A new collection of videos and photographs show the current state of HMS Glasgow as the Type 26 Frigate is being built by BAE Systems on the River Clyde in Glasgow.

HMS GLASGOW is the first in a new generation of cutting-edge Type 26 frigates, designed and built in the ship’s namesake city.

You can view the previous drone imagery from earlier in the year by clicking here but if you’ve seen that, here’s today’s video!

The Type 26 frigate is an advanced anti-submarine warship, which will deliver critical protection of the Royal Navy’s ‘Continuous At Sea Deterrent’ and Carrier Strike Groups. The ships will replace the UK’s Type 23 frigates, with the first set to enter service in the mid-2020s.

According to BAE:

“Each Type 26 will be equipped with a range of systems including the Sea Ceptor missile defence system, a 5-inch medium calibre gun, flexible mission bay, Artisan 997 Medium Range Radar, and towed array sonars. The flight deck will be able to accommodate helicopters up to the size of a Chinook, while the mission bay can quickly adapt to house and deploy vessels, vehicles and containers.”

The forward and stern sections of HMS Glasgow were rolled out in April and were joined together at the yard last year, work has advanced rapidly since then with the mast and other components fitted as you’ll see in the video.

Actually, rather than me going on about the ship, here’s the video…

Here are the photos, just click to enlarge them.

What next for the frigate?

The vessel will be moved onto a submersible barge towards the end of this year, the barge will then travel down the Clyde to Glen Mallan in the Firth of Clyde where the barge will be lowered into the deep water.

The frigate will then be towed back up the Clyde to Scotstoun where she will be fitted out before undertaking sea trials over the next few years.

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. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
95 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago

I see the fierce Scottish summer weather requires the ship to be all wrapped up!

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

The Covering is too keep those bloody Midges from biting the Welders argh the Scottish summer and all its delights Andrew

andy reeves
andy reeves
29 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

ineed wee beasties, would keep the russians away, give them a uniform

Tommo
Tommo
29 days ago
Reply to  andy reeves

We could but Putin would claim Biological warfare he is whiter than white in his actions he would never do anything so annoying 🪲🪲🪲🪲 but it would be fun

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

It’s the ultimate stealth coating

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 month ago

I did wonder how they were going
to get her into the water, then read the text down the page after the video had finished!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

I understand that it’s being put on a barge and I’m guessing the barge sinks down river and the ship floats off. How are they getting it off the concrete and onto the barge is what I don’t understand yet. Does the ship need to move over to the ramp? Is the barge on wheels? Is it on a foundation and the barge is strapped round it and driven off the wall? Im totally unable to figure it out.

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

The ship itself will likely have a self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) positioned underneath her. When fitted, they’ll rotate and move the ship onto the barge. When the ship is correctly positioned and secured on the launching barge, the SPMT will be removed, allowing the barge to be towed for launching. SPMTs have been used by the shipyard in the past. Type 26 ships are currently constructed in three main hull blocks (front, middle, arse); they were used to move the blocks into position for joining. They were also employed to then move the two halves of the ship onto the… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Lusty
Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

So similar to how they did Stonehenge 😉

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

In The Day they had sheds built over slipways for big yachts if not ships. Expensive but So much simpler. What happened to our minds?

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I didn’t know they had self driving vehicles when Stonehenge was erected😂😂😂😂😂

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Not self driving, self propelled 🙈

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

I see. So drive the ship onto a barge that’s in the water. I’ve seen driving an astute onto the ship lift at barrow. For some reason my brain couldn’t get to grips with how it works at govan. It must be a really stable barge to be able to drive the ship onto it. Good luck to them when the time comes.
There is something special about sliding a ship down the ramp and it splashing into the water held back by huge chains. Would love to see it in person.

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

It’ll take a lot of time, caution and the work of experienced tug crews. The barge will likely be placed just off her bow (that’s where the barge was positioned for the Rivers). from looking at the photos, it will be a tight squeeze!

Yes, it’s a similar to the system used for Astutes, although they use rails and metal wheels rather than the units used at Govan. I can imagine T31 will use the same method as T26 for launch/fit out.

Agree on the launches!

Tim
Tim
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

I think the barge is actually partly “dived” like a submarine, and as the ship drives on to it, the necessary sections are carefully “surfaced” to provide the additional buoyancy and keep the barge remaining at exactly the same height as the jetty. It’s quite the challenge!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Tim

The modern heavy lift barges have very sophisticated software controlled buoyancy trimming to prevent excessive stresses to the hull.

Whist it would be a mistake to say it was fully automated, tidal interactions will still need Contol as positional stability cannot be reactive, it isn’t as hard as it would have been 20 years ago.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

I just watched HMS forth launch on YouTube. Wow. The barge was really stable. They made it look easy. Very impressed. I wonder what viewing is like on the Clyde. I might pop through to watch it if you can get a good spot opposite the ship yard. Or chuck someone in the high risers £50 to watch from there flat😂😂😂

Last edited 1 month ago by Monkey spanker
Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

What’s the Displacement of T26 again guys ?

pompeyblokeinoxford
pompeyblokeinoxford
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D
Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Displacement of 7,800 tonnes. 👍

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

Video looks so peaceful with hardly a soul in view. Lovely day for drone-flying.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago

And in-service by 2027, only five years left to wait. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/prime-minister-announces-new-royal-navy-ship-what-is-the-type-32-frigate/ “To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 26 January (HL5599), whether the first Type 26 (1) passed Main Gate in 2015, (2) was ordered July 2017, (3) will enter operational service 2027; and whether they expect the last of the eight ships in that class will enter service in 2041.” Answered on10 February 2022 “In November 2015 the Strategic Defence and Security Review confirmed that eight Type 26 frigates would be manufactured. In 2016 the Demonstration Phase for the Type 26 frigates… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

As it is 2022 and the ship looks almost structurally complete, why will it take another 5 years to become operational? It just appears unnecessarily slow.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

It is unlikely it will take that long to be at a very advanced state of trials.

The full in service date has probably got more to do with the number of new, to RN, systems such as 5”, Mk41 and other bits we don’t know about.

The long fit-out phase at Govan has got more to do with making sure the work force is continuously employed.

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Imagine we had ordered a cruiser in WW1 in 1917 and the last entered service just in time to join force Z in WW2. I just love how much life has speeded up in the computer age; not. The new Ice Age. We want 8 and we wont wait! Madness.

Louis
Louis
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Pretty much all RN ships spend three years between being launched and being commissioned.
I believe at some point it was said she might be commissioned earlier in 2025 or 2026.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
1 month ago

She looks a beauty, I just wish we could build another dozen on top of those ordered.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago

That’s a bit greeey…lol…even just 1-2 more…but they T31/T32s could be half/third or cheaper for the prices

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

*greedy.. Lol

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I just want to see the end of the decline mate and a reversal of it.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago

So few countries can build warships of this quality and capability. And at 1.3Bn a pop, they aren’t cheap.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

And ?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago

And. We aren’t going to buy 16 of these things. Be grateful we can build these things at all, because most countries can’t.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Yeah if there was going to be a large surface fleet increase I would say 5 batch 2 T31 or an additional order of T32. Type 32 would really depend on what it ends up being like. This allows the Type 26 and type 45 to focus on dedicated high end roles. Increase the Type31-32 by £100m to fit extra sensors/defences or whatever is needed to be an ok multi role ship. (Sonar, more missiles, helicopters etc). Would probably require an extra 1-2000 personal at a minimum. Maybe an extra 1-2 type 26 could be ordered if funds were available.… Read more »

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Some people accept mediocracy as a standard, others expect more. I’m firmly in the expecting more camp.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago

A T26 is not mediocre. nor is the ability to build them or operate them. I’m realistic about what we can afford, and what the defence budget is likely to be considering the current financial climate. We are not going to get 1990’s numbers at today’s prices.

McZ
McZ
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Give me 20 of the Mogami class over 8 T26 any day. We are not going to get 1990s numbers by building cruiser sized vessels, whose range is utterly useless when it is not much more heavily armed.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  McZ

Which is why we are building T31. And T26 capability is In a different league completely from the Mogami class.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Also worth noting that the JMSDF is only getting 6-8 Mogami’s, not 20.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I haven’t looked for anything official. But 20 does seem a lot for the Japanese.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I believe the order for Mogami’s is 6 firm with an option for 2 more, which frankly I think the Japanese will go for.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

With the aim of the build programme stretching till 2032, at a rate of 2 per year,plans change obviously but the figure of 22 is quite realistic.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  McZ

Steel is cheap and air is free. The size of the City class has a comparatively minor effect on it’s over all cost.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago

Some people are realistic. Others live in a fantasy world. You’re in the fantasy camp.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Whatever you say petal.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
1 month ago
Reply to  George Allison

xfgnfsjsyj

Last edited 1 month ago by ExcalibursTemplar
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

£800m according to BAE a few weeks ago. Excluding R&D and program setup costs.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago

I’d be more concerned that we could be falling behind. These have no BMD and no hypersonic launch capabilities. If we’re going to spend 1b more on another T26 then I’d rather see that 1b spent on ensuring the next batch is current.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Who knows what hypersonic launch capability looks like?

I’d be surprised if gen1 hypersonic launch wasn’t canister based just until the tech matured you wouldn’t want to build it in unless it fits in a Mk41 VLS.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

😍

UKvoter
UKvoter
1 month ago

She is going to be Gorgeous when she is complete.
Can’t wait to see her.
Let’s hope the govt sees the light and starts building more frigates and submarines than planned.
Would also love a fully UK designed and built stealth drone like Taranis.
Ukraine has proved exactly how critical they will be in any future war. The way they have used them to obliterate the Russians is incredible.

Bomber
Bomber
1 month ago

But no long range SSM. Despite being flagged as ASW, I find the lack of offensive capability worrying

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Bomber

FC/ASW should include a long range variant from the early 2030s. There’s no reason it couldn’t have one earlier, other than MoD preferring to throw good money after bad rather than supporting success.

We are getting TLAM V anyway. Do they all have to be torpedo tube launched, or might we get some maritime versions and tweak HMS Glasgow’s Mk 41s to accomodate while we are waiting for FC/ASW ?

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
Louis
Louis
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

I believe stocks are around 60 for TLAM so not really worth it to put on the T26.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis

We could easily buy a dozen more and it wouldn’t cost the £250m that we were going to spend on the more modern “interim” SSGMs. More like £50m when you add in the spares and support. If a maximum of two of the first three frigates are likely to be in dangerous areas at any one time, they could carry six each. Hopefully batch two can take FC/ASW from the off.

Louis
Louis
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

That’s what really pisses me off about the MOD, they waste so much money on the National Flagship, Ajax etc, yet when it comes to a really important part of defence they cancel it. I would certainly prefer the interim SSGM as when T23s are decommissioned, it could move onto T31 or potentially even on the Rivers as it is canister launched.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis

The ones we currently have are designed to be tube launched from our SSN’s, so don’t fit into the Mk 41 Launchers without modification. It would probably be cheaper to purchase new from the USA if we want to put them onto T26’s.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

True and true!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

It’s a waiting game to see what will go in type 26 mark 41 launchers. 24 cells are In the design.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Bomber

Would be better to fit the next batch with MAC that the USN will use for long range attack. MAC will most likely become the MK41 for hypersonic missiles.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Who knows until Hypersonic matures a few generations?

That is the current issue: unless there is a crystal ball to hand the best you can do is leave space, top weight and power margin for later upgrades.

Last edited 1 month ago by Supportive Bloke
Rec
Rec
1 month ago

Given the international crisis, its surprising that:

1) The build rate isn’t speeded up, a 2027 in service date is frankly ridiculous and reflects badly on the Treasury, MOD and BAE

2) These and T31s aren’t uparmed, I realise that ship launched ASW torpedoes and sonars are a marginal asset, but in war the marginal matters, at the very least they keep a Subnarine at arms length.

3) An interim SSM isn’t sort: surely either a marinised Brimstone or upgraded Harpoon makes sense, as we already have stocks and are familiar with them.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  Rec

Rec,

if you think the build rate is ridiculous for the type26’s, then it’ll be even worse for the future destroyers!

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

Does that mean the last T23 will be decommissioned in 2041? I cant wait to see it cause I’ll likely have passed over! Who is kidding who? I think they are hoping it will all be drones by then.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonno

No, HMS London’s In Service Date is predicted to be 2035. But even then the last Type 23 has to go out of service before HMS London enters service or there will be a lack of systems to migrate and crew to train on her.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Rec

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as just speeding up the build rate. Logistic chains are already set up, can they increase the rate of deliverables? Do we have the workforce to speed up the build rate? Where are the crew coming from – you can’t just speed up a training pipeline! Could we afford to bring forward the build of the T83’s if we speed up T26 build? Easy to say, not quite so easy to achieve. There is no point in putting ASW torpedoes on a ship if it doesn’t have the ability to detect and track a SM.… Read more »

Jon
Jon
29 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

We don’t know who we will be shooting at. You fight a war with the weapons you have and it’s not always the enemy you were expecting. “It’s only really China and Russia” is the wrong mindset. Five years from now we might be in a war with Turkey over Cyprus (just picking something at random). Or India over Kashmir. Unlikely I grant you, but can you rule it out? It just takes a change in leadership. In 1977 we were good friends with Argentina. And to illustrate how quickly things turn, we were still planning on selling them bombers… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
28 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, Agree with some of what you have said, but also disagree with bits. Yes, we fight with what we have, and against whomever. WRT a heavy weight LR ASM, if you take the main players aside(Russia/China), the likely threat to us decreases swiftly,correspondingly so to does the requirement for such a capability as a LR ASM (NSM/LRASM etc). We have more than enough systems to deal with less capable antagonists. So imo, its not really the wrong mindset, more a realistic view of what we need such a capability for. Don’t get me wrong, I do think we… Read more »

George Amery
George Amery
1 month ago

Hi folks hope all is well.
Great to see, must be making some others envious.
As ever with you experts on this site, some advice please.
The article above mentions:

“while the mission bay can quickly adapt to house and deploy vessels, vehicles and containers.”

Does this impli this class of ships will be used in an amphibious attack and strike on shore? I thought these ships are to large for such a mission.

Cheers,
George

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  George Amery

As I recall T26 was originally described as a ‘global combat ship’. If that remains a desire then ASW is just a capability rather than its sole role.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

For that you need to remember that during the GCS designation Type 31 wasn’t a thing, so there where going to be ASW Type 26’s with a Tail and GP Type 26’s without a tail.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Ah, yes! Well we almost made it I suppose; just need to put the 5in gun on T31.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Well almost XD That and Mk41, ARTISAN, the Mission Bay, and a few other bits and pieces. 😛

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Good big hull, good factory, everything else can be fixed. 😉

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago
Reply to  George Amery

ASW will be the ship’s main focus and it’s what they’re designed for. However, the mission bay allows for a small amount of ‘plug and play’, depending on the mission. If you wanted to build on their primary ASW role, you could add a second Merlin, UAVs and autonomous boats. I suspect this will be the option that would be utilised more than any other. If you wanted the ship to deploy in support of disaster relief (which could happen if the ship was the only available asset), there would be room for the embarkation of ten 20ft containers, boats… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Lusty
Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

Plus the LSS (if we ever get anything in that role) will also hopefully have a degree of useful modularity! But yes, kind of hoping that Type 32 will be a MCM mothership.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  George Amery

The Bays and Albions are considerably larger than a City Class Frigate.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

If it looks right it is right! Can’t help thinking the US made a mistake going for the Aquitaine class.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Almost certainly.

The problem was that T26 was not built or in service anywhere.

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago

I think the T26 is underpowered and that the USA moves its fleet at over 30 kn when in a hurry.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonno

I doubt that very much.

QEC can go pretty fast if informal trials information is anything to go by and T45 is well known for a great turn of speed. So no point t in slowing the show for T26 which will need to hunt’n’sprint to catch up with a CSG?

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Aquitaine?

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

The Constellation class wasn’t based on the Aquitaine, the French FREMM, it was the Bergamini class, the Italian FREMM, although they are very similar. However they made it longer, wider and generally bigger than either.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Yeah was kinda pointless basing it on an in service design when you change the design 🙄

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Design wasn’t changed. The USN head of the project have said they just scaled the size, all placements are in same place.

“The Italians did a very good job in the design of the internal spaces, and the flow of a lot of those spaces,” Capt. Kevin Smith, program manager for the Constellation-class, told attendees at the Sea Air Space exposition on Monday, August 2. “You could say we bought a bigger house, [but] from a modeling and simulation perspective, it’s exactly the same.”

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

An absurd comment if you have ever built anything. You can’t simply stretch it out and put the same machinery in it in the same way. The machinery determines there is a chunk of space that won’t scale!

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago

Does it falsify the conclusions from the parent vessel?
Is it the same cost like building a new ship from ground up?

Well USN do not think so.

Leslie Leveson
Leslie Leveson
1 month ago

When one looks at ships today are built, section is the way forward when bringing it all together, in comparison years back and time scale
We have the best navy in the world allthough some will differ.Thankfully the Royal Navy will receive modern fighting ships,which it has endured savage military cuts in the past.
The present scenario with Rasputin increasing its power with the exception of Moskva and the Chinese Dragon exerting its presence in the seas beyond its shores
Long may the Royal Navy help keep our islands safe ,

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

It’s shocking, the scaffolding waste is incredible, and replicate it 8 times!

BAE should be taken to the cleaners for not building a Hall earlier and any MoD, Military and parliamentarian involved in this project should be skewered, including those now retired.

Signed. Disgusted of Cumbria.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

The improvements in productivity and worker retention of investing in a temperature/humidity controlled build environment is massive never mind not wasting effort on scaffold/wrapping/temporary ventilation/heating.

As you say costs multiply and they are unnecessary and expensive lines in the spreadsheet as well as unedited lines in the project plan.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

Exactly. Ta.

Jack Graham
Jack Graham
1 month ago

Looks good, but very expensive!

The Type 31 is a good way to increase the number of hulls, it is still a very large frigate. Only about 1000 tonnes smaller than the Type26 but a quarter of the cost at nominally £250 million a pop. It’s big enough for through life upgrades to improve its offensive and defensive loadout if necessary, whilst cheap enough to provide the first increase in fleet size for decades if they do wish.

Graham Bowerbank
Graham Bowerbank
27 days ago

Well I hope its a bit attack oriented than just defensive as we may need a little more than that in the present climate….