A massive submersible barge that will be used to launch Type 26 Frigate HMS Glasgow was tested this week ahead of the upcoming launch of the new warship.
The massive submersible barge, one of the largest in Europe, will carry Type 26 Frigate HMS Glasgow down the river before ‘floating’ her off in the deep waters of Glen Mallan.
Working with our supplier @Malingroup, our teams across the Clyde are readying HMS Glasgow to roll on to her awaiting barge and enter the water for the first time later this year. It’s getting exciting around here! #BargeTests #GlobalCombatShip #historymakers pic.twitter.com/FrMe6lpSiZ
— BAE Systems Maritime (@BAES_Maritime) October 26, 2022
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”.
I went along to watch the barge arrive. Here’s the video.
The 137m long 'CD01', a semi-submersible barge operated by Malin Augustea, has arrived at the BAE shipyard in Govan. Type 26 Frigate HMS Glasgow will later be moved onto the barge which will then move to deep water before submerging and allowing HMs Glasgow to float off. pic.twitter.com/aZ5ALff8OJ
— George Allison (@geoallison) September 8, 2022
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.
Specifications (via MalinGroup.com)
With a length of 137 metres and deck area of 4,200 square meters, the barge brings “an enviable resource to the banks of the River Clyde”, say the owners.
- Length Overall: 137.0m
- Beam: 36.6m
- Depth: 7.6m
- Max draught: 5.8m
- Dwt on max draught: 21,806 tonnes
- Deck area: 4,200m2
- Frame spacing: 2,500mm
- Deck loading: 20 tonnes per sq meter
- Point loads: Up to 750 tonnes
Can you imagine the egg-on-face if the barge completely sunk with the frigate on it. I can only hope the frigate is sea worthy, and able to float on its own. 😂
She would have to be floatable in order to be floated off the barge?
That is the plan…..
Well that is the plan. Even if the barge did somehow sink it would probably be able to be raised as it’s not super deep water.
Would of loved to see the type 26 launched old style. Down the ramp clunking chains to slow it down. Crashing and banging into the Clyde.
Looks a pretty tight fit to get the barge in place….
“Frigate-carrying submersible barge tested in Glasgow.” The hyphen makes all the difference here as without it, I interpret the headline as HMS Glasgow carrying a submersible barge.
Hmmm…’CD01′ semi-submersible barge modified to accommodate T-26 class, but subsequently retained on the Clyde for “catalyzing further opportunities…in… shipbuilding…Does anyone sense the possible unseen hand of Mr. Wallace preparing to bring the D-83 program forward by a significant amount? 🤔
I would hope that you might be right, but I doubt it. You underestimate the influence of the civil service in this country, who are very happy to do their best to stifle any good ideas. And given the soap opera in Whitehall at the moment I doubt that programme will see the light of day for some time.
Yes, Hunt/Sunack combo could be a significant obstacle.
…Sunak ..🙄
Sunak isn’t anti defence as some have said on this site. He’s just realistic about the economic situation, and what budgets might be available. Its easy to say we are going to 3%. But finding the hard cash to get us there is another matter altogether. Especially when we are facing such a demanding cost of living situation and all government departments fighting for more cash.
Understood. Even a relatively token increase may prove valuable to signalling ultimate intent. 🤔
Hunt is pro defence and has supported increasing the budget massively in the past.
The issue is that twerp Truss and her idiot chancellor blew up the fiscal manoeuvring space that was there.
Perhaps if Wallace produces a thoughtful, judicious pathway to increasing forces?
You could re prioritise a lot of smaller purchases to have a lot of effect? Modernising M270 isn’t crazy money. Anti ship missiles are the sort of thing Orcs, Chinese and Iranians fear. Ordering 3 more T31 with Mk41 wouldn’t break the bank – that way there is a set of 8 which I was always told was the optimal magic number for training spares etc. Replacing T1 Typhoon with T4 isn’t the craziest at about £2Bn. As you say it is about stating intent without escalating things and also using existing infrastructure and training to the max to extract… Read more »
Thing is, it isn’t just about the purchase price of all this kit, it’s the operating costs. Buying 24 new Typhoons might not break the bank so to speak, but 20+ years of operating costs adds up to a big chunk of the budget.
I agree, but aren’t the costs through life costs these days?
Yes, but in the case of T1 to T4, believe SB was advocating a one for one replacement, no new net increase? Presumably, no huge delta in operational costs? 🤔
I’m not sure about the exact costs, but T1 is a very different aeroplane to later varients of the Typhoon. And T4 varients would different again from T2/3 and would require a whole new support package. If money is available, the RAF would rather order more F35B’s. The Typhoon fleet is undergoing a very expensive upgrade in the coming years with the Radar 2 AESA. And a whole host of very capable upgrades to the cockpit display, defensive aids, Striker 2 HMD ect. The combination of Typhoon and F35B working together will be a deadly capability. But money is being… Read more »
However you also save money. Example you have 100 Typhons to do a job over ten years. depending on how they get used by the end of the ten years either they will need major refits or are ready for the scrap yard. You have 120 Typhoons to do the same job with the same work load and you will get an extra few years out of them as they will not be worked as hard. The same with the Army if you have 75,000 troops to carry out world wide operations it means that they will spend a lot… Read more »
Perhaps not if ‘Longshanks’ opposes 😏
That would require speeding up the type 26 build. All current planning is based around the slow build time. Could be increased especially if the shed goes up in a timely manner. Biggest issue is probably budget.
That could be another piece of the puzzle.
And manpower?
Why the rush with T83 when T45 has plenty of life and upgradability left?
T31/T32 and more seems to be the direction of need?
We have a Gucci ASW and a Gucci AAW fleet so what we need is mid level mass with a decent missiles/radar/drone fit.
Yes the puzzle has many pieces. My response was in regards to bringing the T83 forward. As it will most likely be built on the Clyde the type 26 will need finished first. I agree that the best area for expansion is in cheaper frigates, patrol ships, RFA vessels, survey ships, motherships. Dream ideas would be helicopter carrier and aircraft for it. With emergency F35b landing spot (like ocean had for harrier). Also the north and south marine ships to be built/converted instead of converting Argus. I would try to have 3 of them 1 always on station, able to… Read more »
A thought that a common design effort w/ USN and RAN might prove beneficial for all parties, at least in terms of a hull form and propulsion system.
USN were never in the T26 sphere?
Because it takes 25 years from concept to service entry for a new class of ship! That’s certainly what the T45 took to replace the T42
With the MoD set to lose £2.5b a year in real terms due to inflation and Sunak & Hunt looking closely at all gov spending, don’t hold your breath on the T45 replacement. The Treasury will probaby want to see them all getting through the PIP first
🤔 Your assessment is probably correct. ☹️
You’d hope some preliminary T83 work has been started considering allies US and Italy seem to have their DDG/DDX designs finalised already. We wouldn’t want to behind by 10+ years with the T83. There’s always an option of upgrading 2-3 of the T31s to AAW variants of the A140 as an interim. They could be very handy for Europe/LRG Ops and free up the T45s.
Why?
We have 6 x T45 – spend the money on those as we have already got the radars and VLS on them.
Add Ceptor, as planned.
The Mk41 silos might be better on T31 which would make those heavy hitters anyway.
Hi SB, totally agree on fixing the T45s first, even adding more than 24 CAMM if they can, plus Mk41s. Pending on their completion schedule a couple of additional AAW T31s could help with regional/ coastal/littoral air defence freeing the T45s up for the more larger ops. Mk41 is good for a lot of things including ABM/BMD which in the current climate the capability couldn’t come soon enough and why not spread it across the fleet. I might be wrong on this but believe the CAN and RANs T26s will have some ABM/BMD ability. The “A140 frigate” website shows several… Read more »
I would even go to say put 48+ sea ceptor on the type 45. So 96+ missiles all together. As we see in Ukraine in the ship was in a hot zone to provide cover for any length of time the missiles will be used up very quickly.
Yes to a 48 CAMM fitout if possible. Maybe 12-24 on the hangar roof if they can’t/won’t squeeze more up the front. Wonder if they’ll ever fit Dragonfire if available too? And being totally greedy, squeeze in 1-2 MK41s. They’ve still got 10-15+ years of sea life to go so surely still a good investment and make a good lead up to the T83.
Save the Asters for the higher value targets.
For good or ill the RN is building the future surface fleet around 3 designs to fill 3 roles. AAW, ASW and GP. The RAN and to a lesser degree the RCN model might well be used in the future Type 83. I’m sure it could be done but i’m sceptical whether it should be done. The 45 and 26 hulls are very different because they’re optimised around different sensors and different tasks. The problems around the Hunter class (which do seem to be being resolved) seem to show at least to me that 2 different designs would be better… Read more »
It all comes back in two gig circles.
If a ship is too complex it gets very hard to manage the project and at least one element blows out.
If you have a single contractor who you don’t particularly trust then you keep it as simple as possible.
IRL the AUS requirement is totally different to ours and the CAN version may well never get built like that at all anyway.
Actually thought there was a risk reduction/conceptual design contract already let. Have been searching for evidence; may have confused that w/ SSN(R), a known effort.
So if this is the way forward why not convert the slipway to hard standing area, would give more space to move ships or blocks around to get them onto the barge. I know there will be a new cover hall but OPV sized vessels or block could still be built in the exist halls, can see why some extract space wouldn’t be useful.
I wonder how we ever managed to build a ship and simply put it into the water without all this huge expense of submergible barges ? Wrong people in wrong jobs .