BAE Systems has submitted a planning application that would see the ‘Ship Block Outfit Hall’ at its Govan shipyard in Glasgow expanded.
The expanded hall would allow ships to be built indoors, protecting them against the elements and would form part of an effort to modernise the yard to make it more attractive to future orders.
The firm submitted a Planning Application Notice to Glasgow City Council with the purpose:
“Erection of extension to ship block and outfit hall, demolition of buildings to accommodate extension and associated works.”
What would that look like? Here’s a very high-quality diagram.
https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1459976181382619136
A BAE Systems spokesperson said:
“A programme of investment is already underway to improve the infrastructure that enables the safe design, construction and commissioning of the complex warships that we build for the Royal Navy here in Glasgow. As part of this activity we are exploring further opportunities to modernise our facilities and ensure we are best placed to deliver current and future customer commitments.”
An online consultation will start soon and plans are expected to be able to be viewed online from mid-December to mid-January. It is understood that there is no publicly available cost just yet for the proposed development.
Does anyone know if this would speed up construction on site ?
I suppose it would as poor weather must lower productivity. But unless things have changed in the last few years I understand they are deliberately building the T26’s on the slow so as to maintain continuous construction on the site.
Thanks. Not what I wanted to hear but what I expected.
Maybe there is some forward planning here due to some potential new future builds? Bringing the schedule forward, exports, T83, and even 1/2 joking, more T26s and a couple more T45s v2?
Absolutely no chance of a T45v2. More T26 either for the U.K. or direct export is possible. With the T45’s getting big upgrades they could probably run on a few extra years if there was demand for additional T26.
The T45 Hull’s have a lot less miles on them than they were designed for: so far.
Agree. Due to delayed commisioning and in service dates for QE class carriers. Plus power and propulsion failures has meant the type 45s have little mileage on their hulls and must be in a decent material state. I think there might be some mileage in squeezing out a couple more type 26s after current 8 built, especially if lethargic building rate is sped up.
I think we could get upto 11 or 12 type 26s before construction switches to type 83s in the 2030s.
Surely 12 is doable with unit cost falling now Australia, Canada have purchased the design? Unit cost must have reduced from the laughable £1.26 billion per ship for the first 3 vessels.
I think we could do with a least 2 more T26’s.
I think the possibility of Type 26 Batch 3 AAW is existent. We have a shortage of Type 45s, and since construction of Type 83 is still 10-15 years away, this could be an interim, number-boosting solution. Get rid of the Sea Ceptor silos, replace it with 24 more Mk.41 VLS and you end up with a ship that can carry 8 FC/ASW, 32 Asters, and 32 Sea Ceptor. If it’s possible to fit a better radar… great. Even 2-3 of these would help.
Yes, I think 2 (maybe 4?) interim AAW Type 26s would really bolster the fleet and availability of these ships especially to a CSG. And even additional ASW T26 or even T32s if they’ll have ASW ability.
The danger with that notion is HMGs bean counters will say “look the RN has air defence ships, we dont need to fund a new purpose built destroyer” and hey presto we will be left with 4 ships instead of 8 needed.
Fitting ‘better radar’ wouldn’t even be necessary, the primary T-45 should be able tocontrol the missiles from a T-26 AAW frigate? Aegis has 1 primary ‘god’ role which can control direct all SM-2’s in fleet.
I believe the RN cut the co operative part out to save cash? I happy to be told Im wrong but sure I recall that.
Why would i not even be surpised 😔
They did.
But like everything electronic it will have evolved and gotten cheaper/better over time.
This is the sort of thing you can add pretty fast as it is conns and software.
Fused battle space, which Cooperative engagement is part of, is on the buzz word list. So it could well be funded IRL.
Not wrong.
Then you would be better off with some T31+ with Mk41 VLS or Aster VLS as silo boats controlled from a T45 or even a radar fit on QEC as the mast is even higher.
If all you are doing is cuing AAW launch then what do you need an ASW quiet and expensive T26 hull for?
I hope this shed extension is really also about increasing fleet numbers and build rhythm.
There does seem to be a renewed urgency about doing stuff to move things forward rather than hand wringing and managed decline. Which is refreshing.
agreed, i posted before we should look at getting some 100m bulk freighters turn into drone ships put loads of VLS in them. you could load vls depending on mission requirements (AAW-Aster/Sea Ceptor, Atk – tomahawk/ FCASW or mix)
Will Aster be able to be loaded in MK41 VLS? I thought the Aster DCN(?) silos are a slightly different spec? Hopefully there’s some cross-loading abilty at least for future missiles.
Aster currently is not qualified for use in MK41 VLS,although it has been mentioned that going forward MBDA have plans to do so.
While I’m in favour of a couple more T26s, your logic is faulty. The eighth T26 is still 15 years away; why is an interim design needed when construction on the actual T83 should begin then?
As for the whole “just replace SC silos with Mk41”, you can’t. Half the SC silos are behind the funnel in a very tightly packed location. The space forward of the present 24 Mk41 cells, based on the Hunter and CSC, can only fit another 8 cell launcher for 32 cells total.
Any extra Type 26s would come in the same timeframe as the Type 83s.
It will be a choice whether to build more Type 26s or Type 83s after the second batch of Type 26. The first T83 could come operational about a year after an extra AAW T26 would, so I don’t think it’s worth it as an interim measure. Especially as it would delat the Type 83.
Much cheaper and faster to upgun/upsensor Type 31s to AAW as a backup if we feel that’s needed. The Iver Huitfeldt has 32 Mk 41 VLS. The Type 31 is FFBNW.
Exactly upgunning the T31 to fight peers is the way to go, no need to pay for the whole t26 full monty.
Yes. Maybe . No . No chance .
Here is an idea to maintain continuous construction… build an extra T26. Good news about this development.
Yes quite. I personally think it is both possible and proportionate to double the Royal Navy’s budget, in which case I would be building another 8.
I suspect with the current crop of politicians though this will only happen though if a large scale war broke out and then it will be too late.
Lets be honest even with 16billion more over 4 years they are still actually cutting the cash that pays salaries and actually services the kit and pays for parts.
Surely they will want to show capacity to build. Bidding is tricky when your order books are full and I am not sure they wish to encourage the competion? Is there not a danger other companies will be able to demonstate a quicker/cheaper build?
Been told to more like.
I think the extra cash for MOD’s equipment budget is allowing BAe and Babcock to speed up – so the investment is driven by that. Yes working on two ships undercover will have an impact on productivity. The new shipbuilding strategy should also give a timeline on getting T83 in the water, and that is almost a shoe-in for BAe to build as follow-on (given that Type 32 will probably go to Babcock) I should think. Competition is most likely to be about the design authority, not which yards build them.
Any idea what the buildings at the rear,
to be demolished are?
Fairfields Engine Works, Category A listed.
Ho dear! The planning app. might be rejected by GCC, unless, BAES could move the Fairfields building somewhere else?
Thanks for this info Tomuk!
I’d imagine GCC would bend over backwards at the aroma of proper investment and modern facilities there.
It means the yard has a good future.
And better working conditions/productivity.
The Cat B listed crane was demolished in the last modernisation.
It is highly likely it would be moved/donated to a heritage centre.
Being Cat A listed makes it the equivalent of Glasgow Cathedral or the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh.
I believe Kvaerner applied for a similar extension in the past and it was thrown out.
Times have changed wrt listed buildings.
If GCC say no the end of the yard is written in lights. Production would be moved elsewhere, where a big shed and crane would be welcome.
Apart from John Hume, a renowned Glasgow historian of industrial architecture/archaeology, I doubt many people know the engine sheds exist. (Several years ago, I did attend a rather good talk Prof Hume gave – I recommend his work if you’re interested in the UK’s industrial past).
As the buildings are located within the BAE complex – the public can’t visit them. I suspect the engine sheds won’t stop a major redevelopment of the site.
What isn’t affected are the old offices and boardroom of the Fairfield Company – restored through the efforts of the redoubtable Paul Sweeney (Glasgow MSP) and Ian Johnston (maritime historian), among others – and now a museum. So a significant remnant of the old company heritage will still remain after any site redevelopment.
If you’re ever in Glasgow, I recommend a visit to the Fairfield museum – particularly if you can also take in one of Ian’s marvellous talks on Clyde’s maritime past. Check-out the website!
Hi Alan,
As a disabled person who is now getting rather long in the tooth to boot, I have a love hate relationship with old buildings.
History is important and so are the buildings that played a crucial role in that history and from that prespective they should, where possible, be preserved.
However, the rules at the moment fossilise these buildings to the point where it is impossible to bring them up to modern usable standards.
A case in point, I once went to find a job just after I had been made redundent. I up me best suit on and drove around to a company near where I lived. The building was listed (it is in Bath) and had four steps up to the front door and no alternative access. I went up to that door on ALL FOURS to deliver my CV. Needless to say I did not get the job!
For me any building that has an economic role or employment opportunities MUST not only be brought up to modern fire safety standards, for example, but also modern accessibility standards otherwise society continues to discriminate against disabled people. That means being able to use the same access as the rest of society and not being sent around the back, which is common practice.
By the way I have a Masters degree but because of my disability I have no more chances of getting a job than a school leaver with no qualifications at all…
Another, point to make is that the history we remember and are taught was pretty damn cruel for disabled people who were often thought of as a curse from God! Did Prof Hume ever mention disabled people in his talks?
Sorry if this sounds to be a bit of a rant, but the rose tinted glasses save every olding building brigade really, really ticks me off.
I suspose that love hate relationship I have with old buildings is more hate when all said and done… Give me a bulldozer, pleeeaaaaseee..!
CR
Hi CR
Thanks for your post which I once again enjoyed reading.
I agree – a building needs a context, and should be fit for modern living, including access for all. The needs of the disabled have not been well catered for ……….
I do wish to retain historic buildings, if possible, but they must have a context – and I don’t see the point of reconstructing these particular engine workshops in a completely different location!
If their demolition allows for a new covered facility at Govan, I will happily stand aside – and allow your bulldozer to pass 😀!
Thanks Alan,
Better save me pennies for that bulldozer 😉
Cheers CR
Strangely I cannot find the application online at Glasgow.gov.uk unless it has not been registered yet.
It will be publicly visible if and when it is registered.
I agree with other posters that I won’t involve the offices which would be controversial just the engine sheds which are not accessible anyway.
I see the engine sheds being donated to a heritage museum with a budget for their restoration.
Interesting posts – thanks for that.
Either they’ll be knocked down, the road-facing facade retained in some way, or they’ll be methodically taken apart, logged and as you note, stored/donated. I’m the sort who’s saddened by their loss, but we need to modernise facilities to aid both their productivity and longevity. I’m sure the blokes that erected them and worked in them would agree.
To add, the same goes for Alan. thanks. 🙂
Many thanks, Lusty.
You’re more than welcome.
It’s always a pleasure to read informative and thought-out posts, rather than the blunt/dismissive/trolly ones. I knew of the existence of buildings on the site, but I was unaware of their status, so thanks for that. 🙂
Looks like BAe reacting to Babcocks investment at Rosyth. Babcock have trumped BAe investing of the back of a much smaller T31 contract saying to build hulls efficiently you need to have a proper facilities and use the latest techniques.
Exactly my thoughts too.
Hope to god they make a succes of the t31 and hopefully get more orders. A total monopolly is good for no one
Absolutely; BAe have abused the tax payer enough times. They need to know that there’s always the possibility that they might lose out on government contracts to someone else.
Nice to see they are thinking ahead. Efficiencies in production could provide some wiggle room to speed up the T26 schedule and potentially squeeze something between them and T83 if called upon.
Seems a no brainer. Didn’t the local Govt want a frigate factory on the Clyde? Well this is a Frigate factory on the Clyde and now we have one at Rosyth too!
How about one in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Well there is an old one at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, a small one at H&W Appledore, one hardly used one at Portsmouth Dockyard and the largest dry dock in the UK at H&W Belfast.
Isn’t this dependant on possible outcome of Scottish IND ref2? Can’t build complex warships in ‘foriegn’ countries?
This made me curious like you on a few counts too. Is this relaunch of the ‘frigate factory’ that Bae cancelled as much based on the fear of Scottish Independence as other factors. Is it different? On either account what’s changed to spur this change of mind, simply Babcock’s developments forcing them to do so despite the insecurity of potential independence or do they have indicators from Govt that it can’t take effect for such a time period that immediate investment is still worth it. And laterally is some prospect of foreign orders enough to move the investment line between not worth it/worth it in the latters favour?
On that latter front, if that last prospect came into being some time in the future, what issues/questions/barriers would arise after any Scottish Independence when one presumes UK ships and design would move south. Would Bae or indeed Babcock for that matter still be allowed to build those designs/ships for any foreign sales in Scotland. One presumes probably yes, if all factors I won’t go into here, but I’m sure can be imagined are considered. Or have they been told any insistence on moving south would be only a long term process anyway.
Spyinthesky
The perspective is slightly different from north of the border; one can never say never of course (it remains a hypothetical scenario, like many other things), but it is 99.5% unlikely that there will be a Scottish secession (IMHO).
Indeed to put this in context, it’s perhaps more likely that Northern Ireland would leave the UK before Scotland – her constitutional position today is much more perilous.
Course the powers that be said that no major country could leave the EU??
Hi Andy, Fair point, perhaps – but I do think Brexit and Scexit are two different beasts.
I could go on, but I’ll stop there ……
You’re taking about the secession of a significant part of the United Kingdom; such an act has never been attempted before in a large modern advanced economy. The risks are huge – and many Scots already balk at them on close inspection.
Not point I was making. I’m just saying so called experts are often wrong, brexit was emotion and U.K. break up could be the same. People lash out illogically
Brexit has already proved border issues (just look at NI) if the Scottish people choose to leave (hope not) and want to join EU there will be a border as Scotland cannot be open the free EU travel and Uk not. Also i thought condition of joining is adoption of Euro!! and i believe Ms Sturgeon has already said they want to keep BRITISH pound and have a say in monetary policy wtf!!! thats like accepting the $ and expecting to tell US Fed what they should do.
H&W dry dock is formerly the largest in the UK. The Able dry dock on Teesside could take two Ford-class carriers side by side and there are plans to extend it further to about 500m in length. It dwarfs the one at H&W.
Well this is good news, but here is a picture of a seriously large shipyard in China, Jiangnan Shipyard. You can also see the new PLAN aircraft carrier under construction.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbLq2YswJVT8i4AW9L1SZ0PzbtaFMzHz/view
Cheers CR
I wonder how much of the buildings behind are part of the preservation order? All or just part. Don’t know if George has seen the specific plans or not but is it a possible to extend one part of the main shed back towards the road to be able to hold one full length hull while the rest still work on the various sections and bring them together in the former allowing new sections to be worked on. I guess it might work if a slow build is still pursued or adjusted on the various parts to make the whole process work. Depends I guess on overall logistics and specifically how long the work on the completed hull might take before removing it from the shed to prepare for and launch and if the space allows it to be moved outside without affecting the rest of the shed work if they remain short as is.
Back in 2014, BAE had two proposals: build the frigate hall at Scotstoun, or retain and upgrade both sites. This looks like a re-hash of the second of those proposals.
It’s certainly welcome news and hopefully a sign of forward-planning – ie, perhaps a reflection on the complexities of the current build, allowing the yard to be better equipped to build the B2 T26 ships as well as future orders.
No it doesn’t look like either previous proposal.
Thanks for your blunt replies as usual. 🙂
What I always love is the referencing or original sources: it gives the comments such a nice edge. Apart of course from the Ceptor VLS photo copied and pasted straight off Wiki. 🙂
The way the present plan is differentiated from the 2014 plan is of course breath takingly clear in the final incisive analysis.
The fact that we are all wrong, even on things we worked on IRL, and a higher being is right: clearly means I must readjust my perspective on reality.
Aha, well, Wiki is always worth avoiding. I would rather check a fair few sources to verify the information before posting it – even if I worked on or with something!
Of course, the current plan is different from 2014. I think that’s fairly clear, especially when one examines material published at the time. Perhaps on my part, I should have said “it reminds me of one of the proposals given in 2014”. As I said in my rather long post on George’s recent shipbuilding article, I need to clarify and pick my wording carefully. It’s something I can learn from. 🙂
Again, cheers for the posts on this. I found your thoughts and opinions very interesting mate.
To be clear, my tongue in cheek comment wasn’t aimed at you Lusty!
Cheers
Aha, I thought so!
Have a good night. Cheers.
Way to get your knickers in a twist over posting something daft.
Wrong as usual. The VLS photo was from EDR’s article on Albatros NG.
My take on the story is this – Negotiations for Type 26 Batch 2 are ongoing/imminent,the Govt are obviously looking to drive the best price out of BAE Systems for the last 5 Ships,and BAE are far enough into T26 build now to have identified areas where the process can be vastly improved,so with Babcock’s providing a bit of competition an expansion of the site would make a lot of sense.A case for extra T26.s im not so sure but being in the best of condition for the Type 83 build definately.
I agree with you there, Paul. That was one of my first thoughts as well – they will have identified the shortcomings of the current facilities for a build of this nature and they will be looking to make changes accordingly. I for one welcome the re-visiting of plans to upgrade the site.
I really wish that its because we are palnning to speed up the T26 production or have more T45s, or possibly and here is really wishful thinking an extension of the T26s plus the T83s. Then again that is wishful thinking.
What I suspect might be happening is 1. BAE want the build completly under cover and role them into the water when they are finished. 2. There is the contract for some smaller missile patrol boats for the Ukranian navy. Not sure where they are to be built but it is a possibility. 3. There is also the Bangladesh contract. We all assume it will be a T31 version but it could be a Batch II OPV type vessel to replace the two Castles or the five Island class OPVs. If three of these are to be built in the UK then either BAE or Babcock Int will need some expansion. Otherwise for BAE and a slow T26 build does not make financial sense for such a large extension, especially as they will need to flatten a Grade A listed building, possibly the only one of its kind. Does Scotland have a museum like St Fagans in Wales, if so the building could be relocated brick by brick.
It has been announced that Babcock will be building the missile boat in the Sandown maintenance hall.
I guess we’re going to have to wait and see what the Bangladeshi contract entails. It might be an order for three new builds, or it could be the purchase of three former RN hulls when they’re made available.
Hi Ron,
There is no direct equivalent in Scotland of the St Fagans National Museum of History.
Someone made a good comment (see below) –
“Being Cat A listed makes it the equivalent of Glasgow Cathedral or the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh”
But although the Govan engine works might share a listing with some cultural treasures, it isn’t a medieval cathedral or a gallery – and most Scots have never heard of it (or even seen it). For that reason, I see no appetite to rebuild it brick-by-brick at another location.
I doubt a Cat A listing will be allowed to prevent a much needed upgrade at BAE Govan.
Iron Bridge Gorge museum might be another good place for it?
There are plenty of pretty big iron structures that have been moved around. So there is plenty of precedent for that to be done!
Such as the former London & North Western Railway station at Oxford (Rewley Road) which ended up in the Bucks Railway museum.
Crystal Palace itself was originally in Hyde Park before ending up where it is now.
Hi SB, If a museum wants these workshops – and has funding, I believe few in Glasgow will stand in its way. The city wants jobs and big government contracts ………..
As a Glaswegian, I know the city fathers have had a pretty unsentimental attitude towards historic heritage/and modernity.
The medieval centre of Glasgow has long gone, and huge swathes of the city’s historic core were bulldozed for a motorway!
As late as the 1980s, buildings by renowned architect “Greek” Thomson were being torn down. And scandalously, we recently allowed the showpiece Rennie Mackintosh School of Art to go on fire not once – but twice!
Who knows? At the very least it might mean cheaper construction if the batch 2. And an ability to build blocks for the FSS bid?,
If I were to be unrealistically optimistic 6 T26s fir the price of 5. But realistically a cheaper build of the 5 batch 2s alongside space to build blocks for the FSS bidthey are part of.
Type 83 will be an interesting competition between Babcock and BAE.
I don’t think BAE put much effort into Type 31 as it was a budget frigate, but if Babcock have increased capacity at their facilities they are bound to be in the running for T83 especially if they can deliver at a more competitive price than BAE.
I would rather have a more conservative hull design with additional silo’s than something like the FTI frigate that has excellent sensors but little missile capacity to be a serious deterrent.
Bae didn’t expect to win the Type 31 “competition” because Geo Osbornes national shipbuilding strategy said not to award the work to Bae.
Parker, the guy that wrote the strategy, used to be head of Babcock’s and said Bae couldn’t commission two classes at the same time which is, and was, horse manure. That only left Babcock’s, quelle surprise.
I wonder if certain twitter users will acknowledge this or deny it’s happening again.
Hmm, a comment designed to whip-up anti-Scottish sentiment with an allusion to the cybernats. Odd…
It looks like an attempt by BAES to all but lock in the T26B2 and T83 orders. It may give them some extra capacity for export orders, but it’s hard to see where these will come from given BAES’s poor reputation for corvette size warships, whilst the market for building (rather than selling the design) £billion frigates and destroyers is vanishingly small. Babcock with the T31 seems to be in the sweet spot for potential light frigate orders, albeit faced with fierce competition from yards in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, China … etc
It’s a request for planning permission dude. Clearly dependent on getting further work at the site. Don’t get your horse in front of your cart, it’s orders first, bigger sheds second, not the other way round.
Considering that old British 2nd-hand frigates are getting old