David Tydeman, CEO of Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow, expressed his hope to secure substantial work from the Royal Navy’s Type 26 Frigate programme, potentially utilising over half the yard’s capacity.
Despite the uncertainties surrounding the future of the shipyard, Tydeman was confident about Royal Navy work supporting the yard during a recent Public Audit Committee meeting.
“We have been planning for some time,” he said, “and I am delighted that we were able to sign a framework agreement with BAE Systems.”
According to Tydeman, the agreement with BAE Systems would help address the workforce surplus at the Ferguson Marine yard as work on two ferries progressively winds down over the next 12 to 18 months.
He further added, “Both those yards (BAE and Babcock) have more work than they can do on their sites—as I said, this is a buoyant time in the shipbuilding market—and they need supporting contractors.”
Ferguson Marine started work on the first sections for a Type 26 Frigate earlier this year.
In terms of scale, Tydeman compared the additional, potential future work from the Type 26 programme to ongoing projects at Ferguson. “Hull 802 will be about 3,000 tonnes of weight when she launches down the slipway later this year, and a bow block unit for type 26 ship 4—which we hope to do with BAE—will be about 900 tonnes,” he stated.
Elaborating on this, he said “A programme of work with BAE can use more than half the capacity of the yard, and I hope that we can complement that with the CMAL small ferry programme.”
Additionally, he mentioned that the company is actively tracking opportunities in the market. “We have a small commercial team that is tracking the market and we have been putting in proposals to the patrol craft market,” Tydeman disclosed.
There are also ongoing discussions with operators in the wind farm market, providing potential long-term work. “The first of those ships could be built in 2027. That does not fill the immediate gap, but…that is a very significant opportunity for us in the future.“
Good to see possible new work however I think he is a bit optimistic , a 900tonne bow unit would certainly take up the yard fabrication floor space with possible final assembly indoors , however that in no way would accommodate half the labour force, particularly fabricators /welders and maintain the apprentices. Are they proposing to transport the bow unit upriver using the BAE barge and if so what’s the planned loading procedure at Port Glasgow.
I find the idea of Fergies being given a complex shape like a bow block absolutely terrifying.
Go look at the bows of one of the ferry hulls that looked like it had been made in a primary school.
The bow is the most important bit of a modern ASW frigate – that us where the sonar is…..
Hi SB, Yes it is a risk but it is a risk that Ferguson are taking in order to save their jobs and ensure they have a future. I am disgusted by the Ferry scandal
and the actions of the SNP, but I can’t help but feel for the workforce.
If Ferguson is given a sub contract by BAe then it will either be their downfall or their turning point. Simple reason is the contract will be with BAe on behalf of U.K. MOD and ultimately carry the can.
There will be no SNP help to fudge things and nowhere to hide, no endless stream of public money to pumped in. So if they don’t get it 100% right then they will fold as there is no safety net.
BAe are the prime contractor and directly responsible to HMG so I think that their QC will be stringent and meticulous.
What I’m concerned about us a vital RN project being affected by a clearly incompetent yard.
Given how few skilled ship yard managers there are in the UK the chances of getting an increase in competence at Fergies is, well, low…..
If you think I’m making that up then I will refer you to Fergies own website
https://www.fergusonmarine.com/news/mv-glen-sannox-s-bulbous-bow-replaced/
I don’t necessarily disagree with you being nervous but your example isn’t recent and things have hopefully improved.
The example isn’t an entire bow which was rejected and replaced just the bow bulb, it was built in the last decade and just before they went bust. Fergusons swapped it out for a newly manufactured one that did pass certification.
I assume BAe have competent Yard Managers and QC inspectors and they will be watching Fergusons like a Hawk.
BAe are not exactly known for outsourcing unless they really need to, and if you are going to outsource 900 tons of steel you want it locally and absolutely need to know it is right.
Reading earlier posts about Fergusons they seem to have been seconding their workers and apprentices to BAe further up the Clyde to gain experience and presumably better working practices.
Given the example given and if they are getting this work that is a very sensible way to learn, improve and deliver a better product.
I’ll grant you all that.
But it is still a really odd thing to do.
I suspect it is more to do with space constraints until the new shed is built and the existing build shed is just used for blocks.
If it was just people they would have moved the workforce to the main yard.
Almost Lego Bow.
The 2 ferries they are building are many years late and vastly over budget. But management keep getting huge bonuses.
I have to say Martyn, considering how Comprehensivly they screwed up every facet of building the ferries, giving them any frigate work seems like a bad idea, perhaps they could send the completed T26 there for a valat prior to delivery?
They couldn’t fu#@ that up could they??
Dear God NO, awful idea
With a history of incompetence and militant unions, let alone the institutionally fraudulent SNP placing business with a Turkish yard, I would not give this idiot Tydeman any work whatsoever
If this speeds up quicker T26 delivery & any work done is “extra” (e.g
getting hulls ready earlier) & done with that in mind then great. As long as BAE have QC in place & only accept work that meets the standard. Probably a good idea for some training/oversight at Ferguson potentially their work could be brought up to standard.
If this however is integral timeline work then I’d be less keen due to the previous issues.
If we can get Ferguson up & running as another site it could be good news for future projects.
I agree and that bow bulb was built before 2016 So they have had time to improve.
They cannot even finish a couple of ferries. I wouldn’t give them a contract for a rowing boat.
Why don’t they just ask Ukraine what small drones or troop landing ships they require navy ships are definitely the answer to bring jobs to this shipyard at the recent fiasco of basic passenger ships that are too green and complicated to build 🤔
BAE have the cash to buy them out and close them.
We need a firm commitment from Labour about frigate numbers that allows the players to plan.
Furthermore, daring, strategy on T45 replacement would signal to Big and Expensive that it might need to expand its footprint and be dauntless in its acquisitions even against unions who see themselves as the defender of rights for Scottish workers.
The canny duncans will know which side their haggis is buttered and recognise it as a diamond offer.
This BAE can extract the tooth from the dragon and let Scottish shipbuilding flourish.
I know the fear of lay offs only too well, so I feel for them. Ferguson need to up their game to gain contracts by providing a better quality & reliable product, especially for RN warships.
It’s not the yard in terms of layout and capacity that needs fixing, it’s the layers of competencies that are missing. It’s clear they do not have defined standards and methodologies, probably not even the basic IACs 47 for steelworks… I assume this from what I’m hearing about the hulls of the ferries… That is not rocket science and it could be fixed with the right people being brought over to manage the yard instead of the current bunch…