Saab is backing a British-designed warship as it competes to secure Sweden’s next major surface combatant programme, promoting Babcock’s Arrowhead 120 frigate as a candidate for the Swedish Navy’s planned Luleå-class, according to reporting in Swedish media.

The design, developed by UK defence firm Babcock, is being positioned as a multi-role frigate intended for operations in the Baltic Sea, North Sea and Arctic regions, with Saab arguing it offers the endurance and flexibility Sweden requires for future maritime threats.

Babcock has confirmed it is not submitting a separate bid of its own to Sweden’s Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), instead placing its full weight behind the joint Saab-Babcock proposal.

“We believe it is the optimal design for Swedish needs,” said Ilgi Kim, commercial manager at Babcock as reported by dn.se.

According to the companies, Arrowhead 120 is a frigate design of around 120 metres in length, with an emphasis on air defence and anti-submarine warfare capability. Marketing material describes a platform designed for long-range deployments and adaptable mission profiles, with modular spaces intended to allow the ship to be reconfigured over its service life.

The design includes a flight deck and hangar arrangement able to support medium naval helicopters, with documentation also referencing the ability to operate uncrewed rotary aircraft. Saab has highlighted aviation and mission flexibility as central to the ship’s ability to conduct maritime surveillance, escort duties and submarine hunting operations.

“This ship has the endurance to be out on long missions,” said Lars Brännström, deputy manager at Saab Kockums.

The Arrowhead concept also places emphasis on growth potential, with Babcock describing the ship as configurable for future requirements, including the integration of new weapon loads and mission systems as threats evolve. The Swedish frigate programme is expected to deliver four new vessels. Other known contenders include France’s Naval Group and Spain’s Navantia.

The Saab-Babcock partnership builds on a wider UK-Swedish industrial relationship, with senior representatives from the Swedish Navy, UK Royal Navy, FMV, Saab and Babcock having met previously at Rosyth in Scotland as part of ongoing cooperation discussions. If successful, the programme would represent one of Sweden’s most significant naval procurement efforts in decades.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

  1. George you’ve got the wrong picture, that’s the Arrowhead 120 from the T31 competition and it’s been changed significantly for the Swedish competition.
    The pictures are in Babcock’s Media Library:
    wwwbabcockinternationalcom/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Babcock-AH120_Sweden_Herob-2048×2048.jpg

  2. Babcock is such a smart company. My only concern in them getting this is it removes any ability we have to increase our own fleet size.

    • If this contract wins I hope build slots are not taken from the Royal Navy builds.
      I standby for flak incoming from certain individuals on the T 26 build slots for the Norwegians.

      • Don’t be surprised if they do get offered T31 slots. Offering slots to others is a good way of pushing back current UK expenditure and clawing that non-expenditure back into the Treasury (rather than carrying it forward), if you see what I mean.
        And, as I think will happen with T26, that later, pushed back, expenditure will have to come out of the then year’s available expenditure.
        Offering slots is a sneaky way of cutting back on long term UK military expenditure, which is what this lot want to do so but daren’t say so.

      • From another article, it says that the hulls are to be built abroad and fitted out by Saab. And with a time scale of 2030 commission and a further 2 buy 2032, it seems pretty tight. So most likely it would either take slots or give the contract to another company. Although having Saab as a partner seems encouraging.

        • Also if Arrowhead is selected it’ll be hard to give away any slots. Although Arrowhead 120 and 140 share a base design they are different hulls, and since 1 T-31 is already in the water, and 2 more are being fabricated, there are very few slots that could even be given over to Sweden for 120’s. At the current rate the if the selection is made and the design work completed by 2028 then they *might* get Campbeltown’s slot, Active will probably be launched by the end of the year, and Bulldog will go straight into manufacture then, and I doubt Sweden and Babcock will be ready for 120 production within the year.

          • Perhaps the SAAB Malmo yard will be building to the Babcock design under licence so no direct impact on UK built Arrowhead ships?

            That would satisfy Babcock revenue, UK SE defence cooperation and NATO interoperability aspirations.

          • BBC reported in Sept 25 that ,IF new orders were signed, a new build hall was planned at Rosyth the same as the current hall. 4 hulls on the go at once?

  3. If we want to be serious about our own defence we need a strong export capacity – in other words, we need to invest more in production facilities. China doesn’t think ‘If we make this we can’t make that’ – they do both. Military shipping is a good way to help bring more manufacturing back to the UK…

      • Agreed – AI search ‘As of late 2025/early 2026, the United States holds the highest general government debt-to-GDP ratio among the three, exceeding 120%. The UK follows with a public sector net debt around 101%, while China’s official government debt is reported around 88%–96%, though estimates including local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) suggest higher, rapidly rising levels. Key Comparison Points: United States: Government debt-to-GDP is roughly 120%–124%. Total public debt increased by roughly \(\$2.9\) trillion in 2025.United Kingdom: Government debt-to-GDP is approximately 101%–105%, reflecting a high debt burden relative to economic output.China: Official government debt is around 88%–96% of GDP. However, some estimates suggest total debt, including local government and state-owned enterprises, is much higher, with China’s debt growing faster (13.6% annually) than the U.S. in 2025.Debt Growth Trend: While the U.S. has higher total debt value, China’s debt-to-GDP ratio has shown a steeper upward trend recently,’ – but so do a lot of other people!

        • Chinese regional governments also take out a lot of debt, far more than US states. Chinese government Debt to GDP ratio’s do not reflect this.

          • Type of debt also matters. If all your debt is internal, better than if you owe other countries: ‘As of mid-2025,
            the United States has a massive external debt exceeding $28 trillion, while China’s registered outstanding external debt is over $2.3 trillion. The U.S. holds the world’s highest external debt, whereas China has a relatively low, stable debt-to-GDP ratio, with foreign holders reducing their U.S. treasury holdings to around $759 billion by late 2024.’

      • That’s because it’s building for a war… you don’t put the equivalent of the RN in the water every couple of years without serious debt..

        The thing about China as well is you have to remember the government is essentially also a massive creditor.. most of its Private debt is actually debt owed to the government.. so it’s build is its ship building industry and taken 70% of the shipbuilding market by the government essentially bankrolling the industry….

        So a hell of a lot of Chinese nation debt is essentially business or massive capital investment.. not the same as western debt that vast majority of western debt is structural in nature, the vast majority of Chinese debt is investment in nature.

      • So is the USA, UK, France and Australia. Normally a war is what comes about when the ruling elite run out of other people’s money.

        • Kaputin has pissed away the RF sovereign wealth fund on his illegal war in Ukraine and despite stealing from oligarchs, businesses and private deposit savers that value has been consumed in Ukraine for no advantage to RF. The reverse as sanctions destroy almost all exports, especially hydrocarbons and military that nobody wants having seen how useless it is.

          Such is the state control of media and repression by law that some still believe the SMO is going to plan or that complaint will just get them to a gulag, so don’t bother.

          Cost of Living increases make it obvious that kaputin is stealing what little they had as the rubble continues to fall, if it’s traded at all.

      • Which Country isn’t though? China Japan and even Britain (third highest US debt holder) could all seriously damage potentially cripple the US economy but of course in doing so you seriously damage your own and World trade and currency values in general threatening another Great Depression, not to mention get all manner of other direct threats of revenge. In the end China is the only one on its own that could do it in practice and take the self harm but a lot of harm it would be and it will get a better result by playing the long game while holding that ever stronger sword of Damocles over the US.

        • This is the thing about chinas debt.. it’s all internal only about 3% of it is from the foreign bond market.. and what do we know is the defining characteristics of china.. its and authoritarian communist state.. its does not really give a shit about the international bond markets in the same way the US does… the US has structural debt owed to the international bond market., china has investment debt owed to itself.

  4. Seems to me a poor choice, that only pushes the Swedes closer to the French and the FDI.

    This is an experiment, and export success requires the Swedes buying into a gamble at a shipyard with less experience, less government support and no completed frigates.

      • From what I have read, the hulls will be built abroad and fitted out by Saab. Babcock’s partnership might have an advantage.

    • As a Swede I’m fairly sure this one’ll win. Saab is the only major Swedish democracy company these days now that the rest are owned by BAE and I think any Swedish Gov would wanna keep them as viable as possible. Historically this was done by having a massive air force but that’s getting too expensive these days. Add the fact Swedish armed forces have always loved goldplating stuff I’m sure a still not proven design that will be kitted out by Saab with gear they have little experience in doing on a ship it sounds like something up our alley.

      • Jimmy, if you think this AH120 type ship could suit Sweden do you view the FDI frigate as too much capability? What about the AH140 type, like for Poland and maybe for Denmark? This AH120 looks similar to Finland’s Pohjanmaa corvette. Could it interest Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

        • I’m not really qualified to speak to that. I just know that Sweden have a history of overcomplicating things. The most prominent example in later years being the NH90 choppers. Add the fact that defense to any Swedish politician is first and foremost about Swedish jobs and we end up with the British option as the obvious choice since that’s the one who will give most Swedish jobs and I assume they’ll be in Blekinge in large part which is a part of Sweden that could need the boost. I just can’t see a Swedish government pass that up no matter the.cost.to the taxpayer or what the navy wants.

          • Since threats evolve, it’s standard to plan for mid life updates or even continuous improvement in areas of innovation like UAV so a basic core design with room for improvement makes sense. The gold plating is to build out the core to the Navy threat assessment provided requirements. I suspect they know the Baltic Sea needs better than anyone.

            Sauna being a wooden box probably not a significant cost addition… lol

  5. Leh has a valid concern – posters push for more T26/31s and yet none are commissioned and at sea.

    However! I wish SAAB-Babcock well and hope they add to the 30 by 30 ambition which would be good for manufacturing.

    (Ps, can we have some more T26(even if not at sea, yet) ?)

      • Ah crap. Whoops. How did I overlooked that? Haha. I must of had it still the clipboard for a comment for a YouTube video. Nice little town when I visited many years ago, we knew a family there, well know in the community, but lost contact, sadly. But still, do you know what the vls specs for the Luleå class?

        • Err, it should have at least an equivalent load to the current Visby-class corvette, so 36 missiles in nine ExLS cells.

          The original AH120 spec carried 16 Mk41 cells, and the FDI carries a max of 32, so somewhere in the 16-32 range would be reasonable.

            • Was thinking the same. Seems a very lean and clean design. Looks like there’s room for some vls forward and aft of the radar. Maybe blended in already? No secondary gun armaments at the rear atop, it has a terrific arc of fire?

  7. I know that warship design really needs to be Sovereign, but the yards we have are not able to fill the numbers going out of service and we face a large gap.

    Should the bullet be bitten and just get some cheap hulls made in a foreign yard to pad the numbers out and fit them out over here? How quickly could a Korean yard knock out a Type 31 ?

    • The issue at this point is by the time a manufacturer and design is selected and the dock recieves what it needs to start actually building the ships, and then the construction and trials happen the first T-26’s and 31’s will be entering service and closing the gap anyway.

          • I agree, too late now, would be better to explore more blocks being produced at shipyards here which might be able to improve timing on final hulls getting into the water but beyond my pay grade to determine viability. Would be interesting to know exactly how the older halls at the Bae yard are now being utilised and any potential to speed up builds.

    • I agree. This would surely be a great move by uk govt to get the Royal Navy bsck on track. Even with the final build complete of t26 and t31 the Royal Navy is going to be woefully short of frigates abd destroyers especially if we take into account of one third principle at see at any given time. We know Poland and Indonesia are building the Babcock design . Indonesia seems to be building thete t31 rather well. Perhaps scope to judt place an order with these two nations . Or off the shelf for new design maybe 5 or 6 Skorean , Japanese or other design . Even from France and Spain. For our 13 total T26 and T31 ships they will not all be fully operational untill at least 2035 which is 9 years away. I am sure ther will be ship yards around the world able to deliver EN new ships before this date . Once these uk ships are built the uk should if do not mess it up again be able to build at least two frigate/destroyers a year to increase Navy size and replace existing ships . With the T45 being schedules to be retired between 2035 and 2038 , lookong ahead tge Royal Navy will be woefully short for the next 15 years if we rely on uk build only . As a rough guide we will obly have about 6 to 8 ships available to sail evety year with current plans .

      • But where do you imagine the money will come from to build more escorts for the RN? Production of T26 and T31 is obviously slowed down just now to fit the budget. We will get to 19 escorts by 2035/6 but unless there is a major increase in defence spend from 2028 there will be no money for more escorts.

        As well as RN ships and subs, the nation alas has to also pay for Tempest, Wedgetail and a lot of army equipment to replace the current nackered inventory. This certainly deserves a higher priority than in the past, we can’t keep gapping and sacrificing everything else to fund some imagined world-class, expeditionary navy. We need a certain number of ships and subs for our primary role in the North Atlantic, RN needs to cut its cloth to fit.

        • In that case, it’s either increase taxes or reduce/cut budgets in other departments. I simply do not understand what Labour is doing when China is still growing its hull numbers to get a clear advantage numerically over the USN.

          Add India to the mix, which has stated they want a fleet of 200 and domination of ‘their’ Ocean, where nothing will be able to come and go without their agreement by 2035. Indian Admirals are on record as saying, “whoever controls the Indian Ocean will dominate Asia, the destiny of the world will be decided on its waters. After the Indian Ocean, we will become the world’s third Superpower, and we will sail our ships around the UK and European Coast, up the Eastern and Western United States at will.”

          All of that will mean the UK will struggle in that world. Anyone up for a United States of Europe with a military to match and hold our own? At some point, we are going to have to face facts. The small will be ignored and swept aside in that world.

          • Yep Europe either becomes a superpower or it becomes a richer verson of Africa.. in the new world order that we seem to be heading to if you don’t have a few hundred million population and 10s of trillions in GDP your going to be meat for the superpowers.

          • Yes, Europe with UK ought to step up and stand up for what they believe in and be a good international democratic citizen example to the rest of the world. RN will need its numbers of ships to play its part around the world to fly the flag, have a voice, promote international trade and law, country to country relations and even fundamentally to protect its own dependency on imports and exports.

        • I disagree. The RN should be the top national defence priority, and the RAF and BA need to adapt to support the efforts of the RN in power projection and sea lane control. That means certain sacrifices need to be made from the two services, particularly the army.

        • Super tax on tax avoiding billionaires & defence bonds. What cruel perversity expects the very poorest to pay for every crisis cause usually by the rich’s excesses?We hemmorage wealth offshiore allowing the richest to blioat themselves, control the rest of us, hile the state & services are hollowed out, decade after decade with no remedy, just acceleration. This can’t go on. “Tough/Brave choices” invariably mean those who propose them do either ok or extremely well & the majority, especially the poorest, suffer the most. Gaslighting the poor has to stop. It is the greed of most of the super rich that is destroying society.

          • In what way has the UK’s current economic malaise been caused by the ‘super rich’? How do they benefit from your welfare state, NHS etc. The top 1 percent of UK taxpayers current account for nearly 30% of all tax receipts. So yeah, bring on a super tax, great idea.

            • They remove wealth from nations, are taxed usually on sweetheart deals the rest of us can only dream of, use their power to drive down & resist pay rises for their employees, fight necessary sensible regulation & environmental protection, take control of political parties ensuring the aganda suits themselves first & foremost etc. look at how MAGA/Trump backers are just too happy to erode democratic freedoms for a compliant government that purts their interests above those of people or the environment.
              30% today, but that’s been falling for decades as they’ve fixed the system in their own favour. There’s ever less wealth amongst the remaining 95% meaning less withing the tax systems. That’s why most pay more in tax(direct & indirect) but experience crumbling public services. We’re hurtling towards a certain dystopian future.

        • The Peace Dividend delusion is over and we are not safe.
          Time to pay the insurance premium for freedom or learn ruzzian [CDS]

          The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence.

          We bailed out the bankers in 2008 and now its their turn to invest in Defence since their business depends on peace and stability. Lower risk means lower cost for Defence Investment Bonds than standard Gilts. The duty of ethical investors.

          Thus the 3.5% GDP Defence spending target for 2030, and 2.75% GDP for 2026 are affordable without tax increases. A long term investment plan for national security. Alternatively fines for the reluctant as Windfall Taxes, so carrot and stick.

          A requirement for a banking licence. Nobody can expect to profit from a nation that they don’t do their Duty to defend.

          Over to Finance Ministers to make it happen.

  8. What is needed is an overall T31 partner nations arrangement. Use all the resources of the UK, Poland, Denmark Sweden… Maybe the Baltic states. Spread around fabrication, have more than one final assembly and fitting out yard. If there’s a shortage of skills for, say fitting out, bring in the right labour from across partner nations to the fitting out yard. Really concentrate on accelerating production.

  9. I thought the French had this sown up already? They certainly gave that impression when their Defence Minister visited Sweden late last year.

    • They are still talking, though the first in class Amiral Ronarc’h has paid a visit to Sweden during her working up period and they have been promoting how the design could integrate Swedish hardware.

  10. But where do you imagine the money will come from to build more escorts for the RN? Production of T26 and T31 is obviously slowed down just now to fit the budget. We will get to 19 escorts by 2035/6 but unless there is a major increase in defence spend from 2028 there will be no money for more escorts.

    As well as RN ships and subs, the nation alas has to also pay for Tempest, Wedgetail and a lot of army equipment to replace the current nackered inventory. This certainly deserves a higher priority than in the past, we can’t keep gapping and sacrificing everything else to fund some imagined world-class, expeditionary navy. We need a certain number of ships and subs for our primary role in the North Atlantic, RN needs to cut its cloth to fit.

  11. Looks like comments have veered away from the story. The proposed swedish vessel is around 120 metres long T31 around 140 metres. Not the same vessel at all.

    Also I missed the part about it potentially being built in the UK. Surely Sweden will want to build them in Sweden with Swedish steel. They need Babcock for the design experience for T31 and other arrowhead 140 vessels already under construction.

    The guns for T31 are from BAEs Swedish arm and Babcock know how to integrate them.

    I think that whatever they come up with might just possibly become T32 smaller and with less range than T31 ideal for operations around the UK, north sea, Baltic etc..

    Will we ever find money for T32 I don’t know but we ought to be looking at it as Russia certainly appears to be pushing for wars of expansion.

      • It’s much bigger than a Batch 1 River. Crew 80-160, designed for a 5inch gun, 16 VLS cells, 8 SSGW, CIWS, multiple 30mm’s, stern ramp for UUW’s. Like you could go FFBNW but it would still be massively over spec for what you need it for.

        • I understand. To be honest, in light of recent ministerial comments on the disposition of T26 and T31 slots, the post reflects anxiety about how many of the frigates being built will actually come to the RN.

          • As I said above, the Government will struggle to give away T-31 slots. T-31 is 20m longer than Arrowhead 120 so you can’t just give Sweden an in build T31 as per T26 and Norway, 1 T31 is already in the water, 2 are already in build. One of those two is due to hit the water this year, at which point Babcock will lay down another T31 right away, and Sweden is unlikely to select, design, refine and order their Frigate in the next 10 months. So that’ll be 4 Inspirations either already in Service or currently in build by the time Sweden is ready, so… really the only option for giving away a slot would be the last T31.

            So we’ll still be looking at a fleet of 1-2 T23’s, 2-3 T26’s and 4 T31’s in the near future when slots start going to Sweden and Norway.

            As for Arrowhead 120 for the RN; ordering won’t solve the Frigate gap problem. First of all you have to find a yard, because it’s the same slot issue as the Swedish ships? You might be able to make like an agreement between A&P and Babcock or something, but even if you do that, by the time it’s set up, ordered etc and you actually build a Arrowhead 120 and get it into service the pinch point is going to be passed.

            • I understand. Really what you are saying is that, bar inforeseen issues we just need to stay with the plan and we will navigate succrssfully through the trough. I must day, looking at how promptly we are laying up T23s does suggest confidence in BAE and Babcock

              • It’s not so much “we just need to stay with the plan” more “It’s too late to change the plan and have any effect.” To use a somewhat dramatic car crash analogy, it’s like turning your wheels after hitting black ice. You might eventually change the direction of travel, but not before you hit the barrier.

      • It looks like it would make a good coastal frigate. A bit like the Stellar Spartan. If the UK could afford anything, build a few of these or more T31s and upgrade the B2s? I know they’re quite different in use but could the P2000s and B1s potentially be replaced by one type of vessel as they’ve be sending the P2000s to Norway for exercises. Could be a decent size of fleet replacement there.

    • T32 was and still is described as “A platform for autonomous Vehicles”. It’s never been a third Frigate as such. It’s obviously a non event, just that It hasn’t officially been anounced yet.
      If anything, It was just a Boris mis speak.

      But then again, who knows !

    • Hull built abroad and fitted out by Saab. However, they want 2 commissioned by 2030 and a further 2 by 2032 from what I have read.

  12. I hope we do win the contract. But the thing that shouldn’t be allowed is for any more build slots hyper-urgently needed to deliver the regeneration of the RN escort fleet to be delayed any further. We’ve already extended the criminally below minimal escort fleet even longer by giving Norway 3 of the in build T26 while T23s are falling apart. Set up the Swedish shipyard to deliver these for Sweden if we win the contract.

  13. This is actually just a renewal for PR purposes of an agreement that Saab and Babcock made way back in September 2023. With a decision expected in the next few months, having Saab lead the bid may just give a critical advantage over the competing French Naval Group and Spanish Navantia offers. The winner will then become the hot favourite for a similar Danish order.

    • According to recent reports, the Danes are primarily interested in a variant of the Arrowhead 140 (AH140), the same platform that forms the basis of the British Type 31 frigate which is derived from Denmark’s own Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates.
      The Arrowhead 140 design is seen as the frontrunner, tailored for specialized air defence to replace the existing Iver Huitfeldt class. These would likely be modified to include advanced sensors and weapons, similar to the Polish Miecznik class, rather than the general-purpose design used by the UK.
      But its also possible that the Danes could still procure the FDI Frigate from the French Naval Group instead.

  14. In what way has the UK’s current economic malaise been caused by the ‘super rich’? How do they benefit from your welfare state, NHS etc. The top 1 percent of UK taxpayers current account for nearly 30% of all tax receipts. So yeah, bring on a super tax, great idea.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here