For the first time, the UK Defence Journal has been able to get drone shots of HMS Glasgow whilst the Type 26 Frigate is being outfitted at BAE Systems Scotstoun facility.
These are the first drone images we’ve taken of this ship in over two years.
The Royal Navy anticipates HMS Glasgow will begin sea trials next year, marking a pivotal step in testing its performance and capabilities before it enters operational service. These trials are crucial for assessing the ship’s readiness and fine-tuning any systems as necessary to ensure the frigate meets the stringent requirements of modern naval warfare.
Here’s a gallery of images, enjoy.
Now, you may be thinking, haven’t you posted dozens of photos of HMS Glasgow taken by drone? Yes, when the ship was at Govan (where HMS Cardiff currently is) and, as such, outside of a local airport ‘Flight Restriction Zone’, she moved to Scotstoun in 2022, and, sadly, the Scotstoun site is quite a distance into restricted airspace.
For the avoidance of doubt, this flight was conducted legally. Permission was obtained by Glasgow Airport Air Traffic Control and the National Air Traffic Service to operate within the Flight Restriction Zone of Glasgow International Airport. The flight was insured, risk assessed and conducted with a colleague acting as a ‘hazard spotter’ to help ensure safety. Additionally, I made the shipyard aware that I planned to conduct the flight, and I’ve even lowered the resolution so as not to reveal anything sensitive.
Time to discuss T26 artillery issue in face of drones?
They’re not going to modify the design at this point.
It can be the difference between spending millions in 48 CAMM missiles vs thousands in hundreds of artillery rounds or even a damaged ship.
I don’t think replacing the 5″ with 57 would be difficult better with 76 for multimission but RN will not buy Italian.
For Phalanx a longer range system is needed.
Another options is improving the 5″ for AA.
The 5 inch can do AA, but not that well.
They’re not going to replace the main gun.
Also we don’t refuse to buy Italian, we wanted the 57mm and the 40mm, it’s not some spite at the 76mm.
And also, the T31 is the vessel which will be deployed to this region, we shouldn’t mess with the ship when we need it done quickly for the rare occasion it deploys to the gulf.
Well RN wanted the 57 because they are BAE, nothing else. Same with BAE 5″ which is an inferior preposition to the Italian 5″ which has a stronger emphasis into AA.
Stop simping for Italian guns istg. They’re not the end all be all.
I was talking ideally, the issue remains and you seem to be ignoring it, a 57 in the bow and 40 in the sides would already be an improvement unless the 5″ can be improved for AA.
The risk is spending the money in missiles, from warzone.
The BAE 57mm is superior to the 76mm. It delivers more weight of explosives to target due to its higher rate of fire, and also has a much faster elevation rate.
The USN are funding AAW for the BAE 5 inch, its major downside will be its RoF being 26 compared to 32 for the Oto Melara. The BAE gun has a much better AHS, and Kingfisher as well.
No. 57 has less range and it is air cooled not water cooled like 76. Its higher rate of fire is an extrapolation of rounds per second. It cannot fire all those rounds in a minute. Like most guns cannot fire all the fancy rpms that are usually listed.
Much better AHS? in what way? The Oto 127 have 4 ready to fire ammo systems, can be resupplied while firing.
Kingfisher is an marginal system with doubtful capability.
Just like drones are becoming more relevant, UUVs are as well. Now any nation or terrorist group can have underwater capability. Lightweight torpedos aren’t as effective against targets near the surface, depth charges are much better, and many Kingfisher shells can be carried, and they can be replenished at sea. So it will be very useful.
In a short burst 57mm delivers more explosive to the target, and also offers MAD-FIRES.
I think GB mentioned the 76mm is not as good as advertised, some weeks ago.
The comment that BAE 5” can do AA but not that well is quite odd.
The 5” will produce a massive shrapnel field compared to a 57 or even 76mm so I don’t think the RoF is that important as it is density of shrapnel that actually matters here.
I suspect it is based around rates of elevation and tracking of the turret which might require uprated servos?
It is a very fixable problem that once BAE and USN turn to it will get sorted.
My point is the 4.5 Inch was designed with AA capabilities in mind but we abandoned that and have moved away from the gun. I wouldn’t be surprised if no investment is made in the airburst ammo as while the US 127 can do that, its also not what it’s specialised at and not what we were looking for when we moved guns.
BAE 5″ is the US designed 5″ MK45 there was no design AA priority for that gun, it has 16-20 rpm and was done to be light and simple with only 20 rounds ready to fire contrary to the MK42 from 50’s. That one was a a real dual propose gun with 40 rpm.
What makes you think the RN won’t buy Italian ? They already did back in the day they had Otto Melara 76mm guns on the Peacock class.
The spec for the T26 design was for a weapon to replace the MK8 4.5” with a modern weapon for NGS use.
So anti Italian is nothing to do with the decision and as the obvious solution (for commonality) is 5” why would BAe not fit the most commonly fitted in Naval ships Worldwide ?
Thats the BAe Mk54 5”/62 built in the US and a very nice earner for BAe and us U.K shareholders.
But TBH I’d have a very serious look at some of the Italian Ammunition options as IMHO theirs are the DB’s.
Peacock needed a gun for Hong Kong service and a 4.5″ was not able to be put on it.
The 76 in Peacock was not capable of AA because there was no director or mission for it and Royal Navy did not believed in gun for AA, decision which would have high costs in Falklands.
I find the 40 + 57 pair too much nearer each other in capability, i think it is a mistake. And in my opinion only occurs because both guns are BAE, hence the reason not buying Italian.
Same valid for the 5″ gun, the Italian 5″ has a much stronger AA emphasis than the BAE version. Maybe one of the reasons that Canada choose that one for their Type 26 – they already have had the old Oto 127 in Iroquois destroyers.
In strategic terms and with technology evolving fast flexibility of weapons systems should a strong factor.
If Type 26 would be in service today the drones would most likely be destroyed by expensive CAMM missiles.
M8 We have already bought them at $44 million a pop, move on ! Do you think anyone would try to justify buying another 8 additional guns when have already bought 8 same as USN use ?
By the way I actually agree that the Italian gun is superior to the US BAe offering but if we could find any additional funding I’d actually buy their 76mm Super Rapide to replace the existing 4.5 on the T45’s.
From the warzone:
The U.S. Navy is hoping to see around $150 million in supplemental funding to help replenish its stocks of SM-2 surface-to-air missiles and other munitions after months of shooting down Houthi missiles and drones in and around the Red Sea. There have been and continue to be significant concerns about the rate at which American warships are expending munitions against Houthi threats and the broader ramifications thereof.
Note that the funding might also go into spending missiles – i am sure some interceptions were justified but i doubt most of them were-
The US gun costs 44M$?
The HK boats had a Sea Archer GSA7 director
The whole system had an AA capability from initial design, but it was removed from the system as AA was not a HK PC requirement whilst bashing Dai Fei’s and surface contacts was. In my 3 years as the Oto (and Sea Archer) Level 3 Base Maintainer, and the years before I was based there it was never used in anger.
Boardings of Dai Feis was the main order of business conducted using RM driven FPCs and a boarding team jumping between boats doing 40+ knots. Looking back, It was a crazy thing to do at the time but immense “fun”.
Mk8 Mod 0 from its inception in the 1970s had an AA capability. With a tracker directing (909 or 912) you could engage air targets and get TTBs on a regular basis. I did it on many occasions. It had 20 rounds on the feed ring at immediate notice and you could also pre load the intermediate hoist positions. You reloaded the feed ring as it fired. It was capable of 20 rounds a min but in reality it never did that except for show.
With the Mod 1 version being optimised for using the longer ranged Base Bleed round the AA capability was removed. The Shell still has the Direct, Low and High proximity fuse settings as the old shells had but the base bleed element messed up the predictor so keeping that capability was binned.
On T23 you can track air targets using GEPOD. Take the air target tracks from the CMS, slew the GEPOD onto the track, seach and lock it up using EO tracking algorithms. You could shoot at it but the predictor bit isn’t there so the shells will not fly in front of the target ending up going behind it.
Thanks Gunbuster for all that detail.
Good Question. What defenses are to be put in place for drone attacks?
It’s got Sea ceptor, Phalanx and the 30mm guns
Would Martlet not be useful against drones of all types. Cheap and easy to install?
The problem with those guns is they are too short range. You cannot start fighting the enemy drones at 1.5km distance.
Would Martlet not be useful against drones of all types. Cheap and easy to install?
Install on what though? They already tried to mount it on the 30mm but that was abandoned for whatever reason.
The initial backblast was I believe the main reason. There is a hatch just behind the mount.
As far as actually launching one from the mount, that appeared to be OK.
Presumably a T45 will have martlet on board for the Wildcat, and if there were not the same safety issues (as the t45 is not so cramped) it might be good to have a short range missiles to supplement the 30mm?
AA
I think it had more to do with the efflux entering the engine intakes which are right next to them.
But why not fit on other ships ? No idea.
I’m getting the impression that Martlet is a suitable solution its just that the exact instalation hasn’t been thought through (yet).
Proteus would be my offering. You’d want to have at least a couple on board for sub-hunting. We know 20 Martlets can be fixed to Wildcat (and two to a Camcopter), so how about having a Proteus drone in the air with a targetting radar (local – doesn’t have to be AEW range), laser designator and four martlets.
Against a slow-moving drone, I wonder if a Proteus kept in ready mode on the flight deck could take off in time handle it?
The biggest issue will be countering cheap drone-swarms. If the drones are coming twenty or thirty at a time, missiles are not the solution, even cheap ones like Martlet. It’ll have to be guns or lasers.
Edited to add a question. Can a laser designator for Martlet double up as a sensor dazzler?
Thanks for that. As an ‘instant win,’ it would seem to me that bolting some of these to suitably located existing mounts would be a good idea…River B2 for instance.
For a start, with its homing head and frag warhead, it would be the very thing to tackle drones of any variety.
AA
Lots of reasons – principally that it didn’t add much.
But did make the relatively simple 30mm a lot more complex and expensive!
Right behind the mount on the T23 is a magazine which was getting hit with the backblast. That is not a good thing!
A separate lightweight mount in a clear area is doable. Something similar to say a Stormer fit but add on a 50 cal as well.
The US Coyote missile system fits the bill, but not sure on the cost.
Such as changing 30mm to 40mm?
It has Sea Ceptor and Phalanx. The 5” is capable of AAW – no idea if the software is enabled.
So won’t be a slouch.
Yes if the 30mm changed to 40mm would be a positive change but don’t think is enough..
The main factors in my opinion are this:
spending missiles against 1-20000$ drones are too expensive.ships have a limited quantity of those missiles, an enemy can make a ship waste their missiles in those drones and then staturate easier the ship with conventional missilesmissiles are much more difficult to resupply, even impossible at moment at seaGuns
it is vital the drones are engaged the more distance possible from the ship.ships have hundreds of rounds and 76 can down a drone with 3-6 rounds at 6-8km maybe more.rounds can be resupplied at seaAll of this gives me a
5″ gun with strong AA emphasis for long range eventually guided rounds against drones at more than 8-10 km also higher altitude.
76 class from 5-8km
40 class from 2-5km
It is not out of question to develop a sort of 5″ Vulcano/DART round type for AA which would put the range into 4-50km against a slow medium or large drone at altitude.
Replacing 30mm with 40mm always gets my vote. 40mm is far moe capable & versatile.
MOD have hundreds spare I think
Would anticipate eventual conversion of 30mm mounts to 40mm, as well as upgrade of sensors (including radar), probable deployment of first generation DEW, etc. However, absent actual conflict, would not anticipate these upgrades before first scheduled refit. RN’s highest priority would presumably entail brining baseline T-26 & T-31 classes successfully into service ASAP, especially given fragility of T-23 class. RN also undoubtedly interested in minimizing the potential rationale for BAES to raise contractual cost issues. The old mantra is applicable: crawl, walk, run. 🤔
… bringing…🙄
Isn’t the US BAE 5″ AA capable, unlike the 4.5″ that stupidly had that capability withdrawn a few years ago? A 4.5″ or 5″ gun can engage a drone far further away than a 40mm or 57mm & has a much larger kill zone.
US BAE 5″ should be AA capable but has a low rate of fire and i suspect the main problem will be the sights/fire control and ammunition type that have had not an emphasis in AA. Hopefully it will change.
4.5″ is legacy so i don’t it would be feasible, not even ammunition is being manufactured obviously.
USA already has production lines for anti aircraft/drone shells such as the Mark 156 HE-IR Anti aircraft shell (which we will undoubtedly be buying a version of)+ have multiple smart rounds in development which would be more expensive, but also more effective (less likely to buy straight away). Also the fire control/sights for the gun are mounted on the ship, not on the gun (like tank sights mounted on the turret), rather being mounted on the ship. This mean Naval ships make use of the largest and best EO/IR sensors out there which are more than capable of detecting drones multiple 10’s of km’s away. Furthermore, Radar fire control sensors are fitted to many vessels to control + help the gun targeting i.e the Thales STIR 1.2 EO Mk2 (although i don’t know if the t26 is fitted with a fire control radar of this type)
The issue is that British and in less way US doctrine regarding guns is going on the cheap. Italians install radar directors + EO even in their OPV’s , that is not the doctrine of RN . T31 and T26 visualizations only show EO sights.
There is even a risk of RN T26 follow the 4.5″ gun for 5″ and do not have AA capability, lets see if these engagements change that possible stance.
If you’re worried about drones then dragon fire & potentially RF DEW are being developed & are likely the way to go. The USN 5 inch has shot a number of drones down in the red sea. They are not going to change the main armament of T26 it has a massive automated ammunition handling system built-in to the ship & it’s been delivered so no refunds. For T31 the N110 radar can direct naval gunnery & so can some navigation radars & also small aesa panels tighten show up on any visuals if fitted.
I personally prefer the 76 mm over the 57mm but they are numerous guided rounds coming online for the 57mm to rival rounds such as strales. The RN has committed to 57mm & T31 design cannot be changed & the last thing RN needs is another gun system & ammo it will already be supporting 4.5 inch until 2036. Personally who cancelled the AA software update for 4.5inch needs shooting with said gun.
In terms of traditional naval fire support from T31 options are drones or something like the Trigon naval rocket launcher, NSM etc
Your commitment to beautiful photos never ceases to amaze.
I’d just finished fitting the previous batch into my homescreens and now you bring another one?
Shame on you, forcing me into all this work 😉
“ The Royal Navy anticipates HMS Glasgow will begin sea trials next year”
Is that a move up in timeline? If so very welcome news and makes more sense of dumping a T23 as there would been need for first of class crew training to develop the training pipeline.
Well the Sea trials will last a while. Could be 2028 by the time its actually deployable. But will be good to see one in the water.
Hmme
CMS/Artisan/SeaCeptor/30mm are not new to RN service.
So I suspect we will see IOC with those elements and aviation.
Mk41 and the 5” will follow probably 5” first while RN finds some missiles down the back of the sofa to use in Mk41.
They may well test Sea ceptor out of mk41, seeing as that’s presumably how the T31 will launch it.
And 1 of rhe fcasw missiles should deploy in 2028
Let’s see…..
There havent been any MK41 cell buy for Type 31, i think the affirmation was more of a desire than an decision for current T31.
We are taking T26 here?
Sorry i was answering to Hugo post only.
Thinking about HMS Westminster I think you have it right. The priority will be to ensure continuous RN ASW capability. Is this a NATO commitment?
Sounds like a major effort to bring us a really nice video. Thank you.
Blimey doesn’t seem two years since we saw her going upriver😳
I hope the completion status of the ships being built / assembled in the new build hall will be much more than Glasgow and Cardiff . Can’t see the point in building indoors to then move to an open drydock for 3years plus completion / commissioning work.If not it kind of defeats the purpose of the build hall.