Telegraph: "Submarine Jetty Project Is Slammed For Running £92 Million Over Budget"

Ok it's over budget but I didn't read anything that suggested what had led to the extra cost and late delivery.Has Pusser thought of some extra goodies to be included that weren't in the original spec? Was the design crap from the word go and has had to be modified to make it worthwhile? We(the taxpayer) should be told the whole story so we can make our minds up whether are being seen off for no good reason or has there been some horrendous mismanagement that has allowed all this to go on.


Book Reviewer
I've not really paid any attention to it, but did one of the contractors not try and turn it into a submarine causing a touch of damage to the electrics.


Book Reviewer
IIRC from a review board in DE&S, in this instance MoD has played it pretty well, but the projects been delayed by incidents and issues beyond its general control and the prime contractors have been sanctioned. All in all no drama and I don't believe there has been a subsequent capability loss. Top notch full facts reporting from the journos as usual
I fail to understand how the MoD consistently manage to ensure that nearly every large project they undertake (T45's, QE Carriers, Astute, Bowman etc) always ends up over budget and late. Surely if a company, BAE for example, say they can build X-number of T45's for X-amout of money and they will be delivered on X-date at what point during the process when it's realised that they'll be over budget, late and not in as large a quantity as ordered do the MoD have to bear the brunt of the costs? It's like a builder saying he can build you a 2 storey extension for £20k in 3 months and ending up with a lean-to costing £30k and it being finished after a year, it just wouldn't happen.
I can't understand why there aren't financial penalties imposed into the contracts to ensure that projects stay on budget and if they are late the Mod is compensated financially. Don't tell me that industry in Britain wouldn't accept these terms 'cos if they don't then I'm sure there are plenty of shipyards and companies around the world who would, I'm all for keeping it British but sometimes perhaps the MoD need to realise that they're not here to keep people in jobs they're here to get the best kit for the best price and ensure that they get value for money which is something they're failing on quite misserably right now.
Because MOD does not want x no. of what ever class. They want x no. individual ships, everyones different. The layout will change after the first couple then new kit comes on the scene, etc,etc and by the time theyve got what they want its time for a new class.
On one update of a bit of kit an extra screw was required (75p from a chandlers) the total bill came to £20,000+.

Engineer to come from Guzz to Barrow to check it (3days +accom+expences)
check and recall other kits instock
check and ammend drawings
Engineer, again, to fit new kit and check.
Meeting to accredit blame for cock up.

MOD cos they approved the drawings. (couldnt count no. of holes but got the no. of nuts right???????)
Last edited:
I've been part of a group of three/four writing the Valiant Jetty Safety Case (a requirement by MoD Nuclear Regulators). A key decision a few years ago was to switch design to a Floating Jetty to decouple from the land (obviously) thereby not having to demonstrate seismic withstand. Which all modern land based structures have to, and most cannot. Including elements of the shiplift, which we're now also reading across elements of the VJ safety case to. There have been many design changes since concept, but yes it's late. Google AMEC, the designers(not us) and you might find out how happy MoD are with them NOT!!!!
The above post was made by "Stingray" on the Barrow Submariners forum and goes some way to explaining both the additional cost and time slippage.

Latest Threads

New Posts