Drone imagery shows the progress of a massive new ‘frigate factory’ in Glasgow.
The massive facility at Govan represents a huge boost in capability for UK naval shipbuilding.
The new ‘frigate factory’ will consist of more than 6,000 tonnes of steel and 20,000m3 of concrete. It will be able to fit two Type 26 Frigates side by side.
Recent drone shots show the rapid progress of the new 'frigate factory' at BAE Systems in Govan. pic.twitter.com/GNdbuURdkd
— George Allison (@geoallison) March 18, 2024
For the avoidance of doubt, the drone footage was obtained legally by a qualified person in adherence to UK drone legislation and guidance. In addition, the drone is insured, and a flight plan was submitted using drone safety software.
Below is how the site looked last year.
Work has started on a huge expansion of the BAE Systems yard at Govan, with excavators currently filling in the old 'wet basin' to make way for a huge new 'frigate factory'. Read more here: https://t.co/uBquNHihd9 pic.twitter.com/zsgdzkX9Lx
— UK Defence Journal (@UKDefJournal) February 14, 2023
I previously reported that planning permission had been granted for a huge new shipbuilding hall at the BAE Systems site in Govan, with work on the first ship to be built in the facility starting soon.
It is hoped that Type 26 ships 3 to 8 will be assembled in this facility, with the first two being assembled outdoors. HMS Glasgow is shown below when she was being put together on the hard standing, adjacent to the wet basin area after she was built in sections in the existing build hall and joined together.
The new build hall would allow ships to be built indoors, protecting them against the elements and would form part of an effort to modernise the yard.
In terms of dimensions, the shipbuilding hall will be approximately 81 metres wide, 170 metres long and 49 metres high to the building ridge line. This represents a massive expansion of capabilities and capacity at the yard, as let’s not forget, the original build hall will still be available for use.
yes…. ok…. we know about the Drone now thanks ….. 😂…. Seriously though…. This is great coverage and It’s also great to see the progress…. Will the 13000 ton T83’s fit in there though ?
13000 ton type 83….in your dreams Frank…we will be lucky to get something at 10,000 tones…I’m betting a modest 8000 tones.
The difference in cost between 10,000 and 14,000 tons hull is peanuts.
Hulls are cheap and systems expensive.
The issue is what the load out is and how long the tubes are etc. If it needs loads of 7+m strike tubes then it will be huge. That works in favour of a big high mounted radar.
Since when has “not penny pinching” ever been a thing supportive…the RN got its way with bigger for the T26..but it effectively battled for a decade and got them built a decade to late to win that one…chances are…..t31 another win..but now the navy is stacking them with capabilities…( just like they planned)…not sure the treasury will give in next time.
The new BAE plates line should help get costs down as there is less expensive labour involved.
The irony would have been that RAN T26 would have been modern build methods compared to RN….
Reduce the F-35 order and invite Saudi Arabia to join Tempest and you have more money to play with.
I’m not sure it’s wise to b reducing any present programmes for what is essentially jam in 2 decades..the unfortunate truth is we are not fighting the next major war with tempest and T83 we will likely instead be fighting a world war with F35 and T45.
Internal Volume needed for VLS tubes is a massive drive on ships size and displacement They take up valuable internal space/volume over multiple decks usually down the centre line in the places where you really want to be able to put other stuff.
The USN recognised the issue with ABs and went for MK 57 down the outside edge of the vessel on its Zumwalt’s. A future RN destroyer may consider this as well.
Indeed.
But not all flavours of missile go into Mk57?
Sea Ceptor etc are shorter so can fill the void volume to the sides of strike VLS.
Although it will make the passageway layouts rather hard!
We should seriously start looking at history… Big is not sinonimous of better…
We used bloody grain ships to defeat the u. boats.. I would prefer less tonnage but more ships as we call ourselves a global power.
Bigger ships is better for the modern navy, for one its better for the crew, larger accommodations with more facilities are vital.
And survivability as well as reloads…
What makes you think that by the time we get round to it, technology will not have moved on ? The US is getting massively into distributed capabilities and system of systems. Build big and we can afford fewer ships and even with increased automation you need a bigger crew, also one big target.
Whereas a ship like the T45 has the space and power to control other assets distributed around other smaller nodal vessels.
One great regret the RN must have is cancelling CEC compatibility for the T45, I know a lot can be done via the link systems but full CEC is in a different league.
Just think 1 ship with some SAM missiles but heavy on Radar, C2C, EW and DE weapons controlling 4/5 smaller ships with extra distributed sensors but each tailored for ASW, AD or Surface war fighting. All controlled by one ship, which has access to the sensors of all the ships, F35, AEW, Drones or Satellites.
Seems unlikely. With the few hull numbers we have we need full warships capable of doing more than just their combat role.
Plus autonomous combat platforms are still a long way off, the US Navy has pushed their project back.
It’s a real two fold problem. Firstly Ai is progressing at such a rate that it is practically impossible to design a platform now that will still be strictly relevant within the decade it will take to launch whatever decisions one sets in steel now. Fact is we are at the point Turing predicted would actually happen by 2000 in that Ai can write code superior to humans and thus ultimately can create a next version superior to itself. Presently no one knows the implications of this and what pushback will occur. AGI is now being predicted to be announced as soon as this year and indeed due to public fears it’s argued it may already exist in the labs or soon will be, but withheld or simply obscured so as not to alarm the regulatory authorities, public and in the case of OpenAi the major effects upon its contract with major sponsor Microsoft.
Secondly of course there is the legal restrictions and international conventions upon ai in the battle space. I would suspect therefore superficially conventional solutions will remain the norm for some years while trying to include as much modular design in retaining maximum flexibility for whatever the future throws their way. The old designed for but not with concept is likely to take on a whole new level of complexity with that combo of available budgets against technical desirability ever more in conflict. At this stage I suspect a larger platform than present will evolve for that need to be ready for anything that evolves but I don’t see that going much beyond 10,000 tons as size will in itself be problematical in terms of survivability. But like throwing mud at a wall presently.
Aren’t battle carriers the up and coming thing? Why not convert QEC 🙂
Who mentioned Autonomous ? I didn’t and in Blue Water Surface ships I don’t see it happening. Lean manning is necessary for Maintenance, RAS, ship handling, DC etc etc.
But imagine this a T45 sized ship, networked to 4/6 ships of 3/3.5 K tons all centrally controlled but heavily armed.
For example if you look at the LCS2 design but without the hanger or flight deck, just think how many VLS could be accommodated in the area occupied by the Mission bay. As for crew comfort it operates with a crew of just 40.
The US has parked its Autonomous ideas but are quite busily seeing what exactly they can do with CEC and the LCS2 is part of that.
You’re saying the arsenal vessels would have a crew? But anyway, the problem is even if these hulls skipped on sensors and larger crews and focused on just carrying weapons and equipment around, they’re still going to cost as much as a small frigate, while not being able to do anything other than follow the lead destroyer around, and the number of lead destroyers will inevitably be reduced
The fact the program is called T83 suggests more investment into a large do all platform than a distributed platform
CEC was in a lot of ways a way for the USN to use its then semi active homing SM2s of which it has a metric S**t tonne to engage and be controlled by other units. The RN going for Active homing missiles reduced the need for it. Compare a T45 to a block 3 AB…no trackers required on a T45.
New Link systems such as L16 and especially L22 give any ship a massive situational awareness. L22 is a massive step up for the old L11. It uses better waveforms and bandwidth, auto corelation (Thank God!) super mesh networks and once set up there is no single point of failure. Lose a node and another unit automatically takes up the load. Using other units link data to shoot at a target and then let the missile do the hard part, homing and hitting the target, is a way better way of doing it.
Completely agree and yep the US CEC was a product of the US and their obsession with the SM missile series.
In fact once the dust settles I’d love to see the KIll ratio of SM2, ESSM, Aster and CAMM (we can all dream).
But they aren’t the only folks with a CEC in operational use, have a look at India theirs uses the BARAK 8 active homing missile.
I do think that Netcentric is the way to go, distributed weapons over multiple platforms and systems has a lot of advantages over the “one big Cruiser” some seem fixated on. I’m replying to Frank and I’d appreciate your comments on it.
“I’d love to see the KIll ratio of SM2, ESSM, Aster and CAMM (we can all dream).”
Some of the more jingoistic type might be disappointed if we ever saw those figures and hopefully the tired myth of a one shot/one kill missile might finally die. Look at the video released by the mod of the hms Richmond taking out the houthie drones and although the video is a little confusing, it does appear that multiple interceptors are fired per target, as is the practice of the usn that is often derided on these boards.
I had this same discussion with Supportive Bloke about CEC a few weeks ago and the way you all are describing it as little more than a data link is simply not the case. There is a great publicly available document from the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory that goes into great detail about data fusion and all the other things that it does. Think of it in terms of the much heralded data fusion of the sensors on the F-35 and then think of it across multiple dispersed platforms on the surface, air and even on land and you get a better idea of what CEC is. I can’t post the link here as my post might get removed but it’s pretty easy to find via google. In any case the USN is now working on NIFC-CA which can be thought of as a next gen CEC.
“What makes you think that by the time we get round to it, technology will not have moved on” ?
How the Dickens did you come up with that after reading what I wrote ?
Seriously mate, you create arguments out of thin air……
My actual comment was based on the history of RN ships being designed larger than their Predecessors….. It’s also based upon the current trend in Navy’s all around the World… China’s Type 055 is an example….11-13000 tns, 180 metres long.
It’s also based on the fact the Frigate Factory is just long enough for the 5 remaining T26’s and what comes next after them ?
Firstly its not my argument nore one I made up out of “out of thin air” ! It’s based on the work presently being done be the “Royal Navy Development Directorate” who are working on “The Navy after Next”. The present RN build strategy for the Next Navy is mature and in build, but given those advances in tech they are thinking 15/20 years ahead.
And its precisely Technology moving on that is driving their thought processes to think Out of the Box. Unlike yours which just assumes that because we have been building bigger for the last 30 years we will continue to do so. You aren’t on your own the Germans and Italians are both building bigger Destroyers but we are looking at the generation after that.
One of the 1st concrete glimpses of how their thoughts are going is “Project Atlantis” which concentrates on ASW and Sub Surface warfare. Its a distributed Sytem of Systems which is Netcentric rather than Platform Centric. You may want to look that up, its rather interesting.
As for the upward curve in RN ship sizes since the 1960’s you have to understand the driving factors which drove that and why it is less likely in future.
If you are really interested I’d strongly suggest you read some of the works written by the late D K Brown RCNC, it really explains why it happened and hints at why it may not do so in future.
Size increased due to 5 main factors.
For the future I actually don’t look at the Chinese as a very good indicator of the future need for a larger ship for the RN in 15/20 years time.
I see a young inexperienced Navy that doesn’t have manning issues (yet) and sees Bigger as being better and far more impressive. In many ways its a reflection of yesterdays thinking, whereas the US DMO isn’t.
I think that the RN are at the top of the curve size wise and it will either stay the same or may actually decrease and I’ll explain why.
Computer Power continues to grow whilst size and coolant needs decrease. So less internal Volume but more Electrical Power is required (new generation MT will provide that and for DE weapons as well).
Compare an older generation command guidance missile system such as Seawolf, Sea Dart or the US Standards with Active guidance CAMM or Aster. The latter are smaller, lighter and take up less volume (so more can be packed in) they require far less Guidance and may well have a higher hit rate and be easier to control against multiple targets.
So simpler VLS Launchers, less superstructure clutter and less weight up top. For example take a look at a photo of an early Seawolf equiped T23 and the same ship with Sea Ceptor, the old 911’s and their baffles are all gone from the bridge and hanger roof. Whats more the space assigned to the Sea Wolf VLS could hold far more CAMM than fitted but they just reused the existing ones instead.
Command spaces well if you look at any old Photos of a T42 it was cluttered, cramped, full of cabinets and CRT so needed volume. But nowadays and due to miniturisation, LCD displays, multiuse consoles etc, that is now decreasing. Some consoles can actually be distributed around the ship for extra resilience.
Automation also means a smaller crew so less crew space is required (FYI a Chinese T55D has a crew of over 300 which is similar to a 1980’s US Tico cruiser).
ASW UAV are smaller and lighter than manned Helicopters and use a smaller flight deck and hanger, so again less hull size may be required (I think they will keep manned but with UAV as well).
Infrastructure and Maintenance. You would need a bigger build hall and that may well mean building elsewhere than Govan. The old refit complex at Devonport would be useless (it can’t accomodate the T45 nor T26). So again more money needs to be found.
Just remember 15/20 years in the future and lots can change.
Just think that 10 years ago would we ever seriously thought that there was any possibility of the USA becoming a family run Dictatorship ?
TLDR….. You certainly like to create an argument out of thin air though… I feel your pain, it must be horrible carrying the weight of your Ego on just the one chipped Shoulder. 🙄…. Loving this place today, more Karens than you can shake a stick at….
Forgive my ignorance, whats CEC?
So in theory once the new shed is open the site could be building 4 ships at a time…..so there could be a few years shaved off the commission time of the second order batch of T26 frigates…if HMG really wanted to speed things up a bit.
Its really inefficient building them in the current sheds, plus you’d have to massively expand the work force which wouldn’t be worth it when the smaller T83 order comes up.
Indeed in normal times that would be the case..but our enemies have moved their economies to or close to wartime production ( china may well be putting close to 20% of its very large GDP into defence…Russia we know is in the 40% mark)…at some point the western democracies may just open their eyes and realise they are being out produced by states that consider us to be the enemy and decide that crash programmes are in-fact needed and that some time in 3035 is not really useful if your enemy may decide to go to war with you on or before 2030…..we may just find ourselves in the awfulness that we are not building replacements for decommissioned ships at a slow rate but crash replacements for war losses in a war that may or may not finish cleanly.
We can’t permanently go round on a war footing economy or industry scaled for war time production. The Soviets tried this, did not work out well for them.
Also really f**ks up places like Glasgow and Belfast if their principal industrial sector keeps going boom and bust.
Naval strategy is build strategy. War time construction is negligible outside of minor war vesells.
Ummm …er…it may depend on the type of conflict. Orcs are in transition to wartime production; if UKR conflict lasts, may observe significant naval construction. Of course, if a conventional conflict escalates…
Yes but Orcs can’t build ships 😀
Orcs war time economy is likely to be fairly pathetic as well in terms of anything outside of artillery and very basic weapon systems.
They are reduced to making most complicated systems like aircraft by hand.
It’s just hard to see them ever having a capability to ramp anything up compared to western economies.
Chin Comms are a different story, however China is about to find out what happens when you quickly ramp up a navy from nothing. The maintenance bill will soon be coming for their new fleet and it’s likely to be epic. The bill will come due just at the same time their population and economy begins falling off a cliff. Also they can knock out surface ships at a rate if naughts but their nuclear submarine building capability is little more than the UK’s. They pale in comparison to the USA at present.
Great power competition is littered with the remains of nations and empires who went on rapid military spending sprees they could not afford and lost to powers with a more sustainable spending position. Nazi Germany, The Japanese Empire and the Soviet Union all being prime examples.
The Red Army (and state) were universally derided for performance during the initial phases of Operation Barbarossa; it was absolutely not the case during the seige of Berlin. To summarize: Orcs (and Velociraptors) learn (and adapt).
Believe it is a corollary of Murphy’s Law of War: Always dangerous to underestimate an adversary, until completely vanquished.
Not so sure about that one, China seems to be adopting the Japanese build, use, replace strategy with a life of 15/20 years.
It avoids the cost of expensive upgrades, refits or Lifex and keeps the industrial base churning them out.
It’s exactly what the RN wanted to do with the T23, built for just an 18 year life and then to be replaced, difference is they actually do it.
Small fact each T23 cost £130 million to build, but all the refits, Lifex, upgrades etc all add up to 3 to 4 times that amount.
Japan has a superb fleet of 22 modern submarines all built in this century and is busily replacing them 1 for 1 and scrapping the old ones.
All very true.
I think China is still learning (stealing IP) so by having shorter service life they can have newer designed coming in sooner.
History shows what the Russians can achieve…. you might want to read up about it.🤔
Not sure the UK isnt one of those Powers btw. Two Worlds Wars in short time was bad news but the losses in skilled manpower was very bad nationally.
It sort of depends….the Chinese are planning out a long term..long war conflict approach..and we are going to be the recipients of that love…
Simply put if we know it’s coming at some point we have to react…the question is very much when…is it:
1) well before the war to try and build a massive level of deterrence using the paradigm it does not matter how much we spend if we can stop a world war before it starts.. as a world wars going to cost us everything and even if we win it will be a pyrrhic victory that will have burnt trillions of pounds and many 100,000 lives.
2) sudden re-arm when we know a world war is inevitable…accepting that even if we win it will burn our economies to the ground. In this paradigm we save money hoping it will not happen..an hope we can re-arm in time to win.
3) only start re-arming when we are in a world war…in this particular paradigm we accept the risk is we loss….to spend less on preparations.
I see it all a bit differently Jim, I’m no longer really analysing defence from the point of view of a steady ship..and maintaining a low readiness state…I now consider the world at a point we have a very small window to really try for number one and do a crash re-armament to try and get a deterrent to work, because on out present trajectory we will be at war with china and Russia within the decade and possibly as close as 2027…and if we leave it a few more years the cost is ruin..( even if we won we would loss).
as for boom bust the reality us our escort fleet should be at around 24-29 in peace time no threat world…we are no longer in that world..Simple’s put if we were actually graduating our response to threat we should be spending 4-5% of GDP…if you consider our Cold War spend was up to 6% GDP…we are living a a fairy land created by “the end of history and last man” a geopolitical paradigm that our political classes swallowed hook line and sinker..out 2% just tick along defence approach was all based on that ( we needed a very low level of defence as the whole worlds going to fall in love with western liberal democracy and sing “Kum ba yah”)…
in reality we are in a pre war world where are geopolitical enemies ( and russian, China, Iran and North Korea are sworn enemies who are seeking to destroy the present western order) and at some point our defence expenditure and production of all arms will likely need to go through the roof…as I pointed out china is likely burning 20% of its GDP and Russia 40%…as you pointed out that cannot be sustained so it can only end in one way…conflict…china is massively hitting its future by preparing for war it’s not going to back away or back down unless we make it clear it will loss catastrophically and cannot win..because at the moment it thinks it probably would win.
You certainly have a point, Germany as Russia is now supported its economy through massive armament production but that was unsustainable so the only answer was to use it to acquire new territories it could milk while keeping potential discontent in its population drowned in nationalistic fervour. China is a little less predictable as its economy though travelling away from its former reliance is still very reliant on Western consumer demand for growth and economic prosperity. It’s why its actions with Russia are despite the ‘unlimited’ alliance is very careful not to get directly involved. But yes conflict still seems inevitable there if the scale and timing is up in the air with Taiwan the inevitable test. Beyond that its economic domination they want making the World totally reliant on them and using military might as an intimidatory leg of that and to defend against those who may physically threaten that policy. The big fly in the ointment is the natural distrust bordering upon fear and hatred between China and Russia, my enemies enemy is my friend but either could seriously threaten the other’s power base and that will inevitably cause distrust even as they strive to ‘break’ the West.
China’s compete lack of natural resources and inability to feed itself without massive imports also being a big issue for them. If China goes to war with the USA 600 million Chinese will be dead of starvation with in 1 year.
China has been stockpiling vast amounts of food including 69% of the globe’s corn reserves, 60% of its rice, and 51% of its wheat. It can feed its population for a few years….once you get down to what china is doing you realise it’s going through every possible weakness and mitigating that as a route of attack….
Really ? They have the vast majority of the planets Rare Earth Minerals in China, without those modern electronics can’t be manufactured. The West is busily trying to locate their own supplies.
Is there a special Comic book you get delivered weekly, that contains all this info you share on here ?
This one statement has no factual basis whatsoever…. “No Natural Resources” Really ? Seriously ?
600 million Chinese will be dead of starvation within 1 year ????
I so much look forward to reading your stuff, 😂
Anyone spending 20% of GDP on defence will very quickly bankrupt themselves communist state or not.
Yes they will but it would take a significant number of years….that’s what happened to the USSR but it took decades…the third Reich had massively increased spending of 10%-20% GDP on defence from 1936…china could quite easily maintain spending at that level for a good number of years….but generally nations that do this either have a plan and road towards war or fall over….betting that china will go bankrupt before it goes to war…is not a great gamble..it is after all a vast economy.
Nazi Germany would have gone bankrupt in 1939 or 1940 though if they hadn’t annexed and seized various territories and gold reserves such as Austria’s and Czechslovakia’s in ’38/’39, more than 10% in unsustainable and will quickly lead to relative economic decline.
the Soviet Union spent an average of 17% gdp for 2 decades before hitting bankruptcy….but to contain that the west was spending an average of 6.5% and its political will was lazer focused on conflict with not an inch of give…to the extent even when the soviets had military advantage they backed away from conflict…we are now trying to contain a nation with a far higher GDP than the soviets, a far better and healthier economy, with world wide access to markets that we no longer control in the same way, with us spend of only 2% GDP and showing almost no will at all…..every bit of history says that we need to be spending upwards of 6% GDP ( 4-5% would be responsible) and showing appsolute will at every opportunity.
There’s no way we can spend that much without a massive shake up. 53% of the population get more out of the system than they put in and thats increasing. You tax the rich more yep but most of them don’t make money from the UK, they make it globally and even with a sniff of war breaking out those funds will dry up. Even if we could solve the financial part, we don’t have enough engineers or skilled workers. The ones we do have we want to throw at net zero projects. We don’t have enough houses, schools hospitals roads etc for migration and we’re now seeing that migration isn’t growing GDP per capita. We need to seriously look at the resources we have use them better, getting many of them off the bench, out of non value add jobs or commit to emerging technologies like driverless vehicles and get the workers it frees up into defence jobs and lastly get the unions to actually take changes in working practices to make sectors more efficient to free up workers to move into defence(put it another way stop fighting a politcal class war and instead focus on national security instead).
Or we commit a cardinal sin and buy foreign. But we already have a balance of payment problem so we’d need to address commercial sector exports of goods and services first. Which involve another permutation of the above.
Its easy to say just spend more but even a rather superficial analysis shows how challenging the problem is. Attitude to change in the UK is very poor and getting worse so politicians will tinker around the edges rather than take on the challenge.
In reality I think there is scope for significant increases defence spending..in reality you can use it as a fiscal stimulus…at least short to medium term ( the Nazis used it that way) long term it will create drag as you move from capital investment to ongoing costs ( as happened to the Soviet Union)..id there was a will we could find an extra 20billion..it would hurt but we could find it..after all the winter fuel allowance is 2.1billion and child benfits cost 15.5 billion..just those two universal benefits would pay for a 3.5% defence budge…( I hate universal benefits..benefits should only go to the poor).
Our politicos are all non-starters on defence it seems. The terrible duo of Sunak and Hunt worry me in their complacency. I haven’t even dared think what Labour might do.
To an extent it doesn’t matter how much you have going into a conflict, if the other side believes it can out match you in production then the deterrence won’t work.
Germany had masses of equipment but never actually recovered from tank losses early in the war. US had almost no credible tanks but with the UK was soon out producing Germany with its outdated manufacturing techniques
Ultimately the US and Europe with countries like Japan and South Korea combined can still out produce China, Russia, NK and Iran. But there’s alarm bells, we’re abandoning allies like Saudi/UAE who are starting to realign becoming more integrated into Russia and China’s supply chains. Trump will perhaps turn this around for the US but UK and EU, the relationship looks like it will steadily deteriorate pushing them further away and closer to potential enemies.
The biggest threat we have is political Trump threatening to pull out of NATO and UK/EU giving him the political ammunition to justify it. If UK and the EU are not going to fight alongside the US in the pacific were offering zero deterrence to China and NK, so size of our armed forces is irrelevant as a deterrent. And we are definitely going in that direction where we’re saying if its not in our backyard forget it.
If NATO breaks down then so does the ability to out produce the enemy, united we stand divided we fall.
re deterrent… it’s multi faceted, but most serous analysts believe that a big part of why china thinks it can win is will..it thinks we have essentially already lost the will to fight a long global conflict….if the west can show appsolute commitment to fighting and winning a war..it’s very possible china may back away..you can only show will by massive investment in all facets of a future conflict…that includes a commitment to putting hulls in the water quickly…the sad truth is 2035 is probably completely irrelevant if our navies and economies are shattered in war in the 2027-2030 period..unfortunately steady is not what we need in a pre war situation.
The problem the Reich had ( apart from being evil nutters) was it’s enemies had greater overall production capacity…it was alway fighting an uphill battle the fact it came as close as it did and lost because of some major geostrategic errors ( invading Russia) shows that preloading your economy into a wartime economy before your enemy can overcome significant disadvantages in total economic and industrial output …unfortunately we are now in the same position…but on top of our enemies preload into a wartime economy also has overmatched in a number of industrial areas…as an example china has 51+% of the worlds total ship building capacity and growing…around another 30+% lives in neutral states..the west itself has minuscule capacity to convert over to military production..( china has 240 times the ship building capacity of the U.S.)…where as chinas is huge and its already pre build in switches into all its civilian capacity.
Then you add in the fact we are actually running a deficit in military hull production. it’s going to take a decade at this rate just to get to a steady state to replace losses due to planned out of service and we are running our ships until the hull plating and keels root out.
All of this means if we went to war…with china..china will be able to replace lost hulls at a meaningful rate ( it can but 10+ escorts into the water a year) and we ( as in the west) are completely incapable of regenerating our losses within a generation..and most analysts of any western pacific campaign shows that neither china or the west are getting much of their navies back if it kicks off..so regenerating over a 5 year period will probably be the win or loss decider…
Dont agree with war production being minor warships. Agreed we pulled production of battleships but we were churning out Colossus class 14000t and Africa 35000t carriers etc right to the end. Also most of the Colony and Dido class cruisers were war or emergency pre war build.
We do need another yard in England though for lighter craft.
…”some time in 3035″… Commentary on pace of government action, or keystroke error? If the former, hilarious, yet simultaneously, poignantly saddening. 🤔😂😱
I remember someone saying “in times of peace prepare for war ‘…. Never understood it though 😁
Can’t prepare for war in times of war can you.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. 👍
If you build big fleets or volumes of any military kit you have to pay the up keep. What we need is the ability to ramp up, so factories that can switch from a commercial product to a defence product.
And I agree with Jim, best to build slow and have something in production for equipment that can’t come from switching commercial production. Its easier to build more of something that’s in production than start fresh. Although there are historic examples like liberty ships which do buck that trend, but we are devoid of the industrial titan mindset in the UK that could make that happen.
Diverse supply chain. We actually succeeded in maintaining production in WW2 because we were a trading nation that imported/exported. So those who want everything to come from domestic supplies, well history proves that having varied supply chain is far more resilient.
Lastly energy security, not energy market security which is what the current political class mean when they talk about energy security. Physical energy security is different, portable energy sources so we could import if needed, not over dependence on one form and sources of power that can easily be physically protected. We’re doing very little to tick any of those boxes.
I do t think so.
Sub blocks on the new plate lines.
Block built into mega blocks in the existing build sheds
Mega blocks put together in the new build sheds.
The new automated plate lines will mean the previous skills are used where needed.
Also BAE are launching a skills academy – must be training for something?
No yeh they’ll probably still use them for some work. But they won’t be building 2 in the main shed and doing the same halfsies construction in the old ones.
I think you may find that is more to do with the Demographics of the ageing workforce, than future projects in the pipeline.
Its the same at BAe up at Barrow and here on Raynesway in Derby, it wasn’t only capabilities that were lost (Heavy AFV & Guns etc) but few or no Apprentices were recruited or trained.
All those delayed, reduced or cancelled Defence projects in the 00’s ripped an entire generation of skilled workers out of the workforce. Whats left is getting old, retiring or just not as fast thay used to be (I’m one of retired ones).
Could well be demographics as well.
Also the lack of any skilled and qualified recruits from any parallel industry…..
Well that sort of depends on how you define “the site could be building” ! Sorry to pedantic but in the broadest sense of the word if building starts with the 1st steel being officially cut then at present there are 3 being built at Govan. The problem is that if you accelerate the build process without further orders you run out of work.
the running out of work would be true normally but the reality of our escort fleet is that we have a deficit so we can afford to accelerate and then go to a steady state…the problem we have had is that the fleet has not been in a steady state..it was declining..which lead to a massive decrease in capacity…but it did not decline to a steady state it declined below what we needed for peacetime…we are now in a pre war time and so actually need a very significant number of hulls build to get to a steady state…we in reality need to get to a state close to a fleet in the high 20s…which means we need a massive surge in capacity if we are to achieve a steady state in the same timeframe as the threat picture…basically we are in a period of redefining paradigms..and that means if we don’t think outside what we have now we are in deed trouble…the reality of war with china in 5 years could see a huge amount of western navel vessels sunk and needed replacement in a very short timescale…so we have the three major drivers
1) present recapitalisation to get the fleet to a steady peacetime state of 19 to 24 is beyond our present capacity..which is why we are investing.
2) we are actually entering a pre war state in which even an aspiration peacetime fleet 19-24 is woefully inadequate and will need to be increases.
3) if we do enter a wartime state( which is now a “likely” outcome) with an anti western block it will likely last for a few years and lead to the need for a massive recapitalisation at very high speed to rebuild from losses and then manage any post treaty re-armament.
so if we can shave a few years of the T26 first two batches by having 4 being build at a time we should consider that as a viable option…even with that and no war we would still have a tone of work for the 2030s…the RN needs a lot of ships built..due to 2 decades of neglect.
George is there any chance of reposting the 1:200/250 elevation plans from the original Feb 23 post. They just appear as blanks, they give a better perspective of layout etc.
Pretty Please 😉
Brilliant! Hope the efficiency gains mean UK ships can be done more cheaply and exports can be done in future.
Good. Moving ahead.
That’s a huge ‘dance floor’.
It looks a bit like a basket with all our eggs together if you ask me.. The yanks had this idea at pearl Harbour.
We would see the enemy coming along longer before they could get into range
More ships were sunk at Darwin than Pearl Harbour.
You ever been to Newport News ?
Does make you wonder, what would the situation be like, if the Government hadn’t been dithering 10 years ago? Whereby BAe would then have decided to build the Frigate factory earlier. Would we have seen the T26 being built earlier, perhaps coming into service earlier and then standing a chance to compete in the USN future frigate competition won by the FREMM?
Hindsight is generally 20/20. HMG ‘shell shocked’ by the events of 2008, which resulted in the disastrous 2010 SDR. However, believe you are correct that T-26 would have prevailed in an open competition. History, replete w/ missed opportunities. ☹️
I wouldn’t call T26 winning a certainty, especially with Fincatieri already having an established US shipyard
Unfortunately, we will never know. (Have always been an advocate of full and open competition, whenever and wherever possible.)
Yes but it’s product was the LCS1 😫
LCS was no Fincantieri creation, it only bought the Marinette shipyard after.
BAE wanted the government to pay for its frigate factory. Then Babcock started building frigates in a frigate factory it built its self and BAE miraculously found the money to build its own.
Giving BAE a monopoly on UK ship building was a disaster, we are in a much better place now.
Tbf what was the incentive to build a factory with a small and low order. Though the competition with babcock helps.
The order value for the first 3 T26 was much higher than 5 T31. So really we must ask why did it take BAe so long to commit when a competitor did it off of an order with a fraction of the value.
Heard various stories around this, another view being that Bae wanted orders to want to commit to the factory, the delays and unpredictability scuppering it. I suspect as usual it’s somewhere between the two. Either way cost us seriously now.
Absolutely true ! BAe felt completely and repeatedly shafted by MOD and wasn’t prepared to invest in the Frigate Factory at Scotstoun based on a firm order of only 3 ships.
Astute 12 to 8 and only 7 ordered.
T45 12 to 8 and only 6 ordered.
T26 13 down to 8 but only 3 ordered. (Thats when they snapped).
Who the hell would invest £££ based on that track record ?
Yet Babcock did on an order of far lower value than 3 T26.
I think Babcock just felt the love emanating from the MOD 🙂
Indeed the Ministry wanted competition. And if I remember there were hints of Babcock actually struggling around that time. To get themselves back onto a productive future I think Management decided that they needed to supplement their operational and support competences far and wide with far greater ability to build warships to promote, strengthen and tie in those activities and generally expand their competences and ability at greater depth to gain more self generating wide ranging business World wide. So it suited both parties while putting Babcock on a more sustainable path to ongoing prosperity. Does look like it’s working so far with much new sustainable business for Babcock generated by the ability to design and produce flexible frigates modified to suit customers.
All will be well; all manner of things will be well. Julian of Norwich. 🙂
The Connies are going to be late by a couple of years and the latest informed cost projection has them costing around 800mil USD that’s T26 first of class territory! With the changes required by the USN to the internal systems and external hull and structure the first of class trials will be interesting. They are going to be looking rather embarrassed if they get it to sea and , for the same cost its performance is less than a T26!
M8 That will be nothing compared to when they see the Canadian version (though it is a bit OTT).
Well T26 have an old radar when Connies have a much better and modern radar, long range AAW capability etc.
Old?
Define old.
If your definition is a radar with no upgrades done to it since it was fitted then yes it’s old.
However it’s had a lot of upgrades done to it. That’s the Perks of it being a software controlled radar. Update the software and new capabilities are revealed.
Its also got a decent range and a few other tricks up it’s sleeve.
Is this supposed to be finished later this year? Lot of work to do if so.
Not really, once the ground work is all done and they start on the steel work, these things go up in weeks. Its like a massive prefabricated Meccano set. Where I used to work, we were having a new storage warehouse built it was one year of piledriving and then concrete laying. I went on Holiday for 3 weeks and it was just bare concrete, came back it was all up, they were white lining the newly laid car park and allocating spots.
Thanks for that I can’t help being stuck somewhere between balancng watching a shopping development in Hertford I visit regularly progressing at a snails pace taking 3 years to bring to (near) fruition and Space X building a Mega Bay in around 3 months.
I would be very interested to know the total build capacity of the UK with the new factory. Obviously China is leaps and bounds above everyone in terms of how many ships they can poop out of their shipyards, but comparing the UK to a similar nation like Japan, the Japanese announced late last year they were building 12 (!) “New FFM” frigates on top of their existing 12 (!!) build for the Mogami class. And when do they expect them to be complete? 2028. You can argue that Japan is rightly scared of Chinese build up and is hitting the panic button, but is the UK somehow not needing to show urgency? The Japanese are building as many NEW ships as we intend to have our entire escort fleet sized at.
Both the FFM and Mogami are about the same size and capabilities as the Type 31, though their hull design is probably more stealthy.
Japan has a larger economy, and the threat to them is much closer to home, which helps with military investment
I can understand that sentiment as an excuse to ignore the build-ups our Polish, German, Australian and Japanese allies, but they are exactly that, our allies, and one would hope that we will back up our commitments as allies with actual investment. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I am a UK expat living in Japan since 2015, so I missed most of the horror of the last 9 years.
I agree, it’s just said excuse is exactly why the politicians don’t care and the public have no intrest.
What an odd question and I doubt if anyone can give you a definitive answer. What we are seeing on the Clyde and at Barrow is a slow, peacetime build process governed by the annual contractual scheduled payments to the builders.
But what we do know is that the combined BAe Govan and Scotstoun sites are capable of building complex modern Warships at a far higher pace the this. And they did so using old fashioned slipways with some Mega Blocks shipped in from Portsmouth and CL.
And to honest the buld rate was impressive 6 T45s delivered in just 5 Years.
Interesting reflection on the T45 build rate. Can’t help but think that while this frigate factory investment is meant to ensure on time delivery of T26 as T23 replacements, it also positions BAE for an increase in frigate and destroyer numbers.
I don’t know without checking each class but my understanding their latest frigates are massively well armed in numbers and capability that put even US destroyers to shame. Indeed there was even talk in Congress arguing the US should allow Japan to build some ships for them to both expand the US fleet quickly and improve upon their individual lethality. It will be interesting to see how the FREMM based frigates will work out but I will be surprised if they get close to the capabilities of the modern Japanese or South Korean equivalents.
I was wondering how they would get large block from the current build halls to the new one. The answer is they won’t, the build will still be in blocks but smaller blocks and keel up. This is similar to how the T31 is being constructed and when you watch video’s from others yards the way block builds are done by the world leading yards. We’ve done large blocks and joined for a couple of reasons in the past 1) Carriers distributed build 2) not a big enough build hall, so large blocks are built inside then joined.
Interesting a similar question to one I posed here some time back. So everything will be built in the new halls? Or are you saying smaller blocks than present will be constructed in the present halls and shifted to the new one? I assume the latter.
Yes the latter. Google ‘the crazy process of building the world’s largest cruise ship’. The first video shows how its done. Keel up with blocks, no large sub blocks.