The aft section of first Type 26 Frigate HMS Glasgow was rolled out of the build hall earlier today.

The Type 26 represents the future backbone of the Royal Navy and eight of the class are planned, starting with HMS Glasgow.

The forward ‘superblock’ will be joined to the aft ‘superblock’ next week.

The mast will also soon be added to the vessel.

Below is the front half of the ship being rolled out of the build hall.

The Type 26 represents the future backbone of the Royal Navy and eight of the class are planned, starting with HMS Glasgow. The eight ships will replace the eight dedicated anti-submarine Type 23 frigates which will reach the end of their active lives by the mid 2030s. In addition to the Clyde built Type 26, five Rosyth built Type 31 general purpose frigates are intended to replace the general-purpose Type 23s currently in service and also coming towards the end of their long careers.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
42 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
farouk
farouk
2 months ago

I feel that the insertion of the fireflash theme (from thunderbirds) would have gone nicely with the above roll out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmqYQNQme8I

Last edited 2 months ago by farouk
Andy P
Andy P
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Yeah, that would work. Good call. 👍

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

I thought the seats in the leading edge of the wing of Fireflash was cool.
But personnally I would have gone with the Zero X assembly music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8PR3QIwXHs&feature=youtu.be

farouk
farouk
2 months ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

I have to admit I did think of that sound track (somewhat rather majestic) But I recently purchased the entire series of Thunderbirds on Amazon and the fireflash episode with the elevator cars (and music) sold it for me.

Last edited 2 months ago by farouk
Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

I will not call out with your choice!! As a child of Gerry Anderson it still amazes me what he did just with models and puppets and it still doesn’t look dated and has stood the test of time.
And the imagination!! He was truly ahead of his time .
Even the more adult UFO still looks pretty good .

farouk
farouk
2 months ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

I agree 100% with you.

The Big Man
The Big Man
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

My God. I thought the F35 was complex.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah
1 month ago
Reply to  The Big Man

And about as expensive.
Only Gerry Anderson would have the hanger door disappear into the ground and the entire hanger roll back before the vehicle rolled forward.
Optioneering gone nuts but even as an adult and experienced designer I still love it.

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

I was thinking more Zero-X…..

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Oddly, I was watching that the other day. 🙂

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago

Good looking vessels. Wonder how quickly we could actually get them from initial cutting to trials if need arose.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

I think the longer lead items such as the propulsion. Radar, sonar would be the limiting factor .

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

That’s a very good looking ship.

farouk
farouk
2 months ago

Slightly off topic, but here’s a little Russian mishap regards the launch of one of their missiles the other week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11QlVfGbQ9o

Ship: Marshal Shaposhnikov
Weapon: Kalibr cruise missile
Location: Sea of Japan

Last edited 2 months ago by farouk
Patrick
Patrick
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

As usual the Russians talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

Herodotus
Herodotus
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

This, of course comrade, is our latest ASW munition performing a successful interdiction!

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Sea Cat used to do that …a lot!

geoff
geoff
2 months ago

All that work in a big warehouse-big lumps of metal that looked like a collection of sheds and suddenly, a butterfly emerges. She is a fine looking ship. Pity the whole programme can’t be speeded up! There will probably be a capability and numbers gap in a few years until the 26’s are up and running.

Peter S
Peter S
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

I know the original reason for the slow build rate was to spread the costs. But by ensuring continuous construction, we do avoid the problems of loss of skills that afflicted the Astute programme. My concern is that having just 8 ASW frigates is not enough to tackle the only current naval threat- Russian submarines. Adding bow sonar to type 31 ( offered for export on Babcock’s website) wouldn’t break the bank.

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Morning Peter. A very good point which i had forgotten. Continuity of work is critical for many reasons. The RN work is probably insufficient to sustain the industry in the longer term so need to either attract more international orders or diversify

DRS
DRS
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Still don’t get why they can’t do the whole part under 1 roof. If Babcock can make a frigate factory with 1.5 Bn order why not BAE with 8bn . I know they are a private company etc but surely it gives you better options to sell to others abroad etc if you have the space to do side by side builds.
Babcock hall can fit 2 type 26 and they are not even building them https://www.navylookout.com/britain-gets-a-new-frigate-factory/

Last edited 1 month ago by DRS
Order of the Ditch
Order of the Ditch
1 month ago
Reply to  DRS

Great looking ship.
Ideally the surface fleet would consist of 30 ships and there would be steady drumbeat of ships with an escort built each year. That combined with the need to build a ship like a carrier, LSD, Auxiliary every now and then should be able to support our domestic shipbuilding industry.
Compared to the new ships being built in China I am concerned that they are underarmed and not able to survive a saturation attack.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  DRS

The Treasury did not permit Bae to add a new covered building assembly. They had that power because under UK rules, the sole source contract for the T26 was open book so the Treasury could examine how every single penny that was to be spent.

Order of the Ditch
Order of the Ditch
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

Nope, its just BAE being tight. BAE should be looking at the long term and the way they are building ships on the Clyde is inefficient. Babcock are confident of delivering Type 31 for such a low price because of the new sheds they are building. the believe the new frigate shed will increase their productivity and deliver the T31 on quicker for less money.

Ultimately BAE needs a covered dry dock like the one at Meyer Werft, but smaller. No slipway launch, no moving blocks together outdoors.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago

Nope. It was the Treasury saying no. Reported reliably by multiple sources at the time.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

Because BAe wanted the treasury to pay. Babcock have to invest to neet a price point based on efficiency. Babcock was a competitive tender the other wasn’t it was in BAe interest to add fat add they get cost plus a %.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Babcock’s is building their new shed out of the contract money to build the T31’s. Because it was a competitive bid, under UK rules, the Treasury has no say on what goes in or out. Babcock’s says the new facility costs 50 million.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

Babcock is choosing to invest some of the contract money in new facilities. They could have chosen not to, built less effectively made less profit or even at a loss. There’s nothing in their contract that commits the government to pay for the facilities as part of the contract. That’s materially different to what BAe wanted from HMG.

Darren
Darren
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Yes, and has already been shown, BAE have had prifit attributed to the Type 26 project. The Scotstoun full ship factory would have cost 200 million pounds, just over 2% of the overrall project cost. I think BAE done a deal with the AUS Gov if they won, to produce the ship factories in Australia in which there are two I think, but one less ship than AUS number, longer build time meant no urgency for Scotstoun. Type 83 will/must require this. Sir John Parker did say that any UK taxpayer funded ship project especially high end/cost, should show investment… Read more »

Order of the Ditch
Order of the Ditch
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

It still doesn’t excuse BAE not find it themselves which is my point. The Treasury order ships not shipyard facilities. Babcock are paying for their new facilities in an attempt to win overseas orders. The attitudes between the two companies is huge.

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 month ago

Babcock needs NEW facility because they had none.

By the way, current shed does not look so bad?
The final welding looks not a big work, and the ship is well built in super-blocks.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago

It’s a big rectangular shed, what’s to like or not like?

UK warships have been built in “super-blocks” for at least the last 50 years.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago

Nonsense. Warship contracts cover all the costs of building the ships, research, development, design, shore infrastructure, testing, guarantees, first years of support. The whole nine yards.

Bae committed to the MoD that the cost of the new facilities, if built, would be recovered if all 8 Type 26’s were ordered in one contract. The Treasury declined the offer, preferring to build at a slower, less efficient and overall more expensive rate. All to keep the annual cash flow low.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago

And Babcock’s is not building the new facilities out of the kindness of their own hearts, the cost is being paid out of the Type 31 contract i.e. by the MoD/Treasury.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  DRS

Agree. No doubt it will not have done BAe any favours.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago

I do think we need to be launching 1 of these vessels every 2 years, indefinitely.

given we have 8 on the books now that is 16 years of work at which point the T45 (T26 batch 2) will be ready to start launching.

this isn’t that difficult to sort out, we know we have a requirement for 80 surface ships, why can’t we schedule them properly.

this is one of the fundamental issues with the MOD.

I would also like to know the true build cost, not the overblown Total cost of ownership that scares other potential customers away..

BB85
BB85
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

I think the carrier project knocked things massively out of sync because we built them in the face a huge spending cuts due to the contract. The carriers won’t be replaced until the 2050s so no excuse for scheduling continuous ship building going forward and actually enshrine it into law to keep the treasury out of it.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  BB85

The carriers did not force “huge spending cuts”. You need to do a little more research.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

The problem lies with the Treasury not the MoD.

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Isn’t that similar to the timeline Navy Lookout has illustrated?
https://www.navylookout.com/when-will-the-royal-navy-have-24-frigates-and-destroyers/

The UK unit cost doesn’t look like TCO over frigate life, where are you getting that from? The Australian and Canadian are IIRC based on TCO, which is partly why they look so expensive; they also include technology transfer costs.

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago

Don’t you just love it when a frigate comes together?

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago

Excellent video. Many thanks.