The Clyde Infrastructure Programme is expanding its industry framework arrangements to ensure sufficient capacity and capability are available to sustain delivery over the life of the programme, the Ministry of Defence has said.
Defence Minister Luke Pollard provided the update in response to a written parliamentary question from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, who asked what progress had been made on recruiting staff and securing the level of industry support required for the programme. Pollard said the programme already has established commercial frameworks in place with industry and that its supply chain is working to an agreed delivery plan.
He said: “The Clyde Infrastructure Programme has existing frameworks in place with industry to sustain delivery, with supply chain following an agreed delivery plan.”
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation is now increasing the capacity available within those arrangements to support continued delivery.
Pollard said: “The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) is extending and uplifting headroom within these frameworks to support delivery and has commenced work to establish successor framework arrangements, ensuring sufficient enduring capacity and capability are available to meet the demand for the life of the programme.”
The reference to additional “headroom” means the DIO is increasing the amount of work that can be placed through the existing frameworks, while the successor arrangements are intended to provide longer-term access to contractors and specialist capability.
The Clyde Infrastructure Programme supports the development of the naval base and associated facilities required for the Royal Navy’s submarine enterprise at HM Naval Base Clyde. Long-term infrastructure work at the site is intended to provide the facilities needed to support current and future submarine operations, maintenance and associated activity as the Clyde continues to develop as a central part of the UK’s naval nuclear infrastructure.
Just how Reslient will this money Spending be if Scotland go Independent..? Perhaps we should Consider spending more money on Barrow and the North East of England, Maybe a New Wall as well and board Posts..?
😂😂😂🤣
Barrow is a really poor location for a submarine base. The shipyard there has major issues actually getting the boats out from where they’re built. The only vaguely feasible alternative to Faslane is Devonport, and it would be inferior in most aspects.
Falmouth and West Wales have been mentioned as New base locations..But that would be only if a full blown Independence took place..
Actually Milford Haven would be just fine. Might actually have less problem trying to get people to relocate there too.
Living near Couplort, I can tell you that the chatter is that things are proceeding as if there were zero risk of independence.
Also, in the event of Scottish independence, the UK Defence Journal, which is based in Scotland and has a .uk domain, would be a bit redundant.
coulport
EB,
Memo to MoD/RN: Please complete submarine infrastructure upgrades to HMNB Clyde ASAP. USN very probably intends to sublet maintenance facilities. AUKUS will be significantly more successful if RN and RAN are able to assist in reducing USN submarine maintenance backlog.
Thats not a bad idea, although is the US backlog skills or docks?
Christopher,
Very simply, severe lack of virtually everything. Moronic “peace dividend” biting Uncle Sugar generally, and USN specifically, in the ass. Politicians largely squandered US naval advantage by delaying/deferring investment/orders. Inevitable result in a capitalistic system? MIC infrastructure and operational capability significantly diminished. Largely parallel situation occurred w/in USAF w/ the ultimate result of an inventory of elderly a/c. Unfortunately, these same politicians will never be held appropriately to account for perpetrating very significant harm to national security. Rant temporarily over. 🤔☹️
We should never have abandoned the plans to create nuclear-certified maintenance facilities at Rosyth. We gambled on Devonport as a lowest bidder, which ended up far more expensive and to a worse spec. Increasing the number of floating docks to be ordered for the Clyde is a poor substitute. Even now I think a facility at Rosyth might be worth it.
Yes, please, certified nuclear drydock(s) at Rosyth would be universally beneficial. Ahem, perhaps we could negotiate a 99 yr. sub-lease (😉) on Uncle Sugar’s behalf? 🤔