In response to a written question by Lord West of Spithead, Labour peer and former First Sea Lord, regarding the timeline for the eighth Type 26 frigate, Defence Minister Lord Coaker confirmed that the programme is on schedule.
The Type 26 programme aims to deliver eight state-of-the-art anti-submarine warfare frigates to replace the ageing Type 23s.
Lord Coaker stated that “the T26 programme remains on track to meet all user requirements and deliver eight world-class anti-submarine warfare frigates in time to replace the anti-submarine warfare T23s.” The Ministry of Defence expects all eight ships to enter service between 2028 and 2035.
Designed to strengthen the Royal Navy’s anti-submarine capabilities, the Type 26 frigates will be critical to safeguarding the UK’s interests in the North Atlantic and beyond. Lord Coaker emphasised the importance of the vessels, noting that they will enable the Royal Navy to “continue to play a leading role in the anti-submarine theatre in the North Atlantic and beyond.”
The Type 26 frigates, also known as the City-class, represent a significant leap in capability, featuring advanced sensors, enhanced operational versatility, and reduced acoustic signatures to counter emerging underwater threats.
We reported recently that the Ministry of Defence also recently reaffirmed that the Type 26 frigate programme is progressing steadily, with five of the eight planned vessels now under construction.
Responding to a parliamentary question, Defence Minister Maria Eagle spoke on the government’s commitment to delivering these advanced warships, designed to replace the Type 23 fleet and secure the Royal Navy’s anti-submarine warfare capabilities well into the 2060s.
HMS Sheffield, the fifth frigate in the City Class, marked a significant milestone with its steel-cutting ceremony on November 28, 2024. Reflecting on this progress, the minister stated:
“The Ministry of Defence continues to work closely with BAE Systems (BAES) to ensure the Type 26 programme remains on track to meet all user requirements and deliver world-class Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) frigates.”
HMS Glasgow, the lead ship in the programme, is expected to achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by 2028, while the entire fleet of eight frigates is slated for completion by the mid-2030s. The MOD confirmed that HMS Cardiff recently completed its float-off operation and joined HMS Glasgow at Scotstoun for the outfitting phase.
Highlighting the broader significance of the programme, Eagle added:
“Following the recent steel-cut ceremony for HMS Sheffield on 28 November 2024, five of the eight Type 26 frigates are now under construction on the Clyde.”
The Type 26 frigates are set to become a cornerstone of the Royal Navy’s operational capabilities. Designed for anti-submarine warfare, these warships will safeguard the UK’s Continuous At Sea Deterrent and support the Carrier Strike Group. They will also contribute to a range of international operations, including counter-piracy and humanitarian relief missions.
The programme’s economic impact is substantial. Approximately 2,000 jobs are supported in Scotland, with a further 4,000 jobs across the UK supply chain. At the steel-cutting ceremony for HMS Sheffield, Maria Eagle underscored the dual importance of the programme:
“HMS Sheffield represents not just a cutting-edge addition to our fleet but also demonstrates our commitment to supporting thousands of skilled jobs and economic growth across Scotland and the wider UK.”
Simon Lister, Managing Director of BAE Systems Naval Ships, also noted:
“HMS Sheffield’s construction will benefit from investments transforming our digital and physical infrastructure, consolidating a centre of excellence for UK shipbuilding in Glasgow.”
HMS Glasgow’s planned IOC by the end of 2028 will be a critical test for the programme’s ability to meet its targets.
Ok so with all of T31 in service by 2030 that leaves little time to order anything to keep Rosyth going.
With 5 T26 hulls in build that doesn’t leave a lot of time to get new contracts in place for Scotsun or Govan.
The previous government understood this and had done a *bit* about it. But whether this lot will just wilt in the face of Treasury orthodoxy [running around trying to find more Osbornian economies that save millions and then cost billions to fix later] or actually have what it takes to sustain what has been very expensively recreated from the skeleton of UK shipbuilding past.
Agree the only way the surface fleet can work is if there is a constant stream of regular orders for large surface combatants. The navy should actually have an extra 7 frigates anyway to repair the completely unevidence cuts of previous governments.. so a follow on order of 2 more type 26s and a batch of 5 type 31 variant is needed to actually bring the fleet up….it will never happen but it should…
Or the other option is they actually make the MRSS far more it’s own escort, which was I understand it was/is RNs preference, so an amphibious vessel that also has the capability of a good patrol frigate…. They could then replace the need for another 5 GP frigates….just round off with an extra T26..then immediately go into the T83 build…which I personally think should be a high low mix of 10 AAW hulls and can be shared out between the two yards…They could could each bid for the high and low contracts to keep them honest.
That would see a balanced large surface combatant fleet of say
4 high end 10,000 ton plus heavy AAW destroyers
6 lower end AAW frigates of around 6000-7000 tons
9 ASW frigates
5 GP frigates
6 littoral strike vessels
The RN would then need a secondary fleet of around 10 ocean going patrol vessels of around 2500 tons to cart around the mine countermeasures and other autonomous patrol systems…. rivers 2 with its work decks flight deck and crane is perfect for this. The building of these can be managed by the smaller yards.
The auxiliaries can then all be built in Belfast…3 stores ships then 6 strategic sea life, then tanker replacements will see that yard working for ever.
There is plenty of work HMG just has to pay for it and as you say stop with the treasury orthodoxy of in year cost control.
4 Type 83 destroyers is far too few. 6 Type 45s is already unacceptably small. Really we need a fleet of 8-10 of these ships.
If one is hit and either sunk or even just mission-killed, it’d be catastrophic. We need to start increasing numbers of hulls, aircraft etc, in anticipation of losing some in combat.
That’s why I said about having 6 other second tier AAW platforms…the RN is never going to be able to afford a large number of AAW platforms and it really needs 10..but the newer radars with 100 silos and a couple of medium guns is really the baseline for a new high end platform…but that’s probably going to well north of 10,000 tons..closer to 14,000 as that’s is what Italy is building…but you can still build a very competent T45 analogue at around 7000 tones with a good radar and 50 old silos…
So the RN needs the very high end platforms for its carrier battle group AAW screen lead..but it also needs around 10 so it’s got a bit of mass in the CBG screen as well as being able to pop off and do other jobs…like screen some merchants in the Red Sea against nutters…the answer is 2 classes of AAW.. 4 ultra high end and 6 decent for extra mass. The RN did use to have high and low AAW..AAW frigates and AAW destroyers…it’s the way the Italians and French have both gone.
I agree with this, have as you say 4 larger more capable destroyers or if they end up being classed as light cruisers specifically for CSG and then have 6 direct replacements for the T45 for other AAW duties, would need significant increase in spending however.
High low mid doesn’t really exist.
Italian Frigates have good radars but far too few missiles for air defense.
French have the 2 FDA Fremms, but those were bodged to make up for the lack of Horizons
Hi SB, Maybe I spent too many years trying to read between the lines to spot the “Realpolitik” hidden in plain sight if you can decipher it, I’ve read enough of your posts to suspect a kindred spirit behind your plume.
So Babcock is supposed to deliver all 5 T31 from Rosyth by 2030 and has no other orders in the pipeline, well given the increase in cost, repeated missed targets and the “Inspired” nature of the project and an SDR I’m not surprised there are no orders.
I have to admire Babcock as they had some real guts and initiative to even suggest doing this in the 1st place, to do so involves assessing and overcoming a massive series of risks. Unfortunately they seem to have underestimated the costs & timescales in their tender and by committing to delivery and then having to renegotiate both they have really blotted their copy book.
They had a yard / staff with zero experience or infrastructure for building new ships from scratch, a design which although very flexible was designed for Denmark, containing a completely different outfit of non RN kit (guns, sensors, CMS, comms etc etc etc) from a different set of supply chains and a timeline that was “aspiration rather than inspiration”.
As for BAe IOC for 2028 and all 8 in service by 2035, to do that is a 1 a year Drumbeat which is what they said they can do and if they can it’s very impressive. One does have to wonder if having Babcock up the Road and Navantia down the River is motivating them.
As for the future orders, we await the SDR (and pray for a Norwegian order), I do have to wonder which side of the “War for cash” will win ? On one side you have the entrenched mindset of “Treasury Orthodoxy” (love that one M8) and on the other a bunch of Politicians who just realising that they are in the middle of a “Mindfield of Political IEDs”, 100% sown by the previous lot !
Option 1. Order the T32 and T83 to follow on and keep the yards and industry going (lots of money but Defence cuts elsewhere).
Or
Option 2. Do nothing which Scraps the NSBS, destroys the industry, infuriates their TU paymaster, gets Trump angry and triggers the re emergence of the SNP and risk losing a referendum which breaks up the U.K (HM cancels all the Knighthoods). 🤔 Mmm where can I buy a ticket for a ring side seat.
Personally I think they will fudge it, use AUKUS to promise an increase to SSN numbers (stupid not to if the sums work), Lifex the T45 (doable) meanwhile order a Trio of T31 as a stopgap and then get Babcock building blocks for the T83 (minimum of 8).
Agreed, pending an increasingly unlikely T26 export order (France seems the strong favourite to win the Norwegian frigate order), BAES Govan will start running out of work in 2030, several years before the first T83’s orders under even the most optimistic plans. And things are even worse for Babcock Rosyth, the ship construction side will surely close c.2030 unless the T32 materialises, but all expectations are that SDR will formally cancel that long stagnant project. The best we can hope for is that to keep the shipyard open, a couple of extra T31’s are ordered with extended build times, whilst efforts are made to sell some almost new RN T31’s with quick delivery. That is an approach that has been very successful for Italy and France.
I guess this would be to change if the Norwegian deal goes through and provide the first two frigates off the line.
If and maybe are they key terms in response to that.
If a HoT had been signed then we would know about it.
Wishful thinking is not a business planning tool!
Are the type 23 torpedo launchers going to be moved over to the 26 via fixed position or iso container? Or is this still a mystery for the 26?
Apparently not, but decisions can be changed.
Never been any plans to. However given the potential for underwater drones is being realised, there’s always the possibility that some capability of this type may be introduced. (The heavy weight torpedoes of a submarine out range those carried by frigates, so they they’re of no use against a submarine that’s stays at distance.)
I suspect the easy option and probably best against drones would be paying for the final development of the kingfisher rounds family…using the 5inch gun to fire off patterns of sonobuoys and depth bombs is a very good Self defence.
Didn’t they issue an RFI for Torperdo Carrying missiles last year ? MK 41 can accommodate ASROC or Type 7.
British Type 26s are being built without tubes, unlike the Australian and Canadian versions.
MoD is investigating acquiring anti submarine missiles to be launched from the MK41 cells to give a range beyond Merlin launched Stingrays.
The Type 26’s are equipped with a spacious Multi Mission Bay – it wouldn’t stretch the imagination too much to have a Deployable Ship Bourne Torpedo Module ready to use if the threat of UUV’s became an issue.
Can we have at least another 4x T26 and another 3x T31 please? Especially as the T83 and T32 seem to be dragging on. We need a bigger Navy and escorts are the backbone of any fleet, and we need to keep the yards and supply chain gainfully employed while the next classes of warship are developed.
I would also give the MoD / RN the hurry on the T83 / T32. The time of ‘discussions’ is past, decisions need to be made and the programs moved forward.
With a growing and ever more assertive Chinese Navy which now has more frigates and destroyers than the USN, and the emergence of the CRINK (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) group of countries as a threat to the West, NATO countries need to step up and as a country with a proud and effective naval tradition the UK should take a lead on the maritime front, and that means more ships, subs and aircraft.
Just to underline the point about the CRINK nations we should not forget that North Korean troops are now engaged in the war on Ukraine, proving that troops from the Far East can come to Europe and fight. The Chinese Navy regularly sends ships to work with the Russian Navy in European waters. The threat is real and rising.
Cheers CR
I doubt that’ll ever happen.
Personally, I think T32 will just be a T31 batch 2 – this would make sense as otherwise it’s just spending more money on developing a class of 5 frigates. Might as well just order a batch 2 and save the development costs. Up-arm these ones, though.
If that’s what happens then best-case scenario I could think of is an order of Type 31-batch 2s takes place, which grows the fleet by another 5 surface warships until we build the Type 83 destroyers. I’d hope that we build at least 8-10 of these, so that’d grow the fleet to around 25-26 surface ships, which is a decent number. Personally, I think we should build the first T83 not to replace the oldest T45 but to serve alongside the class until we have 2-3 T83s in service, to boost the number of destroyers, and then start retiring the T45s so that we keep an increased number of 8-10 in total.
A batch 2 is not going to be uparmed, they may not even up arm the batch 1s at this rate
Steve R – all good common sense but sadly, the MOD are totally bereft of common sense! What you’re suggesting would likely get an MOD minion burnt at the stake.
How is it common sense when they have no funding
Well, common sense would be to increase funding to meet the demands of defence required.
Well the RN has consistently hinted that the want the MRSS to be something other than a big old single purpose amphibious vessel…and that it should be able to escort itself and undertake littoral strike..it would not surprise me if the RN don’t try and solve its escort issue ( it should have 20 frigates) by creating a hybrid assault and littoral combat/patrol vessel..say 15,000 tons able to fully support a company lift, provide precision strike, autonomous vessel support and have protection to the same level as a frigate, medium gun, CIWS, CAMM…essentially giving the RN a vessel that if not transporting a company of marines to a beach can act as a mother ship a large set of autonomous vessels, act as a major surface warship on patrol etc..as well being good at all the peacetime RN roles.
An idea, most likely not workable but here its is anyway. We, (the UK) would like Norway to but T26. We need to increase hulls, but manpower is still an issue, Norway has the stealth design and ability – i presume – to build Skjold-class corvettes or replacements. Could such a beast be used to add to the River class? And at the same time add the “coolness” feature for crewing ? Maybe with drone capability for wider surveillance etc? Maybe a trade off you buy mine I will buy yours???
The current River class OPV’s are at around 2000 tonnes and are Ocean going,the Skjold class are a mere 274 tonnes,can you see the problem ?.
We already do buy some very important items from Norway, the composite Masts and Scot Radoms for the T26 are built in Norway ! And then there are the NSMs.
Yes, since money is tight there is an obvious temptation to design new ships to do more than one role. The question is always which roles can be sensibly combined and into which new ships. The Hunts have a secondary role as an OPV. This is suggestive of Kongsberg Vangurd for local waters. A batch3 River with a mission deck might also be a MCMV mothership. A basic spec T31 is an OPV. A T31 with a full width mission deck could be a global MCMV mothership for rough waters. A T31 with a better radar would make a decent 2nd tier AAW ship. An extended T31 with side access and a mexflote could almost land a company. A T31 version with machinery rafting could be an ASW ship. And so on. What did for Albion and Bulwark was that they were expensive to run and crew and sat around doing nothing most of the time. By contrast the Bays were cheap, forward based and multirole. You can see companies like BMT grappling with this challenge with designs like Ellida which attempted to merge FSS and MRSS functions. But it looks like that ship has sailed so MRSS multirole options are limited.
Couldn’t we slow things down some? After all fifteen years is a bit quick for us, considering other nations can build in 4/5 years.
To be fair Russia cannot so we have a benchmark to aspire to 😬🫣
All two true my friend.
…or even “too” Can’t spell now !
T32 and T83 will stay on CAD screens indefinitely.First couple 26s probably going to Scandinavia to get more sales so the last of the UKs 8 hulls won’t arrive til 2038/39 if at all.UK is drifting from blue to greenwater status slowly but surely.Sensible perhaps, as we can’t equip or crew the current,diminishing fleet,never mind the new stuff.SDR will do for the carriers, most of the RFA,half the MRSS.Have to leave East of Suez and Indo/Pacific to US and local Navies.On a brighter note the Darings are probably good to the late 2040s(plenty of sea mileage left in them).And flogging both carriers to Australia or Japan would buy another Astute or 5 more 31s?
Flogging the carriers will buy you nothing. No one will pay their original cost or half of it
Starmer will probably give them to the Chinese for free takeaway for life for the cabinet.
Selling the carriers would be a tremendous mistake. We’d have zero expeditionary or power projection capability and would rely entirely on the US for such.
If you get rid of those, you might as well scrap the entire Royal Navy.
Carriers have always had a NATO role in the GIUK Gap, and will continue to.
So no.
The MOD looks at equipment programmes out to 10 years. With surface warships taking 7/8 years to deliver and submarines even longer, planning for 19 years isn’t long enough. A fleet of @ 20 frigates/destroyers only needs one to be completed per year. Only because of the long gap of building none do we now need 2 yards to be able to replace ships used far beyond their design life. Once all T26 and T31s have been completed, it is hard to see how 2 yards could be kept fully operational.
We do have a need for MCM motherships and OPVs will also need replacement. Perhaps one yard should specialize in these whilst the other builds the high end vessels. With small overall numbers, sticking to a basic multi role design might remove risk and improve supply chain reliability.
10 years.
Hi all
Firstly I have read all your comments before I put this post up.
Dosnt matter what is needed how much or timelines.
The Royal Navy needs to modernise, this is an ongoing scenario forever more..
Firstly we are not in a cold war footing like after the second world neither are we at oh defence dosnt matter. We are in between.
So we should be not at rock bottom minimum requirement standards.(sadly we are below that).
We as a nation should be prepared for any situation around the world 24 7.
As we are talking Royal Navy I will keep to Royal Navy.
Minimum requirement scenario first
8 patrol class with 4 on duties
9 general purpose frigates
9 ASW frigates
9 Destroyers
2 assault ships (personally should be able to hold 10 commando merlin helicopter
In a 1 in 1 out scenario.
12 hunter subs
Sadly no trident waste of money suprising that as I’m ex military.
Lastly
3 carriers.. 1 in 1 out 1 on standby
Now this is my own personal opinion after spending a lot of time in the services.
If a war breaks out which could potentially could happen with Putin in Ukraine and China persistence in the South China Sea also middle east is at implosion mode.
Government’s need to make cuts and I understand fully that finances are tight.
But at what price do you pay for defence even if this government spends 5% of GDP over the next 5 years will still not make up how badly cut our defence actually is.
Thank you
There is an option the Government are steadfastly ignoring. Which is re-exploitation of the North Sea oil and gas fields. There are untapped fields out there, the Government just need to be brave enough to use them and kick Ed Miliband in to touch. If like Norway, we used the oil/gas profits for funding a UK growth fund. Then surely part of that fund could also help pay for defence.
There are loads of options the government are ignoring. Avenues for taxation that haven’t been touched.
I read Rachel is going for growth – she will cancel HS2 and re-deploy construction teams to new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick; one for Donald and one for Elon 🙂