New images and videos show HMS Glasgow, the first of eight Type 26 Frigates being built on the Clyde, in the water for the first time.
Last month, the frigate was moved onto a barge at the Govan shipyard before being moved downriver to Glenmallan on Loch Long. There, the barge was submerged, allowing HMS Glasgow to float off and be towed back to the city towards the BAE Scotstoun facility, where she will now be fitted out.
You may be asking, why is she facing west if she was towed back upriver from the west? Well, the vessel was towed back up the Clyde with her bow facing east and was brought up to the King George V docks before being turned by her tugs to face west and brought back downriver to Scotstoun. This video shows the process.
Don’t worry, the footage was gathered in accordance with drone legislation, a flight plan was filed, and I’m fully insured and registered to do this kind of thing.
Here’s the video.
Here's some drone (and camera) footage of HMS Glasgow in the water for the first ever time. pic.twitter.com/75o3XavudW
— George Allison (@geoallison) December 3, 2022
Here are some photos.
Here are some more images.
https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1598968312528265217
Ben Wallace, Secretary of State for Defence, said:
“HMS GLASGOW entering the water for the first time marks a major milestone for the Type 26 programme which supports thousands of highly skilled jobs in Scotland and more across the wider UK supply chain. We’re continuing to invest in the British shipbuilding industry to maintain the Royal Navy’s cutting-edge ability to defend our nation, while strengthening our partnership with allies.”
David Shepherd, Type 26 Programme Director, BAE Systems, said:
“Seeing HMS GLASGOW in the water for the first time will be a proud and exciting moment for the thousands of people involved in this great endeavour. She will soon transfer to our Scotstoun yard in Glasgow where we look forward to installing her complex systems and bringing her to life.”
The barge
For those wondering how they moved the ship onto the barge, little wheeled vehicles under the vessel shown below.
The submersible barge was tested last month ahead of the floating.
According to Malin Group, the barge will initially be used to transport and ‘launch’ the Type 26 Frigates being built by BAE Systems for the Royal Navy and then berthed on the Clyde and made available to industry as required, “catalysing further opportunities for the wider supply chain in fields including shipbuilding, civil construction and renewable energy”.
John MacSween, Managing Director of the Malin Group, said:
“Securing this piece of equipment marks another positive step forward in the reawakening of the shipping and large-scale marine manufacturing industry in Scotland. This versatile asset, based on the West Coast of Scotland, can be used for launching and bringing ships ashore, docking vessels locally or at remote locations as well as being used to relocate large structures around the UK and further afield.
We are delighted to continue our long-standing relationship with the internationally renowned tug and barge owner specialists Augustea, as well as work with Hat-San who are bringing years of shipbuilding experience to the conversion. We are also extremely grateful for the support we have had from Scottish Enterprise in making this project a reality.”
The barge is a joint venture between the Malin Abram and Augustea and, now modified, represents one of the largest in Europe – it can submerge to load vessels and cargo with draughts of up to 12m and over 137m in length.
It will be based on the Clyde between projects.
Georges new hobby!
What stunning photos of HMS Glasgow these last few weeks.
Thanks.
I concur these are great pictures. Really nice to see her in the water. She is start to at least look like a living ship…
Really nice light in some of those pictures as well. George is quite the photographer, well done.
Cheers CR
that must be the basis for the type 83 destroyer
I highly doubt it, considering the Type 83 is likely to be significantly larger than the Darings, and the Citys have a narrower hull than that, not great if you want a large & powerful (and thus heavy) radar mounted high up on the ship. Lengthening the hull would be counter-productive for both hydrodynamic efficiency and acoustics. I think it will be an entirely different hull, but that’s not to say none of the work done on the Type 26s will be used. They could probably design a somewhat similar, but larger design in much less time using the work… Read more »
Why ?
the hull size and build are far larger than conventional sizes if frigate, traditionally a frigate is a ship between a corvette and a destroyer nimble,fast and configurable to many things,sheer size of the T26 when you are about to begin designs for a larger type of ship to replace the T45is just throwing money away to repeat what is already there.
size, tonnage and basic specs
Disagree. Do you want the escort fleet to suffer from the same issues that occurred with Astute? We need designers and engineers to design new ships. How long is the gestation of the Type-26? Twenty years plus? Do we think Naval Architecture and material science has not advanced in 20 years. All modern escorts are capital ships, the labels attached to them are the roles they perform. Frigates are ASW, Destroyers are AAW. To me something that is designed to do both effectively needs a different name. To me the Type-83 is going to be a cruiser and I will… Read more »
Agree
Gives a good idea of scale, that is a big frigate.
Nearly as heavy as an Arleigh Burke class – certainly BI.
No significant difference in weight to a T45.
Yup, they are big and survivable.
Kind of makes a mockery of the term frigate, more like an ASW cruiser.
I was told long ago that the reason for describing these enormous ships as ‘frigates’ was to fool ever skeptic civil servants and M.P.s into approving a budget.
Wouldn’t the budget look better if it were described as a Cruiser? Would appear to the less knowledgable that you are getting more bang for your bucks surely than giving the impression its smaller than it is.
That is not how these people’s minds work. I am being generous when I write ‘minds’ and ‘work’.
Sorry we only need to four cruisers as they are so much bigger and more powerful
why four?
As an illustration of how politicians minds work. The trick to getting more out of them is to make them think it’s their idea.Making things seem bigger and better is a sure fire way of making them think you can make do with less..
It’s been convention in RN for a long time that a Destroyer is an AAW warship and a Frigate is an ASW oriented one. Size doesn’t really come into it anymore. For example the Batch 3 Type 22’s were bigger than the Type 45 Destroyers. It will be interesting to see what Type 83’s are classed as. 20’s are Frigates. 40’s are Destroyers. 80’s are ??
Yes, David. My friend who served was making that point a long time ago when such as you describe were on the drawing board and cruiser had become a ‘problematic’ category at the Treasury. ‘Something perhaps little smaller would be cheaper, Mr Ffoukles-Ache …?’
😂😂
For centuries the Treasury has tried to limit the cost of RN warships by setting arbitrary tonnage limits – the CVA-01 aircraft carrier design of the early-1960’s being a good example. After the Treasury ruled that she couldn’t displace more than HMS Eagle, costs soared as the designers resorted to advanced solutions in an attempt meet the Admiralty’s requirements in the available tonnage. I believe that the much quoted saying “steel is cheap and air is free” dates to this period. But the Treasury is right in the sense that building a warship with lots of empty compartments and free… Read more »
Many thanks Richard for taking the time to write a very informed comment. I read an opinion piece on the Batch 1 Type 42’s following the Falklands War that ascribed some of their issues being down to their reduced size. Later Batch 3’s were I think larger?
I’m not sure how accurate the story actually is, but in the 1980’s it was accepted wisdom within the RN that the lengthened T42 Batch 3’s were actually just a reversion to the original design prior to the Treasury demanding a reduction in size.
Hard to argue that theT31 is an example of runaway cost growth when its being built on a fixed price contract.
i was on Blake the last cruiser of the RN it was taken out of service because it was exceptionally expensive to operate the crew size alone was as big as a couple of Leander’s Bloody good ship though,ooh, those wonderful days of steam,120° in the boiler room and two pairs of overalls per watch washed under the steam drain and dry in ten minutes
120 degrees! Great memories Andy. Many thanks for sharing and for your service. My informant served as an officer on a Country Class ‘destroyer, a class Jane’s described as as big as an old time cruiser.
May I be so bold as to challenge that?
T22 (5,400t) was similar to B2 T42 (5,000t)
T22 (5,400t) is/was a lot smaller than T45 (7,500t)
However HMS Bristol (7,000t) was larger than any of the contemporary destroyers or frigates and heavier than T26 and not far off T45.
Seem to recall the same sort of discussion with the original Counties when HMS Devonshire (1962) emerged at around 7000 full load displacement, especially as that was about the same as the Dido AA cruisers (also Cammell Laird)
There was a planned cruiser ( a10,000ton vessel) , the counties were an effective cutdown of these never built cruisers, which is why the ended up calling them destroyers.
That’s interesting. I recently bought the Norman Friedman book/British Cruisers which doubtless will cover said topic, will make good Xmas reading!
Indeed.
The Counties were very expensive due to ADAWS1 & 2 and Sea Slug. Essentially Gen 1 concept to trial product R&D costs. A lot of the insides of ADAWS1 looked suspiciously like the internals of a telephone exchange……
Although if we’re ever in the missile control room during a firing, which I was a number of times, describing the system as automated was stretching it a bit.
General experience was that you were very lucky to hit anything with Sea Slug unless it was flying in a nice straight line and not too fast!
Wire post wraps oh how i missed that..NOT!!!
“80’s are ??”
On current Tory party form, they are a ‘Pipe dream’.
no politics please.
I was about to write something sarcastic then reread my comment. Took me about 3 read throughs to understand what you were on about. My fault. Typo. Meant Type 42 not Type 45.
After I’d posted I did wonder if that wasn’t what had happened!
sall okay 👍
The last ship with an 80 type number was HMS Bristol – Type 82. She had a D pennant, but both AAW (Seadart) and ASW capability (Ikara and ASW mortar).
Yep not a happy precedent. Sad orphan of the 1966 defence review. Back when the only ‘cruisers’ allowed were the Invincibles.
There were the Tigers converted to Helicopter Cruisers, though.
When Tigers came in we still had old school Cruisers like Belfast in service. They were all gone before Invincible entered service.
Should have made clear my reply was more a combination of yours to Mark L above, David. Type 82 Bristol was around when converted Tiger and Blake were active, just.
odd, given the direction of the last few comments i did 22years including drafts to blake, Antrim, the converted ham class sweeper that became the echo in the inshore survey squadron odd fact every ship i served on was scrapped when I left it!
You mustn’t blame yourself, Andy. I cannot remember if it was Blake or Tiger? but watched one speed past Gib around early 70s, their last decade. At full chat heading towards the Pillars, it could still look impressive even with the flightdeck aft.
Lion was of course reserved at Pompey for a while if you wanted a more original look – and boat trip. Six inch & three inch but shame the waists were given over to Seacat in final guise, I thought at time.
The type 81s were frigates and the type 82s Destroyers the convention was a bit all over for the 8xs. I’m voting they be called frigoyers.
Bloody hell can’t believe I forgot the Tribals. You’re right 20’s are Frigates. 40’s are Destroyers and 80’s are Dunnos !
General purpose frigates, destroyers and sloops. The 30’s as a seperate type class appear to be new and fogging the waters somewhat.
Cheers CR
Yep and the waters are already foggy enough !
Don’t forget the type 41 leopard class frigates, so even the type 4xs has had both frigate and destroyers ( the type 41 was designated as an AAW frigate so all the 40s have been AAW ships. In in the same way as all the 20s were frigates ( but not all ASW frigates). what people forget is that in the late 40s and 50s the RN had three separate frigate roles: ASW: which was covered by the type 12, type12m, Type14 type 15, type16. ( these were all repurpose war built fleet destroyers turned into fast sub hunters) AAW:… Read more »
Great analysis as always. 👍
😁, if nothing else, confuse the hell out of your enemies.
The meanings of these words change so frequently that the only common threads are that Frigates tend to be fast, Destroyers tend to be escort ships, and Cruisers tend have a more operational independence.
Ab but the original WW2 Frigates where slower than the destroyers of the same period.
Actually frigates tended to be slower and destroyers faster…if you look at most RN frigates from the 50s and 60s they would only do around 24-27 knots. Destroyers had become replacements for cruisers…..then frigates focuses on GP ships that were good at ASW and destroyers were GP ships focused on AAW. That’s just for the RN…Germany and many other navies don’t even have destroyers…France very much goes on size lager escorts are destroyers and small (3000 tons ish) vessels are frigates.
And I think 30’s should be classed as either Sloops-of-War, or Corvettes.
Size never really came into it. Early Cruisers where smaller than Type 23 frigates. Early destroyers came in at well under 500t, it’s just always been an upwards trend.
Type 80’s are destroyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_82_destroyer
Historically yes. Classifications are a lot looser than generally realised. Best example is the first RN ironclad Warrior. When she was introduced she was by far the most powerfull ‘Battleship’ in the world but she was classed as a Frigate because she only had 1 gundeck. To be a ‘Line of Battle ship’ you had to have at least 2.
True, as I recall she also displaces more than HMS Glasgow… so… actually a Frigate in weight then? 😀
😂😂
True, but I read that their Lordships were also concerned about the effectiveness of iron as armour plating as it tended to shatter.
Fortunately the engineers knew this and used iron, oak, iron layers. The thicker outer iron layer provided the ‘harding’ to stop the shell punching through the hull, the oak layer provided toughness to stop the outer layer of iron shattering and the inner layer of iron prevented any splinters (oak or iron) from flying around the gun deck… Clever people engineers 😉
Cheers CR
But don’t forget the type 81s were second class frigates/sloops, so the 8xs are not really fixed.But then the type 41s were AAW frigates not destroyers. So all you can really say post war is that type 2xs have all been frigates, type 4xs were all AAW ships and the type 8x have varied from a second class frigate/sloop to cruiser sized ASW/AAW escort.
80’s are general purpose frigates, destroyers and sloops. However, the T31 appears to have introduced a new type classification for general purpose frigates.!? There have been two previous classes in the in the 80’s series. The T81 frigates (Tribal class) that were originally called sloops but were reclassified as firgates and of course HMS Bristol the only T82 destroyer. She was considered a general purpose because of the Ikara ASW weapon fitted forward. When the T83 was first announced there was speculation it would be a large light cruiser sized with lots of VLS and large mission bay. Mainly because… Read more »
It would be cheaper to build T32 and T83 as warships with a decent but limited mission bay and do full fat mission bay on RFA type ships.
Otherwise they become enormous and unaffordable to build.
Hi SB, I would agree to a point. It comes down to choices. If you try to do everything on one hull you end with a very limited number of huge all singing and dancing ships as you say. Not a good idea if you are depentent on long SLOC’s (sea lines of communication). So it all comes down to what you want the navy to do, how it can do it and what the conops are. There is then a whole load of complex trade off’s between capabilities and which ships get them and which ships don’t. It is… Read more »
Steel is cheap it is the cost of what you put in them that takes up the major part of the budget.
Oh and T42’s had a very respectable ASW capability too. with the SAM system able to take out surface vessels if need be. The T45 can’t do a fraction on or below water the T42 could.
Sea Dart had a limited surface to surface mode. However, it depended on the kinetic energy and the residual fuel as the effectors. The range wasn’t fantastic as Dart’s directors were not high enough, as it was AAW, for it to have much horizon. ASW, T42 was far from quiet. It did have a good, for its time, sonar. The problem is that modern subs are finitely quieter and acoustic tiles are infinitely better than they used to be. The cost of first of type if it was AAW and ASW would be eye watering. The R&D would be scary… Read more »
That might generate some interesting conversations in CIC, trying to envision it, “General quarters/Action stations, 1sr (or 2nd or 3rd rate) sub off the port bow!” Orders might range from proceed w/ attack at flank speed to abandon ship? 🤔 😳
I agree – however it is important to be realistic as to the limitations of passive hull mounted sonar.
I fear you are confusing the terms “general purpose” and “multi-purpose”. The RN does not.
“80’s are??” Destroyers! As we’ve already had the sole type 81 destroyer HMS Bristol in the 1970s.
Type 81 Tribal class Frigate.
Type 82 Bristol
Quite right, thanks David. That’s what I get for commenting in the not so early hours!
Read the thread it was Jonathan who reminded me of the Type 81’s. I’d forgotten them.
Pocket battleships!! 😀
Big pockets ! 😂😂
Well the Bristol was a type 82 Destroyer.
Destroyers. AAW has become so much more complex.
Like the through deck cruiser 😀
👍😄
I wouldn’t believe stories like that. Sounds like crew room banter.
Like through deck cruisers -> Invincibles?
Yes, that is a good example. But I don’t think anyone in government in charge of billion £ budgets is going to be fooled by that these days.. And the Sea Harrier came along long after the Invincible class design was fixed. They where designed to carry ASW helicopters only, hence the bad design of the aft lift position. But fortunately the Harrier could be squeezed on-board, and another fine British design came along with the ski ramp. British maritime aviation was saved once again.
It was different times when project management was about who you trusted over a long lunch.
Deals were done over a glass or ten in the club.
Same for Treasury deals. Loose rules.
And improvisation was the name of the game.
When you look back it was amazing what was achieved for the sums expended.
Although wether any of it would have fully worked when push came to shove was quite the question.
I think some of the tech back then was pretty questionable. Even the first Gulf War exposed how rubbish much of the kit was despite the overwhelming superiority of the allied forces.
I agree.
There was a lot of very old tech lingering. Some of which was really reheated WWII tech at its root.
Yeh, The Vulcan bombers had Lancaster bomb aiming tech throughout their careers. I kid you not..!
Kinda puts the Falkland Island raids into perspective…
Cheers CR
Indeed.
Provided absolute certainty that precision bombing wasn’t going to happen.
What I never understand was why, given laser kits were about in Corporate, Vulcan wasn’t radar guided by the T42 or T22 (which a good radar) into location and then dropped LGB’s onto sites lased by SF?
Using the Lancaster bomb aiming never made any sense to me at all.
I should also point out that the bombing run was guided by bombing radar but that was post war tech as well and the crews were pretty amazed when they could pick out Stanley habour and line up their flight path on the target – after that it was 1944…
Drew off the Argentinian Daggers at least.
Cheers CR
Sea Dart did OK if I recall by taking out Anti shipping missiles inflight, first to do so. As did Sea Skua missiles.
That was a pure hide the carrier from the treasury game as far as I understand it.
Yes, that is a good example. But I don’t think anyone in government in charge of billion £ budgets is going to be fooled by that these days.. And the Sea Harrier came along long after the Invincible class design was fixed. They where designed to carry ASW helicopters only, hence the bad design of the aft lift position. But fortunately the Harrier could be squeezed on-board, and another fine British design came along with the ski ramp. British maritime aviation was saved once again.
makes sense.i think we’re looking at the outline of the type 7.
There is a fine art to choosing a modest and unassuming name for projects to discourage officialdom from unwelcome meddling. If you excuse the Off Topic. Back in the 1990s the decision to build a new ‘state of the art’ group of telescopes on a mountain top in Chile was delayed for two years because the Scientists chose the unfortunate name – The ‘Very Large Telescope (VLT)’ project. This was a bad mistake. Unsurprisingly, the bureaucrats rejected the submission commenting that a ‘Very Large’ telescope sounded unnecessarily extravagant and could the boffins please submit revised costings for a ‘Large Telescope’… Read more »
Many thanks Max for taking the time to respond. The perfect analogy I think.
nothing surprises me
Pffft it’s WAY bigger than a cruiser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon-class_cruiser
When the T22 B3 first sailed into Guzz some wag onboard rolled down a canvas sheet with a C painted on it that covered the F on the pennant number.
Shortly there after the CO was invited for coffee ((negative coffee) in Nos 1s, medals and sword to discuss this jolly jape.
The RN does not do Cruisers.
5% wider 20% shorter than HMS Belfast though 60% of the displacement.
George has excelled himself whilst fighting off the ‘we were lied to’ mob.
Well when I was drunk last night I could only see 3 of Glasgow in the pictures.
😆😆😆
Just noticed this. Same day as Glasgow entered water evidently.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/12/latest-news-on-polands-miecznik-frigate-program/
Hi folks hope all is well.
Great to see and very impressive, even at this stage she does look grand indeed! I just hope the cuts that may happen will not be too harsh.
Just a bit off this article, can’t recall, are we now keeping army numbers the same with intention of an increase? I know we have covered this here a little while ago.
Cheers
George
Not sure. Everyting is up in the air again.
I am not too hopeful as Hunt and Sunak are bean counters it seems and bean counters have very short attention spans and little or no understanding of the negative impacts on long term costs or capabilities their actions have. Worse they are rarely if ever held to account for their actions.
Sorry to sound so negative, but as a techie I have been thinking about this week’s news over the last couple of days and my exasperation level and blood pressure have moved up a notch or two…
Cheers CR
Short attention spans indeed. Earlier this year Hunt was taking about increases and 3%. I understand that economic outlooks change but if they can’t predict a few months ahead they shouldn’t be running the country.
Far easier said then done.
Come on, Nicholas is right. We have some of the most short-sighted governments in the world. For a nation that had 100 year plans in the Victorian era, we have fallen damn far.
I can hear a few non UK contributors to this site clearing their throats right now.
Maybe so, but if you had to balance books and look at the whole economy, and all the demands for more cash across the entire country. It is no easy task. Not easy at all. Politicians are an easy target for criticism, but my word I wouldn’t want to take it on.
There’s many places they can make cuts and save billions. Yes, my first target would be the woeful waste in the NHS. I know from my professional life of one contract that covered a cluster of hospitals and it wasted £380m a year. Extend that over the nation and it’s £30bn billions a year. Rishi Sunak blew £14.3bn in pledges to Kenya, Pakistan & Ethiopia for ‘climate reparations’. Then, you could apply the whole £11.7bn being spaffed on account of the channel people. There, I have found at least £35bn a year towards our collective protection and building a better… Read more »
I think that kind of plucking figures off the top of your head isn’t going to get you very far. And if the cash was available, I doubt it would go on defence. I do believe the government would genuinely like to increase defence spending. But politics as at play, and the chancellor has to plug the gaps. And the NHS and education is always going to trump new Frigates ect, unless there is a direct military threat to the UK mainland, as frustrating as that might be. That is the reality. And we are still spending a huge amount… Read more »
We can all say just save this and the problem solved, if it was so easy dont you think it would be done? The second anyone touches the NHS regardless if its a good thing they are trying to do the opposition and press jump all over it and start making wild outlandish claims that they are trying to scrap it. Instead of criticising so easily maybes start to lay blame at the opposition too for preventing changes being made. The migrant issue is much more complex than just saying thats a saving, saying that does not stop people coming.… Read more »
Can anyone apply for ‘climate reparations? Exactly which form would one use? 😉
‘Channel people?’ Residents of Channel Islands or immigrants/refugees from European mainland? 🤔😳
And you aren’t. Might that be because you didn’t stand for Parliament in the first place? Politicians volunteer/fight for the role.
Brain surgery sounds difficult too, and I wouldn’t want to have to do that, so I’m not a brain surgeon. However I trust that anyone who is knows what they are doing. If only I could have the same level of trust in MPs.
it wouldn’t be any different with the victor meldrew of British politics pulling the strings
I have just posted this on the previous article but I need to post it again as I feel really cross about the delays to programmes – sorry guys; The delays to the T32 / T83 programmes are more of a disaster than most on here seem to realise as the delays are likely to run into the th 2030’s because Hunt has delayed quite a bit of his tax rises / cuts until after the next election – political common sense really. However, if it takes another three or four years to get the finances back into order we… Read more »
I’m not sure I am that comfortable going for a high end air warfare destroyer like T83. I think I would rather see the T26 evolve in to a more general purpose destroyer along the lines of the Burke able to conduct ASW and AAW. With so few high end platforms in the fleet in don’t think specialisation is sensible. Also nothing much has changed in radars since T45 came in to service. We don’t need some multi billion pound development project like we did with Horizon and SAMPSON. We need a update an refresh along the lines of SPY… Read more »
Hi Jim, Whilst I agree with most of your points I would suggest that a dual role ship similar to the USN AB’s is a high end ship and even if you evolve it from the current ASW T26 baseline it will require considerable design input which will inevitably impact on the detail design of systems and subsystems. In any event I don’t think there will be any extra ships for the RN ordered in a timely manner whether evolved or new designs. As I said in my initial post I think the earliest the finances are likely to be… Read more »
Cannot agree with you more @ChariotRider. Unless the current government changes it’s spending plans and the only way they will do that is pressure from their own MP’s. Nothing will change.
The world is changing fast and despite global governments lagging behind many companies, individuals and NGO’s are making changes. I am of course talking about climate change and the accelerating green movement. Oddly, the UK is doing better than most but our politicians still can’t make the final step and fully back a move into the green industrial revolution. It would be a huge opportunity if the government would only throw it weight behind it fully e.g. on shore wind instead of more North Sea gas, etc.. I also think we need to bail out of the race to the… Read more »
I suspect we will see more T31.
As T32 was never defined CF’s gong it for a T31+ is an easy option.
T31 is very cheap so it doesn’t make much of a dent in anyone’s wallet and is a very decent warship if it has VLS and a sonar added.
I have always thought the T32 would be at most a slightly evolved T31, perhaps with changes to the mission bay to reflect lessons learnt from the rapid development of autonomous vehicles. Nothing too major. As you say the addition of VLS and sonar and you have a very capable second tier frigate. Even if we only bought 3 more that would give the RN an escort fleet of 16 frigates and 6 destoyers by the middle of the 30’s. It would represent the first growth in fleet size since WW2. I’d take that as a starter for 10..! Cheers… Read more »
T32; what about an evolved R2….the BAE Leander which lost out to Arrowhead for T31?
it would be heartening to hear that a new shipbuilding operation elsewhere than the Clyyde was on the way
Other than the Type 31s in Rosyth (on the Forth) and the fleet solid support ships, primarily in Belfast, but also Devon, Spain, and fabrication on Lewis and the east coast Scotland. Apart from that, where else have we got shipbuilding? Well there’s Barrow for the nuclear submarine programmes (Astutes, Dreadnoughts and SSN(R)s planned, and Plymouth for the new autonomous submersible. Atlas UK have been building 30 or so workboats plus new autonomous minehunters; I think they are somewhere on the south coast. There’s maintenance and repair work for Lairds in Birkenhead, A&P Falmouth and on the Tyne, and for… Read more »
It’s is already in Belfast.
I don’t think the fully defunded yet just no further funds allocated. I said this on previous post T32 would now never see the light of day. I think we’re heading for a disaster in defence over the next five years. My predictions 1 carrier mothballed, no T32, Dreadnought cut by 1, Tempest cancelled. Aeralis cancelled. Of course everyone will argue due to Ukraine its different but we cancelled programmes like TSR2 at the height of the cold War in favour of social programmes so we have form as they say.
I seriously doubt either tempest being canceled or carrier being mothballed. The Indo pacific will be the key now Russia is finished. Good relationship with Japan is essential, tempest is safe if they are onboard. Mothballing a carrier also seems unlikely and won’t save much. Minus the air group it was only costing £70 million in 2010 prices a year to run a QE about the same as three T23’s. Japan is trying to go to 2% of GDP on defence which potentially gives then a massive budget and Tempest will be their main priority because of the industrial benefits.… Read more »
I agree on Tempest Bae’s future as a UK company probably depends on it. Secondly as you say one of the few fruits of global Britain is the Japanese alliance such a move would destroy that especially as engine and sensor cooperation is already going on in support of the Tempest/Fx project. From what I have heard they are trying to announce the next stage before the end of the year it having been delayed by UK and Japanese political events be it disposable Prime Ministers or assassinated former Prime Ministers. They will do everything to try to keep it… Read more »
I have just read an article on reuters that they have sources saying that by next week UK, Japan and Italy will be merging there future fighter programs. Would be interesting if its true. It also said Japan was aiming to have 5% gdp on defence by the end of the decade.
If they do go to 5% GDP they’ll rapidly become one of the most capable militaries on the planet and we’d definately benefit from hanging on to their coats tails.
As Spyinthe sky says Tempest is starting to look quite safe although I suspect Japan might end up leading the programme…
Cheers CR
They are currently at 1.2% and their budget deficit and debt load makes even Italy or the USA look good. 2% is their aspiration they won’t make it 5% would be impossible.
I saw that article in the Financial Times, are you sure it was on Reuters? I believe that the 5% is erroneous; no other sources have said this. Instead it may have been meant to say 5% of the national budget, which would be somewhere near 2% of GDP.
Here’s a link to the article, don’t know if it will be allowed thought.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/japan-britain-italy-announce-joint-fighter-project-early-next-week-sources-2022-12-02/
Sorry I read it wrong it was more speculation because of the current arms program that japan are doing. I am currently doing a 12 hour delivery shift so I just skimmed it.
It’s 2% in the other articles.
BAe future has been.in the US for quie some time. Its fairly irrelevant what’s signed with Japan. The Germans wanted to can there Eurofighter participation and the French have pulled out of projects with us several times. Australia just dumped the French in favour of the UK and US. History is littered with governments quiting on deals sign by their predecessors. We’ve got stagnant GDP and inflatiron which means 2% will.not go very far. The next election will see the main parties promising 10s of billions more for the NHS and Green energy. I just can’t see major programmes surviving.… Read more »
The Tempest contracts will be safe, the deal is about to be signed between UK, Japan, Italy and Sweden for the entire program. I know pre-contract notices will be issued soon after, for the area in which I work (software).
I expect the French thought that about their sub deal with Australia. Nothing new about governments pulling out of or wanting to change international deals there’s plenty of examples.
I hope it doesn’t happen but defence doesn’t look like the priority for either party.
bonking Boris should have kept his trap shut and not mentioned T32 in the first place, mind you, we’d have less to talk about. i don’t think it will even happen at all I’d be happy to see an order for more T31
Jesus, listening to you makes me want to pack my bags and emigrate to St Helena!
And I was being positive. The focus is currently energy and the NHS. I would recon there’s
About 50b that those 2 alone will soak up over the next 6-7 years. GDP isn’t growing and inflation will remain high through to 2024 which will sap the defence budget. It’ll still be 2%.
another reminder that originally we were to get the navy12 of these big b*ggers.
Hi Expat, I agree that they may not to be fully defunded as yet, but that just means the project will be delayed. It is the same old pattern, kick the can down the road and let someone else make the hard decision. However, the T32 is probably not the biggest issue as a batch 2 T31 could go someway to fill the gap. My big concern is with the T83. True there is no rush quite yet if you are only looking at the life span of the T45’s, but if the workload in the supply chain, including and… Read more »
I think we’re on the same page on this I’ve posted before that defence should be taken out of party politics and run against predetermined parameters or capabilities. 5 year political cycles don’t fit with long term objectives and planning that’s required with defence.
no provision for A VSTOL version of tempest could mean that the u.k carriers won’t be still technology current and in real terms less potent than they are with the F35b
agreed 👍
people often forget about the first true battleship was built in a year by Pompey dockyard and that was using rivet’s! the Clyde? 4 years to build a bach2 river? that’s a national disgrace, just not good enough for Britain and its shipbuilders industry, not just for the navy
Yes. One of the Majestics I think. Majestic or Magnificent?? I think it may have been the first ship built using electic lighting in the ship which speeded up the build.
Britannia certainly ruled the waves👌.
Here we go, little England’s back.
You know Dreadnaught was built so fast because the parts were taken from Lord Nelson class pre dreadnaughts that were under construction at the same time. It was a Fischer inspired gimmick.
Type 26 build rate is set by the speed the British government can afford to buy them not how fast the Clyde can work.
Yep the strategy is to keep core skills and allow yards to develop through sready stream of work. The shipbuilding strategy is just starting to look positive. We’ve got 3 yards investing in new facilities and equipment, that’s not happened for a very long time. Ironically Babcock being first to invest will run out of work first unless they secure an export or refocus on off shore energy. The latter being the most likely.
Yes but then to a certain extent we need the ability to fail to be present to keep yards on their toes and always looking for export work. In addition Rosyth has a lot of refit work both military and civilian to keep it going and their is also block building. Appledore has been written off more time than I can count and it’s still going with block work. Hopefully we get 5 more frigates built at Rosyth to keep the production line hot and there is still export potential like New Zealand. Beyond that there will be a lot… Read more »
Like T32, MRSS has no further funds allocated as I understand. Maybe there will be a reshuffle of FSS and Rosythe get some FSS work and H&W smaller yards get offshore work to compensate.
Keeping yards competive and wanting them to compete will depend who wins the next election.
Not yet but there will be at some point. The uk is not giving up on amphibious assault or MCM and current vessels won’t last forever. We still have orders for 7 more type 26 and 5 more T31 to hit the water so will be a while before yards are looking for work. FSSS just got ordered which was the only vital order and was years late.
Well … at least it floats!
(That’s a joke for those without a sense of humour!)
Yeah and not listing as someone joked a few days back.
How many months will fitting out take for ships 2 onwards?
6 years for Glasgow but subsequent ships should cut that time down as we learn in the process.
It’s a big ship… bigger than I thought they would be, as its classed as a Frigate.
Pride of the Clyde skill in building the Royal Navy fighting ships which will help to keep the shores around this island safe
May all ships being built sail the oceans of the world safely
Thankfully the navy will receive the ships they need , having be denied by funding and budget resructures.
i
Shame we’ll only have 8😎
It does seem odd when you create something on the scale and complexity of this ship that you build 8 then go on to something completely new. The US who are far more capable of affording new designs just keep updating for thirty years or more.
Yes that because when the US tried designing a new destroyer it ended up with Zumwalt. Flight III Burke was a secondary plan. We needed big modern designs to go beyond T23 and T42 but now we have them there is little need for anything new. T26 is already an amazing success with 30 planned. We should just keep rolling with it and add better radar for more general purpose design.
Problem with small classes is that R&D / first of class debugging cost dominate the headline numbers.
But then the class sizes are dominated by available crewing….
The bit I find interesting is the build costs of the 1st 3 vs the 2nd 5, the cost per ship has reduced. Which is a wee bit unusual as of late. IMHO what has made this uniquely possible is the R&D for the T26 is no longer spread over just 8 hulls, but 32 which also brings economies of scale to the power plants etc etc etc. If it was up to me, I’d scrap the T32, build 3 more T31 and 2 more T26. But I’d also talk to the Dutch, Belgiums and French regarding their new MCM… Read more »
You don’t actually have eight at all. But let’s keep hope alive!
Read his post “shame we’ll only have 8” which means he didn’t say we have 8, but we will have 8. Oh dear, your chip on your shoulder is also affecting your reading and comprehension. But any excuse for a jealous rant, eh.
It’s a highly risky strategy when you’re an island nation dependant on maritime trade. When you’ve got only 8 ASW specialist ships it is usually a good day if 5 or 6 are available, same with our 6 or 7 Astute H-K subs.
Type 26 in the water and the B-21 has been revealed. And pretty much on the same day.
Looks impressive!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63845082
Ghosty
That could very well end up being a Chinese copy!
Couldn’t see it… 😎
Sorry someone had to say it… 😛
I was talking about the hanger, was there something inside apart from the lights? 😂
Touche 😂😂
looks like a B2 so just development really! Also it’s 2022 why is it going to take 4+ years to fit out?
We’ve only seen the front profile. According to Northrop, it’s ready to start flying next year.
Sorry, timeline was meant for the T-26 not the B-21
Read the article there are a few indications of the differences.
And more can be found here. So far we have only seen the front profile!
https://theaviationist.com/2022/12/03/the-new-b-21-raider-stealth-bomber-has-just-been-unveiled/
Beautiful lines.
Great to see her afloat. Give a good impression of just how big she is.
Just a question – why do all Royal Navy escorts have the back of the main mast painted black?
Oh one more thing
George – thank you for the pictures and videos! Much appreciated!!!
Great to see ,all we need now is some T83s oh and a 3% budget and were laughing 🤗 🙏
Maybe it is timely to perhaps inject a dose of realism. HMS Glasgow will not enter into active surface for at least 3 years, until at least 2026. As it currently stands the RN has just TWO of its 6 Type 45 destroyers in active service. The navy did have 13 Type 23 frigates at one time but I understand it now only has 8 classed as active, of which only about 5 of these 8 are operational. But it isn’t just the numbers. Let’s not forget that nearly all of the RN’s vessels have had their Harpoons removed as… Read more »
Going to be fine looking ships. I served on the last “Shiny Sheff” (F96), would love to visit the new one (T26-05) one day for a comparison.
Be nice to see them side by side for a true comparison wouldn’t it. To my eye the T22 still looks more clean and modern than the T23, loved those ships when I was young.
The old saying if it looks right then it is right and god does she look good on the water.
Being ‘a local’ I couldn’t understand, if she was being brought back up river from Glenmallan (where she was lowered into the water), why the footage shows her being towed down river. Then I found this link, which explains it:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqN41BSV7Ts
Nice three point turn there!
Thanks CR
Glenmallan is over 26 miles as the crow flies from the Govan BAE yard she was built at. So why go that far simply to dive the barge & float Glasgow off?
I’m guessing that not only is the water deep enough in Loch Long (the Clyde itself and many parts of the Firth are too shallow), but there is the familiar territory of a naval facility there that’s tucked away off the main shipping lane(s) in case anything goes wrong(?).
Could well be so Davy. If both end up on the bottom at least the Clyde isn’t blocked. Ship launch glitches aren’t that rare.
She is a big handsome girl….
Australian Deputy PM/Defence Minister has announced her diary for next week and its interesting. On Tue/Wed she will be in Washington along with the Australian Foreign Minister and UK’s Ben Wallace for the first in-person AUKUS ministerial meeting since the initial announcement, agreeing the submarine plan is thought to be the main item on the agenda though allowing Japan to join AUKUS is likely to be discussed (Japan initially said in May they wernt interested but may have changed their mind) as well as hypersonic projects. After another set of bilateral talks with the US she will then travel to… Read more »
Would be an amazing week for British defence, Australia joins SSN (R) project and Japan joins team tempest.
Interesting point about Japan not being interested in the AUKUS.
They said the same about Tempest not so long ago and it now seems they are going to sign up to the programme, at least in part. Previously they stated they wanted to participate in the systems development and not the aircraft development. That might still be the case…
Cheers CR
The ChiComs will be very interested in the readouts for these meetings. May affect their timeline for aggression in SCS. 🤔😳
Great job George. So good to see her in the water at last.
Taken from a Canberra
👍
For a Frigate, she seems quite large will the Clyde be able too take the 83s if they get the go ahead but anyway great Drone shots George
The same yard built HMS Howe and Renown so a type 83 should not be too difficult.
Thanks Jim, it was just that when the Glasgow was out on BAEs slipway the Shed looked remarkably small I gather their planning permission was granted for when the 83s start as this class seems tonnage wise more like a Cruiser
New sheds are already planned deemed the frigate factory. Type 26 vessel 4 will be built in there. That the first if the new batch of 5 confirmed recently.
George has done some rendering on here that shows the plan
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-aim-to-construct-new-dry-dock-and-build-hall-in-glasgow/
I’m assuming any build will specifically be designed to accommodate Type 83 build as well.
Fingers crossed 🤞 Jim the 83s don’t go the way of the 82 type a class like the new 83s will complement the QE class on a Carrier task group just hope that no Toads Newts or Bats hold up the plans for the proposed Planning consent
Comparing the closed stern of the T26, with its predecessor, how is a towed array intended to be deployed from the new design?
There are doors on the stern for 2087 but I’m guessing these have been temporarily closed over when they were submerging her
Thanks Jim
I dread the next few years and that it will end in returning to feast or famine for warship construction.
I am surprised that George and the team haven’t released other important news, that has hit the headlines. Which was the first public unveiling of the World’s first 5th/6th generation aircraft, the Northrop Grumman B21 “Raider” bomber. Built on the back of 30 year’s development and operational service of the B2 Spirit. The B21 “should” be the next step in low observability, especially in the radar spectrum. The official photos that show only the front of the aircraft and where the rest is heavily shadowed. It does suggest a more wing blended body shape compared to the previous B2. So… Read more »
Regarding China and Russia the Xian H-20 will surely see the light of day,flight testing to begin next year,whereas the Tupolev PAK-DA exists, but with the current situation might not progress that far.
Yes, I was watching, not as much impact as the original B2 unveiling in 88 as the artists renderings had given a good idea what to expect. They kept the rear hidden then too.
First flight? Won’t it have flown at Groom already?
Not publicly. Northrop Grumman have said the first flight is due to take place in “early 2023”. So could be anytime this side of Xmas 2023.
Shows you how nebulous the term 5th/6th generation actually is, it originated out of a pr campaign to promote the Raptor and retrospectively applied to other and previous aircraft. One of the important aspects of both is put forward as Supercruise which doesn’t apply here. 6th Gen lasers are put forward as a distinguisher don’t think that applies her (as yet).This leaves stealth but that makes the B2 a 5th Gen aircraft as well (just a effectiveness issue to debate) so the sensors and computing power and it’s ability to interact far more seamlessly with external physical and digital assets… Read more »