The interim head of Ferguson Marine, John Petticrew, has dismissed the long-standing claim that the delayed Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa ferries are more complex to construct than the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigates.
His comments came during a meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, where he addressed challenges faced by the shipyard and outlined plans for its future.
The assertion that the ferries are more complex than frigates has circulated since former chief executive David Tydeman stated that fitting the vessels’ liquefied natural gas (LNG) systems into tight machinery spaces posed greater challenges than designing a Type 26 frigate. This claim has sparked widespread debate, becoming a contentious topic in Scottish political discourse.
However, Petticrew offered a starkly different perspective.
“I might be a bit controversial here, but I do not find the vessel to be particularly complex,” Petticrew told MSPs. “I just think that it was not planned and designed properly. I think that Ferguson’s was, and is, well capable of producing the vessel.”
Petticrew acknowledged the difficulties associated with dual-fuel systems but emphasised that the fundamental issue lay in poor planning rather than the inherent complexity of the vessels. He added that the challenges faced by Ferguson Marine are not uncommon in shipbuilding, noting that multiple iterations of a ship are often required before processes are perfected.
Drawing from his own experience working on frigates, Petticrew remarked: “I was involved in building nine frigates, and we were on the fourth frigate before we really knew what we were doing. I am not trying to compare anything that we are building with building a frigate—the vessel is not as complex as a frigate.”
Petticrew also highlighted the importance of Ferguson Marine transitioning to a model that focuses on building series of ships rather than bespoke one-offs, suggesting that this would improve efficiency and reduce risks associated with the design process. He indicated that the shipyard is exploring partnerships with established shipbuilders to bring in proven designs and expertise to streamline operations.
Looking ahead, Petticrew outlined a vision for diversifying the shipyard’s workload to include not only ferry construction but also offshore, wind farm, and potentially naval work. He described this as a necessary shift to stabilise Ferguson Marine’s financial position and improve its competitiveness in the commercial market.
The comments provide a significant rebuttal to a claim that has loomed large over the controversy surrounding the two ferries and signal a commitment to learning from past mistakes while steering the shipyard towards a more sustainable and efficient future.
I suspect John Perricrew of Ferguson Marine is now saying this because they are trying to win work on the Type 26 Frigate? So if that is the case, what guarantees is he willing to offer? Consequential damages etc?
I think it’s more likely he’s trying to distance himself from the previous leadership, who, with daft comments like small ferries being more complex than large frigates, have painted a picture of FM being incompetent.
Petticrew is in effect saying “Ferguson is capable of the work, the previous leadership just didn’t manage the programme correctly”
is this an excuse for the abysmal performance in the Clyde yards? the same yards that took four years to build a patteol ship? disgraceful and stupid contracts for warships should be given to foreign yards when I was in the Falklands war of 82 I couldn’t give a damn where it had been built, it wasn’t important then and it isn’t now either.
Normally I would agree that an off the shelf, front line first approached should always be considered Andy, but Warship design and build is actually something we can keep in house.
It certainly needs improvement, but let’s not forget that previous government’s have added to the problem by drip feeding funding and deliberately slowing down programmes.
I can’t believe anyone would think a ferry is more complex than pretty much any naval vessel. It’s laughable and was just used to justify bad management. I mean really!
The idea a ferry was more complicated than a state of the art frigate was always a comedy moment.
You have to remember the ferries were so poorly designed and specified that additions escape stairs were added afterwards. That speaks volumes as to degrees of cluelessness that manifested themselves. Phrases involving ‘biting of more than can chew’ and ‘out of depth’ come to mind.
I wish them well, I really do, but this has been a catastrophe for the Scottish island people who needed those ferries years ago.
Hi SB,
I think he nailed it on the head, never seen a better example of the old Maxim “Piss Poor Planning leads to Piss Poor Performance”. They have already built some sub assemblies for the T26 and let’s face it if they hadn’t passed BAe QC it would have leaked out to the press.
As for not ensuring they had either the right skill sets or a training path for Cryogenics is a pretty good indication of just how bad the project planning was.
I was responsible for the installation and commissioning of two LNG marine fuel systems on ships at the Damen shipyards at Haarlingen and Dunkerque.
Obviously you need experience of cryogenic systems but other than that they are straight forward.
The problem that is not being addressed is that the Ferguson yard did not have the necessary skill sets for cryogenics , effectively they did not know enough to understand what they needed to know.
Absolutely spot on.
Hopefully he is successful, it was always a fantasy that Ferguson would rely on building ferry’s for Scotland, the yard needs a better diversified base of customers and it’s never going to be able to compete against foreign yards in developing countries building low end products like Ferries.
It is clear we need more warships (assuming manning is available) and we lack the capacity to do much more than we already do so like it or lump it, Ferguson’s need to be rehabilitated. It was clear during the ferry fiasco that the workforce was not the problem, it is the poor leadership .
David Tydeman is either trying to justify his incompetence, or is just a moron.
I sold my shares years ago. Best thing I ever did. Ferries being a Scottish speciality and all.
Just keep the SNP a million nautical miles away from it.
Did the SNP build two useless aircraft carriers ..with no men nor jets ..asking fo4 a friend ..l
Given that the QE’s are fully crewed and have F-35’s, I’m going with “No.” But then, by your criteria, neither did westminster.
Funny because I seen them both with men and jets onboard
We have reactors that fit in submarines and provide huge amounts of power and don’t need a tanker trailing alongside, why the hell are we still dicking around with non nuclear naval ships? It’s stupid, another example of the civil service making damned sure we can’t fight their mates the russians
Because it’s expensive. Also, certain countries/ports don’t welcome nuclear power vessels, so you need to go for various reasons the ship will be refused.
Also who else has a substantial nuclear surface fleet other than carriers.
Answer: nobody.
That tells you something about the costs, risks and economics.
Say every single frigate and destroyer had to go into a nuclear certified dry dock – what would the timeline to create all of those be – the cost would be the cost of a proper fleet of RN F35B on its own.
Then having a trained nuclear certified workforce that large. The time it would take to build up would be incredible and the cost….
Then there is the whole issue of designing reactors that can be used in a thin skinned frigate or destroyer…..all UK and US reactors go into armoured containment….how do you carry that in a frigate or destroyer? Answers on a postcard.
Then you need the RN nuclear engineering teams on every single vessel….
The complexity and choreography of the above would eat a 3% defence budget alive.
So no, it us not a good idea at any level.
Perhaps? just perhaps, Ferguson Marine could build two over seas patrol ships, and see how long and competent it takes to build.??
perhaps if they completed this to standard, then , perhaps they may participate in frigates or other war ships, just an opinion, perhaps /
just a thought.
Imagine if those clowns tried building a warship,45 years late £10 billion over budget and still not working. No thanks stick k to non working ferries as you excel at that. Cheers sturgeon