The Ministry of Defence has addressed questions about the steps taken to expedite the delivery of the Type 26 frigates to prevent any reduction in the Royal Navy’s frigate numbers.
In a written question, Lord West of Spithead inquired about the actions the government is taking to speed up the Type 26 frigates’ delivery.
Responding to this, Baroness Goldie, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, noted that, “The delivery rate for the Type 26 ships is the optimum that can be achieved considering all relevant factors.”
Four of the Type 26 ships are now being constructed on the Clyde. She further mentioned, “On current plans, HMS GLASGOW is forecast to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2028 and construction of all eight frigates is expected to be completed by the mid-2030s.”
Baroness Goldie highlighted the latest improvements in the shipbuilding infrastructure, indicating that the “Type 26 Batch 2 deal introduces further investment in BAE Systems’ facilities on the Clyde.”
The most prominent upgrade is the building of a new shipbuilding hall at Govan. She added, “The new hall will allow two frigates to be built under cover simultaneously and allow the ships to be built faster, improving efficiency in the programme, and expanding the facilities for future work at the yard.”
We reported previously that shipyards, including Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow, Cammell Laird and others, have been contracted for steelwork fabrication for a limited number of units to support the delivery of the Type 26 programme.
Mike Hill, Managing Director at Cammell Laird said:
“Cammell Laird has a long-standing history of collaboration with BAE Systems and we are delighted to be working together to deliver the next generation of anti-submarine warfare. With our ability to work alongside our colleagues at A&P Tyne throughout the build process, taking the transfer of knowledge and vital experience is proving to be delivering both acceleration to the programme and significant efficiencies savings throughout.”
BAE Systems told me:
“We have outsourced steelwork fabrication for a limited number of units to support delivery of the Type 26 programme. While the majority of the steelwork is manufactured in Glasgow, in this instance A&P Group and Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd have been contracted to supply a total of seven units. This is typical for a programme of this scale and offers an opportunity for UK companies to play their part on this national endeavour.
For transportation, the successful bidder will provide seaborne transportation services to carry these units to Govan, Glasgow. The tender will also give us competitive pricing detail for any future shipping transportation contracts required to support the programme, and ensure we continue to deliver value for money.”
Type 26 Frigate project spurs opportunities for UK shipyards
The thing is when these ships were ordered they knew that the type 23 fleet was going to be a nightmare to keep running…so why did they not optimise the building rate at the beginning..why was the new shed not built at the very beginning when the ink was on the order…..
Short term cost savings to get the things ordered.
Then hands over ears and say ‘la la la la la’ very loudly, repeatedly. Always works.
Thing is accelerating the builds of B2 may not be so smart if B1 hasn’t been shaken down.
Quick correction there SB,
“hands over ears and say ‘la la la la la’ very loudly, repeatedly” You forgot to say followed by
“I’m not listening, I’m not listening” .
It may seem a trivial point, but it’s important to get these contractual details right mate …..
😂I am going to shock myself here and speak up briefly on behalf of the treasury. Their issue is that their income (taxes) drop in at a steady rate each year whilst capital projects tend to go on a feast or famine basis giving a cash flow problem. Borrowing money can be tricky nowadays.
The MOD need to simplify their requirements. Comitting to a set spend for a set number of vessels which are flexible enough to cover a number of roles with the supplier getting a set amount per year assuming they deliver.
Now I know some will say that you need a totally different ship for different role – but do you? Let’s think the unthinkable.
Please . The Treasury has very short term finding sources for that as well as the constant tenders- for variable billions- for new debt, every fortnight or so I imagine.
Im a nobody when it comes to public finance , but the matching of income , new debt , refinancing of old debt and spending isnt an issue . I seen the numbers for May 2023 , which was £20 bill for that month alone.
😂 I’m glad you think it is not an issue. I suspect there are a few bean counters which might take issue with that especially as the interest payments will put a hole in any departments budget.
Treasury does have very short term debt to cover the ups and downs on tax revenue- mostly big companies – who also use short term debt to smooth out their revenue and spending.
There is no problem with departmental large capital spending which tends to be in tranches rather than month by month
That thinking worries me, the Navy has to maintain they need different ships to do different things otherwise we’d have 1 ship to do everything (well not 1 but get my point, different ships to maintain hull numbers)
I am sure that is exactly what they maintain yet if you look at the spec for the T26 there is already much duplication between that and a T45. I would therefore argue that the RN could and maybe should look at the possibility of a multi-role version of the T26. I would also argue that lessons from the Ukrainian conflict would suggest that weapons & sensors are naturally going to move (to some extent) to drones in order to get closer to the target. This puts the RN ships into more of a loyal wingman type territory giving them far more lethality (maybe) and a need to be active in all areas simultaneously.
Surely more of the fitting out stage can be done during the initial hull building, pipework, cable running interior phone system crew quarters galley equipment and lightbulbs being done before the carcass is dragged out of scotsoun
That’s a very good point the most important bit was getting hull one in the water, finishing its first of class trials, commissioning and shake down..
Sometimes it seems like the biggest issue for the Tories is that they never expect to get reelected and end up the victims of their own short term planning.
The problem was more to do with not having a competitive ship building industry. As Soon as Babcock built the covered build space BAe looked stupid, especially as the Babcock T31 order was much lower value. In fact it was the push for the T31 to be built efficiently meant Babcock had to build it or they would make a loss on the contract. BAe had originally requested HMG fund a frigate factory.
https://www.naval-technology.com/features/are-uk-shipyards-prepared-to-invest-for-the-future/?cf-view
Lets say any government had funded BAe then why shouldn’t other yards demand the same. The current result is we have 2 factories, H&W investing also.
“Then hands over ears and say ‘la la la la la’ very loudly, repeatedly.”
I think you’re overestimating HMG!
It was more BAe want the government to fund the development of the yard, they had a firm no. Then Babcock won T31 and built a covered build space out of their own pocket, the price of the T31 meant in must be built inefficiently. All of a sudden BAe were looking a bit silly, as Babcock with partners like OMT, who consult on how to build efficiently were looking more attractive than BAe for future orders. So the root of the whole issue was the lack of competition at the time the original T26 contracts were awarded leading BAe make a poor decisions.
I agree up to a point.
BAE were prepared to pay for the shed for the order of 13 back in 2010/12 vintage so it followed directly from the carriers. BUT that slid and they were messed around a lot on a stop go basis.
RN wanted a top spec ASW frigate. Treasurer MOD wanted bargain basement -> Mexican stand-off time.
BAE lost the game of chicken but won the export war.
But the silver lining was that T31 came around and was exported too.
So something bad became something very good.
Then it became even better as BAE are building RN B2 T26 cheaper than AUS or CAN are able to……a lot cheaper. OK you can argue they have tried to make them into cruisers and overdone it at all levels.
So BAE are smelling reasonably sweet ATM.
BTW I’ll put the boot in on any of the historical shenanigans but I try and be balanced and fair minded to reformed companies!
Bless BW for persuading everyone to suceeed.
How many times have we talked about this? Because Osborne, because Cameron. Because some politicians don’t give a monkey’s about a future beyond the next election. One pound saved now is worth a hundred spent by the next government.
A never ending cycle of fuckwitery and we alway seem to let them get away with it ( that’s the wider we)..because we just don’t really care…after all china is half a world away…what does it mean to people who care more about pot holes and not having new housing estates near then….
I think people need to recall what actually happened. BAe demand money for a frigate factory. Government said no. Babcock then schooled BAe and built the factory of the back of a smaller order, BAe looked stupid and had build from their own pocket.
https://www.naval-technology.com/features/are-uk-shipyards-prepared-to-invest-for-the-future/?cf-view
Why did BAe not do this from day one, answer no competition.
I think there was another reason as well. The government requested a slow build of B1 to make sure they paid BAE as little money each year as they could. BAE didn’t think they needed to be efficient to go at that pace, and they would have been right if it wasn’t for Covid. Batch 2 is being built at a faster pace.
👍 Yes I am wondering too, about the same issues!
The issue was BAe wanted the government to fund the development of the yard, the government said no. Then Babcock won T31 and demonstrated that even with a smaller order by value they could invest in covered build facilities. BAe looked ridiculous At this point and were under threat as Rosythe looked like a better place to build ships. BAe have now embarked on building what they should have built from day 1. The difference is when T26 started BAe thought they had no competition and did what they had become use to, stick their hand out and said gimme.
The joys of a private sector monopoly….the private sector only really works its magic if you have market forces…with a competitive market…linking profit making private sector ( which is only accountable to its share holders) with a monopoly and your going to get something worse than a public sector monopoly. All monopolies are at heart dysfunctional.
One thing that these glacial build rates show is that if we, or any other navy apart perhaps from China, loses a warship in combat, it can’t be replaced for many years.
I think if there is a world war we are in very deep trouble. Years of denuding our arms services are not coming to a head. Thanks to the conservatives and Labour parties for destroying our armed services. I think also the great British public are also to blame for their complacency as well. Everyone assumes that the peace dividend after the Cold War will continue and that the arguments were all one by the west. They also assume the US will come riding the rescue all the time and that is a very dangerous assumption to make given todays political climate. I think we need two shipyard capable of making surface ships. Also we need at least one of those shipyards to be capable of making submarines too as a back up for Barrow in case it were every hit and destroyed. The natural conclusion is that Cammell Laird should be brought fully back into shipbuilding and be given capabilities for the production of submarines as well. This means we need to increase the defence budget enough to produce a reserve shipyard capable of making ships and submarines. This is very prudent planning I think to assume we will have a third world war and give resources commensurate with trying to prevent it. After all the costs of war would dwarf the costs of adequately deterring a war in the first place. Moreover, it would help with rebalancing the economy in favour of more high technology manufacturing.
Agree in the main, but what will happen if the budget is increased is that BAE and the other companies will just raise their prices!
That’s certainly a very good point Gareth, if (very big and rapidly fading if) we get 2.5%GDP on defence, it needs to accompanied by top down overhaul of procurement policy, to ensure maximum bang for the buck.
If the ” what of the poor UK workers” element has to come into play, then the extra money for UK production/ modification etc, needs to come from the DTI (or whatever they call themselves these days), not the defence budget.
It’s the industrial strategy that should be separated from defence procurement policy, it’s one of the main reasons we have £50 billion to spend on defence, but sod all equipment…..
People regularly say that a UK biased procurement policy recirculates cash back into the treasury, it might well do, but it’s stolen from the defence pot and it doesn’t return, hence we get less and less for our buck ….
“I think if there is a world war we are in very deep trouble.”
Hard to argue with this. Spending a bit extra to deter a world war would seem like a no-brainer. I may not agree with you on Laird’s, but on avoiding a world war, I can’t figure how anyone couldn’t agree. Alas, our honourable politicians do disagree. All of them. I’m at a loss.
Hi Peter. It still takes 4 years for china to build and commission a ship..with their first in class taking 6 years…so the answer is no navy can simply replace losses quickly….if your looking at a world war lasting years you may get some replacements coming through at a swift rate of 2-3 years with corners cut…..or for navy’s with reserve forces that can be reactivated..the USN once had a pretty big mothballed reserve fleet, but they have scrapped all the warships in reserve.
Basically what you have is what you have and it’s very likely in the case of a china U.S. conflict and the following world war the preservation of a fleet in being will be the primary strategy on all sides….admiral sir John Jellico is an example of this in the battle of Jutland…with Churchill’s famous quote:
“the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon”
Basically saying that Jellico’s caution at Jutland was correct and risking the loss of the grand fleet as a fleet in being was not in any way worth trying to close and. Destroy the high seas fleet as it withdrew. ( in the Same way as you cannot not just knock out a modern warship you could not just knock out a dreadnought).
So I know that all the war games around Taiwan show a navel blood bath on both sides….I suspect that is not what will happen….one side will gain advantage and the other will withdraw..then both sides will prosecute a war of strategic exhaustion across the globe, while both preserve their core fleets.
I used to believe in logic like this. Xi isn’t a nutter. Putin may be a b***ard, but he’s fundamentally a logical, self-serving b***ard. Then Ukraine. Logic isn’t the guiding principle I once thought it was. Or maybe my logic isn’t the logic of the enemy. Maybe yours isn’t either.
China’s warship construction capacity is so large that even at the pace you cite, they alone might be able to replace losses over a reasonable time scale. They, unlike US and UK have the advantage of a large commercial shipbuilding industry which could be switched to warships if needed.
The complexity of modern equipment also means slower design and manufacture and affects aircraft and land systems as well as ships. The obvious answer is adequate reserves. But as you say the US got rid of their mothballed fleet years ago as did UK. As Russia has found, older simpler platforms may be easier to store and resurrect than more modern complex ones.
also I think any future china us conflict will be a war to strategic exhaustion…which will probably drag on for years..and even when it’s over the losing side will hold a grudge and rebuild for round 2……it will be a nastier and more difficult war for the west than most people think….the sink their fleet and be home for Christmas paradigm is still present but I fear that is western hubris.
The Russian ships look like they are built for ice. That gives them thicker steel hulls which could be quite an advantage.
As a manufacturing engineer I’d rather have 3 yards producing slower in peace time than 1 yard pumping our at a high rate. Right now we could increase production of 2 frigates that are currently in build far more easily than if one yard was building at a higher rate.
As for China, lets hope the past repeats as command economies been on the loosing end in the last 2 WW or like Russia in WW2 dependant on free market economies aid to make progress.
Times from first cut steel to Commission
Type 42 4-5 years
Type 22 3-5 years
Type 23 3-5 years
Type 45 6-7 years
Type 26 8-9 years (estimated)
The slowdown in the ship construction/commissioning process appears to have started around 15 years ago.
if the type 26s had the same build/commission rate as the type 22 /23s Glasgow and Cardiff would be in service by now.
Your numbers on the T26 are optimistic. The first won’t even be handed over for 9 years after first steel. I’d expect commissioning at the end of 2026 (nine and a half years) at the soonest. It won’t be operational for about eighteen months after that, short of a war.
The Osborne/Cameron legacy will be with us for some time.
Not my numbers,(they are referenced from other websites) but you are correct, it should be more like 8- 11 years for the Type 26
Worth noting that the number of ships being ordered is also a factor:
42/22/23 was 45 ships over 34 years. 45/31/26 is 19 ships over 28 years.
There’s flip side, if you have ships in production in say 3 yards that can produce , even at a slow rate then you can ramp up production. If you have gapped production or just one yard producing that would be far worse and require a much bigger effort to increase capacity.
“The delivery rate for the Type 26 ships is the optimum that can be achieved considering all relevant factors.”. Let me translate. The build rate for the Type 26 is set by building the minimum number of ships over the longest time whilst actually retaining the skills base. It is there to stop gaps in production which would result in yard closures or gap fill contracts like the River 2s. BAE yards on the Clyde are set to produce the Type 26, followed by the Type 83. If you want to speed up the T26, then more frigates need to be ordered or the T83 needs to be brought forward.
I’m sure the RN would very much like a couple more T26, which has already dropped in unit price now the production program is running hot.
By the time the last one’s are fitting out in the mid 2030’s the T45’s will be around 25 years old so T83 will need to be gathering pace by then regardless.
I think all of us here would also like to see an extra T26 and or a few more T31s to help strengthen ASW and ASuW and there’s the new subs coming too. Hopefully Mr Shapps or whoever is next has a bit of ambition and vision for the UK, its forces and place in the world.
Unless i’m missing something HMS Glasgow will still be in service 2028. I guess any acceleration will come with the next vessels.
This is all an indication of just how worn out the T23’s are! Pretty ridiculous that no one thought (or if so didn’t care) years ago that trying to flog frigates so hard for 35 years would pose a few issues.
Acceleration will start with ship three, Belfast, and the whole of batch 2.
Agree. HMS Somerset has effectively been removed from service taking the RN down to just 16 active destroyers and frigates. A frankly ridiculous and shamefully low number. Then you add in slow build rates, delays in ordering, exuberant initial cost of type 26s and the fact the type 23s have been run into the ground and you can see the next 5 years are going to be worrying for the RN. Exceptionally low frigate numbers and the risk of a major war with Russia or China are not a good combination of factors leading to a successful outcome.
When you add in concerns that type 32 is going to be scrapped and further batches of type 31 looking unlikely then the UK is in real trouble. Risk of being militarily outmatched and defeated at sea for the first time in centuries is very very real.
I’d like a new law of treason by ineptitude to come into being so Cameron, Osbourne and Brown can all be arrested for destroying our armed forces. Not that such a law would help our service personnel being sent off to fight in old under armed warships.
Squeezing in a couple more type 26s into the programme could be possible to see the yards through too type 83 construction. Whilst another batch of type 31s would be greatly appreciated. Both those options are viable with just an ounce of common sense and political willpower.
Somerset is currently undergoing repairs at Devonport and expected to rejoin the fleet. Indeed she is the first 23 scheduled to be fitted with NSM.
Yeah, shame about Somerset as she was the NSM test ship… so I guess that procurement gets delayed now.
It appears the hull fabrication processes have sped up a bit with Cardiff almost ready to float, and Belfast and Birmingham in progress, however, 5 years to get Glasgow into service? seems the bottleneck is in the fitting-out processes.
Why does it take so long to fit out a warship. What can they be doing for all of that time
Fitting out AND testing . Its worldwide problem, nothing works properly first time. You should see how long it takes for a new major hospital acute service block plus theatres to get ‘the bugs ironed out’
Tell me about it. Know all about that.
HMS Glasgows steel was first cut in 2017, so 11 years to commission, possibly 8 to 9 years for the following type 26s. whereas type 22 and type 23 were built and commissioned in ~ 5 years (including testing), something is not right.
Im not at the coal face , but to me its computerisation is the basic cause at many levels. We all know that the ship is designed using 3D CAD , But the build process takes that and needs more computer software to work out HOW to build and how the power, hydraulics combat systems machinery will work as they in turn are controlled by computers . The software comes in ‘packages’ but is essentially high customised for each application so needs lost of development work. Software comes with bugs
I can tell you as someone who has worked in a machine shop and more r recently in software design that is not correct. CAD speeds up design, CNC machines will cut and shape metal many times more accurately and consistently than any human can. The ships software will have been developed and tested on hardware simulators long before it gets installed on the vessel. IMHO the problem lies somewhere in project management and material aquisition.
Thats right . The CAD has been around for some decades now. But its just expanded so much beyond the steel and pipes. They create digital models of everything in ship and things like the whole electrical system is both on the 3D computer software , but it has to be simulated and ‘working as a computer model’ before a wire or cable is even installed. Even the ships propulsion and machinery is all run from computer screens , so that requires software and bugs removed . Same goes for mundane things like ships stores for food, or parts or other supplies.
Yeah, but software systems/controls on warships are nothing new, we should have at least 3 to 4 decades of experience in developing, testing, and debugging these systems and subsystems.
Given these systems are real-time and/or safety-critical, we can assume that the debugging and QA process will involve some ‘formal-method’ proofing (a mathematical way of testing software logic that is stricter than conventional scenario or use case testing).
Of course, as in most software, some bugs may go unseen, but there should be nothing critical or catastrophic left in the deployed system if the software team has done their jobs properly.
Any software even 10- 15 years old dates very quickly. As there are new packages available which offer more features and highly customisable – but require training in how to do that before even working on it.
So 3-4 decades experience ….??? those people are long retired now even if that software was still being used – which is rare in military systems as cyber security is a prime focus and means the goalposts in hardware and software are even shorter.
Software dates quickly in the world of commerce.
Software that is 3 years old is considered dated today.
But with warships, the software system’s purpose and function should remain mostly the same over the lifetime of the ship, and only require occasional upgrades,
unless you do a major upgrade of the hardware, which would require new training anyway.
I do not expect Windows or even Linux as the underlying OS,
I expect the control and combat system will require a real-time OS and/or some hardware-embedded code.
So there won’t be any commercial ‘packages’ that require regular upgrades.
Yeah, by 3 to 4 decades I mean collective knowledge of the Shipbuilding Company i.e. techniques and practices that are mature and have been taught to several generations of engineers. These people will have experienced the systems evolving across generations of ships.
At last someone who knows what they’re talking about 🙂
It looks like those buildings behind the new build hall will need to be removed, or it will restrict the size of the stern blocks to be move in though rear door of the shed. So that’s why more blocks are to be built at A&P Tyne, due to temporary loss of fabrication capacity at Govan?
This is what happens with Grant Shapps as Defence Secretary.😂
And if he actually does well…he might earn the title of Mr “ship-Shapps”… sorry, I’m getting my cloak now … Lol 😁
🕵😉
At this stage in the frigate build it’s important not to let the politicians and particularly the MoD interfere. Just let the shipyard management and BAE get on with it, however Ferguson Marine do need to be managed carefully given their disastrous history with the ferries
It sounds like the politicians are demanding shortcuts etc to speed things up. This would only lead to delays and cost overuns and must be resisted
Why on earth would it Glasgow until 2028 to achieve IOC? It seems the UK’s specialty is doing everything at snails pace…..
Its called Spanish practices. Look back at their ship build rates in the 40’s and you see something approaching the rates of the Type 26’s.
The article doesn’t mention the vital importance of avoiding a workload gap between the construction of the last T26’s and the first T83’s. Completing all the T26’s by the early 30’s would greatly increase the cost of the first T83’s, due to complete in the late 30’s. Of course an export order for a couple of T26’s would be an ideal solution, but hardly to be relied on.
I still find it amazing the Glasgow will take 5 years to fit out and commission. I also think that the initial slow build of T26 has a lot to do with the lack of new frigate replacements. Once again slow build costs more money in the end and leaves the navy with less avalible forces.
Agreed, cannot believe that in the current world climate that we are not pushing more funds into defence. If there is a gap between T26 and T83, then add a batch 3, after all you know T26 will be flogged for years so spare hulls would surely be a good thing. We throw money away all the time so why not throw it at something useful ?
8x T26, 5x T31 (should be x8), 8x 6t ton support ships and 8x T45 replacements. These 32 ships and the recycling of the ships they replace should be a continous production line (one every 12 months), not a flood followed by a gap and then all our ships getting old at the same time.
So when was Glasgow supposed to be ready as last year Wallace said it would be a year late and 223M over budget, so how delayed and over budget is it now?
“It is not the government’s policy to comment on” <anything you ask> “for security reasons.”
No more bad news until after the election.
Australia has again (5 Oct) delayed publication of the Independent Analysis of the RAN Surface Fleet. This is widely expected to reduce the T26 Hunter-class buy from 9 to at most 6 units. To maintain escort numbers a cheaper tier 2 frigate is expected to be purchased, with the Italian/US Constellation design strongly favoured – probably built by Fincantieri Marinette Marine to keep costs down. However, New Zealand has apparently mixed things up by recently approaching Australia to say they would love a joint ANZAC frigate replacement programme, and (whisper it quietly!) the Type 31/Arrowhead 140 design seems to tick a lot of important boxes – cheaper to build, smaller crew, better suited for local assembly.