I am worried that the MOD has normalised "UK warships take a decade."
The data says otherwise, and the strongest counterexample is⦠the Royal Navy!
Type 45: six destroyers launched in five years.
Type 23: sixteen frigates, one a year.
That was the Clyde, a currently expanding shipyard, within living memory.
Cadence (āDrumbeatā) is a choice, not a capability.
Glasgow took 5 years to float because the build profile was financed that way. We have the answers in Hansard and written evidence responses to the Defence Committee.
Cardiff, same yard, same class, built markedly faster.
Italy slotted two extra FREMMs into its line for Egypt and delivered them in months.
Hot production lines can do that.
BAE, Babcock and Navatia are all reporting physical space, training pipelines and ācapacityā across all of their shipyards.
If you place an order with a cheque today they will not turn you away.
The perceived āfast buildersā - Japan, Korea, Italy - share one habit: they evolve, they don't reinvent.
Frozen design, mature combat system off the critical path, steady drumbeat.
š Type 26 or Type 31 are mature and modifiable
š Exercise modification discipline
š Sea Viper or AEGIS are mature, evolvable, and off the critical path
š Release cash flow
The cautionary tale is the opposite habit: proven hull or new hull heavy changes new combat system pitch cold yard (see FFG-62 with 85% changes, Hunter with structure-changing mast changes).
Right now the UK has more escort hulls in build simultaneously since the 1980s, three classes of large surface vessel, hot yards, training pipelines.
Type 83 is the chance to continue to build at rate:
š Pick a hull in production
š Exercise modification discipline
š Keep Sea Viper evolving
š Pay the invoices on time
Deferment and slowdowns add to costs by HMTās own reports.
Do not accept the normalisation of slow drumbeat as an excuse to not spend on Defence.