It isn't a loan, it's a guarantee which H&W are seeking to enable them to secure refinancing on more favourable terms. H&W are predicting EBITDA break-even in FY24 and increasing revenues going into the future. The preservation of the Belfast and Appledore yards surely meets the NSS aims of competition within the UK (especially beyond the cosy BAES/Babcock duopoly) particular for HMG funded vessels, and social benefit. As far as I can see the guarantee is to cover a loan which will be repaid to a large extent from revenues earned from HMG. To me there was a very strong argument for the exception to the 80% rule on national security grounds, as we have gone over ad nauseam the loss of naval shipbuilding capacity has been inflicted by a succession of UK governments putting off replacement of warships - which has also led to the T23s being knackered.
I also understand that some Spanish government export guarantees (not necessarily directly equivalent) are for up to 99%, which may (I'm only guessing) influence Navantia's thinking. Given Hunt's views on benefit recipients he probably thinks H&W should be condemned to the business equivalent of a Victorian workhouse.
H&W issued a
statement for investors via the London Stock Market news service in response to the Times story.