scotland has over 300 years. The UK was a major net contributor to the EU; Scotland is a net beneficiary of UK funding/large government contracts – like T26 orders! Many British people had little enthusiasm for EU institutions/the Scots have a close relationship with UK institutions – Monarchy, Armed forces, BBC … etc I could go on, but I’ll stop there …… You’re… Read more »

Andy a
Andy a
2 months ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Not point I was making. I’m just saying so called experts are often wrong, brexit was emotion and U.K. break up could be the same. People lash out illogically

Steve M
Steve M
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy a

Brexit has already proved border issues (just look at NI) if the Scottish people choose to leave (hope not) and want to join EU there will be a border as Scotland cannot be open the free EU travel and Uk not. Also i thought condition of joining is adoption of Euro!! and i believe Ms Sturgeon has already said they want to keep BRITISH pound and have a say in monetary policy wtf!!! thats like accepting the $ and expecting to tell US Fed what they should do.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steve M
Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  tomuk

H&W dry dock is formerly the largest in the UK. The Able dry dock on Teesside could take two Ford-class carriers side by side and there are plans to extend it further to about 500m in length. It dwarfs the one at H&W.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jon
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago

Well this is good news, but here is a picture of a seriously large shipyard in China, Jiangnan Shipyard. You can also see the new PLAN aircraft carrier under construction.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbLq2YswJVT8i4AW9L1SZ0PzbtaFMzHz/view

Cheers CR

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
2 months ago

I wonder how much of the buildings behind are part of the preservation order? All or just part. Don’t know if George has seen the specific plans or not but is it a possible to extend one part of the main shed back towards the road to be able to hold one full length hull while the rest still work on the various sections and bring them together in the former allowing new sections to be worked on. I guess it might work if a slow build is still pursued or adjusted on the various parts to make the whole… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Spyinthesky
Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago

Back in 2014, BAE had two proposals: build the frigate hall at Scotstoun, or retain and upgrade both sites. This looks like a re-hash of the second of those proposals.

It’s certainly welcome news and hopefully a sign of forward-planning – ie, perhaps a reflection on the complexities of the current build, allowing the yard to be better equipped to build the B2 T26 ships as well as future orders.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

No it doesn’t look like either previous proposal.

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

Thanks for your blunt replies as usual. 🙂

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

What I always love is the referencing or original sources: it gives the comments such a nice edge. Apart of course from the Ceptor VLS photo copied and pasted straight off Wiki. 🙂

The way the present plan is differentiated from the 2014 plan is of course breath takingly clear in the final incisive analysis.

The fact that we are all wrong, even on things we worked on IRL, and a higher being is right: clearly means I must readjust my perspective on reality.

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago

Aha, well, Wiki is always worth avoiding. I would rather check a fair few sources to verify the information before posting it – even if I worked on or with something! Of course, the current plan is different from 2014. I think that’s fairly clear, especially when one examines material published at the time. Perhaps on my part, I should have said “it reminds me of one of the proposals given in 2014”. As I said in my rather long post on George’s recent shipbuilding article, I need to clarify and pick my wording carefully. It’s something I can learn… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

To be clear, my tongue in cheek comment wasn’t aimed at you Lusty!

Cheers

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago

Aha, I thought so!

Have a good night. Cheers.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

Way to get your knickers in a twist over posting something daft.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago

Wrong as usual. The VLS photo was from EDR’s article on Albatros NG.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago

My take on the story is this – Negotiations for Type 26 Batch 2 are ongoing/imminent,the Govt are obviously looking to drive the best price out of BAE Systems for the last 5 Ships,and BAE are far enough into T26 build now to have identified areas where the process can be vastly improved,so with Babcock’s providing a bit of competition an expansion of the site would make a lot of sense.A case for extra T26.s im not so sure but being in the best of condition for the Type 83 build definately.

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

I agree with you there, Paul. That was one of my first thoughts as well – they will have identified the shortcomings of the current facilities for a build of this nature and they will be looking to make changes accordingly. I for one welcome the re-visiting of plans to upgrade the site.

Ron
Ron
2 months ago

I really wish that its because we are palnning to speed up the T26 production or have more T45s, or possibly and here is really wishful thinking an extension of the T26s plus the T83s. Then again that is wishful thinking. What I suspect might be happening is 1. BAE want the build completly under cover and role them into the water when they are finished. 2. There is the contract for some smaller missile patrol boats for the Ukranian navy. Not sure where they are to be built but it is a possibility. 3. There is also the Bangladesh… Read more »

Lusty
Lusty
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron

It has been announced that Babcock will be building the missile boat in the Sandown maintenance hall.

I guess we’re going to have to wait and see what the Bangladeshi contract entails. It might be an order for three new builds, or it could be the purchase of three former RN hulls when they’re made available.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron

Hi Ron, There is no direct equivalent in Scotland of the St Fagans National Museum of History. Someone made a good comment (see below) – “Being Cat A listed makes it the equivalent of Glasgow Cathedral or the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh” But although the Govan engine works might share a listing with some cultural treasures, it isn’t a medieval cathedral or a gallery – and most Scots have never heard of it (or even seen it). For that reason, I see no appetite to rebuild it brick-by-brick at another location. I doubt a Cat A listing will… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Iron Bridge Gorge museum might be another good place for it?

There are plenty of pretty big iron structures that have been moved around. So there is plenty of precedent for that to be done!

Such as the former London & North Western Railway station at Oxford (Rewley Road) which ended up in the Bucks Railway museum.

Crystal Palace itself was originally in Hyde Park before ending up where it is now.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago

Hi SB, If a museum wants these workshops – and has funding, I believe few in Glasgow will stand in its way. The city wants jobs and big government contracts ……….. As a Glaswegian, I know the city fathers have had a pretty unsentimental attitude towards historic heritage/and modernity. The medieval centre of Glasgow has long gone, and huge swathes of the city’s historic core were bulldozed for a motorway! As late as the 1980s, buildings by renowned architect “Greek” Thomson were being torn down. And scandalously, we recently allowed the showpiece Rennie Mackintosh School of Art to go on… Read more »

Rec
Rec
2 months ago

Who knows? At the very least it might mean cheaper construction if the batch 2. And an ability to build blocks for the FSS bid?,

If I were to be unrealistically optimistic 6 T26s fir the price of 5. But realistically a cheaper build of the 5 batch 2s alongside space to build blocks for the FSS bidthey are part of.

BB85
BB85
2 months ago

Type 83 will be an interesting competition between Babcock and BAE.
I don’t think BAE put much effort into Type 31 as it was a budget frigate, but if Babcock have increased capacity at their facilities they are bound to be in the running for T83 especially if they can deliver at a more competitive price than BAE.
I would rather have a more conservative hull design with additional silo’s than something like the FTI frigate that has excellent sensors but little missile capacity to be a serious deterrent.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  BB85

Bae didn’t expect to win the Type 31 “competition” because Geo Osbornes national shipbuilding strategy said not to award the work to Bae.

Parker, the guy that wrote the strategy, used to be head of Babcock’s and said Bae couldn’t commission two classes at the same time which is, and was, horse manure. That only left Babcock’s, quelle surprise.

Martin
Martin
2 months ago

I wonder if certain twitter users will acknowledge this or deny it’s happening again.

Richard B
Richard B
2 months ago

It looks like an attempt by BAES to all but lock in the T26B2 and T83 orders. It may give them some extra capacity for export orders, but it’s hard to see where these will come from given BAES’s poor reputation for corvette size warships, whilst the market for building (rather than selling the design) £billion frigates and destroyers is vanishingly small. Babcock with the T31 seems to be in the sweet spot for potential light frigate orders, albeit faced with fierce competition from yards in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, China … etc

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Richard B

It’s a request for planning permission dude. Clearly dependent on getting further work at the site. Don’t get your horse in front of your cart, it’s orders first, bigger sheds second, not the other way round.

Knight7572
Knight7572
1 month ago

Considering that old British 2nd-hand frigates are getting old