The first crew members have joined HMS Glasgow as the Type 26 Frigate takes shape on the Clyde.

Seven crew members have joined HMS Glasgow to begin turning the currently lifeless hull into one of the world’s most advanced submarine hunting warships.

HMS Glasgow  is currently on the hard-standing at the BAE yard in Govan outside the build hall having work done to her hull and superstructure.

Commander Phil Burgess, the warship’s marine engineer officer and senior naval officer, said:

“The ship’s company is the life-blood of a warship. With Royal Navy personnel joining HMS Glasgow for the first time, we have reached a key milestone that will enable the engineering, administrative and organisational foundations to be established. These are necessary for a modern-day warship to function efficiently and effectively, and by starting now we can best support the build and transition into service of HMS Glasgow.”

Scott Lorimer, a project manager on the BAE Systems commissioning team, was quoted as saying:

“I’m the sole project management resource within the commissioning team. I’m responsible for ensuring that we deliver our scope to costs, schedule and quality. At the moment we are writing all of the test forms which essentially will be used to make sure that all the systems on board work the way that we designed them to and that is from ship-required systems like fuel all the way to the toilets and the hot and cold fresh water taps.

Our team is responsible for essentially making the ship come to life. We are in the preparation stage where we are writing these test forms, as of quarter four next year it will really start to ramp up for us because that is when we will actually start working on the ship and getting the systems working. Although we are responsible for proving that all the systems work, we are also responsible for bringing the Navy along on that journey with us, so we have to make sure that they know how to operate the systems properly and give the any training that they need, and help them with their processes.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

“The Type 26 Frigate is a cutting-edge warship, combining the expertise of the British shipbuilding industry with the excellence of the Royal Navy. These ships will be a force to be reckoned with, there to protect our powerful new carriers and helping keep British interests safe across the world.”

Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total with three in the first batch, the contract for the second batch will likely be negotiated in the coming months.

The second ship in the class, HMS Cardiff, is currently progressing well.

Second Type 26 Frigate HMS Cardiff taking shape in Glasgow

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
54 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Derek Martin
Derek Martin
20 days ago

Excellent news

Ian M
Ian M
20 days ago

At least they won’t get seasick!

George
George
20 days ago

Hi folks hope all is well.
Good news and I gather the build is on time, my only issue is why can’t we build these ships faster with a few more
simultaneously? No doubt the issue is with yard space and the number of skilled professionals.
Do you experts have any idea of the weapons that will be used on these ships?
Cheers,
George

Lusty
Lusty
20 days ago
Reply to  George

We could build them faster. The main issue is the fact that the MoD has effectively slowed down the build rate in an effort to ‘save’ money. There’s also the argument that they’re dragging it out to help guarantee work for the shipyard for a longer period of time, in part to offset the drop in T26 orders from 13 to 8 and the subsequent ordering of 5 T31 hulls from Rosyth. However, the MoD’s artificial delays have meant that the workforce and scalability of the yard have had to be managed accordingly. Space isn’t necessarily an issue for a… Read more »

Ron5
Ron5
20 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Great answer 👍

Klonkie
Klonkie
20 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Greetings Lusty. Out of interest do you know if there is a plan to retro fit the type 45s with the 5 inch gun? I understand they will undergo refit with Sea Ceptor. I was wondering if that might present the ideal opportunity?

Lusty
Lusty
19 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Greetings! Not that I’m aware of. The gun has presented numerous debates over the years (alongside the missile fit), but the MoD hasn’t yet moved actioned anything. It’s an interesting point, as in my opinion, we’re rather foolishly moving into a situation where we’re going to have a few different guns (5″, 4.5″, 2.2″, 1.6″, 1.2″, 0.79″). We should be trying to move back to a unified system for ease of maintenance, training, buying ordinance and storing spares. Ironically, we had a unified system until the frigates brought three new calibres into circulation! I’d ideally drop 4.5″ for either 5″… Read more »

klonkie
klonkie
18 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Thanks for the detailed post Lusty . You make some very good points on standardising gun armament – l can only agree. I think your observation is spot on re the MOD’s view on the Type 45 costs.

Lusty
Lusty
18 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Thanks, Klonkie. I can only apologise for a long post; I don’t know when to stop!

klonkie
klonkie
17 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Don’t apologise. The principal reason iI’m in this site is to learn from those who know, so thank you.

Quentin Drury
Quentin Drury
18 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

I wonder if they tried a 5″ version of the 4.5″? Someone here will know.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin Drury

There was a 155 mm version of the venerable Mk8 proposed by BAe. Unfortunate like many proposed and tested upgrades it died a death when the practicalities of fitting it and loading it below decks came to light.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Thanks. Yes, I had read about the 155mm. Is the BAE 5” just made in the US? Will or can any of it be built in the UK?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

US made and supplied. Its only BAe because they bought the original maker and subsumed them Into the BAE portfolio.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

So that must mean once the 4.5” goes OOS the UK will lose it sovereign naval gun manufacturing capability unless it can make under license. It’s a shame isn’t it? If the 4.5” was (also) made as a 5” it could have had an even longer life.

Quentin Drury
Quentin Drury
18 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Hi Lusty, I’d like to see them try to get additional CAMM on the T45s. Try a horseshoe configuration with 2-4 x silos down both sides of the Asters for a 32-48 fit out. Do you’ll reckon it will fit? I don’t think the CAMM silos are deck penetrating and not as heavy as the MK41 Vls. I won’t ask about the AShMs this time…

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin Drury

You would lose access up the port and stbd waist onto the fcsl for the gun and for part of ship. There are also various compartments built into the port and stbd silo on one deck and access to those would also be lost. It would involve re running/resiting vent and fan compartments , part of ship storage lockers etc which would be a major issue.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Thanks for the reply GB. I guess I was asking for too much. 24 is better than none. I still won’t ask about the AShMs…lol.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

With ceptor fitted they will have a quick reaction M3 ASM for use out to the horizon which is more than they have now.

Lusty
Lusty
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

See GB’s reply. 😛 You’d be better off fitting MK41 where the Sea Ceptors are going. Then you could quad-pack Sea Ceptor in each launcher. This would mean that the space currently allocated for 24 could house 64 missiles. The existing cells could be modified to quad-pack them as well. If you used all of them (including the proposed new cells) for quad-packing and excluded helicopters, one Type 45 could carry 256 missiles! Of course, this would be without Aster, but it shows what’s possible with existing and planned configurations. It will likely never happen, and such a modification would… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Hi Lusty, can CAMM be quad packed straight into a MK41? I thought I read somewhere that the CAMM silos are not strictly vertical due to safety concerns if the missile cold launch fails? The ExLS 3×4 silo pairs are set apart from each other more than the MK41.
Okay, I will mention it…I hope they utilise the “ex-Harpoon space” for some new AShM/LAM capability. The T45s can’t just strictly be for AAW purposes especially if on solitary patrols.

Lusty
Lusty
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

That’s true. Each mushroom in the ‘mushroom farm’ is slightly offset from the vertical. This is to gently encourage the missile to fall into the sea rather than onto the ship should it fail. Not only do you have the possible risk of creating a new hole, but you also run the risk of damaging a piece of equipment or injuring (or worse) members of the crew. I’m pretty sure it can go straight into MK41 as a quad pack, with the required mods and associated jiggery-pokery. The fact that they’re not offset means that you lose the luxury of… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
17 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Best price for 2 x Mk41 cells (8 tubes a cell) where Ceptor is going to go would be around 16mil-24mil dollars before you even fitted anything into the tubes. Multiply by the number of ships and add a fudge factor for integration costs structural alterations, services and support changes internally and you are going to be looking at 30 mil a ship Cost for Mk41 are pretty accurate and based on the CRS report for costs the USN would pay to up the number of MK41 tubes on a Connie Frigate from 32 to 48. 180 mil Dollars for… Read more »

Lusty
Lusty
17 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I know, GB. 😉

I was just saying. I would rather that option be explored rather than faffing around (no offence to anyone) adding launchers down the side.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

Just to add a little to that, I wonder if Chile would be interested in any of the RNs newer 4.5” mounts? And if any of the T23s will ever sold off with or without these mounts.

Lusty
Lusty
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Possibly. If HMG can recoup some costs by selling off equipment, you can be damn sure they’ll proceed with the sale! For Chile, I guess it would depend on the projected OSD for their own Type 23 hulls and their replacements. 4.5″ seems to be dying a death, so I do wonder where they’ll end up. Maybe someone might enjoy a shed of them? 😉 As for selling the hulls, who knows. The Type 23’s are pretty wankered so to speak, though the refits will keep them going. They have been run hard over the years and I’d be suprised… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
18 days ago
Reply to  Lusty

I note that some of the T23s were built and commissioned in 3 yrs, 2 mths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate

Lusty
Lusty
18 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yup, some of them came in fairly quickly. Back then some were in build and commissioned right at the tail end of the Cold War. We needed replacements for the OAP Leanders and Type 21s, hence the speed. We also had two yards building them, which is a luxury we can only dream of now! If only we had the political will to speed up T26. If I had my way, we’d speed up the process and maybe add an extra hull or two. When that’s done, I’d focus on bringing in a new destroyer to serve alongside and eventually… Read more »

Last edited 18 days ago by Lusty
Chuck
Chuck
20 days ago
Reply to  George

I would imagine that this is down to keeping a small workforce in long term employment. No longer do we have busy shipyards around the country knocking out a large variety of vessels. We do actually need more hulls, but this will just string out the build time. We just don’t have enough people in the business, and there is never enough money. Same everywhere these days. I’m sure that we all have roadworks and traffic projects in our areas. One near me involved just 800 metres of dual carriageway upon which, a new junction was added. It was a… Read more »

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
20 days ago

George. I share your frustration on the build times.

As to weapons fitted, no doubt this will lead to any amount of “ffbn” comments.

I dislike making negative posts, but I suspect it will commission with the bare minimum 5” gun/sea Ceptor/ciws and 30mm gun armament as per the various renderings online, but hopefully include the interim AShM?

What would I LIKE it to have, well…..

AA

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
20 days ago

It will be commissioned with a Mk41 VLS launcher installed. How do I know that? The contact to buy the first three Mk41 launchers was listed on the US FMS website.

I think the coffee smell of Chinese and Russian activities has permeated to No10 hence the uparming of T45. There is an announced program to acquire weapons for the VLS.

Things are far from perfect but there are the visible bones of a plan and progress is visible. At least with Mk41 VLS there is a system that the biggest defence spender is heavily invested in munitions for.

Tommo
Tommo
20 days ago

If the excrement hits the propeller, I hope and pray that the new Glasgow fares better than her predecessor Type 42 Glasgow the ship with the hole SB

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
20 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

The Skyhawk A4 hole per chance?

No chance that tactic works with the cannon fitted or Ceptor.

Tommo
Tommo
20 days ago

Aye ,straight through, but it Fd up steering hope fully Ceptor will even take out whatever is being dropped or launched SB

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
20 days ago

For the UK to compete with foriegn ship yards and to dive down the construction costs we have to be building these vessels in 5 years or less/ vessel (as they do in Europe and the US) but as the MoD will not put together a joined up build programme with the T31’s T32’s, RFA requirements and the T45 replacement or even extending the T26 programme to 9 (3 per batch). We could have confirmed orders for UK shipping alone for the next 20 to 30 years and if we are seen as a leading competitor in the ship building… Read more »

Ron5
Ron5
20 days ago

UK Treasury: knows the price of everything but the value of nothing

Jonathan
Jonathan
20 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

To be honest Ron their grasp of the actual price is pretty minimal as well.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
20 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

In my experience most of the civil service has very little grasp of any detailed facts and just believe the most convincing person at the meeting or revert to stereotypical arguments.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
18 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Is it not a fixed price contract?

Jonathan
Jonathan
18 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

No it’s a capped price contract with an average price of £250million per unit.

lets be honest that caps going to be fairy land when we are talking a contract over the next 7-10 years. Wage and material and energy costs are going through the roof and will not stop anytime soon.

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
20 days ago

Fair argument I think. Like so much in British Industry in the past to present its chicken and egg, not enough commitment to production to bring costs down and encourage investment (or use it wisely from Govt) and not enough actual investment (especially in a longer term strategy) to become efficient enough to win orders in a competitive atmosphere. You just have a long drawn out spiralling decline (or at best rump business) whereby the plan becomes set on retaining minimum required skills to maintain a baseline National capability (if we are even that committed) and (in the past particularly)… Read more »

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
20 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

If the UK is to move forward with its ship building industry and as an island race it is my belief we must if we are going to survive as a nation (ship building should be one of our cornerstone industries) the government needs to be held accountable and be seen to lead from the front with a joined up approach to the RNs/RFAs ship building/maintenance programmes, Yes this is indeed a tall order given our political elites track record but there has to be a fundamental shake up of our leadership from the top down including the Civil Service… Read more »

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
20 days ago

Great to see.

PeterS
PeterS
20 days ago

Everything has to be understood in the context of never enough money (gov borrowing in Sept over £22b). But the Type 26 programme also suffered from unnecessary delay in agreeing a specification and price. So we got 5 opvs that the RN weren’t keen on just to keep the yards ticking over and get something in return for BAEs guaranteed payments. Looking at the price eventually agreed for the first 3, it is hard to believe that negotiations couldn’t have been finalised in an afternoon. If we ever again need large amounts of new equipment in a hurry.land,sea or air,… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
20 days ago
Reply to  PeterS

You can only negotiate effectively when there is a full understanding (spec/cost) and contract mechanism.

Until that point you may as well play card or use a roulette wheel to determine prices/values.

geoff
geoff
19 days ago

Exactly. Changes to specification and programme can make an original quote unrecognizable over a long period

Last edited 19 days ago by geoff
Jonathan
Jonathan
18 days ago

Also the chance of understanding costs over a long period of time is pretty impossible, no one can actual predict things like wage inflation p, power costs, raw material costs etc for 7 years time.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
18 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Those things are usually included in the contract mechanisms.

But it is the advantage of a sprint build like T31 that there are less variables/unknowns.

PeterS
PeterS
18 days ago

Indeed. What I was referring to is not so much the slow build schedule as the long drawn out process of agreeing a design. The proramme to replace T23 started in 1998, went through various iterations -C1,C2,C3-future surface combatant and finally the global combat ship. By 2010. a decision seemed to have been reached on a down specced version of the global combat ship, Four tears later,the design had been upspecced and increased in size. Lots of rumours mentioned arguments about price.The result- a ship costing £1.2b (for the first three), a price that forced the reduction from 13 to… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
18 days ago
Reply to  PeterS

The designs were there: the money wasn’t.

geoff
geoff
19 days ago
Reply to  PeterS

Hi Peter. The RN didn’t want the OPV’s but they have turned out to be really useful assets! When the Mod asked for public comment on defence about a decade or so back one of my suggestions was to build more OPV’s to free up frigates and destroyers from lower end tasks. They listened😂 and I didn’t even get a few bob for my efforts. Even a gong or knighthood would have been nice!!
The Glasgow has suddenly taken shape-no longer looks like bits of a huge jigsaw puzzle strewn across a factory floor😉

Jonathan
Jonathan
20 days ago

So does that mean that happy young man was theoretically in charge for a short time.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
18 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

SNO , senior naval officer will be in charge. During builds and some long refits most operators dont turn up until the end as they get farmed out to other operational ships to stay current on systems.
The early joiners for a build are the engineers. Marine engineers and especially the Chippy as he owns the hull when she commissions.

Ron
Ron
16 days ago

OK, it looks like the Type 26 even before the first one enters waters have a major problem, ARTISAN. I have just been reading on the RN site about the ARTISAN radar replacement on HMS Montrose. The site went on to explain what ARTISAN is and some of its specs, 120 mile range, track 900 potential targets and more interesting up to a speed of Mach 3. SO if for example you have an incoming Perseus at Mach 5 can ARTISAN see it. Brahmos at the moment does Mach 3 so ARTISAN it is at the edge of its ability,… Read more »