Babcock has reported a GBP 140 million charge on the Type 31 frigate contract after higher than expected rework levels during the outfitting and commissioning phase of the five-ship programme.
Babcock International has posted a £140 million charge against its Type 31 general purpose frigate contract, attributing the cost overrun to design changes and the consequences of out-of-sequence build activity earlier in the programme.
The company floated the first two ships during the financial year ending 31 March 2026, laid the keel of ship three, and formally commenced construction of ship four. However, as structural completion of the lead ship progresses, rework requirements during outfitting have proven more complex and more costly than anticipated, with knock-on effects to ship two also identified.
Babcock said the number of rework events was not entirely unexpected, but that their occurrence in the later stages of completion increased both complexity and cost. The company has completed an engineering maturity review and updated its estimates to complete the programme, incorporating higher production costs and an increased risk contingency. Around £100 million of the charge will be recognised as a revenue reversal in FY26, with the remainder added to the contract loss provision. Cash costs will be spread across the remainder of the programme.
Ships three and four remain in early construction, and Babcock said the extent of impact on those and subsequent vessels was comparatively reduced.
Here’s the full statement:
“During the year we floated off the first and second ships in the five-ship programme, laid the keel of ship three and formally commenced the build of ship four at its steel cutting ceremony.
As we finish structural completion of ship one, the bulk of the remaining work now relates to outfitting and commissioning. During the outfitting stage we have experienced higher than expected levels of rework as a result of changes to the design and the long-term impacts of out-of-sequence build activity earlier in the programme. Whilst the number of such rework events is not entirely unexpected, the work is being performed in the later stages of completion and therefore is more complex and more costly. The ability to enable the work to be performed to support increasing levels of programme productivity has also been impacted. As the build of ship two is close behind ship one, there is also some cross over in the design-related rework necessary to this ship. With ships three and four still in the early construction stages, the extent of impact on these and future vessels is comparatively reduced.
As a consequence, we have performed an engineering maturity review, and we have updated our financial estimates to complete the programme, given the elevated levels of work due to engineering change and productivity. These re-estimates not only cover the production costs of material and personnel, but also an increased programme risk contingency.
This is reflected in an expected charge on the contract (subject to audit) of £140 million for the revised costs to complete delivery of the Type 31 design and build contract, which is fully recognised in FY26, but the cash costs of which will be incurred over the remainder of the programme. We estimate c.£100 million of this £140 million will be recognised as a revenue reversal in FY26 with the balance increasing the contract loss provision.”
Despite the Type 31 charge, the broader financial results for FY26 point to a business in strong underlying health. Excluding the charge, Babcock reported underlying operating profit of £433 million and an operating margin of 8.2 per cent, ahead of its 8.0 per cent full-year target. Revenue reached £5,273 million, representing organic growth of 10 per cent at constant exchange rates, driven primarily by Nuclear and Aviation.
Nuclear was the standout performer, with revenue growing 14 per cent to £2,070 million and underlying operating profit rising 23 per cent to £197 million. The division’s margin reached 9.5 per cent, meeting the Group’s medium-term target. Aviation also delivered strong results, with revenue up 34 per cent to £431 million, driven by the ramp-up of the Mentor 2 programme in France and a helicopter emergency services contract in British Columbia.
Beyond the financial results, Babcock secured a series of notable programme milestones during the year. The company signed a Letter of Intent for two further Arrowhead 140 frigate licences for Indonesia under the £4 billion Maritime Partnerships Programme, and expanded its partnership with HII to manufacture complex submarine assemblies at Rosyth for the US Virginia Class Block VI programme. In civil nuclear, a joint venture between Cavendish Nuclear and Amentum was selected as Owner’s Engineer for Great British Energy’s first small modular reactor project at Wylfa, a contract worth up to £300 million over 14 years.
Underlying free cash flow increased significantly to £262 million, and net debt fell to £329 million, giving a gearing ratio of 0.2x. The Group completed a £200 million share buyback in April 2026 and has announced a further £200 million programme to commence alongside publication of its full year results.
Babcock said FY27 expectations remain unchanged, with around 70 per cent of forecast revenue already under contract. The company reiterated its medium-term guidance of mid-single digit revenue growth, an underlying operating margin of at least 9 per cent, and operating cash conversion of at least 80 per cent.
Full year audited results, delayed by the Type 31 restatement, are now expected in late June. Harry Holt, who succeeded David Lockwood as Group Chief Executive on 1 April 2026, will join the Board in June.












If only we had more companies like Babcock.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
I am a bit confused about this.
Are Babcock “writing down” a loss of £140M against the company’s books, or are they expecting MOD to pay for this extra work because of “design changes”
I believe it was a ‘fixed price’ deal for the first 5 as far as the MoD are concerned. The capability insertions are a separate contract. So, Babcock are absorbing a financial loss into their accounts (thus reducing their profit and liability to Corporation Tax 😉).
Cheers Rob, that makes sense.
So rework during fitout isn’t actually unusual then on first and second ships of class? Just like the type 45s, oh and little dual fuel prototype ferries!
Which is why building small classes of ship is stupidly expensive.
#1-3 is a learning curve and #4 onwards are steady state.
So ordering 3 more *identical* T31 makes a lot of sense. OK you fit the Mk41 from the off but leave the rest alone.
Hope Babcock can keep its momentum going and land some new orders from Denmark, Sweden, NZ and maybe some additional for the RN. Good luck!
Hopefully it doesn’t involve us giving away more build slots like with the Norway deal.
At this point, it basically can’t – or there will be no navy to replace.
You think that will worry the government?
Denmark is the best bet. Swedes will go with the French or Spanish and Kiwi’s will buy Mogami like the Aussies.
Spain has no chance to win the Swedish tender. Their design only exists on paper while Sweden wants the fastest delivery possible which is why they prefer the french frigate but they won’t sign anything until they can get Saab as much work as possible.
The Frogs gave Saab some reciprocal work by purchasing GlobalEye! I agree, they look favourite for the Swedes. But, I thought that Navantia had a ‘production line’ of frigates and their design was ‘oven ready’ so, they were ‘guaranteeing’ delivery?
Yes but Saab’s aviation division is about to be busy as multiply countries and NATO are getting interested in the Global eye while, beyond 5 submarines on order, Saab Kockums doesn’t have much to do.
A new frigate order from the swedish government is critical to keep that skill in Sweden. That makes things more complicated though I’m sure they can work out a deal with the French to split the production between France and Sweden.
They shouldering the cost, not the MOD, or so I beleave
So what are the changes? £140M doesn’t sound like rerouting some pipework.
Ship #1 was put together with a very low level of block outfitting.
As I and a large number of other people pointed out, this is a dreadful way of block building. I’d have expected to see each block fully plumbed etc before assembly. The give away was the lack of pipe ends and duct ends.
Physically inserting lengths of duct or pipe gets harder as they have to be brought aboard in shorter sections. This means more cartage labour and more labour joining the sections together as well as more connections to QA. So it is very Labour and cost negative.
As I under it the hull was closed up before all the machinery was installed.
Does that increase the risk of defects?
I believe it was a ‘fixed price’ deal for the first 5 as far as the MoD are concerned. The capability insertions are a separate contract. So, Babcock are absorbing a financial loss into their accounts (thus reducing their profit and liability to Corporation Tax 😉).
As predicted at the very start.
Maybe ordering the full 13 T26’s was a better bet all along given the costings ?
The cost of all 5 type 31s is 1.25 billion. The cost of one type 26 is just under 1 billion. Babcock’s had this on their side of the risk register and there’s no increase in cost to the MoD
It’s Babcock eating the cost out of their profits so not a big issue for the taxpayers and it looks like it was mainly increased cost due to first in class learning as well a Babcocks inexperience.
Baby steps always lead to face planting and crying.