Images show the current status of HMS Glasgow, the first of eight Type 26 Frigates, as the warship is being built on the River Clyde.

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

The images below were taken by myself George Allison. To enlarge one, just click on an image.

And from a different angle.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

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

What’s the status of HMS Glasgow?

Seven crew members recently joined HMS Glasgow to begin turning the currently lifeless hull into one of the world’s most advanced submarine hunting warships. HMS Glasgow is currently on the hard-standing at the BAE yard in Govan outside the build hall having work done to her hull and superstructure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
81 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 days ago

Nice pictures George, thank you.

You certainly get a feel for the size of these ships.

Now all we need is news on the second batch.

Cheers CR

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick
2 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Would be nice if the second batch was for six or seven ships. Wonder if there might be an increase in the offing given the planning request to extend the build hall.

Aethelstanthecurious
Aethelstanthecurious
2 days ago

The ship already looks very purposeful, awakening such a complex machine must be a great experience, short if putting to sea.

Tommo
Tommo
2 days ago

So you do get out of the Office George, I wonder if there was a lot of Coach loads of Chinese tourists visiting Govan as well

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago

As much as I appreciate and welcome the T26 program. The way BAe are building them, seems a bit old fashioned and dare I say mickey mouse. Especially when you compare it to what Babcock’s are doing, with their new T31 build hall! I think it shows that BAe are not really interested in growing this side of the business, as on the face of it, it looks like they have not invested in the infrastructure. I know they did talk about building the frigate factory. But surely after winning the T26 program, they could have built some new sheds… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Bugger, just seen George’s earlier post!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

I agree joining the two halves like that was a bit of a joke.

It sort of said, that the world’s 5th bigger economy could be bothered to set aside the space to fabricate and fitout in one place undercover in a controlled environment.

Still Babcock made BAE sharpen their pencil.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago

Yes, I agree, BAe finally have a domestic competitor in the shape of Babcock. So hopefully will up their game and start reinvesting in the UK.

Ron5
Ron5
2 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Babcock’s is not competing for the batch 2 Type 26’s.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

No, but it might do, for the T83!

Lusty
Lusty
2 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Personally, I’m struggling to see a comment where you said that Babcock’s facilities are competing for T26 B22 orders. You didn’t even imply it!

Nope, still can’t see it. Just like the SNP can’t see HMS Glasgow. 😀

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

What ships ?

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

Sigh, he said “BAe finally have a domestic competitor in the shape of Babcock”

So I said, they’re not competing for t26 batch 2 which is the motivation for extending the sheds. Ergo, Babcock’s is not the cause of this planning application.

Comprehendez? Or are you still struggling?

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Daveyb

T83 is way too distant to be the motivation for this planning application.

Ron5
Ron5
2 days ago

I agree joining the two halves like that was a bit of a joke

Remind me again how the two carriers were built.

Ron5
Ron5
2 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Or remind me how the T31’s will be built inside their big shed. That’s right, in blocks which are then joined together.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Easy Tiger! The main point is that the blocks will be assembled inside the shed, rather than outside for all to see.

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Remind me again how the carriers were built.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
2 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

This is just the modern way of building complex ships. In super blocks. Its how other nations like USN, China and South Korea have been building ships for decades. Generates improved yard throughput.
Just look at Hyundai Heavy Industries shipyard in South Korea. Its amazing.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

There is all the difference in the world between a block build and the doing what is being done with the T26 which is block built in two bits and then joined together in the gentle balmy Scottish weather.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 day ago

They do builds in parts like that in Naples and the weather is way better there!
You can stand at the side if a cliff top road and watch the half’s come out of their shed for joining.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Agreed.

But still not the optimal/most efficient/cost effective way of doing it as it adds another time intensive process and puts a fixed point in the project program where everything is outdoors.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 day ago

Outdoors isnt that big an issue.
They are making gratuitous use of the White plastic heat shrink weather wrap. Install it correctly and you can Air con and heat the inside to your hearts content. I have worked with the company who does it and they are really, really good.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Sure.

But it is another cost and process in the Gantt chart.

The secret to any successful project delivery is

a) simplify; and
b) keep things linear and non interactive

The issue with having a T26 parked across that front of the sheds is that it is a physical impediment so it is a blocking line on the Gantt charts for subsequent ships which drives and do constrains timeline and slots.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 day ago

Project management is never that easy… Despite planning for it being simple you always end up with interactive precursors and successors driving things.
I wish it was easy because then I wouldn’t be juggling multiple ship repair projects as I am now with manpower constraints, customer spares constraints and other outside factors that I have no control over…. But are always my issue as the PM !
But hey… It pays the bills and keeps me in beer tokens.

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago

Oh please. You have absolutely no idea what Bae’s plan is for building these ships. To say that Glasgow is blocking the construction of Cardiff is wild unsupported guesswork by you. AKA as nonsense.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Ron5

I said nothing if the kind.

I made the clear statement that it is a hard line in the Gantt chart that the rest of the planning has to be fitted round.

It isn’t a big reach to say that having a big lump outside the doors makes access planning more complex.

It is not a show stopper but it is a another unnecessary factor in project planning that can be removed with a proper build hall.

Bringer Of Facts
Bringer Of Facts
1 day ago

Gantt Charts? …in the age of Agile PM

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago

Even if it is agile there are certain immutables like;

a) I need the build bay clear; or
b) I need better access to the build bay(s)

For instance there is a timeline issue why the build went ahead sans gearbox to be cut in later to clear the build space on schedule.

Ron5
Ron5
4 hours ago

Drawing a causal relationship between the decision to proceed with closing the engine room block without gearboxes, with the process to join halves outside. Got any facts to back that up? or is it just more idle speculation from your armchair? AKA nonsense.

Ron5
Ron5
4 hours ago

Can you elaborate on the differences?

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
1 day ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Politics keep the build site on the Clyde and at Govan. I’m pretty sure BAe wouldn’t be adverse to moving to a bigger site, even just further down river if that was possible.

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

Tru dat ..

.. plus Bae leases Govan and owns Scotstoun.

Jon
Jon
2 days ago

Cool pics. It’s looked so much more the ship since the mast was added. Makes me wonder if they could float off early.

Scott Lorimer’s comments are a little worrying: the sole Project Management resource? Let’s hope when he crosses the road he keeps a good lookout for the No 26 bus.

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
2 days ago

Crazy is 6-5 years away, if the MOD hadn’t slowed construction down, then it might nearly be ready by now (two years from laid down – launch, two years fitting out then a year of sea trials = 5 years – It started in 2017 so could be 2022 – next year!!) Also the US managed to build SSN’s at a rate of 1 year from laid down to launch. The Best of British Industry simply isn’t being fully exploited, quicker building would actually save money in the long term. Sadly, it’s all about the short-term at the moment

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

I’d agree and BAE would agree that the T26 can be built faster and cheaper. If I recall correctly BAE came up with a much cheaper and faster rate themselves. So for once don’t blame BAE for that. The problem is that building only 8 T26 fast, would then leave a feast-famine gap until T83, or whatever, was next. As the T26 build was cut from 13 -> 8 due to the GP versions now being T31. The present build rate is predicated by:- a) Treasury cash flow curves; and b) keeping skills alive by having steady levels of employment… Read more »

Lusty
Lusty
2 days ago

And to be ‘realistic’. the only way they’ll fill that famine gap is by: 1). Increasing the T26 ASW order (Batch Three), 2). Ordering a T26 AAW vessel to serve alongside T45/T83, 3). River class B3 or survey ships, 4). ‘Blocks’ for other projects (RFA ships etc), 5). Starting the T83 build earlier with an increase in hulls (say, 12, with 6 to serve alongside T45 and the last 6 to replace T45). Fantasy fleets of course, but as you note, it’s a complex mess quite frankly. We should be thankful that Glasgow’s ISD has moved forward by quite a… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

The only two of those that are realistic are 1 & 4.

4 because the Bays, Albions and others need replacement in these timescale.

1 because coffee inhaling is causing people to wake up to China and Russia not being too cuddly.

River B3 is more likely to be T31 B2/3.

Lusty
Lusty
1 day ago

Of course, more conjecture than a statement of absolute reality on my part. 😉

As long as they’re built in sheds. I hope that’s allowed. But I wouldn’t want to annoy people by suggesting that sheds are a good thing. 😉

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

You have to be careful talking about building things in controlled civilised environments like modern sheds.

There is a serious risk that you increase quality and productivity…..

Apparently we should be building ships in the open. Maybe reintroducing cloth caps and riveting would be a good thing?

Lusty
Lusty
1 day ago

Yes, I share your concerns about such things.

Maybe we should bring them back! As well as a massive collection of rusty cranes.

I’m surprised they’re not FFBNW lawnmowers and scarecrows for the duration of the build.

Last edited 1 day ago by Lusty
Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

You two love birds seem to be finally figuring it out that starting a 2nd frigate building capability at Rosyth was a terrible idea when there’s only escort work enough for one yard. And when there’s a shortage of capacity for other ship types.

Geo Osbourne, the gift that keeps giving.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 day ago

big wobbly scaffolds help productivity as well, a bit of potential death always heightens the senses and gives a bit of adrenaline.

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yeah, no scaffolding inside sheds, oh no.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 day ago
Reply to  Ron5

They all have to be planned out via CAD now so they are all safe. Where’s the fun in that I ask you.

Last edited 1 day ago by Jonathan
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Careful you know what you are talking about: you will get shot down if you keep putting sensible facts on here.

Ron5
Ron5
4 hours ago
Reply to  Jonathan

So your previous comment was bullshit? Good to know.

Jonathan
Jonathan
3 hours ago
Reply to  Ron5

Or as other people call it a joke. You know the sort of thing when you make light hearted comments about falling of something high being motivational.

Last edited 3 hours ago by Jonathan
Ron5
Ron5
1 hour ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Fair enough. My sense of humor is on the low side after reading all the snide shit from tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Here’s my belated laff 😂

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
20 hours ago
Reply to  Ron5

Actually not in the T31 shed.

Well not according to Babcock anyway. But you will know more than they do: I am sure.

Learning lessons from previous programmes to reinvigorate the shipbuilding capabilities at Rosyth, the new hall has state-of-the art manufacturing facilities and new digital systems as well as gantry stair access inside the structure to remove the need for scaffolding. “

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/massive-type-31-frigate-factory-unveiled-in-rosyth

Ron5
Ron5
4 hours ago

One swallow doesn’t make a summer.

James
James
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

Or get an export order and start building ships for sale to other nations.

Lusty
Lusty
1 day ago
Reply to  James

Yah.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago

It would have been interesting to ponder what might have happened if the Treasury/MoD had allowed BAe to build the ship to their improved schedule. Would the ship have been going through its sea trials in 2022 perhaps? If that would have been the case what would that have meant for the USN FFG(X) program? Would the T26 been allowed to compete or would it have still been relegated as not a design that was in service yet?

Sean
Sean
1 day ago
Reply to  Daveyb

It would have meant nothing to the USN FFG(X) programme as the T26 still wouldn’t have qualified under the selection criteria.

Andy a
Andy a
1 day ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Yeah t26 is way to top end, by time put lot of offensive hardware on would have cost fortune

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

I very much doubt that MoD slowed down the build – more like ministers or the Treasury did – to ‘re-profile the spend’.

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

👍

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
22 hours ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hmme

Treasury will have allocated budget to each line in the capital settlement.

MoD will have fitted the procurement rate to the budgets working with the supplier.

“It is faster to do things slowly.
It is cheaper to do things expensively.”

Jim Hacker / Sir Humphrey Appleby 1981

Some things never change

Ron5
Ron5
4 hours ago

You’re missing that the Treasury imposes annual spending limits.

Doesn’t matter how big is the Type 26 budget. What matters is the Treasury limits on how much can be spent each year. And Geo Osbourne is on record that his Treasury decided the T26 build rate. Not the MoD.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 hours ago
Reply to  Ron5

I should have written ‘allocated budget per year’ to each line item.

But you know perfectly well that is what I meant as I was talking about cash flow curves up the thread.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 hour ago

Bizarrely those two statements do sometimes make sense, more speed less haste and for a penny of tar and all that.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 hour ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I was being facetious TBH – I was having a bit of a Yes Minister Moment last night.

Jonathan
Jonathan
25 minutes ago

I know but It was just bizarre that I found a humphreyism actually made sense when I thought about it. To much time on my hands clearly.

Last edited 24 minutes ago by Jonathan
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
19 seconds ago
Reply to  Jonathan

The trouble with that book is that although it was written for laughs: a lot it does make sense and comes around again and again IRL.

Referring to it was sometimes a way of derailing idiotic conversations in a large office overlooking horse guards parade….

There was a time when it was viewed as a how-to guide….

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 days ago

How many times must the SNP tell you, there are no warships being built on the Clyde. Here’s proof positive. Plainly nothing more than theatrical canvas most of which awaiting grey paint.

AlexS
AlexS
2 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Haha, so they need bring her to the Thames to get weaponized? 🙂

Lusty
Lusty
2 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

She’s just like those ‘ghost armies’ they used during WW2. 😉

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

Exactly, someone else who discerns the lies of the perfidious Sassenach.
😲
p.s. can I have my Twitter badge now?

Lusty
Lusty
1 day ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

You’ll have to get pissed out of your skull whilst on a plane before you can use the tick. 😂

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

Had to look that up – not on Twitter, mind. Willing to go halfway and stop at pissed, though.
Cheers

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 day ago

Can anyone tell me what the panel things are at the top of the mast. Would be under the radar. Seen them on a type 23 aswell.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 day ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

It’s where the EW ESM receiving antennas will go. They will be blanked off for now, removed latter and the aerials attached during fit out.

Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

That only seems to explain some of the cut outs. The large square ones are reminiscent of a CEC fit.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
21 hours ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Ah. The mysterious world of electronic warfare. Thanks for info

geoff
geoff
1 day ago

Morning Gentlemen from a drizzly Durban. Great shots George-she is starting to look like the real thing! With just 17 escorts available, the only way to boost numbers would seem to be a. speed up the build b. increase the order c. retain some of the last build Type 23’s in service as the 26’s join the fleet. Were we not told that the escort numbers would be boosted to 24? How will that be achieved?

Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  geoff

5 Type 31, 5 Type 32, 8 Type 26, 6 Type 45

T31 and T32 are currently planned to be “general purpose”, and until/unless they are made more capable, fitted with as well as for, 8 ASW and 6 AAW will remain the rather lonely targets.

Last edited 1 day ago by Jon
geoff
geoff
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

Thanks Jon. That build up will take a decade plus. I was thinking if we wanted to increase numbers sooner then extend the in service life of some of the 23’s. bring in new ships on a one out two new in basis until the 24 or near target is achieved and then retire the remaining 23’s. The current and possibly even smaller number is just not enough.

Last edited 1 day ago by geoff
Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  geoff

You are right: it’s not enough. But we are budget limited and they are doing the best they can. Renewing the continuous deterrent is sucking a huge slew of money away from other military spend. Unless hell freezes over and the Treasury allows some borrowing (not gonna happen), the only way of building faster is to ditch or delay more expensive ships and build cheaper ones. Retiring T23s earlier won’t give up anywhere near enough money. It’s already too late to postpone/cancel City class batch 2 in favour of cheaper ASW frigates. The MoD would take four years just to… Read more »

Lusty
Lusty
1 day ago
Reply to  geoff

It’s still 18 …for now. 😉 Can’t see them retaining Type 23 for too long, mate. They’ll be retired as their replacements are ready, or thereabouts. I’ve gone into why their retention is folly a few times on here! With that said, over the next few years, we’re going to see an increase in the number of frigate classes actually operated, with T23/26/31/32 all operating alongside each other for a period of time. We won’t have seen that since the late 80s and early 90s! Yeah, the aspiration is 24. We know how that MIGHT/WILL be achieved, but T32 is… Read more »

Last edited 1 day ago by Lusty
Ron5
Ron5
1 day ago
Reply to  Lusty

Kindof depends on whether you think the Type 31 is a credible escort.

I and many inside and outside of the RN, do not.