Originally Posted by
t43562
I think this answer begs the question i.e. it's (sort of) saying "the reason the Clyde's productivity is bad is because their productivity is bad." Why is it bad? Whatever that is might be a difference versus the T-31...or not but how can one say if one doesn't know what it is?
Clyde productivity is poor because it is fundamentally based on keeping a certain number of each trade gainfully employed on a permanent basis - a result of the now-defunct ToBA, which was in turn a product of Lord Draysons Maritime Industrial Strategy from the mid-noughties. The original intent was good, but is long overtaken by events. However, the programme management in BAES which is responsible for delivering the ships, doesn't really understand shipbuilding any more and is marching to that tune. Babcocks started from the premise that they had to be cheaper and have sized their workforce to that end (less than half the staff on the Clyde).
Point being, its not actually the design of the ship that is particularly cheaper to build, its just that they're starting from the premise of building it as efficiently as possible, which is not the same as building a ship to maintain a level of work for each trade over a long period. Which is also why Babcock are now making noises about follow-on orders. They've probably got 25% of ship 4 steelwork done which means that in two years, their steel trades will be running out of work.