By Ted Barnes, 27 June 2025
Modern warship construction is as much about precision and efficiency as it is about steel and rivets. The recent opening of the Janet Harvey Hall at BAE Systems’ Govan facility in Scotland is a testament to that fact. This state‑of‑the‑art, climate‑controlled space allows shipbuilders to work on two Type 26 frigates side‑by‑side, sheltered from the harsh elements. Its impact goes far beyond keeping the rain off workers’ heads — it’s reshaping how naval ships are built, delivered and sustained throughout their lifecycle.
With dimensions of 170m long and 80m wide, and a towering door rising 33m, the Janet Harvey Hall allows as many as 500 workers per shift to operate with precision equipment under ideal conditions. Two 100‑tonne cranes and a pair of smaller cranes enable seamless assembly, allowing the Royal Navy to benefit from a streamlined build schedule. As BAE Systems’ Managing Director, Simon Lister, said, “The world‑class technology in the hall will transform the way we design and build warships and help secure the long‑term future for complex shipbuilding in Glasgow.”
Why not in Canada? There is a gap between ambition and infrastructure. Canada, too, is in the midst of a multi‑decade naval renewal program — one aimed at delivering a new class of River-class destroyers for the Royal Canadian Navy. Yet despite billions announced and long‑term political commitments, Irving Shipbuilding and the government of Canada have yet to match the facilities, workflow and working conditions seen in Govan.
Although Irving is still in the process of upgrading its facilities before the official keel‑laying ceremony for HMCS Fraser, an enclosed, climate‑controlled assembly space akin to the Janet Harvey Hall is not yet in place. Without such an investment, sections of the River-class destroyers will be built inside existing facilities only to be joined together and fully assembled outdoors — exposed to the harsh North Atlantic climate. This approach complicates quality control, scheduling and cost management, making delays and cost escalations an almost inevitable part of the programme.
Moreover, future routine maintenance such as painting — which would otherwise require extensive scaffolding, tenting and hoarding exposed to the mercy of the weather — would be vastly simplified with a climate‑controlled space. An assembly hall of this nature doesn’t just benefit initial construction, it becomes a long‑term strategic asset that improves the efficiency, quality and cost‑effectiveness of sustaining the fleet throughout its service life.
Why does it matter now? This is a pivotal moment for Canada’s naval future. The Prime Minister has announced a commitment for 5% of GDP to be invested in NATO over the long term — making it an ideal time to channel some of that investment into critical shipbuilding infrastructure. An enclosed, climate‑controlled assembly facility would significantly boost the build speed and delivery of the River-class destroyers, ensuring the navy has the ships it needs when it needs them.
With long build and delivery timelines already stretching the limits of Canada’s naval planning, the time to make this investment is now. The United Kingdom has shown the way with its Janet Harvey Hall — an example Canada can, and must, emulate.
With the right facilities, a highly skilled workforce, and a focused political commitment, Irving Shipbuilding and the government of Canada can build the River-class destroyers on time, on cost, and to the high standards required of a modern naval force. In doing so, Canada can secure its place as a serious naval player and fulfill its NATO commitments for generations to come.
26 thoughts on “Why Canada Needs Updated River Class Destroyer Construction Facilities: A Lesson from Scotland for Irving and the Government of Canada”
I though it had already been contracted to build a new assembly hall for the River Class at Irving?
Ted is absolutely correct Wayne. No such contract between ISL & the GOC is as yet in place, “but, one can always…. strike a bargain” (a line I remember from the movie Air Force One). I believe ISL has/had plans for a Janet Harvey Hall ‘type’ climate-controlled facility for RCD construction as well as for possible other replacement ships down the road. There has also been discussions about expanding NAD in Dartmouth by either ISL or BAE for a larger RCD Synchro-Lift facility build with larger cranes for block-construction. The growth to 5% of GDP by the PM would certainly go a long way to see this materialize soon. Cheers!
“We have done so much, with so little, for so long, that now we are ready to do anything, with nothing….forever.”
I believe the existing design of the assembly hall is being modified. Supposedly they can, when in full operation, build 2 ships at a time. The caveat is moves of modules need to be carefully managed. I think the issue is that there is limited space and assembly will still need to be outside in the elements. As well, modules will be built off site and have to be transported which is inefficient and takes time. BAE’s new facility will allow most of the construction to be inside and more efficient according to what I have read.
Hello Retired RCN. Yes, I believe you are correct. However, if ISL had a BAE type assembly hall like the Janet Harvey Hall climate-controlled facility built by BAE in Scotland, it could also accommodate at least 2 x River-class destroyers at the same time and entirely built inside without need to assemble modules in the elements. The only caveat to that is the mast would probably have to be ‘assembled’ outside but could also be constructed within the facility. Please correct me if I am wrong on that part. Cheers!
As far as I can see the AOPS assembly hall is just lacking in width at 20m which will obviously make it difficult to build two side by side. But the UK hall was built for bigger ships as well. The AOPS hall is way longer but incorporates other aspects which may get moved. As I said below you would think spending 460 million would get you something
Hmm? $463 million in yard enhancements for the River-class Project is buying something, considering that Irving spent $360 million on modernizing the yard to begin with, $260 million of which was a loan from the NS government. I kind of assumed they were building a new hall. The money is going to create another 13 acres of area. Perhaps they think they can modify the existing assembly hall which is 408m in length and 60m wide by 49m high. Lacking in width.
Let’s be clear — the $463 million in new yard enhancements for the River-class Destroyer project is far from wasted money. It’s a critical investment that addresses the real limitations of the original yard upgrades and lays the foundation for future large-ship construction. But even with this, additional expansion will still be needed to fully meet Canada’s long-term naval build and sustainment requirements.
Original $260M Yard Modernization (2012–2015): That money helped build a modern facility for Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships and Halifax-class refits. But back then, the final weight and configuration of the Canadian Surface Combatants (now River-class Destroyers) weren’t known. So the initial infrastructure was only rated for the tonnage specified by the government at the time — not the much heavier, more complex warships we’re now building.
What the $463M Is Actually Doing (2024):
Creating 13 acres of new usable yard space through infill for staging and parallel integration.
Expanding the Dartmouth fabrication facility to increase steel throughput and block production.
Upgrading the graving dock to accommodate larger, heavier hulls.
Installing a new floating drydock for more efficient launching.
Acquiring new cranes and megablock handling systems to handle larger and heavier modules.
Modifying the existing assembly hall (408m long, 60m wide) to squeeze more productivity from a structure that’s long enough but lacks ideal width for dual-lane assembly.
But Let’s Be Real — It’s Still Not Enough:
If Canada wants to build destroyers faster, enable parallel hull construction, or future-proof for auxiliaries or other classes, further expansion and modernization will still be required.
Climate-controlled spaces, automated outfitting areas, and additional modular integration zones are not ‘nice-to-haves’ — they’re must-haves in a 21st-century naval build strategy.
With the government committing to 5% of GDP in defence spending and global threats rising, this isn’t the time to go halfway.
It doesn’t seem like the money adds up. 463 million is a lot; we should know what we are getting for it. I’m curious what the hall modifications are?
That initial plan to build an Iver Huitfeld type ship is definitely part of the problem and that the shipyards were allowed to limit themselves so much vs with BAE. When they finally did build the hall they built it with expansion/future in mind. Especially since in the end we are paying for it both coming and going.
$463 million isn’t just for one ‘hall’ — it’s a comprehensive expansion.
This includes upgrades to multiple facilities at the Halifax Shipyard and beyond: a new mega-block transfer system; expanded fabrication facilities in Dartmouth; heavy lift capabilities; new cranes; and work on the floating dry dock and graving dock. These are all tailored to handle the size, weight and complexity of the River-class Destroyers (RCD). It’s not just about steel — it’s about capacity, throughput and future-proofing.
The original assembly hall wasn’t ‘limited’ by Irving — it was built to the tonnage and dimensions specified by the Government of Canada for the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). At the time, the full specs of the RCD hadn’t even been finalized. Now that they are, the current expansion is correcting that by scaling up for warships with a displacement almost double that of AOPS.
Unlike BAE in the UK, Canada had to restart a domestic warship-building capability essentially from scratch. Irving has already invested over $400 million since NSPS began, $260 million of which came from a provincial loan. The $463 million now is to bring it to the level where multiple RCDs can be assembled efficiently — possibly even two at a time in the expanded facility.
And let’s not forget — this investment doesn’t disappear. These yard upgrades will support decades of naval shipbuilding, sustain thousands of Canadian jobs, and improve national self-sufficiency in defence production.
Yes, it’s a big number. But it’s an investment in capability, sovereignty and capacity — not just a building.
Except both Irving and Seaspan have done the minimum so it is limited versus BAE which built their hall with their own money for a smaller run and built it so it wasn’t size constrained to the Type 26. Noting of course that they started and planned the builds without an assembly hall.
The Janet Harvey Hall measures 170m (558ft) long and 80m (262ft) wide, and 33m high at its door with two 100-tonne cranes and two more 20-tonne cranes inside and as you can see, it is plenty big to accommodate the build of 2 x RCDs inside at the same time. You can see the older module building with covered modules ready to go into the main hall. The extra 13 acres being considered by ISL may just be enough to both lengthen & widen the ISL yard to do this. The question is….how long will it take?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rpke84208o
Well in the meantime we actually have an assembly hall to work in and are theoretically further ahead than BAE. I would think it would take a lot of work to widen the hall that other 20m? Maybe they can do it section by section? Not sure how many cranes Irving has but at least one 200 tonne one. At 408 m long it certainly seems long enough and 46m?/49m? high but is 60m wide which may be too tight for two 21 m wide ships although the AOPS are 19m.
Interestingly enough, Davie’s final assembly hall will be 180m L by 80m W and 30m high under the crane, with two 500 tonne cranes. I wonder how much the federal government is pumping into Davie?
I would assume the federal government is ‘pumping in’ 20 years of guaranteed work to their shipyard – nothing to complain about there given their history and business practices.
Davie got 7 ships so far versus the 22 for Irving. Not even comparing the value difference.
“Davie got 7 ships so far versus the 22 for Irving. Not even comparing the value difference.”
Actually 9 ships…7 program icebreakers, and 2 hybrid ferries. Plus half of the refits for AOPS and the Halifax Class, plus the Asterix and 2 icebreaker conversions. 20 years of guaranteed work – they’re not hurting.
Forgot about the ferries. Thanks
In the same line of thought, here is a link to an update on the Type 26 project on the Navy Lookout web site:
https://www.navylookout.com/building-the-royal-navys-silent-hunter-type-26-frigate-programme-update/
Seems like they got the recipe well defined. Besides the integration of our combat system, the way seems well paved for ISI to proceed.
Mikael,
Yes, ISI is relying heavily on data from the British Type 26 construction. The problem – and challenge – for ISI is that almost all the topside RCD systems are different from the British variant, and, indeed, much of the entire forward section of the ship as well as the stern section is fairly different for the RCD as well. So, not much actual learning to lean on from the British experience. Perhaps that is why ISI will begin construction with a low-risk design zone initially.
Hi Dan. What are the major alterations to the stern and bow sections?
Wayne,
I am not an engineer by any means, but the way this was explained to me was that the design zone sections you are enquiring about involve medium levels of change from the original Type 26, as opposed to the high levels of changes for the topside sections. Quite probably these changes relate to the different systems Canada will be using, and how those necessitate changes in layout, space, dimensions and other design features.
Furthermore, I understand that ISI will be following a strategy similar to that used for the Halifax-class frigates, as opposed to the approach employed for the AOPS. As construction lessons were learned for the CPF, the construction modules progressed from many, small modules to fewer and much larger modules for the later ships. Perhaps the design zone changes relate more to the actual construction approach adopted for the RCD compared to the different module sizes employed on the UK variants.
Sorry I cannot be of more informed help.
While it’s true the River-class Destroyer (RCD) differs from the original Type 26 in key areas—especially in topside systems, weapons fit, and some stern/bow internals — it’s inaccurate to suggest that ISI is flying blind or that the British Type 26 experience offers little value.
The major design shifts, such as the switch to different radar/sensor suites, the integration of a heavier forward gun (127mm instead of the RN’s 5″/62 or BAES’s 5″/54), a Canadian helicopter handling system, and unique towed array sonar fit, all require structural and systems adaptation. But that’s well within the bounds of typical modular warship development. These aren’t ‘clean sheet’ redesigns, but system integrations on to a known platform — something that happens routinely in NATO shipbuilding.
Furthermore, ISI benefits from over a decade of UK experience with Type 26 detailed design, structural testing, early-stage production errors, material choices, and construction methods. The Canadian program is already leveraging digital twins, lessons learned from the RN’s first two Type 26 ships (HMS Glasgow and HMS Cardiff), and integrated project teams with BAES support. This is not a blank slate but an evolution based on an existing hull form.
As for beginning construction in a low-risk design zone: that’s standard practice in all complex naval programs. The Halifax-class followed the same path — early ships were used to refine processes and allow for evolutionary changes mid-production. That’s a smart strategy, not a sign of uncertainty.
The challenge is not the lack of applicable British experience. The challenge is staying on schedule, controlling costs, and resisting the urge to gold-plate requirements midstream — something Canada has struggled with in past procurement efforts.
The RCD is heavily Canadian in fit and finish, but fundamentally rooted in the proven Type 26 platform. That gives the program a solid head start and ISI knows it.
To Retired RCN. How refreshing! Finally, some semblance of reality with a Canadian design that reflects the RN/BAE Type 26 pedigree but with a truly Canadian design perspective. ISI has most definitely learned from the RN Type 26 experiences and uniquely applied those lessons learned to the River-class Destroyers (RCDs) final design, and with proper standard practices, will leverage a much better ship for the RCN. As you say, the biggest challenge for ISI, and the RCN, is resisting the urge to gold-plate’ future requirements mid-stream ($$). Taking the RN’s BAE Type 26 & Australian Hunter-class Type 26 frigate experiences into account, ISI can now build what I believe will be the best ship design of all three. Yes, the Leonardo 127mm 5″ 62 Vulcano gun for the RCD is a heavier design vis-a-vis the BAE MK45 5′ gun, however decreasing the MK 41 VLS cells forward to 24 cells (12 cells=13.3 tonnes, approximately) vice 32 forward on the RCD, will help with the weight distribution.
“We have done so much, with so little, for so long, that now we are ready to do anything with nothing…..forever!”
Hi. For the bow, I only see a different gun system that will differ from ammo storage down below all the way to the gun itself and the absence of CAMM VLS in front of the MK41 VLS cells. For the stern, we will be using a different towed sonar system and be using our helo haul-down system. That doesn’t seem like much but it is affecting everything that was there on the original design plus much stuff around it.
Thanks Dan and Mikael. Hopefully they remain fitted for another 8 MK41 up front as well