Babcock has delivered Type 23 frigate HMS St. Albans back to the Royal Navy for sea trials three months ahead of the planned schedule, following an extensive and comprehensive refit.
Once her current sea trials are completed, HMS St. Albans, with her 178-strong crew, will return to sea as the most advanced, equipped, and capable Type 23 frigate in the Royal Navy’s fleet, boasting next-generation weapons systems and radar.
During her time in dock, Babcock engineers and other tradespeople spent around 1.2 million working hours carrying out a significant number of updates and upgrades to keep the platform at the leading edge of warfighting capability, including a substantial power generation and machinery upgrade, the removal, overhaul and replacement of both propulsion motors, and finally stripping and repainting her entire hull.
Crew facilities have also been improved and modernised to support the personnel living on board. The teams that readied HMS St. Albans proudly gathered at the dockside to see her off and were joined by Royal Navy colleagues and representatives from across Babcock’s Devonport operation.
Gary Simpson, Managing Director of Babcock’s Marine Support business, said:
“Working on behalf of DE&S, preparing HMS St. Albans for sea again is central to ensuring our customer’s critical services are readily available, affordable, and long-lasting. Our skilled teams of engineers, fabricators, technicians, and other experts, with the support of DE&S, the Royal Navy and specialists in our supply chain, worked tirelessly to ensure the complex and extensive refit of HMS St. Albans was a resounding success. Watching her leave for sea trials was a proud moment for everyone involved.”
Commanding Officer of HMS St. Albans, Commander Helen Coxon, said:
“Going back to sea is a huge milestone and the result of a real team effort where Ship’s Company, DE&S, Babcock and other specialist contractors, have come together to help us transition from engineering project back to being a warship. Whether it was the first day at sea – as was the case for many of our less experienced sailors – or returning back to where we feel at home for the more experienced, sailing from Devonport was a big day and we’d like to thank all those involved in making it happen.”
Bravo Babcock and the refit team.
Welcome back St Albans! Fully booted n spurred……… 🙃 🕳️
Yo, when’s a Captain a Commander and a Coxon…… Boom, boom. 😁👍🕳️
Finally some good news on T23.
I am consistently impressed by Babcock in the field of shipbuilding and maintenance. While the MoD has been generally quite poor in its decision-making (not going with CATOBAR, picking the Ajax over the CV90, building the overpriced, undergunned River class etc) and general malaise when it comes to projects (no news on AS90 replacement etc), the one thing that they did get right imo is breaking up the BAE monopoly and letting Babcock design and build a frigate. Their recent job creation announcement shows they actually care to make jobs in the UK, something I am not so sure about… Read more »
You must have missed the announcements on BAE at Barrow and Glasgow for apprentice recruitment. A massive intake at Barrow
I must have, yes! Good to hear.
Have you worked for them
Not going with CATOBAR was a decision forced on them by the Treasury’s budget constraints. They couldn’t afford to fit the catapults on both ships, so we would have ended up with one of them either being mothballed or limited to operating helicopters. That or buy and operate two different classes of F35, which would be an expensive proposition as well.
I read an interesting article from a few years ago that said the cost argument was all smoke and mirrors and scare tactics from lobbyists who did not want the MoD potentially buying planes other than the F-35B, even if the F-35C was a likely choice, BAE would have no profits from a Rafale M or F-18 purchase. Being forced into only having F-35Bs is going to cost the MoD a fortune in the life of the carriers and it is no surprise you often see articles/rumors about the RN considering catapults for the exact same reason, F35 alone is… Read more »
Logically going forward UAV’s/Drones will augument and eventually replace the F35b on the Carriers.
They will have the same issues with large drones, launching and landing. Developing STVOL drones of sufficient size to carry large munitions, is still very expensive.
In a trial off the coast of Virginia, the remotely piloted drone — a Mojave unmanned aircraft — repeatedly took off from and landed back on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth-class HMS Prince of Wales while the vessel was undergoing training with US forces, the Royal Navy said in a Friday statement.17th Nov 22
We would have never purchased Rafale and the F-18 would have been a backwards step
UK defence planning ever since they cancelled the catobar just went downhill with every project and now we see the consequences with the British military being a shadow of itself compared to the Iraq war even
Both carriers should have had catapults fitted from the outset. And it would have been cost effective if the MOD had foresight. Take the cost of say 80F35B aircraft and maybe more in times of adversity for both carriers. All Typhoons should have been costed for upgrading to land and take off from carriers. The way I see it the cost would have been a lot less than a full complement of F35. Ok the F35 is a more soehisticated aircraft,but after 6 years at sea we still only have 30 F35 a total embarrassment, and to see more USA… Read more »
On top of huge costs of keeping an air wing Cat and trap qualified. CATOBAR also narrows the weather/sea state envelop compared to a ski-jump which is important to take into account given North Atlantic ops are still our big thing.
Agree
I think QE class have space to have a CATOBAR + Ski jump.
This is false information repeated endlessly on here. Naval aviators qualify once and are ‘qualified’ for the remainder of their career. They will do work ups prior to a deployment, but that is no different than the work ups prior to a STOVL deployment.
The RN being relegated to the only STOVL airplane in existence and helicopters is a huge opportunity cost gone. No one ever mentions that. No AEW, No carrier based tanking, weak COD.
“Oh but we have this drone dream that will solve that” – never going to happen.
Funny, that’s very much at odds with what articles on both this site, Navy Lookout, and others state. The consensus is that operating with cats and traps is a very technical and highly perishable skill that needs lengthy workups. Comparatively, STOVL utilises the same basic principles as land operations and is far less intensive, particularly with the Lightning. It makes keeping a relatively small force with dual naval and land-based responsibilities current a lot easier, and we can do it without having to depend on the Yanks for the off-seasons like the French do. You can fantasise about all the… Read more »
Its actually not, its well recorded that STOVL ops have a wider weather envelope due to being able to align with the centre of motion on recovery and the ballistic trajectory at the end of ramp pushes aircraft away from the waves. Again in terms of currency a USN carrier pilot has to redo 12day 4night cycles if they haven’t landed on deck in 6months, an air wing tends to have 6months ashore between deployments, hey presto good number of the air wing need the do currency. That’s only for a pilot whose previously deployed, if they’re a fresh pilot… Read more »
That is a good point but how much is the USN affected by this? What’s their envelope do you know or guess ?
I can only go by what’s released from the past on the E2 and the leaked 2008 FA18E/F NATOPS Navy Flight Manual. It’s the roll and pitch limits that matter if the sea state goes above the limits no fight Ops, a CAT n TRAP suffers more as cat launch is flat or dipping in to the waves a ramp imparts a ballistic arc away from the waves. On recovery a Trap is right at the back where the deck is moving most whilst a STOVL carrier can just keep its central spots available, keeping the landing aircraft in the… Read more »
I get the point, but it’s perhaps a little more complex than that. There’s no fundamental reason why one carrier couldn’t have had CATOBAR, for example, and some of the issues go back to design and procurement decisions made a very long time ago. Of course, we are, where we are now, but the F35 project wrecked MoD finances, and was late and the Harrier could have been retained to fill the gap in carrier provision. There *could* have been a naval variant of the Typhoon if the decision had been made early enough. Maybr Illustrious could have been kept… Read more »
All of what you wrote has been discussed and argued about for so many years now on here…. in fact even though it’s been done to death, it still gets raised and argued about…..
Also where they were with the builds.
QEC was sufficiently far along in build that it would have meant very fundamental changes.
POW was at such an early stage of block build that she could have been modified.
But as you say it would have been a singleton carrier and a Very large helicopter carrier alternating…..
We are better off with the BRAVO variant than the CARLIE variant. The sustainment cost per unit of CHARLIE is going to be eye watering given how few units there are.
SB We actually built the DELTA variant. ALPHA, 73k tons, 4 MT30, 4 Podded Propulsion, Bow Thrusters, 3K tons of Armour, ASTER missiles, fully automated weapons handling, very expensive and at 295m would have had to be built at H&W. BRAVO 55k tons, 265m, stripped back budget version with 2 MT30, 2DG set, revert to 2 Prop lines and very little in the way of survivability. CHARLIE very similar to BRAVO but extra bulkheads and compartmentation built in. They realised that an enlarged CHARLIE had a slightly higher sortie rate, had more future flexibility and didn’t cost much more to… Read more »
SB may have been referring to F-35B and F-35C in his comments. 🤔
Right now there is only sufficient surface SB work planned and funded to support 3 entities in U.K. BAe on the Clyde, Babcock at Rosyth and H&W which is being regenerated. And that is only viable because MOD are funding a slow production process for the T26 to replace the 8 ASW T23. Babcock are an unknown quantity as Ship Builders as they have never delivered a complete ship yet ! The QE class were assembled at Rosyth mainly from pre outfitted Mega blocks built elsewhere, no ship has ever been constructed and delivered from scratch at Rosyth. The Budget… Read more »
Also worth bearing in mind that a number of those old SB areas in the North East have made a transition to manufacturing for the offshore energy sector. Not everything needs to be defence related, it’d be good to see government investment in that, too.
Why would the British government insist on Babcock opening a new yard in England?
Not sure they are quite as bigoted as you.
Apologies if mentioning England specifically seemed bigoted to you? Not my intention. I mentioned England as it seems outside of the submarine building in Barrow, most of the ship building capacity outside of Scotland has been laid to waste by years of neglect, particularly in England as many examples in the last decade or so. I imagine there are yards in Wales and NI that could use some public spending to get them working again too. Of course, as has been pointed out by other comments, the current pipeline is insufficient to even maintain the current ship building capacity in… Read more »
H&W is in NI and is receiving HMG funding so it can build the future support ships FSS & MRSS and it has the Belfast deck which is massive and doesn’t have the access issues that Rosyth has. Wales I don’t think there has been a SB industry in Wales since 1922 ! As for SB in England it wasn’t laid waste by neglect, it was a combination of several factors. Firstly Commercial SB in U.K couldn’t compete with the FE on price and due to yard locations modernising them was problematic due to size constraints. Secondly the RN contracted… Read more »
I’ve seen Wight Shipyards, they build funky SWA outrigger vessels and Surface effect Ships for the Wind industry and also Thames Clipper ferries.
They could probably do a coastal River 1 replacement in the 40-50m range but that’s basically it (largest thing they’ve built is a 41m catamaran, (Red Jets for people in the area)) without a massive expansion, which would risk the demolition of the world’s largest Union flag.
Because if the nation of Scotland decides it wants independence, it will loose UK ship building contracts (fact), therefore Yards in England and Wales along with NI would be sensible for business
The Scottish Independence thing worries a lot of people on here. Fair enough, but I’m wondering how it can be said that something is fact about a hypothetical situation whose parameters are very much unknown? (Just think how the reality and the Brexit promises “match”! O sorry, no, that was all Covid.) We simply have no idea what the facts would be after independence, certainly not from the rhetoric bandied about by all sides. Scotland doesn’t become an enemy just by being independent. If we can share designing and building the future fighter aircraft with the Japanese….
How can we have next generation now?
meaning that it can be scrapped three months earlier!
Three months ahead of schedule??? It has taken 58 months to do a refit and will take another 18 months to be ready for operations. This is a joke. The RFA refit a ship in 4 months (normally) and have them ready some 16 weeks later at about 19-15million per ship. Get a grip and be honest the whole maintenance and procurement process is broken
The RFA carry out refits? Not contractors?
RFA put their ship in Cammell’s or A+P normally but the programme is run bt the group Superintendant who is an RFA Cheif Engineer Officer. My point is simple bang for Buck the RFA is more cost effective and ship are back in operations quicker. They are the forgotton service the MOD underfunds and continually underfund.
Thanks Mike. I find it astonishing that the RFA continues to be asset-stripped. Just one replenishment oiler (Fort Victoria) and that is laid up. Shocking.
If Fort George had Not been sold off, he would now be operational, instead of Fort Vic. Fort Vic would still had needed a up-keep maintenance period.
People would be saying the same, if we only had one carrier.
Totally agree. With the rule of 3, we should have had initially and then kept three Fort Vic class.
We only built 2 😉
I know – Fort Vic and Fort George. We should have built 3 – and then kept 3.
Well said , totally agree with you , 3 months off of a 58 month schedule is no big deal, probably highlights an original overestimate which seems typical for naval projects .
Have you looked at how extensive the work has been? New engines, generators, Sea Wolf replaced by Seaceptor, new radar, new sonar, upgrade to allow Sea Venom to be operated, improvement to crew quarters, hull overhaul and repainting. This isn’t a standard refit as in 2014 but a major upgrade and modernisation.
Worth looking at the costs and timescales of similar projects in the USN.
A lot of people seem to be missing that this was a lifex refit and PGMU fit and included the bow sonar upgrade in 1 dry docking session, yes it’s been just short of 5years but that’s impressive given the yard wasn’t full scale for a year through covid.
👍Yes, exactly!
Exactly, Wasn’t this a lifex upgrade
Not the point. Yes a total rebuild because we have not replaced these ships before the total rebuild was required. Remember, the design life of a T23 was initially 17-20 years when they entered service in early 1990s. This is one reason they were dubbed Skoda frigates. These ship are still in service yet have outlived their design life by 90%. Almost 5 years to rebuild a frigate summarizes UK malaise and inability to fund defence spending well. We need new ship capable of fight an enemy with modern kit. CDEL v RDEL governments are incapable of a veer and… Read more »
I am still trying to find out if Babcock do regular Base Overhauls of AFVs for the army, and whether they are as effective as when this activity was done in-house.
These were huge refits…they essentially did a lot of structural ( keel) and hull plating rebuilds as well as the new systems and propulsion…these are eye watering refits…that’s why the cost so much and take so much time.
“…The RFA refit a ship in 4 months (normally) and have them ready some 16 weeks later at about 19-15million per ship….”
🤔👎
What a lie!
With the exception of TSPG during COVID and the delay in regeneration the period for RFA regeneration is set at 16-22 weeks. Refit period are normall 4 -6 months dependent on work to be conducted and where the ship is in it life cycle. I know because I set the refit cycle – which bit is a lie or are we talking about contractor delays or lack of RFA personnel both which delay the process??? Another arm chair expert
From the way you expressed the refit of RFA vessels, that came across as in-house only! And even farmed out to a contractor, would be contractor dependent.
And yes, RFA personal availability would subject the refit to delays.
Hi again, I’ve spent my whole working life at sea either within the RN or RFA. This is apart from a short period within the wider Merchant Navy. I have been present in several RN and RFA refits so I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at. The point is money spent rebuilding ships that are more than 80% beyond their design life is a waste and money and resources need to be spent on new ships. The RFA uses its very limited resources better but the same goes about refitting old units. As for refit period 4-6 months… Read more »
Well done Badcock wish more Defence projects were on time he’s hoping 🙏
Probably because cash was freed in the frigate refit budget by cancelling other refits. Thus when unexpecteds did come up they didn’t get out into the money queue.
Sometimes facing the situation is quicker and cheaper too.
A definitive answer may be provided relatively soon, when HMS Kent and Northumberland are inducted into post-LIFEX refit, w/in the next several months. Whether or not PGMU mod is included may well prove to be indicative of RN medium term intent. 🤔
Bravo Babcock. Hope we keep HMS St. Albans for more than 3 or 4 years!
OSD for St Albans is “supposed” to be 2035, ie the last T23 to be retired
Thanks. But there have been instances of a ship having undergone a long and very expensive refit being sold on just a few years later.
Nice. I’m always a little surprised that the RN is so quick to decommission rather than refit.
I understand entirely about hull and superstructure life, but the benefit if experience and lessons learned with an existing class isn’t to be sniffed at, and can significantly boost capability, as this article implies.
Okay, some classes will be duds and best seen the back of, but maybe there’s still wisdom in the idea of mature designs being used as a fleet backbone?
I don’t mind in cases where things are clearly knackered beyond what a refit can achieve but just for costs sake is frustrating.
Well done good news for a change
BZ Babcock!
Assuming a wage bill of £30 per hour, (which isn’t unreasonable and perhaps is on the low side), the refit was £36 million before even factoring in parts and upgrades. Is this value for money.
Discuss!
Unfortunately it’s the only solution. Can’t get new ships quick enough. Can’t not do the refits.
The only way I can see no refit needed is
scrapping the ships having a capability gap for 10+ years and hoping that money goes on new ships.
Would be a brave admiral to dump his ships then turn round years later saying we really need them now.
I think it’s important to get the ships back out there until new ships are ready.
A ‘cynical’ observation… If they could do this 3 months ahead of schedule, why can it not be expedited this quickly for other refits. It’s not ‘draw it out, charge more money’ of course… is it?
What happens to the stock of removed Sea Wolf missiles? I’m pretty sure that Ukraine would find a use for them and be able to adapt some form of radar and launch system.
I’m proud to say I played a key role in the refurbishment of this vessel