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.

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.

Here’s how the site looked earlier in the year.

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.

Huge Glasgow ‘frigate factory’ planning permission granted

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.

Image George Allison

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 to make it more attractive to future orders.

Project Background

In their Govan Assembly Hall planning consultation, BAE say that at present, full ships longer than 75 metres cannot be constructed undercover at Govan, something which is a major constraint to their business. Shown below is the current arrangement, the ‘SBOH’ is the facility in which ship hull sections are currently built before being moved outside and welded together. According to the consultation:

“As such, BAE Systems intends to develop a new ship building hall which is capable of meeting the United Kingdom’s ship building requirements. This necessitates the construction of a new ship building facility in Govan, one that will allow for at least two ships to be built simultaneously under cover and in single hull format.

The opportunity to provide a new modern ship building hall of this nature would allow BAE Systems to adopt improved shipbuilding techniques together with improved construction access and state of the art, dedicated, on-site office and amenities accommodation.”

The Ship Building Hall and Supporting Accommodation

The firm state that the shipbuilding hall will occupy part of the existing shipyard wet basin and will provide accommodation to allow for at least two ships to be built simultaneously under cover and in single hull format.

Indicative Visualisation of Proposed Ship Building Assembly Hall

In terms of dimensions, the proposed 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.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

91 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PaulW
PaulW
4 months ago

I still find it odd that the build facility exists after the first half of the frigate order is built (or likely to have been built). I was taught that Prior Planning Prevents …

Jim
Jim
4 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

It was planned to be built but BAE’s plan was to get the British government to pay for it.

Then miraculously after Babcock secured the contract for Type 31 and built its own frigate factory BAE managed to pony up the doe for its own one.

There was a famous Scotsman few hundred years ago called Adam Smith who had much to say of the subject of competition and some what of a dim view on Clyde based robber barons 😀

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  Jim

If work was suspended by the government and investments withheld a dose of realism, might have the effect of bringing the folly of their actions home to the. Real world.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

Just remember BAe have been shafted numerous times by MOD, it was 13 and a Frigate Factory was planned (by BAe at Scotstoun), then cut to 8 but only 3 actually ordered, Then the build speed and payments slowed down. Would you invest at that point. Nope nor would I.

Sonik
Sonik
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Indeed. BAE are clearly no angels but there are numerous examples where they have invested or acquired capacity, only to see orders dry up or work go elsewhere. It also mustn’t be forgotten that BAE were largely behind the creation of MBDA which has become a very valuable sovereign asset for the UK and Europe as a whole.

Last edited 4 months ago by Sonik
Louis
Louis
4 months ago
Reply to  Sonik

Not sure I can spare any sympathy for BAE. The merging of the UK military industry into BAE has been disastrous. They mess up everything they touch.

They inherited the most successful advanced jet trainer in the world and made no replacement for it.
They inherited an extremely successful corporate jet business, they sold that off fast.
They inherited VTs expertise in OPV’s and haven’t invested in that so lost the export market.
They inherited 5+ airliners in production in 1977, 24 years later the last British airliner is made, they messed up again.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  Sonik

Orders went elsewhere because of the performance of the company bears a comparison with the car industry, where people decided that they could get a better product for a better price than the likes of Leyland could drag out of the industry

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

BAE deserved to be shafted. The performance of the companies workplaces are due to the utter shambles of the whole process and not just the shipbuilding sector

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago

Good work George.

Sadly, once the frigates are built indoors we won’t get this kind of progress update.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
4 months ago

I am assuming that the height of this Hall won’t allow for the mast to be installed, can’t find the overall height of a Type 26 but looking at images and knowing it’s all but 150m long it must surely exceed 49m especially when it will be a little higher than ground level while in build.

Quill
Quill
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Glad someone else shares the same concern, though to be fair most of the ship could be built undercover – moved outside, mast incorporated and then the hull moved to be further outfit. Most of the vital hull section welds would be unaffected, mast can simple be ‘plopped on’ and secured in a matter of days.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  Quill

The last major RN warship built under cover was HMS Daring down at Scotstoun, but launched via a slipway. Due to the constraints of the build hall she was launched without masts and then fitted out with them.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  Quill

The carriers had the whole islands cleaned into place, surely the modern modular process could include .
Muchof the ship above its own waterline.to be us in the assembly stages

Jon
Jon
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

That’s the same as the Venturer Building, isn’t it? The mast for the Type 31s will be mounted outside too.

Dokis
Dokis
4 months ago

As a curiosity, the RN should learn how to handle politicians from the Italian navy. They got 10 OPV to renew the fleet, just these 10 OPV are of … 6200 t, with Aster 30 and ASW torpedoes.

Which together with 10-11 FREMM, 2 Horizon, 2 new DDG destroyers of 10000 t, a new carrier of 40000 t and the existing one of 30000 t, 3 LPD to be retired by new large LXD and all the rest is pretty good shape

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  Dokis

Italy has a very impressive system of growing its Navy but it isn’t Navy led, it’s Industry and Politicians who provide most of what the Navy asks for via Navy acts. They set out the size of the fleet, decide what they want and enact a law to provide the cash for it. Doesn’t matter who is in charge of the Government (pretty sensible in Italian politics). It gets funded and built. In parallel they have an incredibly flexible approach to exports, put simply is you have X amount of cash and want item Y (which is being built for… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Sincerely hope that DoD/USN are able to extract the appropriate lessons learned from MoD/RN and Italian equivalent naval infrastructure investments. Absolutely essential for success of AUKUS and protection of trade routes/open navigation that USN resolves infrastructure issues w/ SSN maintenance and build schedules. USAF will fulfill it’s role in maintaining aerospace dominance, but it is essential that USN matches that dominance in maritime realm. 🤔🤞🤞

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I hate to say this but the US and UK both dropped the ball post Cold War with regard’s to maintenance infrastructure. In some respects the USN size is actually a hindrance. The backlog for US warships is estimated to take 20 years to rectify. Ours is relatively easy to fix in comparison. As an aside I think US defence strategy needs a quick wake up call regarding protection of maritime trade, the present issues with the Panama Canal aren’t going away any time soon. That needs addressing before a certain large populous Asian country sticks its oar in via… Read more »

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

😄

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Presume that we may have somewhat similar geopolitical world views. Multiple additional nations are slated to join the BRICS alliance in 2024, but potential political/economic issues are almost insignificant, relative to potential looming military crises. There is a very recent report, issued by a consortium of US think tanks, which span the spectrum from liberal to conservative perspectives (Brookings Institute to Hoover), detailing the possibility of a coordinated, simultaneous, three theater (European, ME and Indo-Pacific) conflict/war. Have only been able to find and read the executive summary, but it is definitely scary as hell! The report contends that the collective… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

It is thought provoking but I do see things slightly differently and think tanks regardless of how cross party they are, do get things wrong as do senior analysts. Sorry to remind you of this but there is story of the boy who cried wolf, and many are a bit sceptical. Just think of the US History of continuously over playing the strength of the USSR and Red China in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and let’s not forget the small matter of Iraq WMD. Oh and don’t forget the Millenium bug. They were all wrong and widely wrong… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

One of us will probably be proved correct in terms of future prognostications. Actually hope your forecast is correct, fear mine is more accurate. 🤞🤞

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I’ll make mention of it on Sunday mornings 😉

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

👍

David Barry
David Barry
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

USAF, what’s your view on Type 26 for the USN?

You’ve ditched the little chappy shit after several years, could you see the same happening with the FREMM?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 months ago
Reply to  David Barry

Based upon available reports, both T-26 and FREMM are both excellent choices. Damned unfortunate that decision to design and build T-26 was delayed by HMG: it would have been a formidable contender in the USN competition to select a FF. Doubtful, but presumably possible, that an open competition could be held for a subsequent batch order. 🤞

Firesale prices are presumably available on at least some of the little, crappy ships (LCS). Any interest, anyone? 😉

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Sorry, one ‘both’ per sentence adequate…🙄

David Barry
David Barry
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Your LCS have operating costs according to rumour control but could not your own coast guard use them for drug interdiction? Unlike our Rivers and T45 AND T31, LCS even have sonar which would help somewhat with the submarine menace.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Your LCS1 is a disaster but the LCS2 is shaping up to be a pretty useful bit of kit.
I think you may find Mexico is interested in the LCS1. Just remember to take the MT30 engines out before you flog them. They are the best thing in the ship, shame about the gearbox you put on them. 🥴

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

If the Mexicans promise to not export Fentanyl to the US, America should in turn, promise not to offload LCS on the Mexicans. Seems to be a reasonable bargain.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I never knew Yanks did Sarcasm 🤔 Everyday is a school day. Can you send me some links of point me in the direction of the subject latter I’m intrigued ?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

? Yanks indulging in sarcasm, or the new geopolitical threat assessment?

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

They’ve only just got the hang of the humour in monty python l.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Several nations such as Italy, Spain, turkey are increasingly growing their fleets to a point where they are not so v different from our own. I’ve never agreed with the only built in the u.k.warship policy and I think given the production rate it is out of date and unsustainable. I drive a foreign car and I watch a documentary foreign television I want and get a quality product at a reasonable price and if the u.k applied the same logic towards defense procurement things should be better.

Hugo
Hugo
3 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Well armed is a stretch, All their Frigates have 16 VLS, and so far no compact missiles so that is 16 Asters. Their Destroyers have most the Firepower with 48 on the Horizons and 48+ on the yet to be built pair of destroyers. All around theyre good ships, but they do noticeably lack the VLS capacity.

Jim
Jim
4 months ago
Reply to  Dokis

Remember we built the batch 2 river for same reason.

Dokis
Dokis
4 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Batch 2 are 2000 t and gun only, those PPA are at least light frigates, and some more

Hugo
Hugo
3 months ago
Reply to  Dokis

Plans were originally for 10+ large OPVS, now 7 is more likely, though i will say theyre pretty capable for what they are. Not sure why you bring up ASW torpedoes, if the Navy had wanted torpedos on T26 they wouldve fitted them, its a doctrinal thing.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  Dokis

For all it’s well known failings Italy and Spain are growing their fleet at an admirable rate. With a clear strategy and performance rate.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago

Dear George,
Xmas is coming, so please, pretty please can we have a few shots of HMS Glasgow and her progress down at Scotstoun ? We have all been good little UKDJ children this year so could Santa kindly divert his super, dooper Rein Deer drone down the river a wee bit ?

Mince Pie and Sherry time (OK a Dram !) 🎅🏻

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  George Allison

December 25th just Wear a wig and false beard and a red coat. 🎅🏻

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  George Allison

Maybe just some static pics with a zoom to keep us all happy?

Sonik
Sonik
4 months ago

This looks much more substantial than Babcock’s shed at Rosyth

I’m guessing that the large concrete bays at the sides are to facilitate a higher degree of outfitting to be done under cover?

Last edited 4 months ago by Sonik
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  Sonik

I was wondering about those as well.

They are very substantial structures.

I suspect it is to do with being able to perch modules on the concrete deck and then move them sideways?

PaulW
PaulW
4 months ago

Can you get a Type 83 Destroyer in there, or will they be built elsewhere?

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

BAE will hopefully have built the Hall with an eye to the T83s, so any design they put forwards will almost certainly fit inside. It does put an upper limit on what BAE can do, however

Callum
Callum
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

Its not a particularly high limit, either. 170m for the building means any ship bigger than 160m seems unlikely. For reference, a Tico-class cruiser is 173m and the next Italian destroyers are set to be 175m. To be fair, this has specifically been marketed as a frigate factory.

Its not the end of the world for larger ships though; between the old ship hall and the new, you can always go back to building ships in sections and assembling outside. Far from ideal, but if capability demands a larger ship than ~160m, its possible.

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  Callum

DDX (or whatever) is 175m? That seems a lot given they only want 48 VLS, the fitout is hardly more than PPA full, with same radar. I’m not seeing the driving factor for cruiser size, TBH

Paul T
Paul T
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J
Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Ok, 64 not 48
I must not have seen the two front cells
Still, not many compared with, say, US and China

Paul T
Paul T
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

The 64 will likely increase to 96 post Ukraine War,of which this design pre-dates.

PaulW
PaulW
4 months ago
Reply to  Callum

I heard that the QE class carrier size was dictated by the width of the exit at Rosyth. So they could have been bigger. I feel T83 will be something similar.

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

Something similar as in QE sized or something similar as in built in a dry dock?

PaulW
PaulW
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

Soz. My bad. Poor choice of words. What I meant was … if QE size was limited by Rosyth, will T83 be limited by this new build hall? Or will T83 be built elsewhere?

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

Ideally, they would make T83 as big as they possibly can inside that build hall, with specs as big as possible, etc. IMO T83 could be the best thing to happen to the Navy in 50 years if they do it right

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

Main limit was ££ and to be fair we don’t need anything bigger. Even the USN are looking at something smaller.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Speaking of smaller,it looks like the US treasury is beginning to pull the purse strings tighter is this the stat of the decline in size that befell the royal navy at the end of WW2?

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  Callum

So if they really mean frigate factory, they’ll build T83s outside
How about diagonally? What could you fit in across the shed if you only have one?
And if not, what would go on in the shed while T83s are built outside?

Callum
Callum
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

If they did go for a bigger ship, they’d presumably take the same approach as T26 batch 1: big the sections inside as far as possible, then wheel them out and assemble them on the hard standing.

On the off chance that the yard has the manpower and production capacity for more, you could use the old shed to build OPVs or other light vessels <75m long

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  Callum

A quick deployment of the ol’ Pythagoras’ Theorem tells me that they’ll be able to fit something 180m long diagonally in the buildhall.
Not sure about practicalities though
As you say, probably put them together outside

Jon
Jon
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

Add the bow section through the front door. All the welding can be done inside, while just the pointy bit sticks out. I call it slightly outside of the box thinking.

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  Jon

And at the end of the build you cap it off by adding the bow 😉
Nice idea, should allow a longer T83 especially if bow is nice and long and elegant without being packed from stem to stern with VLS

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

Twenty years until the first steel is Is cut

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

If T26 and T31 are anything to go by it’ll be a decade until the decision on the design will be decided on.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

It could potentially be extended towards the road?

But I agree there is a risk that ship design is reversed into build hall sizes.

Last edited 4 months ago by Supportive Bloke
Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago

Probably BAE will try to put forwards T26 AA for T83, get turned down because it won’t work, then Rosyth get to work on T83 while BAE make GP T26s to complement the T31s
Or something

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
4 months ago

Nice, well illustrated article George.

BAE Systems are a canny company who are making a humungous investment in Govan shipbuilding infrastructure. Not just the new shipbuilding hall, but in skills, apprenticeships and new technology. We must hope that the incoming Labour government maintains the steady drumbeat of orders necessary.

Incidentally, everybody should also be impressed by the excellent quality of the photographs obtained by GA and his drone. How about a trip to the H&W yard in Belfast, where I gather things are also developing nicely?

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
4 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Will need to invest in a Ukrainian drone to fly from Glasgow to north Ireland and back.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
4 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

When the Ukraine war is won, the Russian hordes are expelled from all Ukraine lands – including Crimea – and Putin is on trial at The Hague for war crimes, we must obtain UkR drone tech for our own use.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
4 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

We can hope, but given recent developments, I am putting my money on a stalemate/ceasefire. It is as simple as this, currently we are not supplying Ukraine quickly enough or with enough volume of ammo for Ukraine to achieve substantial territorial gains.
Whereas new supplies from China, Iran and North Korea has enabled Russia to once again gain the upper hand in ordinance stock, and hence is going on the offensive again In Lukhansk and Donetsk.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
4 months ago

As far as I’m able to establish, there is currently a major battle going on around the Avdiivka salient. The Russians are using daylight human wave tactics by half-trained conscripts – against very well prepared defences manned by seasoned UkR defenders. The Avdiivka salient has been set up by the Ukr Army as a huge killing zone, with pre-targeted automatic weapons, experienced snipers – male and female – high precision artillery and the whole area is covered by drones. The UK MoD has published estimates that the Russians are losing up to 1000 killed per day. Furthermore, in the southern… Read more »

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
4 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Yes Russia is losing lots of troops and equipment , but they are absorbing the losses and pushing forward making small gains around Adviika which is worrying. If Adiivka falls (even at heavy cost) that would hand Putin a strategic victory.

i agree the best vector of attack for Ukraine right now is happening on the east bank of Dneipr, ilets hope they can get some AA /air cover and heavy equipment over there soon.

Last edited 4 months ago by Bringer of Facts
David Lloyd
David Lloyd
4 months ago

Avdiivka will not fall. Tactical withdrawals to prepared positions are all part of the game. The UkR Army is using Avdiivka like Bahkmut – its just a small salient of no strategic value which is a meat grinder for Russian conscripts.

The salient is about 7km wide, UkR is able to resupply Avdiivka itself and is able to inflict WW1 type losses because the Russians do not have air superiority.

Military textbooks will be written about this war and the effect of MANPADS, Starstreak etc when it’s over

Jonno
Jonno
4 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

The big question is whether the USA is going to be a reliable partner at all going forward.
Trump is to my mind the greatest danger to Western security in 50years. Definitely a kind of Manchurian Candidate. He seems obsessed with Putin and the worst of the Slavic world view.
I dont know what to make of it.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

I would be surprised if either Mr Trump or President Biden will be candidates in the Nov 2024 election.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I think the hawks are circling the senate for decisive course of action t dealing with the constant meddling the Iranians in current world issues

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
4 months ago

The U.K. recent tax cut announcements could have done a lot for Ukraine and the U.K. if that money was spent making vehicles, equipment and ammo for Ukraine.
This bit supply to Ukraine is a joke.
Russia isn’t going to give up when it thinks the worlds support is slowing.
The U.K. is full of big words but not backing it up with action.
This is Russia a formidable enemy ffs. Time to get that support super charged so Ukraine can actually do something

David Barry
David Barry
4 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

Ukrainian engineering prowess with British design skills and I can see a new tank in the offing at a great VFM price, rolling off UKE factory lines.

Chally 4, if you like with a whole range of armoured vehicles following on behind; take a leaf out of auto manufacturing and carpe diem.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago

Iran is on. Borrowed time, I can’t see the west sitting back from a ship sorting out of the mullahs l

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Ity A shame ihat the Ukraine has become a sideline in news reporting of late I’ve not seen the map of the true state of the conflict maybe the media is suffering from war fatigue

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

The Russians themselves will have done for Putin before then.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
4 months ago

Excellent work George. Accurate and unsensational reporting.

DH
DH
4 months ago

Hi George, once again thanks for the excellent ariel phots. Much appreciated 😊👍.

Geoffi
Geoffi
4 months ago

Lets hope there will be a steady stream of orders past the T26s and T31s…

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  Geoffi

I wonder if we could do something similar with T31 to what the italians are doing with PPA at the moment:
Light with mission bay not mk41, no front CIWS and Sea Ceptor replacing it
Light+ with front CIWS, half mk41 and more boat bays
Full with current config
Full+ with hull sonar

Toby J
Toby J
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

All FFBNW a full fitout, build the light and light+ to replace Rivers and in more numbers

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  Toby J

That was T31 and that has gone from FFBNW to having Mk41 added.

So I’d rather see the hulls ordered as that way RN has at least something to upgrade.

Richard Beedall
Richard Beedall
4 months ago

>170 metres long  I would love to know if all that is usable hull length. Most likely 10-20 metres has to be deducted simply to provide some working space and temp storage areas for materials and equipment.  BAE must be fairly confident that the T83 destroyers will be based on the 150 metres long T26 hull, and not the larger preliminary concepts of perhaps 180 metres length that are being leaked. Very relevantly, BAE has just proposed a AAW variant of the Australian Hunter design, with the midships Flexible Mission Space being replaced by 64 Mk41 VLS cells and 4 x Naval Strike… Read more »

Nobby
Nobby
3 months ago

Remember the Israeli father that said I hope that my 9year old daughter is dead. As I can’t bear the thought of what hamas might be doing to her. !!! Luckily thank god she was returned alive. They brung it on themselves..