HMS Cardiff, the second of eight Type 26 Frigates, is currently starting to look ship-shape in Glasgow.

Work started on HMS Cardiff in 2019.

An over-exposed image of the hull section.

Here’s another shot.

https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1450860157810905088

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

“The Type 26 Frigate is a cutting-edge warship, combining the expertise of the British shipbuilding industry with the excellence of the Royal Navy. These ships will be a force to be reckoned with, there to protect our powerful new carriers and helping keep British interests safe across the world.”

Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total with three in the first batch, the contract for the second batch will likely be negotiated in the coming months.

Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers and recent Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Type 45s first batch order was for three vessels for example.

In 2019, we reported that the hull of HMS Cardiff had entered construction. The frigate is being built at the BAE Systems shipyard in Govan, Glasgow and is the second to enter production as part of the £3.7 billion contract, announced by the MoD in 2017.

BAE Systems said at the time:

“It was a pleasure to welcome representatives of the City of Cardiff to our ceremony. The contract for the first batch of three Type 26 ships provides a solid platform to sustain our industrial skill base & ensures the Royal Navy have the ships it needs to protect UK interests.”

George Allison
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. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

92 COMMENTS

  1. Feels like they are starting to really motor along now! With Belfast now laid down too it’ll be interesting to see how quickly they can commence with the next batch once Glasgow moves to fitting out.

  2. Considering the planned slow build process, it does seem to be coming along quite well. Lets just hope they are eventually equipped with weaponry accordingly and not a FFBNW in sight!

    • Regarding the FFBNW debacle, do you think the currently underwhelmingly spec’d Type 31 vessels will be retrofitted with weapons systems scavenged from the retiring Duke class? This is what the Danes did with their Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt frigates and is said to be how they brought them in so cheaply.

      • Yes its called Government furnished equipment. Eg scavenge everything useful from type 23s except their 4.5 inch guns. Unless some of those are going to type 32s?

  3. slightly off topic – but I do wonder if the US should have paused their frigate acquisition competition until the lead type 26 commissions?. Possibly a USN evaluation team could work with the RN crew as the lead ship goes through trails and works up.

    I see benefit in being involved from the start of the process to test and adapt requirements. Purely a layman’s perspective , the Type 26 appears to be more capable than the FREM design. -no disrespect to the FREM consortium.

    • No, its not like the US is going to go back and order T26 at this stage, they’ve already awarded the contracted for the first two ships. Also these 20 frigates are a sort of replacement for the cancelled remaining 20 out of eventual 60 something LCS’s. We all know the LCS’s weren’t the most reliable ships out there, with many mechanical issues and all that. The US needed an in-service design, so they wouldn’t have any trouble with the issues that plagued the LCS’s. Also, if the American DID decide to buy T26, it would have to be with compltely American equipment, which would mean delays, price’s shooting up and too much time. For example, they want to put the latest SPY-6 radar on, as well as a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS and 16 Naval Strike Missiles, 57mm (pretty much a really well souped-up T31!). So no would be my answer, but a good idea; maybe they don’t pause it and just have a look at HMS Glasgow when it comes into service? – see if it could be used for some Anti-sub work, I know there Tico’s are going soon, and there AB’s, no matter how many they build, will eventually need to start being replaced.

      Cheers. Goldilocks

        • Why did the Fremm get through then?

          Whatever the design it will need to be modified and built in the US. The advantage for the Frem is that Fincantieri is far more established as a ship builder in the US than Bae which is more directed towards servicing and refit though a deal like the one the Australians got with their trimaran design I’m sure could have been done if chosen just wasn’t a proven design so couldnt be considered. That said one Senator did indeed last year call for the very delay in the programme that Klonkie mentions above so that the T26 design could indeed be considered. It will be interesting to see how much of a re design the Fremm goes through in the end with the US incorporating its own systems and preferences.

          • Why USN would want a more expensive ship for not reason at all?

            Fincantieri have shipbuilding capability in US like you say.

            FREMM frigate have GE LM2500 GT because Italians build them too.

            Type 26 have RR MT30 GT. A side note i think the huge size of T26 is related to justify the MT30.

          • A T26 More expensive?…
            Chances are that the Fremm will work out more expensive than a T26! A congressional report on 19 Oct (CRS Reports Web site ….worth a read) highlighted serious cost underestimates from the USN. First of class is probably going to come in at 1.3 bil USD. With cost growth that has not been factored in of around 17% on the initial estimates, they are going to cost as much if not more than the first T26 and be less capable in the ASW realm.

            For surface warfare they will be better because they have 16 NSM but also worse because

            1. They dont have a missile system for the organic Helo that will , on a T26, out range NSM.
            2. The RN is looking to fit ASM with land attack into the MK41 VL tubes(FCASW)

            Fremm will have 32 VL tubes fitted with whatever they decide to stick in them. So a mix of AAW, ASW and possibly Tomahawk.
            T26 will have approx 24 Ceptor in their own dedicated launch tubes that will have anti air and quick reaction pop-up anti surface capability plus what ever goes in the 24 Mk 41 tubes.

            As I said the CRS report is a good read and worth the search for it. There is also a lot of other good stuff prepared for congress on there covering numerous subjects, not just defence.

          • In my opinion the Fremm will cost even more than the already projected cost overrun. The USN is trying to get these into service as cheaply as possible with the hopes of up arming them in the future. To be fair it’s almost certain that the T26 will end up costing more than is projected right now as well.

          • T26 are supposed to cost more than 1 Billion pounds. A pound is today at 1.38 dollars. You can bet it will be more.
            I don’t know if the +1 billion pound includes the RN assets like radar and other stuff that were supposed to come from Type 23/26 to cheapen it.

          • Don’t disagree.. but 48 is better than 24. More opportunity to take out the incoming missiles if it’s simply a distance numbers game then I’m not aware of any AAM that will take out the launch aircraft lobbing 1000 km range anti ship missiles but having 48 to deal with incoming on a high probability of kill basis is better than 24

            Also we all know that CAMM is good for 40+ km.

            In a peer hot war. it will be Type45 providing the wide area coverage for the task group plus F35b if CSG is involved.

            Would the CAMM ER version give more comfort…of course it would but the 48 CAMM is highly capable.

          • Or if it has an area defence missile system and the enemy sit outside that range lobbing missiles and glide bombs…

            Whatifery…

          • “Or if it has an area defence missile system and the enemy sit outside that range lobbing missiles and glide bombs…”

            That implies bigger missiles and a bigger vector.

            At 30km you can just lob Spike light type missiles from a medium drones like BK2 hitting radars and making mission kills.

          • Constellation will be better AAW with Standard, it is a grave mistake Type 26 not to have AAW.

            Type 26 will still be more expensive with a mediocre radar and no AAW. While Constellation will be integrated with Aegis system, CEC etc.

            An Italian FREMM costs 800M Euro and the French FREMM slighty less, that is why there even been lots of teeth gnashing in French naval circles connected to Marine Nationale since the new FDI frigate will cost more with less capability.

          • I think the problem is that USN needs something pretty fast that is good enough.

            Keeping old platforms running is very expensive and increasingly hard. Never mind the fact that they are just, well, old and EOL.

            It is the oldest adage ‘don’t let perfect stand in the way of progress.’ Which we turned on its head with T45.

      • It isn’t that unlikely that they will need at top tier ASW frigate.

        Whilst the ship will have to be built in the US not every screw and bearing is primarily manufactured in the US.

        Stuff is made of smaller stuff.

        I agree the electronics will have to be US style and the weapons. As we are fitting Mk41 VLS anyway that isn’t a big change.

        CMS and radars are going to have to be US native but that is already in the Canadian/US version.

      • It definitely is. If we compare to French FREMM those have 16 Aster 15 missiles 8 Exocet and 16 Storm Shadow. Italian are similar but don’t have the Storm Shadow fitted. Americans have a 32-cell Mk.41 VLS (possibly with ESSM but more likely RIM-66) and 16 AShMs. City class will have 24 Mk.41 for hypersonic/stealth (or whatever FC/ASW ends up being) missiles and 48 for Sea Ceptor. That completely outclasses the European FREMMs on air defence, anti ship and land attack capability. Against the Americans, we have more anti-ship missiles (rather a surprise considering that doesn’t seem to be a priority for us… see Type 45), then for Air-Defence quad-packing might give them more missiles but I’m not sure how 48 Sea Ceptor plays out against that. Anyone know?

        • Btw I’m aware I only focused on armament here, besides other advantages like a bow sonar, better acoustic quieting etc.

          • I already talked about Constellation above.

            Italian FREMM have Aster 30 besides 15 , so AAW that Type 26 lacks. They have Milas Anti submarine missile instead or with reduction in Otomat
            Some with 5″ guided rounds – which was also chosen for Canadian Type 26. Guided rounds for 1 or 2 76mm.

          • City has a 5 inch gun and 2 30mm guns… the French have 1 76mm and the Italians 2. I don’t know what point you’re making here.

            About the AAW, that’s irrelevant. We have (or will have once Sea Ceptor is fitted to Type 45) 48 Aster 30 on our destroyers to cover air defence. Our non-air defence ships don’t have to also take on roles that are not necessary (I.e. area air defence such as with Aster 30). Type 26 just needs to be able to defend itself and maybe a few surrounding ships, but we have Type 45s for actual air defence; the Italians and the french do not so they’ve stuck Aster 30 to their ASW frigates. And before you say something about Horizon that’s not really a point because they only have 2 each which means they don’t even always have one… (rule of three).

          • So you think it is “irrelevant” that RN have only 6 ships with AAW when for example Italy will have 16, USN all their major combatants DDG and FFG will have AAW, so dozens,
            the Canadians will have 15 and Australians also more than 10?

            With drones and missiles increasingly being produced by everyone do you think that is wise?
            Not even CAMM-ER the RN ships have.

          • USN: >68 Burkes + 20 FFG – and assuming Ticos are all retired

            Italy 2 Horizon,10 FREMM , 2-4 PPA, 2 DDX from 2030 (not counting 2 obsolete De La Penne)

            Australia: 3 Hobart+8 Type 26

            Canada: 15 Type 26

          • Hi Alex. I think the Burke numbers should swell a bit more with the Flight 111 ships coming on line in 2025. I recall there was a planned life extension reft for the late model Ticons , not sure if this went anywhere though.

          • We will not have “only 6 ships with AAW”. We will have the 6 Type 45s with 48 Aster 30 and 24 CAMM/CAMM-ER, the 8 Type 26s with 48 CAMM/CAMM-ER, the 5 Type 31s with 24 CAMM/CAMM-ER and the 5 Type 32s which will probably be similarly or slightly better armed than the Type 31s.

            I don’t know why you’re trying to compare the RN with the USN; they have a budget about 10 times bigger. The only thing we can compare them on is ships one-on-one, i.e. Type 45 vs AB, Astute vs Virginia etc.

            When you say Italy has 16 AAW ships, you’re counting the PPAs, which have 16 CAMM; you’re counting the FREMMs, which have a TOTAL of 16 Aster 30s and Aster 15s; knowing Italy’s financial position it’s going to be mostly Aster 15 if they even bother filling all of them. And the Horizons are only two in number.

            So, the Italians will have 2 ships for dedicated air defence and 14 others that are capable of it; we will have 6 for dedicated air defence and 18 capable of it.

          • @klonkie indeed, that is why i put the > before the 68.

            @eclipse AAW is not short range.

            PPA have no CAMM. Have Aster and the Full version will have 2 fixed array panel types of band C and X band to be able to control Aster ABM capable.

            FREMM have a rotating AESA and Aster 30 besides Aster 15. So the anti aircraft range of a FREMM is 120km(more when BN1 arrives) and >20km ceiling while RN Type 26 is 25km and probably about 10km ceiling.

            I notice you don’t use same rules even for your RN and MM comparison…

            Regarding USN was just to show that they put AAW capabilities in frigates not only destroyers despite the fact they have already many of them.

        • I am surprised that hypersonic FC/ASW are going to fit in Mk. 41 cells, more likely in Mk. 57? I wonder if the Mk. 41 cells on T26 are being made bigger than 21 inch, to accommodate the future FC/ASW. It would still be essentially a Mk. 41 system. No reason why can’t Mk.41 launch a 25 inch diameter missile with a larger cell fitted?

    • The USN FREMM design looks nothing like the Italian design. They have lengthened it, increased the beam at the waterline, increased displacement,lowered the main deck, removed the bow sonar(!) . Removed the masts and replaced the Fwd mast with a lattice. Bigger gensets for higher speed…

      US law states that certain materials must be of US origin….things like pumps. So all the pumps and pipework to them, electrical supplies etc have all been reworked.

      Only orders for 2 have been confirmed. Options exist for others but have yet to materialise. One of the LCS builders Austal on the great lakes, is switching to steel fabrication from ally as used for LCS trimarrans to act as a second source shipyard…
      Anything to keep the pork barrel politicos happy in the midwest

        • The unit costs for any additionals should be a bit less. A fleet of ten would allow for more presence and extra protection for CSG deployments. Still, expensive if you don’t really have the money for it. Looks like a pretty decent ship for the RN. Hope for a bit more export success with these or at least with the T31s.

          • It would be difficult to see who else would buy the T26 that have not already done so.

            Who else has a high tier navy and the budgets to do this.

            Italy, Hapan and France won’t as they will want to support native designs. Germany hadn’t the chops for T26.

            Which leaves whom in the market?

          • Even longer shots…India…under licence…maybe Chile, a replacement frigate for Norway….and we mustn’t forget…NZ!

          • NZ may actually look up and start realising it needs to take China seriously. Unlikely but they do pay attention to what Austria do.

          • You have my vote! On a personal note, I was pleased to see one of our NZ frigates join the Task force exercise near China.

            I remain envious of our Aussie cousins who are are far more thorough on matters defence!

          • India has already got a major future logistics headache with its variety of international weapons suppliers. NZ doesn’t appear to have the belief in its own defence needs or willingness to commit resources as seen in the disbandment of its fixed wing fighter squadrons. I think two or ideally three Type 31s would be a closer fit plus some sort of integration arrangement with the RAAF for rotating NZ based aircraft manned by bi-national crews.
            ignoring China’s looming threat and relying on AUKUS for their own protection would be negligent.

          • Hi Quentin. I doubt our NZ Navy can afford Type 26. I do think though the type31/2 is a possibility to replace our two ANZAC frigates.

          • Japan has no need for the Type 26, they are quite capable of using their own ASW designs, the new Asahi class being a case in point.

          • You never know which rich oil state will decide it needs to throw a Big lump cash the UKs way. It is after all one of their major geopolitical tools when working with western allies.

          • Bare in MIND, raw materials prices have skyrocketed, and any additional order may be done in another 3. energy prices will not be accounted for in current costs.

      • Hi Quentin,

        My understanding is that negotiations for 5x Batch II T26’s have been underway since the beginning of the year. Hopefully, we’ll hear more soon.

        Cheers CR

        • I was thinking that a slightly bigger batch of 7 might help us forget all the troubles with the T45s… Lol 😁. Then they’ve got to fill in all those silos with something that goes whoosh, zip and boom. At least the T26 production line is rolling along nice.

          • I have my fingers crossed for a batch 3 of say 2 ships – possibly with upgraded radars. They could be prototypes of a mid-life upgrade for the rest of the fleet.

            Chances of a Batch 3 – pretty much nil I think, but we can hope.

            Cheers CR

          • Yes, keep hopeful.

            The Artisan radars are pretty widespread across the fleet. Would you know what the NS100 radar on the T31 like in comparison? I wonder what the T32s will get?

  4. My uncle sailed on HMS Glasgow during WW2 (quite a history), I remember listening to some of the stories he and other members of the family had to tell about their time at sea as a boy, including being torpedoed by the Italians!

  5. Now its time to start thinking about Batch II contracts, possibly with some upgrades such as a more advanced radar suite, possibly locate anti ship missiles above the multi mission bay. Generaly take some of the good ideas from the RAN and RCN versions and build them into the batch IIs.

    • Negotiations for Batch 2 are ongoing, whether they will be of a different specification has not been revealed yet AFAIK.

    • But isn’t this part of the UK’s problem changing specs adds cost and time. So we then end up with a cancellations as we’ve used the budget. on 6 ships not 8.

      • Understand what you are saying, but with warships the reason for diffrent batchies is to increase capability, improve somethings that was learnt in the batch 1 build. Also this time there are two extra variants of the T26 being designed and built which could be used to the RNs advantage. That is what I was thinking use the advatage that we have been given for the first time in many years and use it. It could save money on further improvements.

      • More to do with upgrades and improvements over the construction timescales, also if they ordered 8 ships on a set spec, onboard electronics could be outdated, and Variations on orders could be just as expensive. MOD no longer works this way, and the Next order could go to a different yard. be more worried over the Raw Material cost currently ie Steel would be a concern to future numbers,

        • It makes sense to keep systems upto date. But larger spec changes will attract price hikes from the supplier and prolong negotiations. Steel makes up such a small part of the 1 billion price tag and its a very competitive market. Bespoke software and electronics get expensive very quickly and are difficult to switch to other products or suppliers.

  6. Maybe if costs are low enough Batch 2 might end up being 3 and another 4 Batch 3… then again I always get stressed when that happens because of the T45 situation…

  7. Rather than the T26, would suggest that the USN should look at the Canadian Surface Combatant which is the Canadian version of the T26. Lockheed Martin Canada are leading on the provision of the Combat System, using mainly US systems. The CSC requires an Area Air Defence capability, additional to ASW. For Nigel Collins, the Dartmouth museum have rather a nice model of the WW2 Town Class cruiser, HMS Glasgow, if ever he is in the area.

  8. I suspect the batch 2 will remain five hulls and not be much different from the batch 1s. Let’s be honest these 8 batch one and twos are going to pretty much always do the job they are intended for, high end ASW to protect strategic assets like the nuclear deterrent and carriers, as well as any major amphib task group. That’s going to take up the time of all the hulls, 2 for the carriers, 1 for deterrent and home waters and if lucky a spare for an amphib task group! That will be an organisational problem itself with only 8 hulls. I don’t think there would be a will to purchase a 9th tail ship, even if it did fit with the need of the major tasking needs of tailed ASW ships.

    What would not surprise me would be a small third batch of say 2 focused on AAW, after all with only 6 AAW hulls it’s going to be a struggle to provide 2 for the carrier and one each for the amphib task groups. Providing the RN with a total of 8 AAW hulls ( 6 type 45 and 2 type 26x). This would also allow the RN time to test/see if the T26 hull can be turned into a good enough 21century replacement for the T45 and just start a low risk programme for a like for like replacement for the 6 T45s, ending with a total of 16 T26s ( 8ASW, 8AAW) of all types by the 40s, with a number of GP type 31s and 32s ( say 5 31s as planned and 5ish 32s ( batch 2 31s for economic reasons) to replace the mine warfare, hydro survey ships etc) with the mission bays and hull size allowing a mix of autonomous vehicles packages as well as Human Resources ( marines in ribs). That would give 26 escorts, but with a number of them off doing mine warfare and seabed charting etc during peace time, As well as the Rivers for basic constabulary type work.

    It may seem fantasy fleet, but it’s a pragmatic use/ build on present programmes.

    it would give continuity of build for our two main complex warship manufacturing groups. the only risk would be around lossing warship design skills. But any AAW T26 and type 32 would need design teams. At which point the RN will need A mid 21c design to replace the rivers being worked up, then a ASW replacement, then a AAW replacement at which point we will also need a carrier replacement. So there would still be lots of design work even keeping the T26 line going for a couple of decades ( look how long the US has kept the Burke going).

    • Sticking the SAMPSON on Type 26 wouldn’t work because it’s very high up, very heavy and the Type 26 is already very heavy for its size. The balance would be poor to say the least. Don’t wish for stuff that is no good; I would much rather have 6 Type 83s properly built with air defence in mind, and a sufficient number of VLS cells than 8 or even 10 AAW Type 26. That wouldn’t have enough VLS cells, it wouldn’t be optimised for air defence, and I don’t think it would be much good.

      • But you have to remember Sampson is now, we don’t know what sensors will be looking like in 20 yeas and pretty much every other navy has accepted a lower down sensor. The RN is going to have to make a decision around the next AAW platform 1) the very best in the world but so costly you don’t have as many as you need or 2) a compromise design so you can afford the number you need.

        Yes the T45 is probably the best platform in the world and a type 26 AAW will be a compromise. But what would you prefer having a brilliant solution 50% of the time or having a slightly imperfect one almost all the time. I would say the T31 is evidence of which side the RN has come down on after the experience of only getting 6 T45s. Quality does not overcome Quantity if you simply don’t have enough quality tools to do the job.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here