Planning permission has been granted for a huge new shipbuilding hall at the BAE Systems site in Govan, with work on the first ship to be built in the facility starting in 2024.
The wet basin at Govan will now be drained and a covered build hall will be constructed on the site, allowing for later Type 26 frigates to be built indoors.
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 is shown below when she was 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.
The new drydock/build 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.
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.
According to the consultation:
“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.”
The roof
One interesting detail that has emerged from the planning application process, in my view at least, is that Glasgow City Council requested that the option of integrating a green roof into the current Wet Basin Hall design be explored. It is understood, however, that the architects explored this alongside BAE and the wider design team but through further review and assessment, collectively determined this is not viable within the parameters of the current design.
They explain why, saying that the purpose of the building didn’t lend itself to such a feature and, more importantly, adding the feature would have a “fundamental impact” on delivery dates for the new frigates.
“Due to the scale, span and height of the building, the requirement to free span over these ships is significant and maintaining the lightness of the roof is imperative to the design. Any amendment to the roof that leads to an increase in water retention and increased loading requirements will have a direct material effect on the structural design. This in turn changes the structural frame depths and weights, including increased path loads into the building plinth and foundation design. This will inevitably have a direct impact on the substructure and baring capacity of the foundation design.
These factors will have a fundamental impact on the programme delivery, as stage 4 design which is currently being completed will require a full redesign. If instructed at this late stage, it will result in a delay to concluding the design of the building which will have a direct impact on the construction commencement date. This delay in commencement and completion of the scheme will fail to meet the MOD requirements to build the first ship under cover by 2024 and thus significantly impact the viability of the scheme.”
The Ship Building Hall and Supporting Accommodation
The firm state that the 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.
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.
This represents a massive expansion of capabilities and capacity at the yard, as let’s not forget, the original build hall will still be available for use.
Green roof…. I guess if the council don’t ask someone will have a pop at them. Hopefully a tick box exercise all round
It’s not like Glasgow is short on water or has a big urban heat island effect. It’s a COP 26 hangover. Glasgow currently wants £80 billion for its shopping list of climate and green projects including a metro system, removal of the M8 to create a green corridor and a tidal barrier. Edinburgh in comparison is asking for £1.2 billion for an expansion of its tram system.
The whole of Scotland seem to want to write invoices for projects and expenditure they are not ever going to be able to pay for. £80 billion spent in Glasgow, where are the same schemes for Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Leeds, Hull, Southampton, Sheffield? My point is expenditure has to be spread fairly and evenly around the whole of the UK to have the biggest impact.
The frigate factory is overdue. Needed for type 26 and follow on type 83 orders. I’d like to see 2 or 3 more type 26s added onto the programme as unit price reduced and the whole programme sped up.
Sorry I did not intend to make it some England verses Scotland bullshit. But if you want examples there is a railway line currently being built between London and Birmingham cost £45 billion, they are about to approve a new £9 billion tunnel linking Kent to Essex. Leeds is asking for £4.5 billion for a metro system and the north of England is asking for £40 billion for a rail line from Liverpool to Leeds. Glasgow list is stretched over 50 years and it’s aspirational and all to be funded either by the city or Scottish government all the projects in England are current. I could keep naming more if you like from their aspirational lists.
And BAE, will undoubtedly not only expend money on being Green a but also have too ensure that there are Gender neutral loo’s too appease Nichola and the SNP ,before a single Keel is laid you have too tick every box before anything can be done now in Scotland Jim
Get rid of the M8? Are they mad?
yes!
To think we are building Frigates and the remainder of our RN to defend this Net Zero nonsense. Who would have believed it? Scotland the Brave, I don’t think so.
When it comes to all armed forces, I would be more concerned about what comes from the front than from out the back. Yeah, they are knocking down my old school building that has a history and character under the net zero crap so they can build a soulless modern “academy”.
I think all projects should consider the viability of green roofs or sides in the case of offices. There are always initial cost considerations but as w3 have found out recently that can have greater long term costs and deficiencies, I do wonder what the Humber and Severn schemes would have had now on our energy independence had the gone ahead back in the day when they didn’t seem crucial.
Had this structure been conceived with a green roof in mind it may be that it would have been viable but clearly as stated not sensible to re design now. Probably also because of its design parameters including large open internal space, time constraints, spans and thus light weight engineering, yes a shame that it is, this building from the very beginning might not have been the ideal model for such a construct. But with the way technology is going such considerations are becoming vital. Indeed it’s because we are constantly laggards in championing certain technologies that we end up having to buy it in from abroad as we sadly have with wind power for example. We do need to be more proactive and thus I think it was right that the Council at least pose the question. Someone needs to.
So it’s not just the roof to be made green instead of white? I took it to mean the council asks if it can be painted green instead of whatever colour it is.
Looks like I’m way off.
My mind went to that they were going to put grass on it. lol. Calling it a green roof sounds like B.S. marketing speak. Did they even mention what a green roof is?
That’s what I thought as well, there’s a farm shop near me with a grass roof that slopes to the ground. It’s weird going there and looking up seeing a sheep looking down on you.
My assumption is either grass and meadow on the roof or green in the sense of solar and grey water capture to use in toilets etc, ie special guttering to capture rainwater to then store and use for taps and toilets. All possible but not if it holds back the delivery of military assets, of course if BAE had already invested in this way earlier it could have incorporated green features without affecting national interests.
I understand that it won’t be grass on the roof because of the weight. It’s just where my first thought went. Why can’t they just say what it is in the first place? Just a PR spin for water collection and solar panels. I love it when companies like BAE try and spin to sound virtuous.
Greenwashing is pretty rife at the moment too!
I’ve got no problem with them asking- all new developments with a close-to-flat roof should be required to consider it, it’s not a gimick in my opinion. It should be noted that BAE had already looked into it according to the report, before even being asked.
As long as the council accepts the prefecty sensible readon for not going with the green roof, I think it’s a pretty commendable and simple negotiation as part of the planning process.
Fantastic news!!!! How much faster would this make the type 26 run, atm its one per 2 years, was originally going to pick up speed anyway but will this speed up the programme even more. Atm they said all 8 by 2035 instead of possibly 2038 which I suppose is something
What the…. And which, pray tell, did the existing surrounding buildings, shade of “green” appear in? Mottled avian gray. Good ol’ shite hawk’s.
Bit of a tangent but kind of distantly related. The other day I saw a news item here (Sky news I think it was) that the RAN here might be looking at switching 3 of the 9 Hunter T26s for 3 AAW Destroyers either a Navantia Hobart design or a BAE Australia proposal. If the later I wonder if this is a AAW version of the T26 or a precursor to the T83?
Question then, if the RAN order these, would the RN also consider the same for T83? All speculation at the moment, we will have to wait for more information on this.
Back to the main story, good to see the extra sheds coming along. Hope the T83 fits in them…
That would be MoD quality of mis adventure if they don’t. Can’t see them being much larger than T26 tbh whatever the arguments for a bigger ship. From what I remember the Hobart’s for example are a pretty similar size to the T-26.
Lehngth of 170mtr could be just adequate, I suppose. Current T45s are about 155mtr as was(ls) T82 HMS Bristol – same as Arleigh-Burke. ‘Should’ be some idea within MOD by now of what length T83 envisioned, if whole ship construction is only required option.
Width of Clyde also a factor as launch is at right angles for most part, of course.
Last comment probably not so much what with barge, though.
Since it’s not likely the T83 will be over 10,000 long tons, it’s probably not going to be any more than 155-160meters long…unless the RN losses it’s marbles and try for some kind of Zumwalt madness. There is no reason to suggest the RN will start building hulls much larger the 5500-8500 long ton mark. There was clear evidence that building sub 5000 long ton hulls was a false economy ( the US stopped building them in the 1980s) but I don’t think there is much evidence for a driver to build a lager escorts than 8000- 10,000 long tons…( all the very large surface combatants have been very niche or failed programmes)
If the Aussie media is anything like the UK media i’d take anything they say with an extremely large grain of salt. For 83’s it’s too early to say.
Hi David, yes, it could well all be a “news” concoction. Though the possible extra 3 AAW for the RAN has been in the news before.
The spec of the Hunter class Frigates is pretty good regarding AAW anyway, not enough of a problem for any more dedicated Ships I would have thought.
I saw that and I cannot find any other news source for this in Oz or elsewhere: sounds like media BS.
Australian media is even worse than the UK and US for inventing BS if that’s even possible.
Finally found an article on this dated June 2022: there is a lot in the comment sections and an offer by Navantia, but that is as far as it seems to go.
If they want an AAW version just speak to the Canadians as their version of the T26 isn’t that far off. Same AEGIS as Hunters but with AN-SPY7 which has ABM capabilities. In fact their ordinal idea was to have 4 or 5 AAW versions with more MK41 and enlarged command facilities.
Bloody hell that was quick. Good news. At 175 by 85m there’ll be plenty of room for simultaneous build of a pair of Type 83’s whatever there design. Now HMG needs to commit to long-term order book for them. Bae however belatedly are fullfilling there side of the deal HMG need to do the same. With an election within 18 months or so we need to see commitment from both parties to N.S.S.
Good news it’s just a pity it’s taken BAE so long to invest. Hopefully this can make the yard more competitive and they can get back to doing export orders.
Couldn’t they use the older smaller yards for building smaller ships, such as mass producing mine-hunting drones, cutters/patrol boats for export and home use.
Just a general question for those more knowledgeable than me, Where is the T26 going to be maintained? As I understand they will be based in Devonport but the Frigate Refit Complex cant fit a T26 or a T31. Going to Cammel Laird/Portsmouth for every drydocking seems wasteful.
Modernise the complex.
Simples
It would be a bit more than a straight modernisation. The existing facility is too short, too narrow and not tall enough.
Realistically you either build a brand new facility or completely rebuild the existing one (which means losing the existing one).
And as we do not have anywhere to refit the T45’s undercover it would need to be way bigger. Say 180m x 30m x 70m and 8m draught,
Only place I can think of is to build 3 across on the 2 old slipways to the south of No 2 Basin.
A bit of future proofing is built into the sizing. It give 2 for scheduled refits and 1 for emergencies.
Pretty much. It will be upgraded or scrapped/repurposed.
Will devenport still be required when the new ships come into service?
How costly it is having 2 bases on the south coast versus reducing it to 1.
In total volume this is slightly larger than one of the Cardington airship sheds.
Like your vertical thinking, there. Could get over my width of the River Clyde factor earlier. Also, possibly the real reason the green roof idea ditched! Now, anybody heard of a reliable & ready supplier of air balloons that could fit the bill lately? 🙂
Hi folks hope all is well
Great news and demonstrates the commitment of UK warship building and of course commitment to Scotland as being part of the UK!
No doubt the SNP will mock and make some derogatory comment about this project at some stage soon.
What ever happens, it simply isn’t good enough for the SNP, they will only be happy when they are in complete control and passing legislation such as the proposed gender recognition status.
Cheers,
George
GRA was actually a Green bill rather than SNP. It was the only thing they got as part of their coalition agreement and supporting the biggest road building program in Scottish history.
Greens in Scotland not very green.
The fact that BAE chooses to build the ships in Scotland is BAE choice.
The order for the ships comes from the U.K. government and the Navy don’t care where they are built so long as they are on time and budget.
Leave the anti SNP/Scotland chat for a different forum.
Hi folks,
Sorry but not anti Scotland far from it! I’m anti SNP for all their ridiculous stance against being part of the UK
As for building UK warships this won’t happen in an independent Scotland, complex warships must be built in the UK.
It may be Nicola’s Scotland, but it’s OUR United Kingdom she wants to break up!
Cheers
George
The biggest problem BAE Systems is going to have building the new T26 Frigates is an ageing workforce and to much reliance on foreign labour.
!? Of course UK Gov care where it is build…
They are build in Scotland to “bribe” some to preserve the UK as it is. It is sad but it is what it is.
Ship-building is highly politicized, Monkey Spanker.
Plus very few countries now have the capability to build a ship like the T26; there is a strategic need to keep the skills within the UK defence sector.
great news for the UK economy and the local area does anyone know how many jobs it’ll create?
So this new building is 170m long. How much shorter does the ship have to be to fit inside? If the UK decided it needed heavily armed cruisers, is this building big enough? For comparison a USN Ticonderoga class cruiser is 172.8m long.
If the SNP and up to 50% of Scottish voters get what they want this jamboree will be utterly redundant – rather like the workers. Though the ones that used super- glue on Batch 2 River Class ships will be kept warm and dry.
I pray that there is not one penny piece of hated, ‘Old Enemy’, money in this anywhere………
Just long enough for Colony Class cruisers.
Why oh why was this work not undertaken and completed before the start of the type 26 build. This bit of investment should have been part of the foundational work of the T26 programme not an afterthought half way through.
That’s nice…
Glasgow City Council requested that the option of integrating a green roof into the current Wet Basin Hall design be explored.
Why does the council care what colour it is. 😀
Why no slipway into the Clyde for launching?
Wouldn’t be better to build pair of covered DryDocks under 1 roof, ships could be built the same side by side, then float in situ removing need to move to a barge sail down and back. would also be useable for refit work in future? while (if) gap in ship builds?
or am i being too logical