BAE Systems’ Govan shipyard is set to significantly increase the speed at which they can build and launch ships, from 96 months down to 60 months.

According to Sir Simon Lister, managing director of BAE Systems’s naval ships, the company aims to cut the build duration from 96 months for the first of class to just 60 months for the eighth vessel.

Sir Simon Lister elaborated on the shipyard’s ambitious goals, stating, “We aim to reduce the build duration from the first of class being 96 months to the eighth being 60 months. More than that, we intend to compress the interval between ships from 18 months to 12.”

A £300 million investment in the Govan shipyard facilitates the reduction in build time. This includes a new £200 million shipbuilding hall equipped with state-of-the-art technology and an advanced robotic welding system located in the fabrication hall. The integration of these technologies allows for more streamlined and efficient shipbuilding processes.

“Being able to do that gives the gives us and gives the government choice. The quicker you build something that cheaper to build something. The improvement in productivity puts us in a good position for future work.” added Sir Simon. This approach benefits the Royal Navy, with faster delivery of ships, and it also positions the Govan shipyard as a competitive player in the global shipbuilding industry.

The firm hopes that the increased capacity and reduced cycle times could potentially open up new markets and opportunities for BAE Systems.

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

89 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_809795)
2 months ago

Well if that isn’t BAe stamping its big foot in the door for more orders I don’t know what is. It’s what’s called a USP in business or “up yours” to Babcock ! I don’t think this will come as a surprise to some of us, because it’s the natural result of all the new infrastructure and investment at Govan. He is just stating it as an outright fact. To put it in some real context and so no one screams “why not faster”, 60 months is really very good (T45 were an average of 72 months). Please don’t try… Read more »

Graham M
Graham M (@guest_809804)
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Trouble is that politicos like to slow builds down as per the two carriers, to spread the spend over more years.

Last edited 2 months ago by Graham M
Grinch
Grinch (@guest_809817)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham M

Aint dat the truth

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_809826)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham M

The pressure comes from the civil servants at the treasury Graham not the politicians.

Graham M
Graham M (@guest_810015)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

It’s a bit of both!

Graham M
Graham M (@guest_810065)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham M

…but executive decisions and orders are made by politicians.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_811025)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham M

Graham politicians set policy and collectively make laws. Those laws have given powers to ministers over the years however the whole task of, for example, procuring an aircraft carrier is down to the civil servants and the RN using a ‘process’ designed to ensure that we get value for money, give all the suppliers a fair opportunity and bidding process etc. On something like a carrier the treasury will normally require the MOD to insert stage payments or some similar mechanism to ensure that the budget does not get hit all at once and the supplier gets some form for… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_810729)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

But that’s only because of the pressure from the Treasury, which is from the politicians.

If the defence budget were increased by another £10-15 billion per year, the deliberate slowing-down of builds would stop being a thing.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_811026)
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

You make it sound like there are just a bunch of politicians in the treasury and a few civil servants making the tea. True the politicians have made the policy, set the departmental budgets with the help of the civil servants but ensuring the departments stick to those budgets and the procurements go to plan financially is down to the civil servants.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_811091)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

That’s not what I meant, sorry. I know that the civil servants ensure departments stick to the budget, but it’s the politicians who set the budgets, which is the cause of so much pressure.

If Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt decided tomorrow to increase the defence budget by said £10-15 billion a year then that pressure would be much relieved, and the slow-down of ship building (among other things) would cease to be a thing.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_811268)
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Politicians could in theory increase the defence budget that is true however they have no mandate to do that. They are the servants of the electorate so any Government will need clear signs that there is a significant shift in public opinion which would support any such move. If war were declared it would almost be expected but currently we have a peacetime military setup – not even a cold war setup. £10-15 billion a year is a significant chunk of money. Does the UK borrow it, increase taxes, cut the budget of other departments or a combination of all… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_811319)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

To be honest, that £10-15 billion was just a hypothetical number. However, I think any additional sum of money should come from a further increase in corporation taxes, say from 25% to 30%. There doesn’t need to be a mandate in order to increase defence spending; it’s reacting to the world situation, which looks to be leading towards war in the near future, which needs preparation for it. If war were declared it would be too late; we need to rebuild our armed forces to ensure that we’re ready for war, which will hopefully deter it in the first place.… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_811347)
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Corporation tax is one of those taxes which is really simple for multi-nationals to pay in the country of their choice. 30% would put the UK in the highest bracket encouraging many companies (eg. US companies) would simply ensure they made zero profit in the UK and the profit would be taken in the US where it is a third cheaper. It also encourages companies to move their activities abroad. Great in theory but in practice it could well mean a drop in tax revenues.

Pacman27
Pacman27 (@guest_810402)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham M

The reality is we don’t need to slow builds down as it’s cost inefficient. The UK has a requirement for circa 90 major surface ships (50m +) alongside 2000 minor vessels this is enough for 3 major ships to be launched annually, the mix of those is changing over time & we could/should have factored this in to maintain drumbeat, it is this lack of defined drumbeat that has caused all the problems. Delaying the carriers multiple times added 30% to the cost, that’s literally 3 x T26 at batch 2 pricing. Politicians have a lot to answer for, thankfully… Read more »

Graham M
Graham M (@guest_810607)
2 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Mate, we both know that slowing down (and delaying the start) of builds costs more overall. But it is only done to smooth the MoD total spend profile, no other reason.
Those 90 and 2000 figures surprise me – they can’t all be for RN ships?

The drumbeat point is a really tricky issue for army kit, by the way!

Last edited 2 months ago by Graham M
Callum
Callum (@guest_809813)
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

A third batch of T26s is one of the genuinely plausible ways of boosting defence in a realistic and substantial way; open production line, UK production, an appropriate timeframe for putting it in place.

I wonder if instead of the T32 programme, we should look simply expand the existing frigate programmes; 2 more T26s and 3 more T31s gives us the same hull increase without adding an at least partially new class to sustain.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_809815)
2 months ago
Reply to  Callum

Pretty sure they’ll be wanting something as cheap or cheaper than the T31. We don’t have any money lying around

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_810149)
2 months ago
Reply to  Hugo

Its wooden dollars. It pumps money into production. I’m sorry England doesn’t benefit more. If BAE hadn’t shuttered Vospers; If only.

Grinch
Grinch (@guest_809819)
2 months ago
Reply to  Callum

* without all the benefits of a ship design in tune with current threats

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_809882)
2 months ago
Reply to  Grinch

New designs are not always needed and if you are only building a few it jacks up the unit cost. You just need to look at the T45 class to see what a good base design with a significant built in growth margin can do.
Why must we always use a new design if we don’t need to ? It eats into the numbers you can purchase.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_810732)
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

A big part of the reason we always use a new hull design is because of the stop-start, famine & feast ordering & production habit we have. MoD initially wanted 12 Type 45s, reduces down to 6. The 6th ship, Duncan, was commissioned in 2013, with the next large surface warship, the Type 26 frigate, not starting build until years after. Had there been 8 or 9 Type 45s ordered and built, or the Type 26s starting build earlier, then they possibly could have been based off the Type 45 hull design. Unfortunately, the shipyards will scrap tooling specific to… Read more »

Callum
Callum (@guest_809886)
2 months ago
Reply to  Grinch

I have to disagree. Its highly unlikely a new design for T32 is going to be anything revolutionary compared to T26 and T31, and if there IS a radical new threat then: 1. A light frigate isn’t going to be the primary counter 2. We’ll have to find a way to make T26 and T31 relevant against them anyway, because that’s where the bulk of the escort fleet until 2050 is going to be The primary advantages a new design would offer, based off of the concepts discussed so far, are more space for drones and potentially lower crew requirements… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_809833)
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

It begs the question – if the UK turned Glasgow into one massive build hall could we get a production line going which pops one ‘Merc’ out every couple of weeks😂😂

Jim
Jim (@guest_809851)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

Why not, just fill the Clyde with Iron Bru and warships will magically appear at Clyde Bank.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_809890)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

😂

Jim
Jim (@guest_809850)
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

The USA is not knocking out that many ships these days either. 2/3 surface combatants and 1/2 submarines a year.

Chinas ship building is vast but thankfully that has not translated into SSN production.

The US might have to start buying warships from Korea if it wants to keep up with china.

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_809906)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

A usa admiral was in the papers yesterday praising Korean ship build speed . I think the angle was that they would be interested in Korean companies building ships in usa using spare ship yard capacity. The usa gets naval vessels maintained in India now as well , so looks like usa keen to get assistance from abroad which is good news

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral (@guest_809796)
2 months ago

This is super news and very welcome. If money had been forthcoming at the right time this pacy build would have been there from the very start of the T26 build program.
I can completely understand Bae’s reluctance to build a big shed at the beginning, but now it is (almost) in place, the benefits will be clear.
I only hope that orders are forthcoming to keep the sheds full, or no one will ever invest like this again
AA

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809797)
2 months ago

The follow on orders are more likely if the price tag drops through a more automated build which reduces time which is a massive cost.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_809818)
2 months ago

With the current build schedule there isn’t really room for more T26 before T83

Grinch
Grinch (@guest_809820)
2 months ago
Reply to  Hugo

Incorrect, current plans leave a gap between last t26 and first T83

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809825)
2 months ago
Reply to  Grinch

I think you are right with the acceleration of T26 to the new BAE announced schedule.

I suspect this is to do with an export order that is about to be announced.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_809864)
2 months ago

Norway?

Sonik
Sonik (@guest_810038)
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

From the noises RNoN have been making, T26 is a definite favorite. But nothing is committed yet, including timescales, so I guess BAE are just getting all their ducks in a row.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_810090)
2 months ago
Reply to  Sonik

I think the mast for the T26 is made in Norway, and we are buying NSM and the Kongsberg RS4 for our Boxers so a healthy relationship between the two countries.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_809827)
2 months ago
Reply to  Grinch

Well then there will probably be a gap in shipbuilding. There is no new funding coming for more ships

Last edited 2 months ago by Hugo
Expat
Expat (@guest_809838)
2 months ago

Have websearch for BAe Robot Welders, finally things are moving into this century.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809840)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Yup.

But robot welding isn’t a new thing. They are fine for a lot of the meters of relatively straight welding but the subtle bits and tight corners need humans.

Robots also need very skilled human supervisors.

So yes, robots welders don’t get bored, don’t need a pay rise, don’t get sick, don’t need pensions and can work to pre set parameters……but they are not a panacea. But they can knock out very predictable meterages of weld at a set quality per day.

Expat
Expat (@guest_809852)
2 months ago

They are getting better I was read one of the US yards has an AI welding robot can recognise the parts, orientation and then execute the welding.

They also.mesn an opportunity to earn more as the setter/programers normally earn more than a manual welder but of course 1 person can program an set multiple machine so a big productivity boost

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809856)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Totally agree – output per person = productivity rises…..

wages per person rise = union happy

Expat
Expat (@guest_809843)
2 months ago

Australia had shortlisted some foreign yards to build 11 GP frigates. BAe wasn’t one of them but if I were a betting man I’d say there could be moves behind the scenes.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809847)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

I’d say Babcock are more likely to do some element of that work.

Expat
Expat (@guest_809854)
2 months ago

Could be there will be those in Australia unhappy with foreign yard offer the complete ship. BAe is in a position where it could offer options with elements of a mixed UK/AU build.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_809930)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

They are actually requesting the 1st 3 are built abroad to speed things up.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_809884)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

We do not have a product that meets the RAN requirement. And besides which they want the 1st 3 pronto and we are busy building our own.
My guess is it will be the New FFM follow on to the Japanese Mogami class.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero (@guest_810012)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

The Australians are looking for a light frigate design of circa 3,000 tons, the UK designs are nearly twice that.

Expat
Expat (@guest_810055)
2 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Well so we’re we when the T31 competition was launched but the hull is the cheap part, in fact a larger hull gives more design freedom so I don’t have to have bespoke parts to fut in cramped spaces. Maintenance can be far easier to access. The BAE offering for the T31 competition was based on a corvette. UK MoD ultimately looked at the value for money not things like tonnage.

DJ
DJ (@guest_810074)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

The Defence Minister indicated they are looking at sizes somewhere near existing Anzac class & up to 50% bigger. Anzac class started at 3,600t & is now 3,800t. So likely size is somewhere in the 3,000 – 5,500t range. Personally I suspect 4,000t – 5,000t. At least one of the Korean & the Japanese ‘exemplars’ listed is in that range, which might bring the German A210 & Spanish Alpha 5000 into contention (rather than the smaller A200 & Alpha 3000 also listed). German or Spanish design would be easier to integrate with the RAN (especially for the first 3), as… Read more »

Expat
Expat (@guest_810077)
2 months ago
Reply to  DJ

BAe Leander was around the 4000t and base on the in-service Khareef class. Arrowhead is 5400t, so at the high end but you get loads of space which equals future flexibility.

I’d be very surprised if there’s not behind the scenes lobbying for BAe and Babcock but also the Britsh government. If the British government aren’t getting involved then why.

DJ
DJ (@guest_810105)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Babcock has been pushing A140 to both Australia & New Zealand. I thought A140 started at 5,700t? But yes, it would sneak in at the top of the range.

Biggest problem is delivery time for the first 3. Also Australia would not be interested in T31 version, so more work required (rafting, hull sonar, bigger gun, mk41 from the get go etc). They would want SAAB 9LV. Would probably prefer SAAB radar rather than Thales if CEA would slow things down. Babcock might make it work if they involve Poland in block building?

Expat
Expat (@guest_810270)
2 months ago
Reply to  DJ

But wouldn’t their spec also slow down others suppliers. Both Babcock and BAe have experience of integrating ither suppliers systems and very recent experience at that. I don’t know about the other suppliers.

I think weight is a red herring they will ve interested in capability, cost to but and running cost.

And of course delivery date.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero (@guest_810214)
2 months ago
Reply to  DJ

All the designs theyve shortlisted are 2,800 to 3,900 tons.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_809927)
2 months ago

I think they already factor that in when the 5 B2’s were ordered. The 3 B1 cost £3.93 billion so £1.31 per unit, the follow on B2 are £840 million each. But they will have worked that out as an average over the 5 ships.
If memory serves me when they built the 6 T45’s the Manhours for the 6th was way less than the 1st & 2nd so adding more to a hot production line should come in even less.

Elio
Elio (@guest_809802)
2 months ago

Might help the chances of Norway selecting the type 26 if the build is accelerated?

Jon
Jon (@guest_809811)
2 months ago
Reply to  Elio

Norway will select someone next year, 2025, and will want delivery by 2029. Even 60 months isn’t going to be quite what they are asking for, but probably close enough. Getting an exquisite ASW ship in less than 5 years is asking a lot, so it will depend on how much Norway wants top of the line ASW.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809828)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Delivery of the first ship by 2029 would be doable particularly if RN does what the French and Italians do which is to sell hulls already in build.

SD67
SD67 (@guest_809902)
2 months ago

HMT would jump at the chance to sell the Norwegians a ship or two already in build, thereby pushing UK spending to the right

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_809938)
2 months ago

Shame the French have now finished building FREMMs.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809945)
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Such a shame for our French friends…….very good at food and wine…….nice opportunity for UK PLC to offer top end if very good medium level GP.

Take your pick: both in production at a shipyard near you…….

Jon
Jon (@guest_809805)
2 months ago

“More than that, we intend to compress the interval between ships from 18 months to 12.” I applaud this to the heavens, but I’m not sure I believe it’s the start interval they are talking about. At the moment ships are being started at every 21 months, so they have yet to get down to 18 months. IF they cut steel on HMS Sheffield (ship 5 of 8) by the mid October (around 18 months) I might believe they will compress the start interval even further. Otherwise they are talking about compressing the delivery interval (still to be applauded) by… Read more »

Grinch
Grinch (@guest_809823)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Means the Norwegians could have every other ship built, starting with Cardiff

Last edited 2 months ago by Grinch
MattW
MattW (@guest_809832)
2 months ago

That sounds like someone is going to need to buy, or sell, some extra frigates.

Can we sell on some Type 26s to say … the other bit of the Royal Navy … and order some more?

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_809932)
2 months ago
Reply to  MattW

The other bit, what?

Expat
Expat (@guest_809836)
2 months ago

I was reading BAe already had invested in robots in Australia to build the Hunter class and now due to the shortages of welders have invested in them for the UK. Not sure why its taken so long or why it wasn’t obvious from the outset to automate. Maybe had to get it through changes in working practices etc.

Roger Davies
Roger Davies (@guest_821618)
29 days ago
Reply to  Expat

Robotic welding was already in place in Vosper Thornycroft until BAE bought them out and disposed of it.

Thomas Afred Came
Thomas Afred Came (@guest_809844)
2 months ago

We don’t need a mass rise of gdp defence spending to buy lots more ships.

A rise to 2.5% is an extra £9 billion a year…. onwards thats the same as 12 more type 26s per year!

All this talk of 3%. But a 2.5% rise straight away would pretty much eliminate all the main issues of defence within half a decade or so depending on build rates

Jim
Jim (@guest_809855)
2 months ago

Yes 2.5% if we exclude foreign aid is fine. This was the budget selected by SDR98 which was the last decent defence review that wasn’t just a Tory cut program.

Jon
Jon (@guest_809860)
2 months ago

It would certainly fill the black hole and accelerate currently identified programmes. If this was pukka peace time it would leave us with a hollowed out army and undermanned navy and insufficient planes for the RAF, but at least the bean counters wouldn’t be shouting at MOD for blowing the budget.

It isn’t pukka peace time. 2.5% isn’t enough to deter or fight.

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_809904)
2 months ago

Can do alot with 9 billion a year extra. Its good to see labour party today commiting to current spending and nukes. But again both parties are losing votes by not committing to 2.5 % today

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_809933)
2 months ago
Reply to  rst 2001

They’re not losing enough votes to matter

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_809951)
2 months ago
Reply to  Hugo

That’s a more accurate way of looking at it yes

Sonik
Sonik (@guest_810039)
2 months ago
Reply to  rst 2001

Labour are being very careful not to commit to anything spending wise. An aspiration is as good as we’re going to get right now.

Phil Chadwick
Phil Chadwick (@guest_809849)
2 months ago

Good plan indeed. Just don’t tell the SNP… Scotland is building Royal Navy Ships!!!!! Lots of them!!!!

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN (@guest_809857)
2 months ago

We need more of what we’ve already got, quicker to build and keeps costs down and UK employment up. More of these please, *T26, T31(cancel T32 and expand navy pods). *Boxer, Ajax ifv. *Aeralis, Typhoon. Also need to be looking at, *UK built drones (land, sea and air). *Increase challenger 3 numbers(with new hulls). *UK built light/medium helicopter. *Renewed artillery system(UK built barrels). All to be UK built with export opportunities, which will support local communities and paying taxes to sustain the continuous build cycles ending the feast and famine practice. All it requires is a modest uplift in finance… Read more »

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_809903)
2 months ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

Sounds like a plan . Building ships at least one a year is a no brainer . There always seems to be nations willing to buy our ships . The savings of constant development a no brained. South Korea and Turkey are starting from scratch last 10years and already are starting to overtake us in technology and efficiency

John
John (@guest_809961)
2 months ago
Reply to  rst 2001

Where are you getting your information from , don’t compare Turkey with South Korea , I worked in South Korea 20 years ago and they were decades ahead of everybody then on technology and efficiency , while the UK were and still are working in the dark ages . We have lots to learn from South Korean shipyards . As for turkey I don’t think so .

SD67
SD67 (@guest_809898)
2 months ago

This a belated answer to the bozo on this board who didn’t believe me a couple of yrs ago when I said there was 40% inefficiency built into the current Govan setup. 96 to 60 mnths = saving of 40%

Working outside under a tarp, in scottish winter, on scaffolding, with little pre kitting or pre assembly is not best practice. Hopefully now we can get this thing moving

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_809900)
2 months ago

60months is 5yrs to build a frigate . Thats just comedy there is nothing proud about that .
South Korea is able to build a 10 000 ton destroyer in 9 months . Just watched on youtube . There’s a reasonable chance that South Korea may build for Australia and USA. Best thing uk can do is place a build order fast 🙂

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_809934)
2 months ago
Reply to  rst 2001

Not gonna happen

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809947)
2 months ago
Reply to  rst 2001

US ships can’t be built abroad by law…..try changing that pork barrel item…..good luck!

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_809949)
2 months ago

In the papers yesterday a usa admiral was thinking out aloud with regards to possibility of Korean company opening up a ship build yard in the USA . There is plenty if old ship yards that could be used refurbished

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_809953)
2 months ago
Reply to  rst 2001

Sure.

But then you are dealing with US labor issues and US skill levels and approaches to work.

You can’t transplant that kind of thing wholesale.

US shipbuilding unions are still very Luddite as they don’t really need to change as there is more demand than capacity and The Pork Barrel makes sure it is all contracted……

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_809955)
2 months ago

Thats a good point

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo (@guest_809918)
2 months ago

It is “as planned”, I understand? No speed up.

Batch 1 three ship in 1.5 years drumbeat, and Batch 2 five ships in 1 year drumbeat.

First ship delivery to RN on 2026, last ship delivery to RN on 2035 (to be “in service” on 2036) is the plan from the beginning….

BAES has established the real plan, how to really enable it, it the only new thing. It is great, but basically, nothing new.

Roger Davies
Roger Davies (@guest_810000)
2 months ago

They had facilities like that 25 years ago until BAE took over Vosper Thornycroft and ripped most of it out.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_810147)
2 months ago

So BAE spoilt the ship for a Ha’pworth and ripped us off for years rather than do a proper job and update their yard (s). Sums up the whole UK industrial effort for the past 50 years. No strategy until someone ( excellently) came up with the national shipbuilding strategy of 2017.
Maybe the car and aircraft industries could do with the same.
What have the Conservatives been doing all this time? They will look back and kick themselves, especially Cameron and May. Lord and Lady Cuts-Dolittle.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_810150)
2 months ago

I think the new T32 should be a light thrudeck carrier which is drone and amphibious capable. Not a Woolworths Carrier more an HMS Amazon!

Ryan
Ryan (@guest_810173)
2 months ago

That’s a feat I’d love to be a part of!

Ooops
Ooops (@guest_818211)
1 month ago

S,Korea it seems take a whole 1 year