According to the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP) Annual Report 2022-23, the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) Clyde Infrastructure Programme remains on track, despite increases in its overall expected cost.
Due to its sensitive nature, the project’s Delivery Confidence Assessment rating is exempt under Section 26 of Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Defence).
The Clyde Infrastructure Programme is an extensive plan to manage the design, delivery, and transition into operational use of new and updated infrastructure facilities at HMNB Clyde.
The project aims to ensure the safe and secure operation of submarines, facilitate the arrival of the next-generation ‘Successor’ Ballistic Missile Submarines, and establish a single submarine centre of specialisation.
The project’s end date remains scheduled for 1st April 2032. While the financial forecast for the year is £111.2 million, marking a budget variance of less than 2% against the initial budget of £113.48 million, there has been a significant increase in the departmentally agreed Whole Life Cost.
The cost rose from £1.585 billion to £1.869 billion, primarily due to challenges encountered in a nuclear and operational environment, according to the report.
The GMPP report notes that the Clyde Infrastructure Programme has undergone a Reference Class Forecasting analysis focused on the Faslane and Coulport Portfolios. The increased Whole Life Cost takes into account operational constraints, resource availability, extraordinary inflation, and material availability.
The UK keeps spending big money on an establishment the Scottish Government intend to shut down once independent. Maybe the money would be better spent on an alternative study for a new site in England?
The problem is where would you put it, there aren’t that many places with such easy access to deep water. When they looked at this pre 2014 it pretty well came down to Milford Haven and that up isn’t exactly with all the Tankers around. East coast is a no no due to shallow waters and increased transit time, South coast at Portsmouth and Plymouth are too shallow and already busy. The North west coast is to shallow do that leaves Milford Haven or possibly Falmouth. The Clyde is at present the optimum solution and building from scratch would be… Read more »
Exactly.
For now, the SNP is in a doom dive, so imo it’s better to invest in present resources, rather than for something that may never happen.
Lucky it’s not up to the Scottish government to decide. People in Scotland voted to stay in the UK and we should respect that, the Scottish government has as much power to leave the UK as a county council in England does or the local council of some island much like Orkney and the Isle of White which have both “threatened” independence.
The Scottish government actually no longer even has a position on Scotland leaving after failure in the courts and sturgeon leaving. SNP policy (which is not the same as the Scottish government) is not even set.
The SNP is the Scottish Government in all but name as their vote share is huge. At the next election, the Scottish people will be asked to vote SNP to demonstrate the intent of the people on this issue. However, other parties have seen some resurgence, which may redirect the independence question? As long as the debate rumbles on the doubts over the future of the Clyde bases will persist.
.
Wow Jack, that’s the most intelligent post you made here. Keep up the good work.
Heh, heh. 👍
😀
First correct post you have submitted, good lad keep that standard up!
Putin just added this site to the banned list
If there is one element of defence spending where cost is no object, it is infrastructure. Build build build!
(Well, getting a large educated manpower pool is also up there in importance as well)
All necessary I presume. Nuclear seems to be something where risk is managed regardless of cost.
Bloody expensive though having SSBNs.
With the Ayatollahs about to test their first nuclear bomb and Kim il Fat-boy perfecting N Korean MIRV technology with frequent long range ballistic missile tests, I’m jolly pleased that we do have a CASD!
The world is getting a lot more dangerous that us for sure.
In an odd way Mad Vlad has done the West a favour by waking everybody up to the emerging threats.
Yup CASD is good insurance ATM.
SB wrote: “”In an odd way Mad Vlad has done the West a favour by waking everybody up to the emerging threats.”” The problem as I see it for the Uk, is our Political elites have yet to wake up and smell the coffee. For a start I feel that the Conservatives subscribe to the view that the writing is on the wall for Putin , resulting in a new regime which will cut back Military spending and align itself with the west and thus any extra spending on the Military is unnecessary and better off spent elsewhere like… Read more »
Hi Farouk, If you had posted this early last year I would have agreed with you 100%. Unfortunately something else is presently tying the U.K. governments hands. It’s not political wishes but both Labour and the Conservatives know that right now and for at least another year we cannot do anything more to boost defense expenditure. A few years ago we could just borrow money as required by issuing Government bonds, which is what all countries do. The U.K. was able to issue these at @2 – 3% interest and we had inflation at 1.5 -1.75%. So each year we… Read more »
David wrote:
North Korea held a very interesting miltary parade the other day. where they displayed (to be taken with a pinch of salt)
2 new UAVs based on the Global Hawk and the Reaper as well as the Hwasong-18 solid-fuel ICBM which is a step up from the liquid fulled ones which came before.
Iranian style 5th Gen aircraft with a BL/Lucas HUD?
There isn’t the manufacturing tech for something like global hawk or reaper.
Most reports that I’ve seen say the Hwasong-18 could travel 15,000 km on an operational trajectory, enough to reach anywhere in the continental United States from N Korea. Indeed, being able to design, build and launch an independently developed ICBM is an impressive feat. But to threaten the continental US they need minaturised warheads matched to the all-important re-entry vehicle – plus convincing decoys. And a nonGPS navigation in flight system, the multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, with each warhead capable of being aimed to hit a different target. Which can achieve a CEP of <100m, say So far, the… Read more »
The money ney spent on the Clyde might have been better used on baling out a yard that was lost. There’s no doubt that another available shipyard would have helped with the production rate of the current programmes.
Andy The money being spent on the Clyde is absolutely essential and simply cannot be skimped on, it is just not negotiable. The biggest reason why we do not have larger conventional forces is that the 1st primary aim of U.K. defence strategy is to maintain our CASD. That sucks the life out of the budget for anything else and is presently at a high point on its cost curve. We are renewing our SSBN fleet at the same time as expanding and modernising our Warhead stockpile. To do so both involve massive investment in modernised industrial facilities at Barrow… Read more »