Rosyth is hoping to assemble Type 31e Frigates if Babcock and their industry consortium win the work.

The MoD is set to award a contract for the Type 31e frigate, with Babcock, BAE Systems and Atlas Elektronik among the main contenders.

Babcock say that their Arrowhead design lends itself equally to either a single build strategy, or a cross–site build strategy bringing together modules – an approach used for aircraft carrier assembly at Rosyth.

“The company are extremely optimistic they can work with the recognised trade unions (Unite, Prospect & GMB) when they secure the T31e project to minimise the risk of potential future compulsory redundancies. To achieve this, in the meantime, the company shall look to release volunteers for redundancy under the current phase announced in February 2019.

However, whilst securing the T31e project will give the yard a future longer term there is still the matter of current surplus labour. It is for this reason the company and the recognised trade unions shall look to enter into a temporary mobility agreement to secure the skillsets required for the future.

In the unfortunate event the company is unsuccessful in securing the T31e project it is likely we would be faced with the potential of 450 trade union members being made compulsory redundant, impacting all skill sets and all trade union collectives.”

Babcock recently announced that it would lead a team of industry partners in a bid for the new £1.25 billion Type 31e Frigate. Babcock say work would be shared across the UK but the vessels would be assembled in Rosyth.

The build plan for the Type 31 Frigates could follow a similar pattern to that of the Queen Elizabeth carriers and early Type 45 Destroyers in that blocks will be built in yards around the UK and assembled at one main location.

Modern shipbuilding makes considerable use of prefabricated sections. Entire multi-deck segments of the hull may be built elsewhere around the UK, transported to the building dock or slipway, then lifted into place and assembled into one ship. This is known as block construction and is far more cost effective. Yards pre-install equipment, pipes, electrical cables and any other components within the blocks, to minimise the effort needed to assemble or install components deep within the hull once it is welded together.

An MOD spokesperson said:

“The Competitive Design Phase is proceeding to schedule. The outcome of the competition for the design and manufacture of the ships will be announced by December 2019.”

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

81 COMMENTS

  1. It’s all very well saying block building is an efficient method of ship construction, but it’s still useless in the UK context when all of our yards seem to be on the brink of disaster given the snails pace of orders and the artificially slow treasury-mandated delivery schedule. What an absolute state the Tories have gotten our defence sector into since 2010.

    • @ Ross
      @ Simon m
      I know 9 years is a long time especially in politics but you both seem to have forgotten precisely where this country was economically in 2010. The incoming Coalition (and therefore NOT ‘tory’) inherited a (circa) £145 Bn a year deficit. Just take a moment to digest that figure. It was only by tackling that huge problem head on and restoring Bond Market confidence we even survived as a country. Notice I do not attach blame although I easily could but just state the facts.

      That economic restoration effort had consequences like losing the Harriers, Nimrod and the final scrapping of the old carriers but despite that they still maintained the Astute programme, 2 new aircraft carriers and a stack of other defence related programmes.

      Since 2015 2 real Tory Governments have, building on all the work done by the Coalition, delivered everything they promised which we now see in: Squadrons of F-35s (a programme that feeds $ Bns into the UK economy btw)
      New, upgraded and restored Typhoons
      T26 build
      Lifex T23s
      Lifex and re-powered T45s
      4 x Tide tankers
      5 x OPVs
      14 x A330 MRTT Voyagers
      22 x A400Ms
      9 x P-8 Poseidons
      3 x RC-135W Rivet Joints
      5 x E-7 Wedgetails.
      And that list does not include the new kit for the Army and myriad other projects across the defence sphere.

      Looked at from where this country was in 2010 to where we are now and all the new kit our forces now have is not an ‘absolute state’ at all. Its a bloody miracle.

      • I wouldn’t highlight the OPV’s given how the Batch 2’s were stop gaps because the UK wouldn’t spend on the Type 26’s.

        • @ Mark – They are still Naval assets paid for by taxpayers so very much part of that list. A list of course which was there to show just how much HAS been delivered by those allegedly evil Tories ….

          And don’t underestimate how valuable they will prove post Brexit if the French start playing games in our sovereign waters….

      • “Even survived as a country” is incredibly alarmist language and divorced from reality. IIRC, the deficit figure (rightly) spiked in the months/year after the crash, something which indicates that the government were taking (if not definitively “responsible”, then at least defensible) measures to mitigate the worst impacts. It’s much harder to “survive as a country” when your defence sector and prison service, etc. and run into the ground.

        • @ Ross – My point was as a country we were bankrupt regardless of who did what and why. Hence my lack of attributing blame. If a company goes bankrupt they do not ‘survive as a company’. That is the key point. Had we not brought in the measures to reduce the annual deficit the markets would have crucified us with all the horrendous fallout that would have entailed. When those from whom you need to borrow money lose faith you are finished. To see what happens then just Google ‘The Depression’. And lets not forget WHY we had that crisis in 2008. Lenders lost faith and refused to lend. Same lesson for a country and the Bond Markets. You need them to keep faith.

          As to your last point you only have a defence capability, prisons, police, NHS and welfare systems if you have a viable economy. You only have a viable economy if (when running a deficit) the Bond markets are prepared to continue lending. Yields are the key factor and the measures taken were able to restore faith and so allow us to have a (reduced) economy. Better 75% of something than 100% of nothing surely?

          • Afternoon Chris

            I will offer a counter argument to a few things you have said in your comments here and above

            Firstly we were certainly not in any way “bankrupt” by definition bankrupt means you cannot repay your debts, our current debt is around 85% of GDP, the amount we pay towards the debt is around 2% of GDP & around 5% of government taxable income, back in 2010 the debt was 75% of GDP but obviously with a smaller economy, but it was still around the 2% of GDP & 5% of government taxable income, so if a country or companies debt payments is 5% of their total income, that cannot be in any way described as bankrupt, in fact in the current global financial system it is not a concern for a financial superpower with their own currency.

            “Had we not brought in the measures to reduce the annual deficit the markets would have crucified us with all the horrendous fallout that would have entailed”

            “Yields are the key factor and the measures taken were able to restore faith and so allow us to have a (reduced) economy.”

            The bond markets stayed at a low rate when we borrowed heavily to get out of the financial crisis (as did the rest of the world), our debt doubled and the rate stayed low, safe 10 to 12 year yields at historically low levels, the reasons they stayed low is because we borrow in our own currency, which is backed up by the Bank of England, it is impossible for a country like the US, Japan or UK to have a Greek style crisis because we borrow in our own currency, not to mention the majority of our debt is owed to ourselves, 40% of it, unlike Greece, Ireland, Portugal etc, the Eurozone crisis, where lenders stopped lending to some Eurozone countries cannot compare to us because a lot of their debt is foreign and the ECB never backed those countries, when the ECB did start backing them the yields fell in Ireland, Spain and Portugal, although not in Greece because Greece is a very unique case.

            This train of thought about how austerity was needed is a dying thought in the UK and one that’s not used by the overwhelming majority of economists today that have actual statistical data to make an analysis, where as the austerity argument was based on economic predictions, we can now, after its finished, analyse it, and the facts are in every country that imposed austerity, the harsher the measures the slower the economy grew, this is printed on a graph on the IMF website, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard more or less issued an apology for advising countries to impose austerity.

            The deficit has been reduced by a combination of cuts and more/higher tax receipts collected by the treasury, anyone can look at the statistics and see the deficit being reduced by the treasury receiving more money in a certain quarter without cuts, therefore you can say with confidence, that even if you imposed no cuts from 2010, all the data is saying the economy would of grown faster, and the treasury would of had more money coming into it nearly every single quarter since 2010, would the deficit have fallen? absolutely, would it of come down as much? probably not but the difference is not massive and that’s not really the point, the point is austerity is proven to be a political choice, not a fiscal necessity.

            Austerity went against all the prevailing economic thought, John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1937 “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.”

            The only reason austerity was imposed was because of economic research which was discredited a few years ago, this economic research was mentioned be George Osborne in 2010 as proof that austerity was needed, namely the research by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University. After their work and work by other austerity economists were discredited, and when countries realized austerity was actually hurting their recovery the ideology was dropped in every country apart from the UK. Austerity ideology was literally laughed out of the rest of the western world, economists have made excuses and told lies trying to distance themselves away from it, it’s a bankrupt ideology.

            But one thing i will say is this, i do not blame the Conservative government, because Alistair Darling was also about to impose austerity, as the whole political establishment was hoodwinked into austerity by the IMF and the ECB, all taken in by economic research which is now discredited.

            I said this on here a few weeks back but this country is deficit mad, it’s like we have not been running a budget deficit more or less every year since the late 70’s, we have, and the obsession with eliminating it ASAP needs to stop, i backed Boris Johnson’s spending plan by borrowing, because it can easily work, the deficit can slowly reduce into a surplus with modest spending increases and a growing economy with high employment. We should not be afraid to borrow for vital public spending and stimulus.

          • @ Solesurvivor – Once again an excellently assembled response Sir. I regret however I must disagree with the promise of your two main poiints and I won’t disrespect you by getting too detailed. basically I suspect we both agree action was needed but see different solutions.

            I think the fact you used the term ‘austerity’ to describe the actions taken shows from which side of the political aspect you are looking at those actions. No argument with that but its just most families balance their income with expenditure and call it good housekeeping rather than ‘austerity’. There are some (and I am not one) who say there was no such thing as ‘austerity’ but there is however I am not sure we saw austere actions from 2010 onwards.

            The other point I would gently disagree with is you make the assumption that had there been no expenditure changes and reductions in capital demand the bond markets would have been happy. I see no reason for that position. If you run a business and you have over-borrowed and then go to your bank manager he will demand changes to how you run your business a) to show you are serious and b) to allow future lending to benefit the business rather than just plug a hole.

            you then make the assumption that because Bond Yields were beneficial this proves ‘austerity’ was not needed. Sorry this proves quite the opposite. The markets only kept lending (and at good rates) because they believed we were serious and had the ability to effect change. if they hadn’t we would have been in a very different place. Further to that all the extra tax income came from businesses having the confidence in the overall economy to carry on investing and indeed Foreign Inward Investment increased for the same reason. Consider it a House of Cards. Pull one card out and it all falls down.

            I do not know what would have happened to us had we just kept on borrowing and done nothing on expenditure and the markets had said ‘enough’. For sure a country has many levers to pull but I am pretty sure given the size of the deficit we were in a very dangerous place. I have to admit I am sorry you confused deficit with debt as one feeds the other and its deficit that interests the markets not overall debt. Its why I bridle when Labour supporters accuse the Tories of ‘doubling the debt’ while ignoring the huge annual deficits they inherited that, while reducing, ran for years even while (apparently) ‘severe austerity’ was being perpetrated. Which begs the question by how much more would the debt have risen had those deficits been left higher plus the extra borrowing (then) that you inferred.

            I totally agree we should not be afraid to borrow to improve infrastructure or whatever is deemed important as we have actually done recently but when you are over-borrowed that is not the time to increase borrowing. So I am happy to support your view that as long as the deficit is manageable and acceptable to the markets we should use our good credit standing. Its been hard earned. Shame we disagree on what was needed to get to where we are now.

            Interesting piece though …

          • Thanks for taking the time to reply Chris, i have just read the British steel thread and see you have your hands full today lol

            Yeah, fair enough if you think that about the bond markets, i myself cannot see any evidence they wanted spending cuts, it seemed the stimulus to see us through the financial crisis and the reduction in government spending in 2009, a realization that budgets would not increase for the foreseeable future and predicted economic growth from the IMF did more than enough for the bond buyers to be happy.

            There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence, bond yields now are very low in the US, France, even Japan with all it’s debt, bond buyers are not saying get your house in order to these countries with piles of debt and deficits.

            And yeah i actually agree that cuts had to be made and increased spending had to be stopped, me saying no spending cuts was just an example that the deficit would still of been reduced, modest cuts to some budgets and a freeze for a number of years would of been suffice imo.

            Thanks for the reply Chris as always i respect your opinion.

          • @ Solesurvivor – Hands are too full to be honest and I am minded to pack it in again. Its not fun any more but hey ho …
            We are not far apart actually just a different angles to solve the same problems. But as we are discussing Bond Markets I would ask your views on this weeks movements? Sadly I can only post one link so Auntie Beeb it is:
            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49346972

            Not sure how a country can react to this other than interest rates or some QE to prod investors out of Bonds. So many forces at play I have no answer (no really!). But it echoes your comment that the markets were not asking for anything in 2010 but politicians had to work out what they had to do. They are not asking now but taking positions. Meme chose etc …

          • I think it’s the US-China trade war and the current political situation in the UK, markets want certainty and there is not a lot of that going around lately, clear worries about short term growth prospects.

            Don’t think its a coincidence that it happened a day after China did the “nuclear” option and told all it’s companies to completely stop buying US agricultural goods.

            But then the stock markets rallied today and the ECB said they will have a huge stimulus package announced in September, easing Eurozone fears and will probably put the German economy back on track.

            So that’s 1 out of 3 possibly sorted, all i need now is to leave the EU amicably on the 31st and start announcing new trade deals by Christmas and then Trump to spectacularly lose next year and we get a POTUS fit for office.

            One can only hope

          • Sole. Can you perhaps explain what your world looks like without austerity. We know that Labour will borrow 250b. And have no intention on tackling a deficit so what does this equate to in terms of new interest payments? How much debt is the in plan. What’s the planned annual increase in UK debt. We’re paying something like 70b per annum at the moment. Almost enough to fund defence twice over. Didn’t Argentina have its own currency as did Zimbabwe but don’t recall that saving then from completely irreparable collapse. As for the financial crisis if we’d had money in the bank would we not have been better off being able to invest that to help by when we really need it. What does the next crisis look like? Are we prepared for it? Will borrowing more help us through the next crisis? I read recently the treasury is already down 2.6b on non dom tax receipts as non doms are leaving the UK as the chance of a Corbyn labour government increases. That’s 2.6b more that will need to be borrowed to keep things as they are.

          • Expat, so you have seen I am a Labour voter so decided to throw a comment at me attacking a 2 year old manifesto, then dived into the realm of sheer stupidity by comparing the Argentine Peso & Zimbabwean Dollar to Sterling, then finished with some fake news, throwing it’s all Corbyn’s fault for good measure.

            Just to address that huge elephant in the room first, Sterling is the 4th most traded currency in the world, 3rd most held currency in the world, and along with the US Dollar, Japanese Yen, Euro and Chinese Yuan is one of the five currencies held by the IMF as their foreign exchange reserve, which it has been part of since it began, it’s also the currency of the fifth largest economy and belongs to one of the most established, successful and stable democracies in the world, and was the worlds reserve currency before being overtaken by the US Dollar, that should give you a clue about why it wont go the way of the Zimbabwean Dollar or Argentine Peso for crying out loud.

            Boeing 747, overhead springs to mind.

            “Can you perhaps explain what your world looks like without austerity”

            Well it is more or less right now is it not? the years we can class as austerity have passed, the biggest cuts have come and gone, the government now openly admits it needs to spend, you cant go forever without public spending, money will always need to be spent on healthcare, infrastructure etc, Boris Johnson will borrow money for his spending plans as he has no choice, and good for him, if you don’t spend the countries infrastructure falls apart, the population is growing so new infrastructure needs to be built

            “We know that Labour will borrow 250b. And have no intention on tackling a deficit so what does this equate to in terms of new interest payments? How much debt is the in plan. What’s the planned annual increase in UK debt. We’re paying something like 70b per annum at the moment. Almost enough to fund defence twice over.”

            Do you know how long we have been paying part of our government spend on debt? 350 years, probably more, it’s useless this, you are talking like in 2008 we magically got debt and a deficit. Debt as a percentage of GDP is actually falling now, the deficit is manageable, and that is with weak economic growth with hardly any fiscal stimulus.

            “As for the financial crisis if we’d had money in the bank would we not have been better off being able to invest that to help by when we really need it.”

            Money in the bank? so in 1997 when our debt was 40% of GDP, you think in 10 years we should of cleared 40% of gdp debt and then stashed enough money to bail out banks and fund a massive fiscal stimulus program to get us out of a global recession, that is absolute pie in the sky mate i’m sorry.

            “I read recently the treasury is already down 2.6b on non dom tax receipts as non doms are leaving the UK as the chance of a Corbyn labour government increases. That’s 2.6b more that will need to be borrowed to keep things as they are.”

            Not quite i am afraid

            “Although a near record low for tax takings from non-doms, this has not resulted in a fall in revenue to the Exchequer as many of the previous non-domiciled taxpayers are now paying under domiciled status, HMRC said.”

            “HMRC said the fall in non-dom numbers was caused in equal measures by individuals switching to domiciled status, while continuing to pay tax in the UK, and individuals leaving the UK tax system.”

            “Part of the reduction in the number of non-doms can be traced to the new deemed-domiciled rules that came into effect in April 2017 which make it more difficult to claim non-domiciled status if you were born in the UK and it is your domicile of origin or you have been a UK resident for 15 of the 20 tax years prior to the filing year.”

          • Sole. there was no attack on you intended. These are questions, as for 2 year old manifesto if Labour had won these would be what Corbyns Labour would be implementing so entirely relevant. Note I will not tar the entire Labour party. I have no alliance to any political party but I have grave concern for the future of my children.

            So Argentina…… You’re comparing Argentina today to the UK. I was looking at the example of an first world economy reversing significantly. My point is it can happen and has happened. In the first part of the last century a first world economy. It grew faster than Canada and Australia. In the 1960’s it had a higher GDP per capita than many other developed countries such as Italy, Japan and France. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Argentine peso was one of the most traded currencies in the world. It was amongst the worlds top 10 economies and therefore a shining example of how a 1st world economy can be turn into a basket case if it is miss managed. UK current position is the world today is no guarnatee of were it will be in the future if mistakes are made. Some would even argue (I won’t, no time) in the 1970s the UK was on its way to being a basket case with interest rates at 18% and inflation at 25%. In my opinion in much more globalised world economy where investors more choice a countries demised could come alot quicker. The pound does not hold some magical status that will protect us if we make bad financial decisions. Perhaps you’ll argue we’ll not make the same mistakes a Argentina perhaps not but we may make the first mistake which is beleiving we are some how invinceable because we have our own currency. Perhaps those in Argentina thought having on of the most traded currencies also meant they we’re financially invincible. One further mistake that common is pointing the blame at others and not recognising the mistake. This is common when people who have strong ideals, they refuse to believe that they could possibly wrong or the cause of the issue. Unfortunately career politicians fit this category.

            I asked if we’d had money in the bank we would have been in a better postion? So is it a yes or a no…. instead you’ve pointed out we always borrowed money. I didn’t lay blame to any governemnt on national debat as I’m fully aware we’ve always borrowed. Would a country be better to have money in the bank or a large debt going into a financial crisis?

            I was also trying to establish how much you thought Labour more would borrow. But you basic dodged the question saying again we can afford to borrow more. OK maybe.. but again how much? BoJo opened the purse strings McD n co will now need to up the ante. May promised 20b for NHS Labour need up that don’t they? To what 40b? Then we’ve got more police, yes? and the there’s tuition fee’s? Is there going to be public sector pay rises? So what’s the final number and what’s the interest payment (we’ll stick with todays rates)? If you don’t know just say so and that’s fine.

            So lastly fake news…. do the BBC do fake news, I think Trump accused them of that :). From the BBC news site.

            ‘Last year, there were 78,300 non-domiciled taxpayers, or “non-doms”, in the UK compared with 98,500 in 2016-17.
            And the £9.5bn they paid to the taxman in 2016/17 fell to £7.5bn last year.’

            Non-doms are internationally mobile and if the UK is no longer an attractive place for them, then they can easily relocate. You seem to admit above that some wealthy non doms are leaving and some converting. SO do you think those converting to are the most wealthy or those where its only a marginal benefit to be non dom. Applying logic I would say the wealthier ones are the ones who left?

            From the same BBC article.

            “The prospect of a Labour government is also very unappealing for high net worths – talk of monetary controls and wealth taxes are not well received. Given that there could be a general election in the near future, many will not be willing to take the risk that this becomes a reality.
            “Non-doms make a huge contribution to HM Treasury’s coffers; this small group has contributed £45bn in tax over the last five years. The impacts of falling tax receipts from non-doms may only be felt once it’s too late.”

            My personal experience having lived in a number of different countries for over the years I know its incredibly easy to relocate, even easier for the weathly.

            I’m not trying to convice you that Cybyns Labour is a bad idea, I doubt I ever would. Just highloight why I think it is. Even without the economics I think we’ll lose significant military capabilty under his leadership, once gone we’ll never get it back.

          • The UK were not bankrupt .
            Austerity was a lie.
            Debt has risen and is still rising .
            No one but Cameron and co to blame for that .
            The austerity cuts have led nowhere , 12 billion a year in aid , ( or 12 type 45s a year ) every year for 9 years .
            What a fleet that would create .
            Or the 56 billon for a train track .
            The money is there , it’s how they choose to spend it.
            Creating poverty and destitution for armed service personelle is a great way to run the 5th largest economy , albeit in the 26th richest nation .
            The whole of Westminster and their bubble to blame

        • The truth of the matter is the RN will lose some global capability due to the snail’s pace of delivery of both Type26 & 31’s. The only hope will be additional money to extend Type23 life spans. Sadly, that would be money that could be spent on more brand new hulls? Global crises can quickly arise and the British public expects the RN to respond, as currently experienced in the gulf. At this rate, the MOD might have to lease warships in order to support a ‘Global Britain.’

      • As ever, I broadly agree with the thrust of your argument Chris.

        However, the NHS was rightly ringfenced, defence
        on the other hand had the wrecking Ball swung at it, with wild disregard for National Security.

        Dropping the escort fleet from its already dangerously low figure of 25 to 19, was a terrible risk, as was canceling Nimrod MRA4 without
        any replacement.

        Did Labour cause the issue? Despite the years of left wing smoke and mirrors, blaming international downturns etc etc, yes they most certainly did.

        Labour initially simply carried on the previous Tory plan of selling off the family silver and then began gambling the economy on year on year stable growth we were enjoying as a country, by borrowing heavily and spending like a teenager with a credit card…

        What could possibly go wrong with this policy …. An international downtown and close economic collapse …. That’s what.

        We had massive debt (low reserves) and a shrinking economy, this coupled with a poorly regulated banking sector and you have a typical Labour, borrow and spend nightmare!

        So, 13 years of Labour and we were left with utter financial chaos, the Tory led government had to start putting the damage straight.

        I don’t disagree with the absolutely necessary sacrifice that had to be made to put the books right, but I strongly disagree with the extraordinary risks taken with our defence at the time.

        Luckily defence seems to be a rising priority today and with any luck, we should start to see year on year of genuine growth in defence spending.

      • ?at last, a common sense reply, that highlights why we can’t afford the fantasy fleets many who use this site dream about. Thanks Chris H.

      • But why has most of the work been done in Scotland?? Labour under Blair and Brown not forgetting chancellors and Ministers of defence being Scottish moved all the building of ships north of the border

      • And they have ( Tories ) borrowed a further 1.4 trillion , and run the armed forces into the ground , destroyed moral , and ensured no one wants to join up .

        • @ Tupper – Your rather heroic re-write of recent fiscal history came to my attention via CMS. Forgive me but I couldn’t resist showing just how misleading your rather Momentum inspired comment was:
          Data released today by the ONS show the UK’s National Debt stands at £1.6 Trn (or 75% of GDP). So that gave me an indication of how far out your figures are. So I delved deeper and guess what Mr Tupper? Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996/97, the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. So Labour added some 664 Bn and the Tories added 589 Bn (42% of your figure). Of course Labour inherited a near balanced budget in 1997 and the Tories inherited a £145 bn deficit in 2010. Hardly equal comparisons but then to Leftie Momentum keytappers such as yourself facts and equality mean diddley squat.

          Source:
          https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIl_GvndiT5AIVGNtRCh2pvgzFEAAYAiAAEgJCZfD_BwE

          As for the rest about equipment and staffing I will let others have fun with your ignorance.

    • So why after building 2 carriers have Babcock not reinvested profits to make the yard more efficient to win commercial business. Why’s it the governments job to prop up an industry with work? Why have unions not been pushing for profits to be reinvest in new automation and efficient manufacturing techniques….

      • 2 carriers were assembled at Rosyth by the ACA of which Babcock is part but not sole member. BAE had a substantially larger portion of work share, both in block build and workforce…

        • Still the carrier where well over £6 billion, even if Babcock had 15% that £1 billion opportunity to improve efficiency and productivity. You know as well as me if they get the T31 order when its over they will be in no better position to win commercial work. We’ll see the same headlines…

    • Ross, it has little to do with political parties, more like economics.
      We have no alternative shipbuilders with the capacity and skills to build complex warships, other than BAES.

    • Building blocks hundreds of miles apart, with the associated transport costs, will not make British shipbuilding efficient or competitive. In the short term we can do that with the solid support ships, seeing as how they are sizeable ships, but in the long term we need to have a plan where even our large ships are be built on the same site.

  2. Ross, I thoroughly agree, the government should be ashamed of themselves. Seeing as the navy needs these vessels ASAP there’s no reason as to why this decision couldn’t have been accelerated. Plus they’re extremely short sighted appledore and Harland Wolff need to be saved, if Scottish independence happens then at the moment it looks like England and the rest of the uk will have one shipyard! There is already talk of Faslane being leased from Scotland to the uk and unless this government wakes up warships will have to built in a foreign country!

    • Isn’t Appledore well gone by this stage? I mean the last build was P64 and she was handed over to Ireland quite a while ago.

        • I am still amazed by the ships that Appledore managed to produce in such a tiny yard. When you drove past the “sheds”, they looked like something out of the 40’s, but they still managed to produce ships on time.
          When they closed down, didn’t most of the staff go to Deveonport?

      • It is my understanding that the Appledore facility is now under, a new management consortium. Although no word on who that new management consortium consists of, (Atlas Elektronik UK in the mix!) that would really put the fox in the chicken shed. Could Babcock have Shot themselves in the foot, who knows until the Type 31e announcement

  3. Seems to me there’s not a little blackmail being put out there. Don’t get me started on the SNP shouts of ‘BETRAYAL’ that will inevitably follow should things not go exactly as they want.

    • I find the SNP’s constant screech of betrayal amusing as their entire reason for being is the betrayal of the union.

  4. So whilst I fully understand everyone’s critiques against our government in regards to not providing shipyards with enough contracts etc. But I have to wonder why the shipyards don’t compete overseas or for civilian ships? I mean Navantia, DCNS, Fincantieri, and Daewoo all seem to do it successfully so why don’t ours. Is there something actually stopping them or have they just decided not to. Just seems like bad business to me.

    • Will totally agree, after having huge order for the carriers what have the yards done to improve efficiency and productivity. what have the unions done to encourage this also…. What they both want is juicy government contract they don’t need to compete for.

    • Actually it is a myth that European and increasingly South Korean yards are all seeing the good times with orders vs the UK, truth is they are all struggling!

      Navantia, Navy Group (formally DCNS) and Fincanteri are struggling to get orders. They are still just about holding onto the semi-Complex cruise ship market but things like bulk carriers and tankers go to where ever it is cheapest to bash the steel into shape which at the moment is China!

      South Korean yards have faced the same issues as well and Daewoo had to be bailed out by the South Korean Government.

      The only reason that Navy Group finds itself in the Cruise ship market is because STX St.Lorient was sold off to a consortium including them.

      These foreign yards also don’t face the same issue that the UK ship industry does…actually the Elephant in the room when it comes to UK ship building! They don’t have lots of small inconveniently located yards all competing with each other. By in large they all operate a single or a couple of large modern ship yards with easy sea access. This makes them far more competitive and also flexible. Where we build our vessels in many cases is utter madness!

  5. Surely with a competition that has been ongoing for considerably more years than the first of class Type 31 is due to take to enter the water, there should be some inkling within the UK defence industry over who’s going to get it with no more than 4 months to go; referring to the still-proposed build timetable, the successful candidate would not wish to be taken COMPLETLY by surprise, I’m sure?!

  6. This has to stop! Having yards threatening closure or closing or large redundancies! It’s not decades ago when we had hundreds of yards to build ships at! We should save the few we have left and give them work they need, we need the ships, we have a huge merchant fleet and did used to build our own fleet we should build the smaller vessels like offshore oil and the like. you would think the two recently built Carriers would be a huge BUILD HERE for Rosyth and they would Atleast try get foreign ships built there on the back of the Carriers success. Do they do enough to secure foreign work? I’m not so sure.

    • Sorry Cam but the unfortunate truth is the UK still has too many yards pretty much all of which are inconveniently located.

      You only need to look at an aerial shot of the Fincantieri or Navantia yards then look at one of BAE Systems Clyde to realise how crazy a situation we are in when it comes to yard location.

      Also Rosyth is less than ideal, it doesn’t have a large steel fabrication shop for example. It assembled the Carriers which is an important distinction.

  7. Unfortunately very little point in trying to keep yards open when HMG has very little plans to order ships from them. Ideally the UK would just centre on a single yard that could build any type of vessel from a frigate up to an aircraft carrier, that’s probably not practical however a combination of Rosyth and the upper Clyde makes the most sense. Many of the workers that built CVF were transferred to Rosyth from BAE in Glasgow as it’s little more than a 45 minute drive away. You can’t do the same between any other two yards in the country.

    Whatever other yards, CL, H&W etc that can stay open with commercial work can be used to contribute to blocks especially for larger ships, however trying to keep three of four yards open on the prospect of MOD work is madness as eventually you end up with no shipyards.

  8. Itshould be possible to construct 2 vessels at a time in the Carrier Dock . Its certainly wide enough and long enough for 2 Arrowheads to fit in. The RN used to use it for T42 and Leander refits at the same time, one at each end.

    I have also heard that there may be 2 x Foreign buyers wanting Arrowhead vessels. These may be constructed under license in the Foreign Buyers own yards with Babcock overseeing construction and fitting out.

  9. Sorry nothing should be committed to Rosyth till the blinked obsession of the SNP is put to bed if the get their independence then all ship building work for the Royal Navy should be completed south of the border. They want independence then independence is what they should get

  10. It doesn’t make sense to me we can get 4 type 31s for the price of one 26, the arrowhead 31 picture above looks pretty good.

    • Steel and air are relatively cheap. Its when you start putting the systems inside the vessel that the price increases.
      Double Raft mounted engines, quiet gearboxes, raft mounted auxillary equipment, radars, sonars, command systems, complex weapon systems, Helo services, magazines, galley for a bigger crew, fridges, freezers, accom for the crew. Its all expensive stuff.

        • The Type 45’s went to a single mess for Senior Rates – not too sure about QEC though. The new build frigates will highly likely be single messing as well. Mixed SR messing was a little weird when I spent time on the Daring having just served on a 23.

  11. Maybe a stupid question, but why do all these yards depend on more or less just MOD work. Are they incapable of securing any contracts for any boats that aren’t warships?

    • You’d think so wouldn’t you. Cammell Liard seems to be able to. Let me quote Sir John Parker report below. Basically the yards who compete are more efficient than those who live off MoD orders.
      —–

      A renaissance in shipbuilding is emerging in a range of regional shipbuilding companies competing in the ship and offshore conversions and repair markets plus participating in offshore wind farm structures, and other relevant engineering projects.

      There is no single customer dependency culture visible in these shipyards but rather an entrepreneurial attitude and an enthusiasm to embrace change along with flexible skilled labour practices with the ability to manage fluctuating workloads.

      The range of “charge out” rates, whilst expected to be lower than a sophisticated naval shipyard, have been driven down via tight overhead cost control. This along with good productivity creates competitive cost outturns.

      Productive use of the working day is facilitated by professional management acting with discipline and ensuring manpower matches workload along with good logistics scheduling of piece parts, equipment and components to ensure they are in the right place and at the right time. Moreover, these shipyards are sustained by multiple income streams.

  12. Unfortunately, I think we are now at a point whereby we need to agree where our ships are going to be built and then invest in cutting edge facilities.

    The Scottish government, can and should do more, instead of bleating every time something doesn’t go their way.

    Lets say we have a fleet of 75 vessels larger than 50m and an additional requirement for 750 vessels less than 25m. Spread over 25 years this equates to 3 ships per year and 30 smaller vessels (Atlas, tugs, RHIBS etc). Surely that is enough to support a military and commercial sector providing lifeboats etc.

    So HMG have a requirement for the above, yet can’t quite seem to get their act together and end up spending double the amount on less hulls.

    I do feel for the people working at Rosyth, but the frigate factory is a good idea (Clyde), as is a small vessels centre (Devonport) and a large vessel build (Cammel Laird or Rosyth – not both) and Barrow for the Subs.

    Given where we are with independence I would personally invest in a non Scottish site, so as to mitigate risk. Lastly if the Scottish Govt wish to get these orders perhaps they should help in funding the frigate factory alongside the UK govt.

    Sir John Stevens was right, drumbeat and standardising platforms is what is needed.

    25 year plan (doesn’t take a brain surgeon)

    Combat
    13 Global Combat Ships (T26) – replacing T23 ASW (8) and T45 (6) capability – 150m
    25 Multi Mission Ships (T31) – replacing T23 GPF (5) , Hunt(7) , Sandown (6) and River class (5) – 120m

    Support
    4 FFT – Tide Class (4)
    9 JLASV – Joint logistics Amphibious Support Vessel – replacing all 100m+ support and amphibious and hospital vessels, Waves (2), Forts(3), Bays (3), Albion (2), Argus (1)
    4 FLOFLO’s – Replace the RORO – greater flexibility with correct modules

    Submarine
    10 – SSN – Astute additions and Replacement
    4 – SSBN – Successor

    before I am accused of fantasy fleets, this is replacing what we have, even in its reduced state with better products that can and should be built in the UK.

    Things like Mine countermeasures are moving to Unmanned systems, that will be managed from the Multi Mission ships (the RN’s Frigate of the future)

    • I agree that a steady cadence of ship production is entirely possible. I suspect that many commenters assume that because a National shipbuilding Strategy was outlined that it can somehow transform the industry overnight, which isn’t practical. However, starting with T31 and T26 it is possible to see this develop.

      To bolster your numbers, you might add 2x Echo class multi-purpose survey replacements to your 25 Multi Mission ship count. An HMS Scott replacement might then be an Absalon-like build on T31, or use your JLASV platform if the replacement really needs to be as large as the current HMS Scott. All three are already intended to have a secondary role supporting mine countermeasures.

      I don’t see a need to pick winners and losers on yards/companies for shipbuilding though. UK companies already seem to be developing a niche for the service and support roles, if all they ever do in shipbuilding is build modules that adds to their existing services business then they become more diversified and commercially viable.

      • Actually, We wouldn’t need the specialist vessels, the FLO FLO’s could be kitted out with modules to give them the capability of diligence and Scott, and as an additional incentive can be leased out regularly as there is a real demand at certain times of the year for these vessels.

        Also with the Joint Logisitics ships and Multi mission vessels, they can be kitted out as need be – whether as a hospital ship or otherwise.

        Perhaps there will be a need for some specialists (Arctic comes to mind), but should be avoided wherever possible.

      • You hit the nail on the head. This is the biggest issue our Armed Forces have have faced since the 60’s. Every Government, regardless of colour has had a defence review, as they believe they know better then the previous Government. The outcome of the review, is either slash and burn or complete 180’s on previous decisions. Thus giving the Armed Forces little to work with or come up with the best of what’s available – strike brigade for example.
        What is the answer? I believe that the defence review requires multiparty agreement perhaps over a 10 to 14 year period, to implement a long term strategy that needs to be placed in law (much like the foreign aid budget). This will not help our Armed Forces develop realistic strategies, but also equipment requirements. which would then help industry plan and compete more effectively, by investing more in its business and training.
        I also believe that the Defence Select Committee needs more teeth. How many times have they asked either a Defence Minister, Senior Brass or an Industry Mogul questions only to be given either the party political line or just plan flannel. This is especially true from the top brass, who only tell the truth once they have left the service.

    • The Scottish government have considered nationalising Ferguson Marine so why not Rosythe, they could then subsidise it to win the T31 and the SSS contracts. Would be quite amusing to see the SNP use Scottish tax payers money to reduce the cost to MoD of these ships. Ironically I think the SNP would do this if it was foreign ship orders but they would never do it for the MoD.

  13. Future Shipbuilding Strategy

    You have to stop and wonder if the shipbuilding and repair of UK government floating assets should be nationalized again.
    Gain are the days that the UK shipbuilders could compete for commercial work on a global scale. With only one Shipbuilder now producing Steel ships commercially in England (Cammell Laird) and Fergusons being the last in Scotland, however they are currently insolvent having made losses during construction of CalMac Ferries.
    The Future Shipbuilding Strategy could be,
    The Frame Work of the future:
    Reduce current yards to 4, (Yes this would result in major job losses and with the Scottish Governments ongoing move for independence this would ensure a future shipbuilding capability for both Scotland and the new UK)
    Scotstan (Clyde, Scotland)
    Cammell Laird (Birkenhead, England)
    Barrow Inferness (Lake District, England)
    AppleDore (Devon, England)

    Each yard would then be awarded one class of vessel to build. Each class would have up to 5 Active platforms. Each Platform would have a 5 year minor refit, 10 year major fit and then sold after 15 years’ of service to an allied nation. With the exception of the Submarines. Each Surface Ship would have a 3 year timetable from first cutting of steel to Commissioning and acceptances.
    Scotstan (Type 26)
    Cammell Laird (Type 45)
    Appledore (Type 31e)
    Barrow Inferness (Submarines)

    Scotstan would have to reduce their current delivery schedule for the Type 26 program to one every 3 years. (Yes job losses)
    This would mean Cammell Laird would have for Years to produce the First new Type 45 before the Sale of HMS Daring. (Securing the yards long term future of shipbuilding jobs in central England)
    Appledore reopens to produce the Type 31e. Creating Jobs in Southern England and Securing the long term future of that facility
    Barrow Continues business as it currently is.

    Yes major job losses but that was expected after completion of the Carriers, this would secure the industry on a long term bases.

    Thoughts!

  14. Rosyth could lose jobs? Just like Swan Hunters did, just like Portsmouth, just like Appledore, etc., etc. What makes the Scottish shipyards so special?

    I don’t mind Scotland getting some R.N. and R.F.A. ships, I don’t even mind if they get most, but they are not getting every single last one without fail. The Type 31 is a perfect opportunity to get some Royal Navy shipbuilding back in England, they should be built in Cammell Lairds on the Mersey. I do think the solid support ships should be assembled at Rosyth though.

    • My concern is the BAE Leander class contender at 117m and with a beam of 14.6m, will be limited of what top weight of equipment and armament it can carry. The Beam of River Class 2 OPV, is 13.5m.

      • I understand where you are coming from, but the Type 31 is designed from the outset to be a light frigate, and inexpensive, Leander’s smaller size actually counts for it. It will be cheaper to build (steel is cheap, but it isn’t free) and also cheaper to propel through the water. Also as a light inexpensive frigate, with the best will in the World, it won’t have a huge amount of weapons to carry.

        • I think the RN really need 2/3 surface combat ship classes only, although can see the argument for a corvette in the 80-100m size.

          Global Combat Ship (T26) 150m – High End Escort (AAW/ASW)
          Global Multi Mission Ships (T31) 120-130m – GPF Frigate

          Additionally, a corvette similar to a C-Sword 90 could fill a real gap in our capability and provide a real alternative to the Rivers and our MCM fleet and be built in volume relatively cheaply

          I have listened to many people telling me the bigger the ship the better, so if it costs less to have 13 x T26 and 25 T31 than it would to purchase 13 x T26, 13 T31 and 21 x Corvettes, that is what I would do and accept we will have bigger ships doing mundane tasks.

          The benefits of having the C1,C2,C3 model is that officers can work their way up through size and complexity but with each offering the same core capabilities in different quality and volume.

          So a corvette captain may deploy with a single capability of cartographic, MCM equipment or perhaps even an ASW fit out but have only 16 Sea Ceptors and a 76mm Otto at their disposal whilst the bigger vessels may have all 3 capabilities and greater reach.

          It would provide the flexibility and cost savings as we just standardise on engines and containerised systems etc and swap out as we go, the key difference would be in the size of the hanger and the fact the corvette would have UAV’s only.

          We can still standardise and have a great fleet, but really need to commit to a 25 year build plan.

  15. Are they going to assemble a part of the ship in Belfast Harland and wolf? This is exatly what’s needed and all those poor men are about to be jobless

  16. We can support a bare minimum of 3 ship building yards in the U.K. using our Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

    The frigate factory enclosed dock hall should still be built on the Clyde so the Royal Navy has World class facilities in which to build our frigates and destroyers. Another large enclosed dock hall should be built at Cammell Lairds on the Mersey so we have a World class facilty in which to build large R.F.A. ships, amphibious, future carriers, etc. Things like O.P.V.s, M.C.M.V.s, etc. would be shared between the 2 yards.

    Beyond the Clyde, the Mersey and Barrow nothing can be realistically guaranteed. These 3 can be guaranteed with R.N. and R.F.A. work and should be invested in as outlined above so we have shipbuilding facilities fit for the 21st century in Britain.

  17. Speaking to a couple of my ‘neeburs’ who work in the dockyard, apparently they’re being ‘encouraged’ to move to other dockyards in the short term until Rosyth gets some more work in.

    I can’t help but think building the RFA’s here and getting a few more Type 31’s knocked out would keep things ticking over, even if they mothball them or sell them on eventually. Got to look at the big picture.

  18. Did my dissertation on defence shipbuilding over the last 20 years, why the navy has halved since 2000.

    From the perspective of skills retention, there is no use in Rosyth or other military yards winning civilian orders. A decorator on a prefabricated cruiseliner can’t fit a MK41 silo the day after. They’re different jobs for different yards.

    HMG learnt this with the astute programme; one of the 3 main reasons for astute’s delays was that skills supposedly retained at barrow by Auxilary and Amphibious shipping work were not those required for more complex submarine construction.

    Different types of warships and boats demand diverse, extremely specialist skills to build and design. The gulf between civilian and military is much wider. See more in the rand report.

    Rand Report (Chapter 5) –
    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.3.pdf

    • As a side, the conclusion was along the lines of:

      – Keep de-risking a la T26.

      – Consolidate and agglomerate all shipyards around Glasgow. BAE and Babcock should both have one large site each. This way the govt can award a contract to one yard or the other without worrying about damaging the local skills base. Parker’s Fig. 4 shows reason w/ Glasgow.

      – Don’t expensively retain the skills to build auxiliaries at the expense of the escort fleet. Different skillsets and budgets are tight, HMG needs to prioritise.

      – Work with close allies (AUS, CAN) to purchase each other’s intermediary systems. CEAFAR should be on the T45 replacement, 2087 should hopefully be on the Hunter Class, CMS 330 should be on future RN ships etc. etc. Much of the high cost is the systems themselves, countries don’t mind swapping hull forms but they’re very protectionist w/ systems. This is stupid amongst the commonwealth, the queen can’t declare war on herself, give the systems a longer rollout to reduce the development burden.

      Parker Report – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/572532/UK_National_Shipbuilding_Strategy_report-FINAL-20161103.pdf

    • From first hand experience Barrow suffered from the gap in submarine building. From a selfish point of view it suited me as I spent more time in Barrow yahoo-ing than being at sea but big picture…. probably not the way to go, Out and out short termism.

      • Big gap it was, two decades! Massive short-termism.

        essentially 3 things:

        – there was a gap of 20 ish years between design + construction, employment at the yard fell from 13,000 to 3,000 between deterrent and attack sub programmes (77% reduction).

        – the government buggered the initial competition for the contract, awarding it to marconi (who had never built a submarine), because they were cheaper as opposed to vickers who would have had the best chance of doing the works

        – in an effort to cut costs, the major govt sacked all the logistics, weapons and marine engineering officers in the navy / MoD who would have overseen the build process, though no fault of its own the navy, and the MoD, didn’t know what they were buying because they didnt have the men on the ground to look at it. Govt wouldn’t have known things were going wrong if it was looking at it. (Team of 50 to a team of 4, 92% reduction)

    • Roders,
      A decorator is a poor analogy.
      A decorator is never going to fit a Mk41. However he may be painting the deck around one which is similar to the job on a cruise liner build.
      The issues with sub building is valid. That work is about as specialist as it gets and the loss of say welders who weld thick Hy80/100 type steels means they are pretty much irreplaceable.
      Most ship repair /building organisations use a lot of Subcons for specialist work and only keep a small core of specialists on the permanent payroll.
      Whilst the guys I work with are not going to repair or fit a Sampson radar they are capable of building the steel work, running cables correctly, installing the cooling pipework, installing foundations and mounting cabinets on them etc…
      For Installation testing, set to work and specialist repairs we get the OEM on site but we support the OEM with everything he needs, riggers, electricians fabricator, coppersmiths, welders etc.

      • Granted decorators still used, but nowhere near as intensively.

        The skills required to build warships are the other end of the spectrum to cruiseliners.

  19. It is really about time that industry and the government do something about ship building capabilities in the UK.
    Lets look at confirmed, planned and possible future builds for the RN/RFA and other government agencies such as border patrol, STUFT.
    For the RN at the moment the new Dreadaught class is being built and I suspect that in ten years time the design phase for the Astute replacements will start. In Glasgow the three T26s are confirmed with a further five in the pipe line. Then there is the five T31s to be built where, three FSS of 40,000 tons each again to be built where.
    Now for potential future builds HMS Albion and Bulwark would need to be replaced in the next ten years if we were to keep a realistic Amphib force, that means design work in the next four years to commence, there was or still is the idea that the T31 would be sold to smaller nations, then there was the logical idea of two-three hospital ships, the good idea of two littoral strike ships, the three Bays and four Point class vessels and HMS Argus would also need to be replaced or designed to be replaced in the next ten years. If all of these projects would take fruit that gives a total of 240,000 tons of semi complex ships (Albion/Bays), 120,000 tons of advanced civilian stantandard (FSS) and 170,000 tons of civilian standard (Points/Hospital)shipping needs to be either built or designs started in the next ten years.
    This ammounts to 520,000tons of shipping to be built or planned for in the next ten years.
    This does not include batch 2 of the T26 (35,000 tons)the T45 replacement, which if rumor is correct will be based on the T26 hull(48,000tons), MCM replacement (10,000tons), T31(25,000tons) and T31 build out(5,000tons every two years)if the government goes ahead with the concept of selling the T31 at its third of its life span idea, Gib Squadron replacements and possibly a batch three OPV with helicopter hanger and light anti-air, anti surface capability(10,000tons)or 128,000 tons of new complex warship construction over the next 20 years.
    A batch three OPV is needed especially now with the UK potential coming out of the EU and it still has overseas protectorates to patrol and protect. This amounts to 1,984,191sq nm or one vessel for every 165,349 sq nm and no aircraft. Compared to say Canada that has one vessel for every 34,009 sq nm and 19 aircraft to patrol its EEZ. We are very thin on protection.
    So where could they be built, Rosyth? Scotland is making a rod for its own back, why would any industry that is looking at defence contracts want to develop a base in Scotland? With the SNP constantly shouting for independence companies would be cautious of investment in Scotland. The SNP and Clyde shipbuilding often say that they have been betrayed as they did not get the full 13 frigates of the T26. The T26 concept was always to be two diffrent standards, 8 all singing and dancing and 5 GP frigates which has now been designated T31 as BaE never did produce a design for the GP frigate. The so called frigate factory on the Clyde was never built, this was to be an investment by BaE and the British government. That would be a waste of monies if Scotland did become independent. Could it be that the slower build rate is to give the UK government the possibility to swing the construction of the T26 to a diffrent yard if need be.
    It is possible that the T26 could be the last complex warship bult in Scotland. I know that if I was the British Government I would be looking at diffrent possibilities even for the next batch of the T26 order.
    So that leaves Liverpool, Belfast and Newcastle, Belfast has almost the same issues as Scotland so would I invest there. It seems that the UK is running out of options.
    For the UK government to get clarity Scotland should be given a second referendum with the stipulation that they cannot have another for a minimum of 50 years, the same for N.Ireland. That way Westminster can plan and invest as can industry, only then can there be a national ship building plan.

  20. What consortium they shut Appledore ,Garland in belfast closing & Ferguson on the verge of closure. Why would the government give it to babcock now

  21. Future Shipbuilding Strategy

    You have to stop and wonder if the shipbuilding and repair of UK government floating assets should be nationalized again.
    Gain are the days that the UK shipbuilders could compete for commercial work on a global scale. With only one Shipbuilder now producing Steel ships commercially in England (Cammell Laird) and Fergusons being the last in Scotland, however they are currently insolvent having made losses during construction of CalMac Ferries.
    The Future Shipbuilding Strategy could be,
    The Frame Work of the future:
    Reduce current yards to 4, (Yes this would result in major job losses and with the Scottish Governments ongoing move for independence this would ensure a future shipbuilding capability for both Scotland and the new UK)
    Scotstan (Clyde, Scotland)
    Cammell Laird (Birkenhead, England)
    Barrow Inferness (Lake District, England)
    AppleDore (Devon, England)

    Each yard would then be awarded one class of vessel to build. Each class would have up to 5 Active platforms. Each Platform would have a 5 year minor refit, 10 year major fit and then sold after 15 years’ of service to an allied nation. With the exception of the Submarines. Each Surface Ship would have a 3 year timetable from first cutting of steel to Commissioning and acceptances.
    Scotstan (Type 26)
    Cammell Laird (Type 45)
    Appledore (Type 31e)
    Barrow Inferness (Submarines)

    Scotstan would have to reduce their current delivery schedule for the Type 26 program to one every 3 years. (Yes job losses)
    This would mean Cammell Laird would have for Years to produce the First new Type 45 before the Sale of HMS Daring. (Securing the yards long term future of shipbuilding jobs in central England)
    Appledore reopens to produce the Type 31e. Creating Jobs in Southern England and Securing the long term future of that facility
    Barrow Continues business as it currently is.

    Yes major job losses but that was expected after completion of the Carriers, this would secure the industry on a long term bases.

    Thoughts!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here