UK to consolidate three major complex warships’ manufacturing yards
One of BAE Systems' major shipyards could be closed, the company's UK chief, Nigel Whitehead, has said. He told the Sunday Telegraph a decision would be made by the end of the year.
The firm was working with ministers to explore all options for maintaining the UK's shipbuilding capability, he said.
The future of its three main shipyards - in Portsmouth, and Govan and Scotstoun on the River Clyde - after two new aircraft carriers are completed has been in doubt for some time.
There are fears there will be insufficient work available to keep all three busy and profitable as cuts in defence spending take their toll.
“The issue is how to consolidate... but make sure that we've preserved the capability to design and manufacture complex warships,” Mr Whitehead told the newspaper.
“We anticipate that there will be a reduction in footprint and we anticipate... that part of that might actually be the cessation of manufacturing at one of the sites.”
Earlier this year the company appointed consultants to carry out a review of the business. The firm's yard in Portsmouth is widely believed to be the most vulnerable, with 1,500 jobs at risk. However, two bases on the River Clyde, at Govan and Scotstoun are also under scrutiny.
BAE Systems says it is working closely with the government to explore all options for maintaining the UK's shipbuilding capability.
The Ministry of Defence says that it is up to the company itself to decide how best to deliver the naval vessels it has already agreed to produce.
In October, BAE Systems and Franco-German firm EADS cancelled their planned merger, after talks were thwarted by political deadlock.
The UK had wanted its counterparts to agree to limit their influence in the merged firm in order to maintain BAE's strong working relations with the US Pentagon.
Suggested Stories
-
May 17th 2013
Pope Francis condemned the global ‘cult of money’ and the ‘new idols’
-
May 17th 2013
Uruguay’s José Mujica lauds booming Brazil ties
-
May 17th 2013
Prince Harry and PM Cameron launch in New York global campaign to promote Britain
-
May 16th 2013
Falklands’ war: Defense releases stats on deaths of military personnel
19 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Its going to be a while before there is again.... at least we'll get both the super-carriers .. though its s ahem we wont have anything to fly from them.
and watch another company go west,
why not just get rid of evrything , just so long as your overseas aid is ok,
usles twit.
Which begs the question: how come we have soldiers supporting the USA in a couple of countries?
And: Who exactly gets this money?
And: How come we're sending billions abroad when we cant even pay our own debts at home?
I would think it would be more prudent to keep Pompey and close one of the Scottish yards given the uncertainty regarding Scottish independence
@5 needs must i suppose its a pity the yards could not be used to scrap argentine vessels instead of them wasting away in african ports
My thoughts exactly, surely closing one facility in Scotland would be more logical, I doubt this logic will be overlooked in the end - it's not as if they can complain based on the course they have embarked on.
Now ... where shall we put the Faslane facility? ... deep water port .. England .. has to be Plymouth (can't risk Milford Haven, the Welsh might take the Scottish route. Can't sub-contract to Bantry Bay, too much history).
If Scotland were to demand immediate withdrawal from the Clyde after independence we would relocate the warheads to the US (where the missiles are already stored) either until a new base it built (years) or permanently.
@8 Agreed. I've dropped them a line on the subject. Scots may as well get used to job losses.
@10 You might want to recall that the UK has already indicated that it fully intends to maintain Sovereign Base areas in Scotland. And what's Scotland going to do about it?
Badly needed, but the government says no,
To be clear: the place of the Type 45 destroyer is not in the sea in front of Somalia to chase pirate boats, but it is at the flank of HMS Illustrious in the middle of the Cougar 12 task group
Yet we send and operate a billion pound state of the art destroyer to look after pirates,
That a smaller boat could deal with.
ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/
.
Clyde isn't our only nuclear weapon storage base. We've been storing hundreds of US nukes for decades in other UK bases. We would simply use one of these bases untill there is a new naval base.
In the last thirty years we've been keeping more US nukes in our bases(not including Clyde) than we have nukes of our own.
www.buenosairesherald.com/article/117937/falkland-oil-and-gas-loses-half-its-value-on-malvinas-disappointing-results
What Next?
Judge Greisas Ruling overturned by appeal?
ARA Libertad is freed from captivity?
Grain Prices Soar?
New Major oil discovery in patagonia?
World Bank says Argentina rduced its poverty by 50%?
World Bank says Argentine middle class the fastest growing in the region?
Argentina pays it's cooperative bond holders on time?
Cristina's chances for reelection suddenly skyrocket?
HOOOoooooo! Shrugging shoulders......It gives me chiiiils all over my body.
Still not going to going the islands into Argentina.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!