Planning permission has been granted and work is ongoing for a huge expansion of the BAE Systems yard at Govan.
The former ‘wet basin’ has now been filled in preparation for the construction of a massive shipbuilding hall, just beside the current smaller halls.
Here’s a video.
Here's a before and after type shot. pic.twitter.com/SjoQ96zqeC
— George Allison (@geoallison) March 29, 2023
I recently 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 put together 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 drydock/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.
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.
Any minute now there will be a complaint from Mr. Yousaf about the lack of investment in Scotland and U.K. shipbuilding. Such is life😴
He would be letting the side down if he didn’t!
He’s rushing to make his complaint (Link)
What a stupid statement, I’ll have you know the First Mullah is already getting down to business running Scotland as he sees fit:
Has anyone told him there has to be another election sometime in democracies …?
Should read …ruining Scotland as he sees fit and the UK while he’s at it.
He wins…🚴…oh no!
I was waiting for someone to come on here complaining about ships not being built in England for the hundredth time.
I guess all nationalist play the same broken record 😂
Cry me a river arsepipe.
He never mentioned England.
Hang on what in those actual comments suggests a Nationalist argument that all ships should be built in England, even by implication? No idea what those contributors think about where ships should be built but at worst they are a prospective claim that building them in Scotland isn’t being truthfully recognised or appreciated by the Scottish political leadership. Best to read the actual words I think rather than substitute ones own to simply rewrite history to suit one’s prejudices.
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying.😗
The recent announcements of massive investments in Barrow (and Derby) may silence those for a while. Talking of Derby, I only just spotted last week’s announcement of funding for Rolls Royce micro-reactor, ready in 2029 for a moonshot. It’s on the commercial side of Space UK’s programme so I was a bit late picking it up. I was talking to a Rolls Royce guy about the underlying tech last year and it’s a whole generation ahead of their SMR programme. And now it’s to deploy on the Moon. How cool is that? The US Artemis program also has three candidate… Read more »
I live in Derby and it would be fair to say I do have a vested interest in this. But in the last month this old Town (sorry City) is absolutely Banging.
AUKUS, SMR, Moon Reactor and New HQ for GBR.
We just need the Rams to remember where the Goal is and jobs a good un.
Question is how long do they need to let that fill settle before building on it? for normal houses it usually 4/5 years and me thinks building the shed with associated cranes etc and 2 x T-26 will weigh a bit more than a few affordable housing flats and 2/3 bed semi and 4 bed houses?
Obviously nonsense. Concrete takes days to settle not years.
Not nonsense at all, unless piles are driven down to the bedrock, the ground beneath a buildings foundation has to be left to settle before the rest of the building is completed.
In this case it would depend on what sort of foundation the floor of the wet basin has if any.
I do wish people with no expertise would stop making stupid comments, which assumes that the people at BAE, who are in fact qualified in these matters, are idiots. They have obviously done the structural calculations and have begun work to a deadline.
Obviously nonsense because you suggest BAE don’t know how to build a ship building hall. So why make yourself look childish.
At no point have I suggested that BAE don’t know how to build a ship hall. As you said no doubt BAE are working to a deadline which they are fully capable of meeting, however the op’s question is still perfectly valid as we do not yet know when the hall is expected to be completed. It was little under 4 years after HMS Glasgow was laid down that her fore and aft sections were moved outside and joined together, so for the third ship to be joined together inside the new hall the hall would need to be completed… Read more »
I suspect the comment is aimed at the fill, not the concrete layer on top. Roman concrete is still curing 2500 years after it was laid and is stable. I would think, from a non-structural engineers perspective, I would drive piles in places where cranes and other lift assets were to be placed and lay enough concrete around where the ships will sit on their plinths (or whatever the word is).
cheers
where did i mention concrete?
Fair question must admit it’s not what I was quite expecting it to be done and will be interested to see the whole process.
According to Unit 4+2 it doesnt take long for Concrete and clay to crumble.
I’ll get me coat.
It isn’t concrete that has been used to fill the basin. It looks to me more like Type1 MOT made from recycled aggregate. As I don’t know how it was put in I don’t know if it was compacted or not or if it was put in wet or dry. What that looks like, to me, is the first stage in creating a piling mat that is safe to put heavy machinery on top of. But what I can say is that you are not going to build a critically aligned facility on top of that fill. As others have… Read more »
Interesting thought, myself living in a new build there is a 5 year period after construction that you will need to have building inspectors come in and check for subsidence. However during this period it is perfectly fine to go about the daily routines etc, the flooring on this particular building will have been designed in such a way as will most likely have several layers of concrete to mitigate the risk of ground pressure from above with appropriate for future weight bearing foundations.
Civil Engineering is not my bag but I’d imagine the infill will be tampered and compacted, Piles will be driven in and a Concrete slab put on top.
Yep estate near me was filled, compacted left for 5 yeats. then had 20m piles driven in concrete foundations beams laid across pile top and then pre-cast concrete laid on top of these and the bricks etc, they have been built for 4 years and still complaining about cracks due to settling, also sewers had to be be redone because they settled to!!! So how long 1000’s of tons of fill dumped on top of riverbed will take to fully compress with huge concrete slab and Frigate shed is got be be a guess.
Take a look at Bramley More dock in Liverpool. Everton FC,s new home. The dock was filled in with sand from the Irish sea. Pilings were then drilled into the sand and the stadium was being built within weeks.
I drive past Bramley pretty much every day. That thing has shot up.
Vibro Compaction….
I’ve had that but a parastomal should clear it!😉
That sounds a bit dirty.
It will be a fill material laid and compacted by roller in layers so won’t settle (as long as it was done properly….)
Not a civil engineer, but have a look at the timeline for Everton’s new stadium at Bramley Moore Dock.
Infilled, piled and construction all started in very quick succession. Perhaps point load of pitch v ship is different, however the fabric of the stadium is far greater than ship building shed.
1st October 21 infil of fluidised sand began – 450000 cubic m
20th October 21 piling began for 2500 concrete piles
Hopefully rather than just a blob of landfill, there’s piling beneath to make it rest on rock. Then a reinforced base of concrete should be on a solid foundation rather than waiting for saturated landfill to dry out. Says me, NO engineer!
It depends on the fill material. It looks like a graded aggregate material (i.e.crushed rock with blended fines) has been used, this should consolidate well in layers to form a very solid and stable base. Such construction is very well understood as it’s been used in road building etc.for centuries. Soil infill of most types is a very different beast.
I was thinking the exact same thing. From the aerial photo, it looks like they’re using rollers to compact the layers as they go, and if they’re using something like well-graded aggregate, there shouldn’t be too much settling after that (nowhere near as bad as soil settling).
I’m still not sure why they didn’t develop this ‘frigate factory’ on the desolate land on the other side of the wet basin where they wouldn’t have to fill a basin at all, then they’d still have the wet basin to do fitting out etc
And as I mentioned in the other thread BAE are also applying this month for fast track permission to clear a major part of the Barrow site with the demolition of Warehouse B36 (one of the largest buildings on site and adjoining the dock basin), in anticipation of future redevelopment.
SSNr is going to be a fast paced programme with an obvious need to get first 2-3 subs in service asap. The Chinese threat, already severe is likely to reach a critical level in the 2030s so we really need our SSN numbers boosted to +10 subs asap.
I’m not sure it’s so much SSN(R) (I guess now AUKUS), as the Astute program being so glacially slow. The Astute class took on average more than twice the build time than any of the preceding classes. A combination of loss of shipyard workforce, organisational changes/ loss of admiralty oversight/project management, loss of specialist designers, a haphazard project start, changing the design mid class and increasing build and safety standards (that BAE didn’t exactly help its subcontractors to adjust to)… All came together to make the build time so ridiculously long. I don’t think we’ll get back to the roughly… Read more »
Why ever not 4 years?
Where there is a will there is a way.
You could increase throughput by 10% by working Friday afternoon for starters.
The you have a 70% uplift in workforce which you would hope would drive another 70%+ increase in productivity.
Is B36 the old Red Brick building that runs alongside Michelson road, looks mostly unused at the moment.
The one on Buccleuch Dock Road/Michaelson Rd
Excellent news
Good progress but I don’t see the same progress in replacing Warrior. I see our Swedish fairy god mother has sold us some Archers. How about some CV90s? I see the UK build rate for the supposed ( and as yet cannon-less) Boxer replacement is a less than stunning 50 per year! The numbers and ISDs aren’t adding up?
According to Forces News its an even worse 3 a month build rate. 260 by 2030.
Build rate will have to be doubled if we want anymore than 623 before 2040.
I think the best thing could be a government owned plant with basic equipment for building vehicles that as part of contracts awarded the plant is rented to the contract winner, then the next contract winner takes over when jobs done.
Obviously it takes a steady amount of contracts for vehicles.
As I know very little about vehicles production lines I don’t know if it has any benefit over what currently happens.
Great idea- it would end BAEs monopoly on UK defence procurement whilst avoiding the shambles that is Ajax.
The issue with our armoured vehicle fleet is even though they came into service decades apart, all are being replaced at the same time which I assume is a large part of the slow build rate at Telford because there is no certain future for them.
The irony is that BAE’s monopoly largely came about due to consolidation of industry due to lack of orders. BAE themselves hardly gained from this which is why they have refocused their activities overseas. I’m not sure that the obsessive focus on competition has improved the situation, as Ajax shows. It’s much like the situation in UK train manufacturing which due to boom and bust cycles now has far too much capacity to be sustainable.
Unless you have sufficient orders (like a US company, or German ones which manage to get significant overseas sales) I don’t think privatised defence companies work especially well.
I think it worked better when the admiralty designed our ships and then contracted out to yards to build them.
Or just have defence companies in which the state has a controlling stake (like many European countries have).
Totally agree
If commentator’s would look up from their navels for a bit and cast their eyes around the world they would notice that it’s pretty much the same everywhere! Even in the US! You tend to have 1 or 2 huge companies in each sector and a few minnows. The exceptions tend to be parts of huge conglomerates, like GE or Boeing. As an aside, in my junior days I once had a Fund Manager towering over me berating me for having the temerity to suggest that Boeing was a defence stock and explicitly excluded from the client mandate. Shows my… Read more »
That’s more or less the approach taken for shipbuilding in Australia. Seems like a good system, because it allows for some degree of competition without the inefficiency of duplication. Also maintaining an experienced and consistent skills base.
Having an interest in Australian defence and reading a couple of their blogs, the locals don’t seem to share your view that everything is rosy in Defence down under.
Maybe so, but what’s the alternative? Australia is never going to be a major exporter with their cost base.
It’s to be expected for the initial build rate. As everyone is learning the process of what works and doesn’t when manufacturing the Boxer. In a years time, the production speed will have ramped up from lessons learned.
Not so sure about that, seems to be 3 a month for the first order of 260, to be completed by 2030.
Forces news has some videos on YouTube of the first boxers being started. 2 guys hand welding 2 wee bits together.
Made me wonder how difficult it would be for a car/truck production line to be capable of building military vehicles. Or at least the bits that are best done by robots.
I am not an engineer so that problem is above my pay grade. As per Louis’ post the build rate needs to roughly double to make any sense. Perhaps the Germans going to supply 50%. Something for Charles to discuss over dinner?
Well they seemed happy to see him, though maybe that was simply welcoming a long lost son home.
ROFL
https://i.postimg.cc/bJvPNH1z/Opera-Snapshot-2023-03-29-190541-www-theguardian-com.png
Ah what ever floats his boat.
Congrats to whoever is working on that ‘factory/shed/thing… Massive amount of work gone on so far. Hopefully they can complete the building as quickly as they drained and filled the dock underneath.
It will be interesting to compare that to how quickly Starbase built their Megabay a matter of months in their case and they seem to have had no problem creating a surface on far from solid ground there to immediately support rather heavy stacking of Starship booster sections.
And put in a substantial retaining wall before it all slides back into the water!😁
BAE just wanted to make a footy pitch like Airbus. BAE vs Airbus. It’s looking interesting.
Still looks too small!.
The footprint looks OK for the Type 26, I just hope there is enough margin factored in for the possible Type 83,you wouldn’t want your design team constrained by the size of the site.
its amazing the motivation to get this done when the opposition turn up with an all new frigate factory after stealing BAE of its rightful dues to build all UK escorts. fingers crossed we can now have the continuity of warship ordering that can keep the two yards in clover. type 32 and type 83 orders in batches and in the right timeframe and offered to both yards should keep them nice and honest. The only problem we have is that the massive delays on escort building in the 2010s may push warship building into another feast and famine cycle…with… Read more »
If and it’s a big if orders can keep coming steadily the shipyards can keep improving, driving down costs and export orders may come. There has to be a follow on after type 31 and that will need to come before the last one is finished. If the yards are to be: Clyde: for top tier ships Barrow: submarines Rosyth: escorts and other vessels Belfast: large vessels, RFA Belfast needs to prove itself but hopefully there will be enough work for there and rosyth. There are also all the maintenance yards, smaller boats and the big yards often use smaller… Read more »
Problem with that is it means there’s no competition. Better to have BAE and Babcock battling for high and low end ships. Both should submit proposals for T32 as they have and both should be preparing for T83.
Without it they become lazy as is seen with BAE’s recent wake up call. With competitive shipyards foreign orders will come.
Cammell Laird had a proposal a few years back for a 400m dry dock and dock number 5 is big enough already so with two dry docks at each they could compete for civilian ships as well.
Looks to be proceeding well. Shame they could not remove the old buildings at the back and increase the length though.
Having a Butchers on Google Maps and behind the ship factory on Taransay st, Eldar St, etc can be found some beautiful old buildings would I be correct that is what is known in Scotland as Tenement Buildings
https://i.postimg.cc/xCJyLB2q/Opera-Snapshot-2023-03-29-184251-www-google-com.png
SNP headquarters…
Hi farouk, yeah looks like old tenement buildings they would look great with a little spruce up.
Can’t come soon enough to ensure we can build faster whenever the PM/COC allow funds to get what we need built. Read in Warship World a couple of months back the T32 & T83 is as yet unfunded & stalled. By the late 1930s we were building furiously for the navy. Here & now we’re moving at snails pace & starving essential programs of funds.
The problem with that is we then run out of orders. The History of British Naval shipbuilding is one of Boom and Bust and that is largely responsible for the dire state we were in 10 years ago. The secret to building good ships at a reasonable price is to build at an agreed Drumbeat of orders. This allows the builders to invest long term in facilities, training and technology. Also the MOD/ Treasury is tied into contracts that penalise under ordering. You just need to look at the investment by BAe in Scotland and Barrow to see what happens… Read more »
1 sub every 2 years
1 frigate (t26/45) every 2 years
1 frigate (t31) every 2 years
1 multi mission patrol every 1 year
1 large RFA/Amphib every 18 months
100 enabling craft every year (atlas, rhibs, tugs etc)
this is the drumbeat we should have – and its affordable.
for corvette looking at something around the new X class
probably cost £5bn pa all in, every single year.
Shhhh – the Navy hates the word corvette! OPV might do 🙂
Ha. You are right
Personally I don’t care what they call them as long as they build them
With a £50bn pa defence budget we seem to get very little for it and just keep on making poor decisions that drain money (now doing same with HS2)
Time we started sticking to a plan imo
Large ship every 18 months seems too ambitious unless we’re planning to build cruise ships as well.
30 years divided by 18 months means we’d need 20 such ships.
3 FSSS, 4 tides, 6 MRSS gives 13, 15 if the waves are replaced (nothings to my knowledge been said about the programme since it appeared in the NSS.)
On the topic of cruise ships there are various British cruise lines that could be given incentives to buy British in the 2030s once H&W gets going and leaves the opportunity for Cammell Laird to join in.
4 points, 3 bays, 2 albions, 1 Argos, 1 ocean, 2 LSGs, 3 SSS + 4 Tides , 2 waves + anvil point = 23 Could have counted others such as forts,Scott, diligence and orange classes but haven’t Replace with 14 MRSS (karel doorman type vessel), 6 FFT + 5 FloFlos + 5 MROS for good measure and that’s 30 ships or 1 pa over 30 yrs There is plenty of requirements and I think they should all be built at CL Optimal is probably a 25 year lifecycle with a single major overhaul at year 13 then look to… Read more »
On cruise ships I often wonder how they can build such high end vessels with top class finishes and azimuth propellers for far less than a T26
I know weaponry costs a fortune. But so does the finishing of these ships which are just huge.
Something to learn from that space I think
No matter how many times you repeat this. Some moron will keep coming to the site and repeating “it’s too slow”. It would be nice to have a moderator that binned some of these silly posts.
They do not understand that even the richest countries cannot just build at speed continuously and maintain a viable industrial base. The best example I can think of in recent years is the USN, during the the cold war they were building Submarines at a hell of a pace. The Los Angeles Class of 62 boats were built over a 24 year period 1972-1996 or 2.6 pa. At pretty well the same time 1976-1997 they built 24 Ohios or 1.14 pa. Average that out is 86 boats in 25 years or 3.44pa. Then the peace dividend happened and orders slumped,… Read more »
Thanks for your examples, people on these blogs seem resistant to engaging their brains before typing.
I’m intrigued to know how they will dock the barge to launch Cardiff & Belfast. The photos of HMS Glasgow show the barge goes right up to the corner of the existing key, which the new infill goes well past (into the space where the barge needs to go) I’m guessing some piling to form a new key edge will be required and the excess fill dredged.
Once the new Shed is built the Ships will roll out of the door straight onto the Barge,no need for any turning etc,that’s the way i see it.
Giving it more thought, i think that should the new infilled area be completed in time for when the two halves of Cardiff are joined up outside ,this process will be carried out there rather than the space on the Slipway side as was the case for Glasgow with work ongoing for the Shed construction around it.Once Cardiff is floated off the Shed work will be finished and Belfast will be fully joined and made ready for float off under cover of the new building ( all speculative of course ).
Good Morning All. The appointment of Mr. Yousaf as SNP leader and hence First Minister caps the recent decline of the SNP but for Unionists the challenge remains to promote the many good reasons for maintaining the centuries old United Kingdom. Scottish Nationalism will remain a legitimate political aspiration in Scotland so the appointment of this chap might only offer temporary respite for those of us who cherish the UK and its institutions such as our Armed Forces. Second as per Sonik and other comments on the build per George’s article above, engineering solutions depend very much on local conditions… Read more »
IMHO and I speak as a proud Scot who is pro Union. The best argument for the Union is the uplift in U.K. shipbuilding which is going on right now based on U.K exports and alliances.
If any Nationalist can convince me that Scotland would have a share of the Tri Partite T26 build, T31 exports or involvement in AUKUS if it wasn’t part of the UK I’d be dumbfounded.
If Scotland were to gain independence you would very quickly watch 2 things happen the rapid obliteration of Shipbuilding in Scotland and an exodus of workers to southern climes.
Hi Rodney. Thanks for your reply and I agree with what you say. The Union has to be broadly acceptable to all the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in terms of what it provides economically, through a feeling of a shared identity that also accommodates regional differences in culture and background and connections through family, institutions, geography and a broadly shared language. The words Shipbuilding and Scotland have for many years been synonymous and the revival of the Scottish industry is wonderful to witness. It was of course the same in NI from where all my family hail.… Read more »
We will have to change the name of HMS Burrel😂
I hope they join it to the current building so they can move sideways in a production line, keeping it all undercover.
would seem a missed opportunity if they don’t and the relative additional expense is minimal for maximum payoff.
Impossible. The way the current buildings are configured, there are supports for the roof plus any gantry cranes between the 3 bays means you can’t move ship modules laterally inside the building. I suspect that once the new building is operational, they might look to get rid of the old ones as they’re too short even to build things like OPVs undercover these days. I’d think the slipway would probably be filled in too as that hasn’t been used since the Type 45 and is unlikely to be used again. So they could then redevelop that area of the site.… Read more »
Now for a decent bit of turf and some goal post…lol 😂
Make that ….goal posts!
If its the Treasury paying, all you’ll get is one. The second would obviously be overspend.
Several regiments and the RAF today showing off their new regimental badges with the ER II to CR III monogram and change from female crown to a male crown. They will be worn for the first time on Coronation Day.
Now I did not know we had a male and female crown…
What about a non binary Crown?😃
I prefer the term unisex when it comes to regalia.The Crown version of yellow baby grows.
Army too.