BAE Systems has revealed more details regarding their huge new shipbuilding facility in Glasgow.
I recently reported that the wet basin at Govan will be drained, and a covered build hall will be constructed on the site, allowing for later Type 26 frigates to be built indoors.
After construction, according to the person I spoke to, ships will be moved onto a barge and lowered into the water. It is hoped that Type 26 ships 4 to 8 will be built in this facility, with the first three being put together outdoors. HMS Glasgow is in build now and is shown below, she is being put together on the hard standing, adjacent to the wet basin area after she was built in sections in the existing build hall and joined together.
I previously reported that BAE Systems submitted a planning application that would see the ‘Ship Block Outfit Hall’ at its Govan shipyard in Glasgow expanded out to Govan road, that plan is no longer the preferred option. From what I understand, the process was being held up by older buildings on the site with historical significance. The new drydock/build hall would allow ships to be built entirely 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 following information comes from the firms Govan Assembly Hall planning consultation.
Project Background
In their Govan Assembly Hall planning consultation, BAE say that at present, full ships longer than 75 metres cannot be constructed undercover at Govan, something which is a major constraint to their business. Shown below is the current arrangement, the ‘SBOH’ is the facility in which ship hull sections are currently built before being moved outside and welded together
“As such, BAE Systems intends to develop a new ship building hall which is capable of meeting the United Kingdom’s ship building requirements. This necessitates the construction of a new ship building facility in Govan, one that will allow for at least two ships to be built simultaneously under cover and in single hull format.
The opportunity to provide a new modern ship building hall of this nature would allow BAE Systems to adopt improved shipbuilding techniques together with improved construction access and state of the art, dedicated, on-site office and amenities accommodation.
It would also significantly improve ship building capability in Govan, which in turn will safeguard employment for the ship building and affiliated trades in the Glasgow city region and secure continued investment in training and education, in innovative technologies and in BAE Systems’ supply chain.
There are various constraints and challenges affecting the BAE Systems Govan site and BAE Systems has undertaken extensive site option and feasibility studies to determine how their requirement for a new ship building facility can be accommodated within their Govan campus. To this end, BAE Systems appointed a project team in January 2022 to undertake detailed site options testing with the aim of identifying an optimal and viable location for the development of a new ship building facility at BAE Govan, taking into account the operational requirements for a new facility and balancing these against other considerations, including land use planning matters.”
Wet Basin Works
BAE say that to create a platform for the proposed building, a new structure will be constructed across the entrance to the existing shipyard wet basin.
“The wet basin will be slowly de-watered with water pumped out using a barge with filtration and screening equipment, discharging the treated water into the Clyde. When the water is removed, the wet basin will be filled to the required ground level.”
Proposed Ship Building Hall and Supporting Accommodation
The firm state that the proposed shipbuilding hall will occupy part of the existing shipyard wet basin and will provide accommodation to allow for at least two ships to be built simultaneously under cover and in single hull format.
This will remove the need for the outdoor assembly of ships as is currently the case.
In terms of dimensions, the proposed shipbuilding hall will be approximately 81 metres wide, 170 metres long and 49 metres high to the building ridge line.
Indicative Visualisation of Proposed Ship Building Assembly Hall
BAE add that their planning application will be supported by detailed architectural and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment information, “demonstrating how the proposed facility will sit within the site and considering key views to and from the shipyard”.
“The proposals have been designed considering views from Govan Conservation Area and the relationship with the Category A listed Ward Complex building. The materials and colours of the proposed building will be chosen to fit with the BAE Govan campus.”
What next?
BAE say that subject to further discussions with Glasgow City Council and other stakeholders it is proposed to submit a planning application in Summer 2022.
“This planning application will include supporting information, including an Environmental Impact Assessment. These submissions will provide information on a range of subjects, including design, transport, ecology, flooding, drainage, built heritage, noise and visual impact. If our planning application is approved by Glasgow City Council, it is anticipated that work on site would commence in January 2023.”
a little bit of topic, but why are the Australian and British governments (and probably many other governments) building ships so slowly? is it just we don’t have the facilities to build them quick enough anymore? are the governments still off living in a fantasy land? are we not buying big enough navies to make the industry sustainable at a higher rate of production? or do all the decision makers just think the dollars are better spent elsewhere? I honestly think we would be better defended under a dictatorship.
“Better defended under a dictatorship” you mean like Russia!
We cant build the ships fast, or else there will be a capability gap until their replacement class starts getting built. The issue is we aren’t getting any foreign military orders or foreign civilian orders so we end up building RN warships, and small ferries and yachts.
Chantiers de l’Atlantique of France is a good example of how to do it. In the next five years they are due to deliver 9 ships over 35,000 tonnes, 7 of them being cruise ships all over 140,000 tonnes and four over 200,000 tonnes. They have built a name for themselves in making cruise ships, so lots of countries trust them.
This means when they need to build large ships like aircraft carriers, or the Mistral class, or the planned replenishment ships for the French navy, they easily can, without worrying about future shipbuilding.
It also gives them an indent I’ve to invest in shipbuilding capabilities as it benefits them. BAE systems were too used to being the only option for RN surface ships, that they became lazy, and it is evident as as soon Babcock start to become a real contender and BAE realise their future is not so secure, suddenly BAE decide to invest in capabilities.
We would increase output as risks increase of course, but that does leave us continually behind the curve; as others indicate, a natural outcome of being part of the democratic * system. Even the US is falling behind viz a viz China. When you add in the likely Axis with Russia, you can see that we’ve a real fight on our hands ‘coming soon to a theatre near you’.
Add in the other major factors, i.e. Russia controlling much of the resources that we all depend on (by the way, I have many issues with Germany’s NATO freeloading to date, but I don”t blame Merkel for her attempted rapport with Putin; she’s a democrat!) together with China infiltrating western centres of excellence and hoovering up other basic resources essential to advanced electronics and it hardly needs nightmaring about (look at useful, greedy ”friends of China’ within our own societies and ministers ‘minded’ to let through takeovers & who needs fifth columnists).
After all that, We * will win out – but it’s going to demand huge, painful sacrifice. Nothing new in history, Shit Happens.
Well said sir
Interesting linked issues today’s news. a) Ukraine states Russia looting rolled steel already sold to west b) Here in UK, Port Talbot announces it requires more government support – I suppose orders might help 🤔
Now, I don’t suppose I’m the only on who can see a possible way out here.
Rgs
Would they be large enough to accommodate the future Type 83 Destroyers?
I don’t think sizes have been decided for the type 83. If needed an extension could be added on. 170m is quite long. I’m sure BAE have given it a bit of thought.
Not without draining more river area, there are existing buildings to the rear.
But I don’t think those are Scheduled (Scottish for Listed Buildings).
It is worth thinking why they are not increasing the length while they are at it. More space around the ship increase efficiency for moving blocks around.
Look at it this way. If you are building a £1Bn frigate the £20m is lost in the profit net margin of £50-80m a sensible business would expect to make on the contract. If you are building a £250m frigate spending £20m on messing around suddenly risks turning your margin, all other things being equal which they are not, negative as the Net Profit Margin is £12.5-20m
OK this argument is more about the sheer inefficiency of moving things around inside and outside, scaffolding, sheeting and heating.
Ever meter you wheel something around costs something and the same with every meter you lift something. That is before you get to the knock on effects of an unnecessarily complex build sequence which will inevitably push risk, timescale and costs up.
It is exactly the same for building an office or a large shed. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Every complication adds……
Good summary In manufacturing movement of materials or finished goods doesn’t add any value to the product. If I move a part from Warehouse a to b I can’t sell it for more but it cost me to move it. Only welding machining wiring etc adds the value.
Impossible to say. 170m is the max length usable length will be less than that. If we go for a conventional missile armed replacement for Type 45 152.4m it could/should be enough. If we go for a mix of missile and directed energy weapons we will need much more powerfull electrical generation capacity which will certainly mean a much larger ship.
Doubtful as these are in fact battle cruisers masquerading as destroyers. Lol. When is someone going to sort out a meaningful naming of surface warships or should we call them all battleships as does the popular press? Or doesnt it matter?
I’d like to see some good old names. How about Battle class concentrating on European history? Accuracy in popular press? Nice one Jonno😅
To be fair, regardless of size destroyer still works as a classification. The role of the ship is to destroy incoming threats while the capital ships duke it out; that’s as applicable today with carrier groups and missiles as it was at Jutland with torpedo boats.
T26 was originally called the GCS or global combat ship, which seems accurate.
T31/32 could be GMS. Or global mission ship
rivers could be MMS or multi mission ship
this fits with the C1-3 concept and is probably more accurate, especially if GCS batch 3 gets an updated radar and takes over from T45.
For a load of reasons, we have done to death on NL, T26 is not an AAW suitable hull.
Works for Canada and Australia…
As a multi purpose ship but not as a specialised AAW.
What they are producing is one ship to rule them all working as a singleton or in small groups.
RN look at it as a part of a task group. Different approach.
I’m definitely in the ‘doesn’t matter’ category, its only us ‘geeks’ that get bent out of shape about what category they’re supposed to be in and referring back to WW2 to define what’s what.
I don’t think it’ll be long enough for the MRSS or the FSSS.
BMT are offering Ellida 200 (a little under 200 m long) for MRSS both in Australia and here. Even Fort Victoria is over 200m, and I’d be surprised if the new FSSSs will be much smaller.
Perhaps there’s an opportunity for Laird’s to get its own buildhall.
I cannot resist sidelong glances at Harland & Wolf, Belfast for supply vessels. Still seems adequate underdeveloped or redevelopment area there despite examples of some more modern changes to use at that site. I’d hate us to end up rueing the loss in future.
Totally agree 👍
Getting some shipbuilding back in the rest of the UK would be great, if either Cammell Laird, Harland and Wolff Appledore or Belfast, or maybe a rejuvenated Swan Hunter, could get the proper facilities, foreign orders of ferries or perhaps even cruise ships could come in, and UK shipbuilding could finally end its reliance on the Royal Navy.
So if new build hall is 170m i assume the new t-83’s will be not much bigger than the t-45’s at 152m?
not that the T26 is much smaller
The T-83 will be significantly bigger than the T-45. It is a general purpose destroyer, for a comparison, look how much bigger the Type 82 – HMS Bristol the last gp destroyer was than the AAW Type 42 that followed it. The Type 83 could be 12-15k tons. Not sure what that translates back to in length though.
Hi Paul, Type 82 was 154m 7k ton full, the Type 42 B3 were 141m 5.3k ton full. So if T45 are 152m 8.5k tons full and we use same scale/weight i reckon T83 would be about over 170m to get to 12-15k of course the T45 is 33% wider than T42 & 25% than the T82. If it does increase like that it will be nearly as big as the LPDs !!!
and that won’t fit in new shed
Agreed Steve, but the B3 was the end of the evolution, the B1 were the follow ons and as such the difference is even bigger. We need to get away from the idea of limiting the size of our ships to the infrastructure we have now. The QE’s are the size they are because of the size of the dry dock at Rosyth. We need up spending £6bn on the ships. How much would it have cost to widen the gates by 10m and lengthen the dry dock by 20 or 40 metres?
Bristol was an all rounder Air (Seadart) surface ( mk8) sub )Ikara, mortar Mk1o ) and her tonnage was less than the proposed type 83 her last refit 84 /86 her sub surface capabilities were removed
Great news for govan and U.K. ship building.
I guess they don’t need the wet basin anymore. Would that be where ships would be fitted out, parked etc?
With fitting out at scotstoun it lets govan concentrate on building.
Exciting times.
Before anyone posts something negative please don’t.
Seems we value yesterday more than tomorrow or they would demolish the buildings at the rear towards the road.
They can move them and keep everyone happy. I’m sure there’s a shipbuilding museum experience opportunity they’d fit into.
Does make you think, in all honesty. I’d consider myself as much an enthusiast for history as most, and clearly recognise the value in many of our listed buildings. We have a very long heritage to be proud of from henges, through churches to stately homes and many more. But it is precisely that historic perspective that leaves me askance over industrial sheds (with the possible exception of those utilised as part of a steam railway collection where they form part of the whole museum scenario, perhaps).
To cut to a still operational shipyard, the engine works, etc were built by Victorians for their efficiency value, and it is worth musing that they would have been torn down and replaced in short order when they ceased that metric under that era’s dynamism.
So it could be argued that the current A preservation listing is more a reflection of a combined loss & harking for that ‘golden age’, and thus a judgement on a more lackadaisical UK dynamic that lead eventually to our current inertia?
Rgs
All of this is 20 years late. Warships should have been built under cover for years improving constructability, efficiency and reduced delivery time frames. Where has all the profit gone from previous warship building certainly not invested back into the yard facilities. Current build of the new generation warships is way behind our foreign competitors .Typical British industries poor foresight .
Its hard not to agree. BAe appear to have only done this because Babcock have made the commitment. Just shows a bit of competition isn’t such a bad thing after all. I think we may actual see a foreign order for a full build if we carry on like this 😀.
I agree BAE have had it easy for too long ,competition can only be a good thing
What new generation ships are we comparing this to?
Our competitors ships including Chinese which are built indoors
Dalian does not build ships indoors afaik. The use one massive dry dock. Jiangnan on the other hand builds most of their warships in a construction hall (notable exceptions being 003 Fujian).
Fincantieri do their Warship builds outside,i wouldn’t call them inefficient,perhaps they have some clever way of Constructing Ships.
https://www.fincantieri.com/en/products-and-services/naval-vessels/
Light years ahead of BAE , check out the facilities
Indeed they are but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still building outside.https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/1089996874591977473/photo/1
Dont disagree but not sure their climate is quite the same as up North lol.
Yeah, climate matters.
Indoors is the way to do it: no question.
Some of the other ‘efficient’ yards benefit from direct and indirect subsidies like no ground rent, local deals, cheap energy/power, cheap steel etc, etc.
Well Fincantieri is the only Western shipbuilder in world first 10 so they have to be efficient.
They have 18 shipyards(some are only for fitting out) in EU, USA, South America and Asia.
But I bet their weather is a lot better than that of Scotland Paul
True.
We are where we are.
At least it is happening now.
229799_41a14126-c212-46ac-960a-608b057ad8d5.pdf
Irelands finally published the government response to their defence review. They are saying they are moving to level of ambition 2 (of 3) but its actually more of a LOA 2 minus. Defence spending only rising from €1.1bn to €1.5bn over 6 years.
Level of Ambition 1 was carry on as before but still required more spending to correct budget shortfalls particularly in salaries.
Level of Ambition 2 was ability to provide a token resistance to a foreign invader and make a minor contribution to international peacekeeping operations.
Level of Ambition 3 was match the spending of other equally sized countries and make a significant contribution to international peacekeeping operations.
The Defence Review had 130 findings, the Irish government has accepted 37%, accepted in principle a further 42% postponed 13% for further review and rejected/referred back to government 8%.
Rejected ones mainly are establishing high level leadership within each branch, having individual HQ’s for each armed forces branch, having stategic operations commanders and having each branch of the armed forces have parity with each other. They also rejected the Level of Ambition 3 of having mechanised infantry and artillery by 2040 and along with cavalry meeting NATO standards. Having 12 warships by 2040, having their own airforce squadron, ability to deploy aircraft overseas including a helicopter SAR component, establishing a Cyber Forces Command with 200 staff, and giving the special forces organic air with combat and transport helicopters.
Deferred decision, giving each service chief having a sergeant/warrant officer aide to provide NCO rank input. Then about 70 HR reccomendations are accepted or accepting in principle.
Accepted in principle; formation of a joint forces cyber command, establishment of an air force reserve of 200 and a naval reserve of 400, infantry reserve should be 3,700 50/50 between combat and support staff. Replacement of existing APC’s with ones better armoured for deployment overseas, target of 9 modern ships replacing existing fleet and as they are brought into service generating a second crew for each so they can spend 220 days a year at sea. Establishing a national primary radar. Development of counter drone capability. Acquisition of a single strategic transport aircraft and two more medium lift helicopters then eventual renewal of helicopter fleet with 8 super medium transport helicopters.
Accepted; producing a cyber defence strategy and looking at what other countries are doing. Working with other countries on cyber defence.
So to sum up they are improving pay and conditions for existing forces, will renew and increase the fleet to 9 modern combat ships with two crews, will establish a primary radar, establish a basic reserve and improve air transport capability. Improve existing APC’s. They will not however purchase any fixed wing combat aircraft (not even a mooted flight of 4 fast jets), create a proper combat capable mechanized infantry with organic support, establish the recommended 12 ship navy, create a proper cyber warfare centre, or give each service branch a proper HQ for command and control and operational planning during a conflict/peace keeping operation. They have also increased the budget by only 40% by 2028 from 0.3% of GDP to 0.5% (What the defence review said was minimum for LOA1), not the 100% increase to 0.72% of GDP that the defence review said was required for LOA2 or the 200% to reach 1.4% GDP LOA3. It will take the total military and civilian defence employees from 9,500 to 11,500 (though currently 1,000 roles are unfilled).
According to reports it’s likely to be 1.9 billion as it’s linked to inflation
1.9bn with inflation, or 1.5 in todays money same amount different indexing to make it sound larger.
Yes but it wasn’t clear at the time of publishing whether it would be inflation linked or just 1.5 billion in 2028, Public Expenditure fought hard to try and prevent it being inflation linked.
Thank you for the summary. 👍 Very concise. Interesting ‘middle of the road’ approach they’re taking.👍
Did it mention what the “9 modern ships” were to be capable of? Are they talking OPV’s, Corvette (something with some teeth) or actual front line warship?
Did it mention any area air defences or just the radar? (just a joke here: at least they can see who’s coming to bomb them).
Just a heads up, the link you posted was to your own hard-drive, not the website.
No mention of air defences just the radar (estimated cost 200m).
No mention of what the 9 modern ships would be capable of, we are talking step up from their existing OPV so most navies that would be a heavily armed corvette or light frigate, but Irish OPV only have basic weapons and they are paranoid about crew size so corvette more likely with basic anti-ship capabilty (dont think they could stretch to anti-submarine capability), if they were smart they would ensure they had some decent AA equipment as well allowing them to provide some land defence, but they have in recent years bought a couple of secondhand Inshore patrol vessels specifically as they had a crew requirement of 35 compared to their existing OPV designs 44 which should tell you the level of ambition here. Five years ago they were sniffing around the purchasing the HMNZS Canterbury sealift ship secondhand (Its a Ro-Ro ferry refitted as a landing ship with a large helipad that can serve as a troop transport/casualty receiving ship, NZ also uses it to host two helicopters for ASW/anti-ship).
Thanks I will correct the link
They are currently acquiring from New Zealand, 2 Lake class inshore patrol vessels to replace the ex RN Peacocks
Like the Peacocks themselves those are mainly because what was intended to be bought never got off the board, the Lakes are intended as a stopgap post Brexit for the Irish Sea.
They are “paranoid” about crew sizes because the entire establishment is only about 1k at best and currently just over 800, the NS doesn’t have the numbers for larger crews. The Report should increase that to 2k but between recruitment/retention issues and all the service politics that’s likely to still be a hard project.
And no we weren’t ever planning to buy Canterbury, a couple of the NS were sent down to get a lessons learned session from the Kiwis but the MRV was always intended to be a new build, likely still the Vard design that they’ve been looking at for years.
The current stock of MANPADs are due for replacement and the Commission did suggest moving to a SHORAD capability but not clear if that will happen.
The ships are still an unknown, the NS is still battling through Finance/Public Expenditure/DOD hell with the MRV, the Lakes are to replace the Peacocks, but the P50s due to hull wear are ageing faster than expected so will need replacement project started by the end of the decade, whether they are then replaced by the intended Peacock replacements project (ie some level of countermine capability) or something different is unknown.
Fixed Link:
https://assets.gov.ie/229799/41a14126-c212-46ac-960a-608b057ad8d5.pdf
It appears the new UK build hall (170m L x 81m W x 49m H) will be similar, but just a little bit smaller than the one used here in Oz to build the Hunter class FFG.
The main build hall at Osborne South Shipyard South Australia is 190m L x 90m W x 50m H.
Osborne does have a lot more land available too:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nUZZBG0KXA
Here’s a very recent video animation from BAE Systems Australia regarding the Hunter class FFG build at the Osborne South Shipyard.
A lot of detail of the manufacturing process:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6vCiE5oHw
Does this really mean though that the U.K. is committed to shipbuilding in Scotland?
Looks like it although IF they leave the Union everything will have to come south.
or… make this area in Govan, and others similar like Rosyth, Faslane, UK sovereign territory, [ maybe as part of a compromise to allow Indyref 2]…
Or just say no. Youve had your referendum already. Which was run on the understanding of once in a generation. Then continue as a union and continue with shipbuilding. Just because wee jimmy cranky makes a fuss doesnt in any way mean anyone south of the border has to listen to her or do anything that she wants.
… and how far into the future does that policy go before the terrorism start? It’s when not if a new vote is called but can’t see it being manageable beyond 2030 maybe sooner.
and how many times should they have one …once a year until they make the correct decision maybe- what about future investment when do those decisions get made?
For me they could have one now – and if they decide to leave then fine bring all the ship building back into the UK and gove them no more orders.
As for making shipyards sovereign territory yeah right why should that happen.-why should there be any need for compromise ..yer makes yer bed yer lie in it and I include the subs in that.
As for terrorism christ on a bike do you think we are subjugating them …as i say if they want to leave let em if not then treat it the same as we would any other criminals -Mel Gibson has a lot to answer for.
Main issue over Sovereign Territory is it’s the crowns and they don’t build ships. its very complicated as all the MOD bases are Sovereign Territory, and the Queen is the monarch of both countries. so the land doesnt belong to Scotland. Kills the SNP closing any base.
I don’t hear about Basque terrorism anymore, nor any Catalan terrorism since their independence referendum was stomped on. Even the Welsh nationalists have stopped burning English holiday homes.
Chances of a Scottish terrorism campaign? Less than 1% I’d say.
Once In a generation was a soundbite. Nothing more. There is nothing in the Edinburgh agreement about once in a generation. As for anyone south of the border having to do anything. Why should they? It’s a Scottish decision. It’s a union of equals, allegedly, would the English ask Scotland if they could leave?
The Union is voluntary, it is an agreement signed between parties. One side cannot hold the other hostage. If England wanted to leave the Union who’s permission would they seek?
As we saw with Brexit you do not need the permission of the other signatories to leave.
Calling Nicola Sturgeon crankie is infantile, your attitude replicated in Westminster is what causes the friction between the component members.
Devolution is overuled almost weekly to suit English MPs who have not won an election in Scotland since 1955.
The status quo is untenable and radical change is required.
No its makes BAE committed to ship building in Scotland, its best to ignore the independence vote as if we didn’t learn anything from Brexit. voting out may have seemed a good idea. but in the end, it proved it wasn’t as good as we thought.
and if they really want to divide the Union, Let the entire Union vote. because as soon as someone they have been kicked out. they will be asking for another chance.
High Level talks over Royal Navy submarines being homebased in Perth to allow the training of Australian crews.
Military chiefs to hold talks on basing UK nuclear submarines in Perth (afr.com)
That’s big! Wish we had more of them to spread around though.
If we can build an extra Astute v2.0 for the RN based on dollars earned from two for the RAN…I’d like to see that… as the tv add goes.
You might find this interesting too.
https://amp.smh.com.au/world/europe/britain-should-try-to-build-australia-s-first-nuclear-subs-andrew-hastie-20220716-p5b22i.html
I was under the impression they’d do training with UK/US for both crew and builders, then buy the design, reactor, sonar, optronic mast from either UK or US then build it themselves.
If the job is up for grabs, I’d be stunned if BAE didn’t bid.
I’ve heard the US are pretty much at capacity at the moment building Virginias and the new Colombia whilst still keeping maintenance up on the LA’s.
Mate, there is a lot of speculation here in Oz at the moment, how accurate? Who knows.
What we do know is the announcement of which design, UK or US, is due in March 2023, plus other details of how construction will proceed.
Most commentators are suggesting a local built SSN is unlikely to be delivered to the RAN until the very late 2030s, or very early 2040s.
What is being promoted by the Opposition (who were the Government until the recent Federal Election), is that to ‘speed up’ the process is to acquire two ‘overseas’ built SSNs and have them delivered by 2030, and in meantime set up the process of building eight SSN in Australia.
At this stage the US Virginia class is being suggested as being able to deliver two SSN by 2030, this article is suggesting the UK should also attempt to guarantee delivery by 2030 too.
Basically set up competition between the US and UK to ‘deliver’ on time and therefore win the competition.
The penalty clauses on failing to meet the delivery date will be pretty crucial as both will have to contract to be on time.
Deliver the boats by 2030? We’d be hard pressed to build one by 2040.
A,align what you can do once real big profits ar3 dangled around.
A £12Bn sub building project like this should yield £100-150m of legitimate profit at normal commercial rates.
We should definitely give them astute boats six and seven, whilst trying to squeeze in an eighth for us. Whether we can or not get a sixth/eighth astute we could offset this by buying additional P8s, T26s, Protector RG1s and speeding up dreadnought build, and SSN(R).
But that would mean another defence cut. Doen to 5 SSNs whilat Russia has how many subs? Lots….. and proliferating their offensive strike power. Astute ckass us our best defence against Russias large submarine fleet. So i disagree. I think it would be utter folly to give Astute class yo Australia unless we can build an Australianised version alongside dreadnought class and accelerate the programme. There was a time once when the RN had 15 SSNs and 4 upholder class in service. So it must be possible.
Agreed. We need more for ourselves, not selling the ones we have and it’s totally possible to increase build rate.
There is no way we would get new boats in the water by 2030, we probably still could squeeze in an extra one for us later, France has six SSN, I’m sure we can manage for a while. We need this to get some prestige in shipbuilding so we could get foreign orders more regularly.
If the UK can’t build or sell why not at least co-crew? Or, with Vanguard delayed back into service maybe they can delay the Dreadnought program a tad and squeeze some more Astutes in?
I agree, but you have to set the challenge, hey? Bit of healthy completion between the UK and US is good, lots of our Aussie dollars up for grabs.
Anyway, the announcement is due from the Government here in Oz March next year.
Not surprising that I’ll predict US. Humbled and proud if you choose UK, like T26. Still think US went awry when they declined same, particularly since ‘the remainder North America’ are in.
If you look at the various ‘plus and minus’ of the two designs you get this:
Virginia class
Plus:
*Is still in series production for many years
*is fitted with desired (and in current RAN use) combat and weapons systems
Minus:
*Significantly larger crew requirement
Astute class
Plus:
*Appears to be about the right size, specifically crew size
Minus:
*Production is winding down
*Does not have desired combat and weapons systems
*PWR2 reactor out of production, would require a new in production reactor, (UK or US?)
Obviously lots of other factors, but the Virginia class would appear to require the ‘least’ amount of modifications.
Anyway, come March 2023, we’ll know the decision.
Cheers for that. The only observation I’d make is:
UK cannot wind down production whilst a worldwide Cold War is in the offing. We either continue to refine the Astute class or we need to wind another concept up pretty damn sharpish.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/september/17/20210917-astute-successor
Rgs
That is good news, they recently agreed a deal for Australian crews to be on US Nuclear subs which in the US article I read was suggestive this meant a US design was to be used for their future requirements. This at least suggests the race is not yet run in that regard.
They are a going to assemble these large ships in the new covered building , right? , but looking at the visualisation, how are they going to move it into the water ? there does not appear to be much room to maneuver at the front of the building.
As the article states they will be moved onto a Floating Barge then lowered into the water,plenty of room right in front of the building for that.
Onto a barge. Is that not how they do it with the subs?
Could this allow for a much quicker type 26 build? If we can build two at once, and not need to join two parts together like we could do a ship every 1.5 years instead of 2?
Noooo! Penny out. Idiots!
Wise choice if you ask me – pity Sunaks still in it though.
Tend towards your position. However, I was disturbed by the way Rishi kicked Truss in the ‘goolies’ over her adherence to Tories. All delivered with his customary smile. Seemed a bit TONY to me.
Agreed, they’ll live to regret that decision.
Hope the membership have a bit more sense than the MPs. Has to be Truss now.
I so wanted Mordaunt.
I noticed our little conversation on COBRA DCMC was removed. Interesting. Everything I mentioned was open source stuff, you likewise.
Agreed. I’d take a can of baked beans in the job over Sunak.
I’m just not sure Truss worries me and sets off all sorts of alarm bells. Boris was not a serious individual who wanted power, truss is all power and nothing else.
Oh don’t get me wrong; not my ideal at all. I originally wanted Kemi but Sunak already buried us in debt, printed billions driving inflation, treacherous backstabbing ****, behaves like Blair & if that wasn’t bad enough, he’ll get destroyed in an election because he’s sooooo out of touch. Labour would just need to run that video of him saying ‘working class friends, we’ll, not “working class”’ 24/7 on tv and radio and it’s over. We’d get “Sir” Kier 🤮
I did not know about Kemi.
I’m impressed with what I read of her. And she’s from my home town too, Wimbledon.
I wanted Mourdant from the start.
I think Sunak will never shake-off the stigma of his wife’s wealth and non-dom status.
Truss is lightweight and fickle on net-zero, which will alienate a lot of people. Though that’ll probably get the tin-foil hat vote.
Guess the Tories will have to rely on Labour losing the next election rather than winning it themselves. Thanks often worked in the past though it’s a risk.
(I suspect the removal of our chat might have more to do with the one if the Russian trolls reporting me to the moderators for upsetting their feelings.)
Agree with you on all those points. We live in turbulent times so we need someone with some gravitas to bat for us and this election has not produced one. I suspect a tick box labelled ‘None of the above’ could have been an outright winner.
I haven’t flagged a post for weeks and when I did nothing seemed to happen so I doubt that was the reason.
I have to agree mate, I was hoping for Penny…..
They were never going to vote for her, the ideological right of the party were never going to go behind her as she’s to close to center right and Truss has been throwing red meat to the ideology warriors all week.
The trouble is I think Truss will be able to convince the Conservative party members as she’s will to promise anything.
I really worry as she appears a bit to aggressive in the international stage and it’s easy to step over the firm with clear red lines sort, to throwing your nation into a war because you won’t dial down the rhetoric.
Wanting to cancel an NI rise that effect only those on over 50K and cutting corporation tax seem a hard sell to cut the cost of living crisis !!
Personally I think tax cuts that impact on the middle class are not the way to go at present, those that can afford a sqeeze are probably just going to have to accept it for a couple of years. I would like to see something that directly supports the really poor and just about managing groups only. So maybe an increase in tax credits with that 30 billion head room they all talk about.
That’s very ironic because moving towards the center (i.e. closer to the policies of the opposition) is exactly what keeps either party in government these days, because it forces the opposition towards the lunatic fringe rendering them unelectable.
It’s exactly the game Blair played and Boris followed suit. Ideologues of either stripe will ultimately fail. But it doesn’t stop them causing chaos in the meantime.
Completely agree if one of the parties pulls to far to the extreme they do render themselves unelectable. Generally speaking the Conservative party have been better at sitting closer to the centre than labour, which is why the have tended to win more elections.
Penny would have been good for the defence budget and great for defence if she left Def Sec in place.
I think she would have been overwhelmed with the scale of the job.
Just as a Boris was as neither had any real senior managerial experience. It takes a lot to detach yourself from the pressure of this week / next week, which can be overwhelming, and think of how your business is going to be in a years time.
If defence spending rises to 3% under Liz Truss then there is a reasonable chance that more than 8 Type 26’s will be built. Could two ships be built simultaneously on this site? One using the current method and the other under the new assembly hall?
I get the impression two could be built at the same time with no added time joining the two sections together! Would be fantastic if true.
But also dont forget that would free us the existing building for other ships, like smaller off shore patrol boats ect ect
Doubt it, as it’s a rise taking 8 years and during a period of high inflation. More likely allow the RN to buy more stuff to go on the new vessels – like the interim anti-ship missile.
Although inflation does increase the tax take so there will be more money to spend.
But it also pushes up the cost if everything the government has to pay for too, from M&E to salaries. So any extra money VAT will be more than consumed by increased government costs.
Hopefully it will sort itself out within a year, after all its driven by a single point issue ( or a couple of them) oil and food. As long as harvests are better next year the food inflation will level and as for oil if we hit worldwide slow growth that will trash oil prices very quickly ( oil is the first to fall in a slowdown due to reduced demand).
And Mk41 VLS on T31 etc
Ex 1SL, is on record as saying he wanted it so it isn’t just me dreaming!
its funny how this started getting some traction, once I mentioned it in the forum here in April..
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-photos-and-videos-show-hms-glasgow-in-build/
it would be nice to think someone at BAES reads this forum ( they should if they don’t already) and acted upon what seemed to me at the time to be common sense.
Does anyone know if this ship hall will be constructed whilst T26 numbers 2 and 3 are under construction, or will it be built between the completion of the batch1 T26s and the start of batch 2.
Someone posted and asked the question will the hall be large enough for the T83, in all honesty I am not sure every time I think of the T83 I keep coming up with a ship that is about 600ft-650ft or 182.9m-198m in length. The length of the ship is dictated by the space required for weapons, radars, helicopter future growth etc. This is about the same size as the Chinese 055 type destroyer.
I’d not get fixated on numbers of missiles.
Yes, some things like Ceptor are needed in larger numbers to save the major AAW A30’s.
There are missiles and there are missiles.
Otherwise you would say that the Russians having warehouses full of whatever reloads they needed would outshoot NATO…..that worked out well for them?
The one thing we do need are a lot of land attack dual function AshM. But I’d emphasise the land attack as the primary mode. In this I see Mk41 on T31 / T32 / T26 / T45 (maybe canister here) as vital.
The length isnt the driver for weapons. Beam and hull depth are probably more important. For something like a MK41 or 57 you need at least a 6m hull depth from upper deck down and it also needs to be beamy enough to get a few silos wide.
The space in the centre hull area above the keel is prime real estate for systems . Taking a big chunk of it out for VLS and the associated support systems limits what else you can do in those areas. You still need machinery spaces, fuel tanks, accom areas etc.
Yes you could put VLS up high as on an ANZAC but the top weight issue then raises its head and ballast is then needed.
Hi GB, with increase in beam won’t you start to manouverability? T-45 152/21m if goes to 170/28 that nearly same as LPD’s which is like comparing LGV and a transit? I thought whole point of escorts was they can move quickly to protect capital ships If going to be nimble you may as well get a feighter and stick hundreds of VLS on it and use the radars from QE/crowsnest
The article states that the plan is for Ships 4-8 to be built in the new building, so yes construction would have to start ASAP concurrent with Ships 2 and 3 in build.
Better ship building facilities and let’s get some export orders
So BAe are going to build an undercover ship building shed. just as. A matter of interest would the existing shed at Palllion in Sunderland be big enough to assemble 2 side by side ? Any one know the dimensions ?
Yes! Talk about thinking inside the box! Must be blue sky thinking! Well ahead of anybody else, but I’ll just check……☺
Also, yes. Side by side stated above☺
Found the dimensions. 181m x 50m x 32m just sat there doing nothing.
My reasoning is pretty simple, we built the QE’s out of blocks assembled all round the U.K. so why not do the same with the T26’s. Assemble the blocks on the weir and then tow back to Scotstoun for outfitting.
The advantage is that doing this at Rosyth kickstarted the new builds at that yard and reminding my home country that ships can be built elsewhere wouldn’t be a bad idea.
On that subject I am an unabashed Scot but like the majority I am a Unionist, let her have her referendum but attach some strings such as no more for 100 years and introduce PR.
The figures don’t change the SNP only get 46% every time 🤔
Hopefully at some point the Scots who vote SNP but don’t want to level the Union will twig at some point and vote for one of the other parties. Unfortunately while the SNP keep getting the majority of seats they will just keep trying the call referendum. If it was not leaving the EU there will always be another reason.
Hence the need for PR.
Don’t disagree, I think PR is a great way to go.
https://www.change.org/p/council-and-government-support-the-reopening-of-the-pallion-yard-sunderland
It would be nice if we got that level of detail from yards in the U.S.
Weren’t the type 45s built undercover? Why aren’t they just using that site?
No they weren’t built under cover, most were built at Govan on the slipway. But they were built using pre built hull blocks rather than 2 large front and back halves.
If the new hall is 170m, then how long a ship can you build in it? Tiger class cruisers were 164m, 1960s County class destoyers 159m.
Im hoping the type 83s will be similar in size to a Tiger class and have over powered electric oroduction designed into hull so direct energy weapons are viable. The USN DDGX designs to replace Arleigh Burke’s looks very similar to proposed type 83s. Any chance of joined up thinking and getting the same hull form and power production and propulsion? Would save on R+D and cut costs. Ball park figure for a full fat 12000 ton advanced destroyer is going to be £1.5-2 billion a piece surely?
If we can buy off the shelf weapons, radars, engines, etc & build at least 8, then the R&D per ship, need not double the price the way T45 did.
Whatever the Type 83 turns out to be I just hope it is affordable, a like for like replacement of the Type 45’s as a minimum, ideally a couple more.
I imagine they are working up their bid for the T83, now they have competition they need to have a killer app/usp,and a side by side 170meter construction hall will be it.
Pardon my ignorance here but the area at the front of the shed looks pretty small and transitioning the ships to the slip way very tight. Why don’t they bring the infill more forward?
Or join the new shed with SBOH for one super shed?
They will use a barge for launch instead of the slipway. But I’m wondering how they are going to install the masts etc. Babcock have a nice large hardstanding in front of their shed for this purpose. I guess BAE are constrained by the available space.
A bit of topic but of interest, Ben Wallace comments on 3% gdp for defence. He explained that “if he was given a blob of money tomorrow he would not be able to spend it”. The reason that he gave for this is the lack of British industrial base, a lack of people able to deliver.
This only shows me how far the UK has declined in its industrial capability. We have some of the best design engineers in the world but what we don’t have is the men and women to actually build the designs. Or a government putting in enough money to make the design cost effective. This issue starts with education, for example where are the technical colleges for skilled workers such as technicians. Even in the armed forces I am trying to understand how tech training is now done as I went to an Apprentices College in Harrogate for a few years then a further year in the Regt under the supervision of the FoS before I was let loose on the equippment on my own. Now it seems that either you go to Uni or have a six month apprenticeship. Here is the problem if companies don’t know what is happening in ten years time then they won’t invest in training, if you don’t invest in training you don’t have an uplift in capacity, if theres no human capacity available you need to train people for the next order. This in turn increases cost and longer delivery times meaning everything gets more expensive again meaning less return for the investment. So how to get around this, well if BAE knew that in 2032 that they are to build 8 T83s then they could start in 2029 preping the work force, the same with ship building company xyz, if the knew that they are to build the FSS ships then six MRSS vessels followed on by Albion replacements then they could gear up for it. Boom and bust means that you cannot invest long term in both workforce and industrial technology.
So will there be enough space in front of the new build hall to get blocks from the exist covered build area into the new build hall? It does look like it. Its also encouraging 2 ship can be built at a time. Theres no requirement for that under tthe T26 program so does that means BAe is expecting to build for export, let’s hope so.
there is a live consultation today 26/07, 3-7pm https://www.govanassemblyhall.com
Why is the Scotstoun yard not being used. No basin to fill in.