The Type 26 frigate, also known as the City-class frigate, represents the next generation of anti-submarine warfare vessels being developed for the Royal Navy, with variants planned for the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy.
This project, known as the Global Combat Ship programme, aimed to replace the Royal Navy’s ageing Type 23 frigates and to offer a versatile platform for export.
The Type 26 frigate originated from the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) programme, which began in 1998 to find replacements for the Type 22 and Type 23 frigates. Initial concepts included various designs, such as a trimaran hull, but by 2010, the focus shifted to a more conventional and flexible design under the Global Combat Ship programme.
In March 2010, BAE Systems Maritime – Naval Ships received a £127 million contract to develop this new class of warship, leading to the design passing Main Gate 1 in early 2015.
In August 2015, the first long lead-time items for the Type 26 were ordered, with manufacturing expected to begin in 2016. However, the commissioning date for the first ship was later delayed to late 2026, with initial operational capability anticipated from 2028. The contract to manufacture the first three ships was awarded to BAE Systems on 2 July 2017, with steel cut for the first vessel, HMS Glasgow, on 20 July 2017.
The development of the Type 26 frigate began under the original FSC programme aimed at replacing the Royal Navy’s Type 22 and Type 23 frigates. This programme evolved into the Global Combat Ship initiative.
Initially, the Royal Navy planned to procure 13 Type 26 frigates, but the number was later reduced to eight due to budget constraints and strategic re-evaluations. This decision, made during the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, aimed to balance the capabilities and costs while introducing a new class of lighter and more affordable general-purpose frigates, the Type 31e, to fill the gap.
Planned Ships
Royal Navy (City-Class)
- Glasgow
- Cardiff
- Belfast
- Birmingham
- Sheffield
- Newcastle
- Edinburgh
- London
Royal Australian Navy (Hunter-Class)
- Hunter
- Flinders
- Tasman
- Three additional ships (names TBD)
Royal Canadian Navy (Canadian Surface Combatant)
- 15 ships (names TBD)
Specifications
The Type 26 frigates are designed primarily for anti-submarine warfare but are also capable of supporting air defence and general-purpose operations. They have a displacement of approximately 6,900 tonnes, a length of 149.9 metres, and a beam of 20.8 metres.
The propulsion system includes a combined diesel-electric or gas (CODLOG) configuration, featuring a Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbine and four MTU diesel generators, allowing speeds in excess of 26 knots and a range of over 7,000 nautical miles.
During my visit to BAE Systems’ Govan shipyard, it was clear that the scale of investment in shipbuilding technology was immense, and every detail of the ship’s design was meticulously considered to enhance acoustic quieting and human factors.
The frigates will be equipped with a variety of advanced weapons and sensors, including:
- Type 997 Artisan 3D radar
- Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles via two 24-cell VLS
- Mark 41 VLS for future cruise and anti-ship missiles
- 5-inch Mark 45 naval gun
- Phalanx CIWS for close-in defence
- 30 mm DS30M Mk2 guns
- General-purpose machine guns and .50 calibre heavy machine guns
The Type 26 has facilities for two helicopters, typically the Wildcat or AgustaWestland Merlin, and features a flight deck capable of accommodating a Chinook. The adaptable design includes a large mission bay amidship, which can house a variety of mission-specific equipment, unmanned vehicles, or additional boats.
Australian and Canadian Acquisitions
Australian Acquisition
In June 2018, the Australian Government announced its decision to select the Type 26 platform for its SEA 5000 Future Frigate programme, resulting in the Hunter-class frigate. This decision aimed to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s ageing Anzac-class frigates with a more capable and modern vessel.
Initially, Australia intended to procure nine Hunter-class frigates, with construction to take place at ASC Shipbuilding in Osborne, South Australia. However, in February 2024, the Australian Government announced a reduction in the order from nine to six ships, citing budgetary constraints and strategic reassessments. The remaining gap will be filled by a new class of 11 general-purpose frigates.
Canadian Acquisition
On 8 February 2019, the Canadian Government awarded Lockheed Martin Canada a contract to design and build a fleet of up to 15 warships based on the Type 26 platform, known as the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). This programme aims to replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s Halifax-class frigates.
The CSC programme, valued at CAD 69.8 billion, will see the ships constructed at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, integrating Canadian-specific systems and modifications to meet national defence requirements.
Hasn’t it already been stated in the latest Type 26 spec sheet that the 48 mushroom farm cells aren’t being fitted and instead they’re getting, or are supposed to get, 4 3-cell Mk41 cells with the ExLS inserts for quad-packed CAMMs?
More like speculation. There’s been no confirmation of Exls at this point and tbh I doubt they would’ve changed the design at this stage.
The Royal Navy themselves seem to claim that they’re being fitted with 12 cells for 48 missiles and given that the basic CAMM variant is cold-launched, it requires the ExLS inserts to eject them. https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/equipment/ships/city-class “The City Class frigates will boast significant air defence and surface warfare capabilities. These consist of 12 vertical launch system (VLS) cells for the Sea Ceptor surface to air missile (and another 24 multi-purpose MK 41 VLS cells). Each cell can house four Sea Ceptors, giving each ship a total of 48 missiles, and the MK 41 VLS provides flexibility to utilise a further choice… Read more »
No yeh I’ve seen that one, and if that was the case it would be a great improvement over the old camm cells. But will have to wait and see. Will probably find out this year with HMS Glasgows weapons installations coming up
The Royal Navy website — which I admit hasn’t always been the most reliable organ in the past — says the following about the City Class VLS: These consist of 12 vertical launch system (VLS) cells for the Sea Ceptor surface to air missile (and another 24 multi-purpose MK 41 VLS cells). Each cell can house four Sea Ceptors, giving each ship a total of 48 missiles, and the MK 41 VLS provides flexibility to utilise a further choice of missiles to counter threats as they emerge. To me this implies that either Type 26 is getting specialist cells that… Read more »
The EXLS that exists in three cells isn’t mk41.
Because CAMM is cold launched and inert it effectively uses the inserts as the VLS, skipping the whole heavily armoured box and waste gas removal of mk41 for a much lighter and shorter system.
It is looking more and more like T26 will have ExLS, I even saw a CGI a few days ago (can’t remember where) showing it in a single row in front of the mk41.
Yes it is a Mk41. Lockheed and MBDA UK both say it’s a Mk41 that’s been modified with the ExLS system for quadpacking and launching the cold-launched CAMM and potentially other missiles. Aside from the ExLS modifications, the only other difference is that it’s in packs of 3 rather than 8.
No, there a two types, the insert and standalone type, which I think you have confused.
The Insert goes into 8-cell mk41 and modifies it to be able to quad pack CAMM, a VLS inside a VLS.
The standalone ExLS is just the insert by itself in groups of 3 placed beneath the deck, without the heavy and expensive features of mk41.
Think about it. Why would it be necessary to retain the huge exhaust chambers and ducts of mk41 for a missile that is essentially thrown into the air by a piston?
The 24 Mk.41 silo’s are separate from the Sea Ceptor cells.
24 CAMM single cells in front of the Mk. 41 cells, and 24 in mid-ship.
I never claimed they weren’t separate. Only that the latest Royal Navy releases make no mention of the mushroom farm cells, and state that the ships will be able to carry 48 CAMM in 12 cells. And given that CAMM is soft launched and Mk41s come in blocks of 8, the 3-cell ExLS-Mk41 system is basically the only game in town. The City Class frigates will boast significant air defence and surface warfare capabilities. These consist of 12 vertical launch system (VLS) cells for the Sea Ceptor surface to air missile (and another 24 multi-purpose MK 41 VLS cells).Each cell… Read more »
It may also mean that 2*24 CAMM can be both forward freeing up the rear space aft of the rear exhaust stack for either more CAMM (as on RCAN T26) and cannister NSM or nothing.
If that’s the case I wonder if the same will be for the CAMM on the T45s? Maybe a 2*24= 48 CAMM instead of just 24? Better load out giving a lesser need to reload as quick.
No, BAES don’t mean that.
Only 24 Sea Ceptor can be launched from new extended silos.
Very impressive ships. Only ten years for the first one to be commissioned so by 2035 we might have eight. Meanwhile we soldier on with exhausted T23’s.
It’s all driven by the Treasury and their schedule of payments. To pack everything we need into the MOD budget they have to stretch out the cost over as many years as possible. Which alway means it actually costs more overall. I think it it’s stupid but that’s what they do, same with the QE’s and the Astutes, the exception is Dreadnought. BAe are perfectly capable of going faster they have recently said so publicly and have the track record to prove it. Last builds were the T45, 5 out of the 6 were built outside on a slipway and… Read more »
One of my favourite words when it comes to defence…treasury. As you rightly say it must cost us billions in strtching everything out. Not only the price per unit itself but the money spent on keeping the obsolescent stuff going. Not just a naval problem either.
I wonder if the pertinent question is to who/where does all this money wasted go? Somebody is making a fortune out of HMGs failure to fund normal build rates & I supect it’s defence shareholders who are largely Tory donors. I suspect it’s symtomatic of Tory fiscal policy. All that austerity we had to suffer & we’re probably in more debt than ever, whilst the richest have made massive gains in their wealth. Who lends to us that we can be in such debt if not the super rich? We’ve seen the whole range of essential services, emergency services &… Read more »
Well, Gordon Brown extended the build time of the first QE carrier to save money in the short term with ultimate result being a more expensive ship. The common them is the Treasury not specifically the party in power.
I do not think there is any argument about the Tories and defence. They have been bad. As for the super rich I think it’s easy to fall into the trap of blaming them for everything but they don’t really exist outside royalty and and a few hundred others. They make up less that one third of one per cent of the population. There is no way on this planet that Labour will fund the £60 to £80 bilion that they wan’t to spend without taxing the rest of us even more. According to Starmer I am not working class… Read more »
Rachel Reeves thinks the money goes to consultants who the MOD hire because, although they have the skills they lack the confidence to make decisions 😉
It isn’t a theory – the Public Accounts Committee have said the exact same thing publicly.
Was it really the treasury? i remember tthis project started at begin of the century i think.
The number of ships was dictated in the 2015 review, but the speed was agreed afterwards, at the end of the Cameron and start of the May governments.
Yep it most definitely was the Treasury, small issue of trying to fund a couple of wars at the same time as needing to replace ships. And do both without extra funding. OPEX wasn’t negotiable so CAPEX was stretched to infinity.
Good News. The T26 programme is visibly doing quite well, 1 in the water and another soon to join her. Bae have invested massively on new technology and vastly better and bigger infrastructure. They have also committed to being able to deliver future ships faster and on a shorter drumbeat if more ships are ordered (fingers crossed for Norway). Some will criticise the speed of delivery but if HMG is paying the bills at that rate then that’s what BAe will deliver. It’s a production schedule driven by the necessary and available finance. It has been great watching the progress… Read more »
HMS Thunderous Silence, now I like the sound of that baby, bring it on.
HMS Thunder is a great name we should use more often. HMS Silence gives the wrong impression, don’t you think? Even if it’s a submarine, it would be jolly embarrassing if it got caught on a passive array.
One of my favourite RN Battleship names HMS Thunderer.
I thought that one never got built?
It was supposed to have 8x 18″ guns, wasn’t it?
You’re thinking of the M3 design which would have had 9 x 18” guns. I’m talking about the proceeding one which was an Orion Class Battleship with 10 x 13.5” guns.
Oh yes, I remember now
One of the warship video games I play has a Thunderer as a WW2 design like a King George VI but with four twin 18″ turrets. That is made up entirely for all I know.
I have heard of the M3s, though. They were the battle cruisers with the X turret amidships to save on the armour protecting the magazines.
I thought it was the N3 that was supposed to have 18″s as the big, slow battleship version?
Yes, the absence of Venturer news is puzzling. I can only assume that Babcock will amaze us all when she appears complete with Mk41 vls.
I read that the US are having issues with the constellation class frigates with up to a 3 year delay. Any chance they could put an order in for a few T26?
No chance. They would have to heavily modify it for what they need as has been done with the constellation, and they’re not going to order from abroad.
That’s a shame. I wondered if they were maybe having 2nd thoughts about the design. In 3 years T26 will be up and running. Just a coincidence perhaps!
The modification they made is what is making the delay.
And the workforce (lack of).
USNI news reports there could be an issue with weight growth for future technology. Probably putting 2 and 2 together and coming up 5 but makes you wonder!
Given the failures or major issues with all their recent programmes I suspect if they changed their minds heads would roll. Do I think they should have gone for the T26 ? Yes as it is a way better ASW ship and twenty years more modern than FREMM. But they decided to only consider an existing in service design so we were excluded, they picked the best option but it’s too small for what they want. Funny thing is they managed to take the Italian FREMM which is a very elegant design and turned it into an enlarged bodge job.… Read more »
I’m still holding my breath for the Canadian version, give it another 10 years maybe till its in service 😅
Given the speed threats and technologies are evolving, just in the last 2-3 years alone, is staggering. Im no expert but it seems they can’t get everything they want onto the current design. The famous phrase “we’re gonna need a bigger boat” springs to mind.
🤔😁 Honestly, had never before associated the movie Jaws w/ frigate acquisition. 👍 (lateral thought)
Even now they could probably hit their targets by building the first three ships to the excellent Italian design and leaving the modifications to flight II. On time and under budget, but not good enough for the USN.
Id argue thats very much not an option when you consider the completly different armament, VLS, radar systems computer systems and so on that is used by the italian design. But you can see how the list of updated quickly spiral. They may have been better choosing a design with more US tech incorporated.
It’s not the fit out that’s causing delay, it’s the structural changes. I don’t think Aegis CMS takes up more space than the Leonardo CMS. French and Italian FREMMs have different CMS, radars, weapons etc, and they even have different propulsion systems CODLAG vs CODLOG, but they are built to the same basic hull design. The integrated mast takes 4 planar X-band antennas and 4 planar C band, but you can substitute in Lockheed Martin’s rather than Leonardo’s or Thales’ without altering the ship’s build. The Constellation doesn’t use it at all. You’d have to include Mk41 rather than Sylver,… Read more »
Perhaps the RCN will be interested in a trade at that point? 🤔☹️
One would have thought that there were lessons learned from the Little Crappy Ships debacle. Evidently inertia is a fundamental force in the acquisition universe. 🤔😱☹️
What a greedy thought… and we hope the Norwegians go for the T26 too…lol 😁
Type 26 RN = How to waste a destroyer class ship as a mere frigate.
No AAW like Hunter and Canadian variants, only a rotating radar while everyone else already in planar fixed ones.
————-
2 Wildcat or 1 Merlin. 2 Merlin are not practical.
That’s because it’s primarily an ASW frigate from what I see it’s going to be a corker just like the T23s were. And just because the RAN and RCN are packing theirs to the gunnels doesn’t mean it’s a bad ship.
As for planer radars they are heavier than rotating, so can’t be mounted as high up hence less range.
Plus for the RAN and RCN they both lack or have no AAW vessels so they have to put that extra investment in for them to do more than ASW. We have the T45s on the other hand.
The decommission of the Iroqouis class destroyers in the RCN is a gap that is keenly felt for the service.
For a giant ASW frigate it has a distinct lack extra equipmetn that justifies its size.. Only 1 Merlin while a FREMM have a Merlin and a NH90(or Seahawk class) , no torpedo tubes – i know the argumetn about light ones, but it could have heavy Spearfish being fired from the stern.
It could have been a ship of the size of T31.
Heavy torpedoes fired from the stern? That’s not something the RN would use.
Also the single hangar is a conscious choice, and it’s not a terrible idea either the RN have had single Helo ships for decades.
Mission bay takes up alot of space.
And your point about it being T31 sized, which isn’t even that much smaller doesn’t make any sense. How much cost are you going to save being slightly smaller.
Why it would not use heavy torpedoes, they are all weather and it is to compensate for lack of a second helicopter.
Having a single helo for decades on much smaller ships.
T31 for what it offers could have been 3500t.
Well for one you couldn’t wire guide said heavy torpedoes do you’d essentially be firing them off where the enemy used to be and hoping they find them.
And they chose to use the space on a larger ship for the mission bay which will be a useful asset.
You’ve clearly entirely missed the point of why ships are getting bigger. Or do you prefer sardine accommodation for sailors and no weight capacity for upgrades.
Why it could not wire guide them? Maestrale frigates had the A-184.
It is my opinion btw that the only way that submergible drones can be effective is with a wire connection to transmite data back to the ship/fleet.
It’s not a destroyer class. Frigates are just this size now.
To add to the points made by Rodney and Hugo, it will have more AAW than previous generations of British frigates. It will easily function at theatre level, taking quad-packed CAMM, CAMM-ER, and whatever we buy for the Mk41s, which I’d guess won’t just be FC/ASW and a few ASROCs. Asters will have to be integrated into Mk41 at some point, and my guess is that will be on the Type 26 long before the Type 83s. Probably not from commission date but maybe even before the end of the decade. CAMM-MR is also on the horizon.
I dunno about Asters. T83 may move towards US missile systems? Especially since MBDA will probably kick a fit about putting aster in mk41
MBDA worked closely with LM to integrate CAMM with ExLS which is a derivative for MK41. I can understand the French being less than happy as they push the Sylver VLS, but if it push came to shove I’m sure MBDA would rather keep the RN on side and support integrating Aster into MK41.
MBDA are a European success story with a considerable food print in the UK, so I believe we should continue to support them as continue to produce good quality kit.
Cheers CR
If Sylver and MK41 could cross swap all their missiles might it not be a win – win or win – lose some for both?
Well for the companies theyd be losing out on selling their own vls systems, and in turn unable to force a navy into using their missiles or architecture
Why would MBDA kick up a fuss if we pay them to more than double their potential customer base?
It’s not impossible we’d go with SM missiles for FADS. However, I think that a level of support for a European system is more likely from Labour.
Id argue there would be very few countries that would acquire Aster in Mk41 rather than using SM missiles. Its added complexity. Also it means they cant package Aster with Slyver. Anyway, probably wont hear more about Fads till near 2030 so i guess well have to see.
Sylver isn’t owned by MBDA. It’s Naval Group’s.
CAMM is Not quad-packable
in ExLS. ExLS is specific for cold launch missiles like CAMM, CAMM-ER, to launch a pack of 3 CAMM. No CAMM has been launched from a Mk. 41.
If it’s ok to mention, Dr Alexanda Clarke a Naval Historian has a good YouTube video.
Canada and Australia both get more than the RN.
RN fleet just keeps getting smaller.
Who didn’t read the article before posting?
T26 will make up the entire Canadian fleet so yes they’re ordering more.
And Austrlia has cut its order to 6 ships.
Its a great pity we are not ordering more.15 Canadian and 6 Australian are twice RN order. I know type 31 will add numbers but cutting the type 26 order for RN was a blow to capability.
I mean the latter 5 weren’t going to get a towed array. And barring the Mission bay there’s not much the T31 won’t have that those GP T26s would’ve. Course more would be better but unrealistic with the current budget
Even just one more of each while at low prices for rule of three availability. 🤔
It would be handy. But even the current price would get you probably 2 more GP Frigates. Plus there’s more priority programs like MRSS that are currently underfunded.
Sorry, just read your and others posts.
There will also be the replacement of the Victoria and Kingston class on the RCNs radar, in that order. Wheels are in motion on this.
Aus has cut its T26 from 9 to 6 but plan 7-11 lighter frigates to compensate for the reduction. Not sure why the A140/T31 is not getting a lookin here as it is with NZ and two being made under licence in Indonesia?
Because the first in class needs to be built abroad before a certain date and Rosyth won’t be free until long after then.
The design itself suits them perfectly, it’s timings of shipyards that is the problem.
Modules could be built from here to Latvia and assembled pretty much anywhere too. It doesn’t have to be Rosyth. The original Iver Huitfelds were block built in the Baltics and assembled in Denmark. There are blocks for the T31s being built in Poland. I’d imagine Damen would have assembly capacity. The whole thing could even be built in South Korea.
The blocks would still need to be assembled in Rosyth and fitted out. Damen may not have the capacity to assembled a proposed T31 for Australia, certainly not in the UK.
I’m aware that Damen’s facilities are not UK based. What’s the obsession about assembly in Rosyth or the UK? Isn’t it better to grasp the long term advantanges of commonality while sacrificing the temporary gain of a UK build? Especially as that doesn’t seem to be a realistic option in any event. MOD should be encouraging Babcock along these lines.
The ships will be late and over budget because the MoD and Navy spends it’s time adding/changing spec. Add the fact that they are built in Scotland so over cost, late and poor quality are guaranteed.
Weapons and sensors tick what about decoy systems Static or trainable ?
They announced the decoy system recently. Its called SEA or something but its a trainable one yes. Will have 2 on T45s, T26s and 31s
Cheers Hugo always good too see a bloom of chaff going off