The Ministry of Defence is actively seeking buyers for the Type 31 frigate, with the export variant known as the Arrowhead 140, according to a recent statement from Defence Minister Maria Eagle.

Efforts are being made in conjunction with the Department of Business and Trade to support export campaigns for the warship.

In response to Labour MP Graeme Downie, Eagle confirmed that discussions had been held with international partners.

“The Ministry of Defence is actively supporting live and prospective export campaigns based on the Type 31 (with the export variant known as the Arrowhead 140) capability with support from the Department of Business Trade. For example, the Secretary of State for Defence recently met his Polish counterpart where they discussed the Mieczik programme and its progress,” said Eagle.

Eagle confirmed that recent discussions have taken place with international partners, including a meeting between the Secretary of State for Defence and his Polish counterpart, where they discussed the Miecznik programme, which involves the export of the Arrowhead 140 to Poland.

These efforts come as the UK seeks to strengthen defence relationships through such sales, reflecting the government’s broader strategy of defence cooperation and export support.

The Type 31, also known as the Arrowhead 140 (AH140) in its export form, has garnered international attention since its design was first made available.

In June 2021, discussions about potential contracts were reported with Greece, Indonesia, Poland, and other nations. Although Greece ultimately selected a different design, the AH140 has continued to be a strong contender in other markets.

In Indonesia, Babcock signed an agreement with PT PAL Indonesia to design two AH140 derivatives for the Indonesian Navy, known as the “Red-White Frigates.” Construction of these ships began in 2022, with further progress in 2023.

The Polish Navy has also committed to the AH140 design, with Babcock winning the bid to supply three frigates under the Miecznik programme. Construction of these ships began in August 2023, with Poland aiming to enhance its naval capabilities through the Arrowhead design.

Additionally, Babcock has explored opportunities in Australia and New Zealand, offering the AH140 as part of a potential joint programme to replace their Anzac-class frigates. Although the Arrowhead was not shortlisted for Australia’s latest frigate requirement, Babcock continues to promote the design in other markets, including New Zealand, where discussions are ongoing.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

    • My only concern about the 26 for Norway is Norways timescales and what that would mean for delivery of the RNs T26s as far as I can see, the RN would have to loss am early production 26 and accept a slower pace of commissioning.

      • Worth it. They will go to an ally in the High North who informs us about Russian Northern Fleet movements in the first place, including submarines. The compensation for £4bn worth of work (and £1.5bn extra in taxes just for the build, with spares and maintenance work for decades to come) needs to be given to the RN in the form of ASW upgrades to the T31s and other surface ship compensations.

        I hate to say this, but if we really sold Argyll because we couldn’t crew it, getting three new ships operational in 2028, 2029 and 2030 might be beyond us. We’ll already have small crews on Glagow and Cardiff and there will be a significant increase in destroyer availability in the next two years.

        • Will it still be worth it if the availability of the 23s continues to collapse while the 26s are coming online even slower than currently planned? In terms of RN ASW I would have thought getting the 26s would be the absolute priority.

          • I think there’s almost no “if” about it. We are extremely likely to lose two Type 23s before Glasgow and Active go into RN trials. However, we expect to have 5 new Type 31s and 4 new Type 26s handed over to the Royal Navy between 2026 and 2030 to work up and get operational.

            The Navy is creaking everywhere. If we can’t even crew the few frigates we have, I don’t think the lack of hulls over the next five years will be the main blocker.

          • The Other advantage of giving t26 hulls to Norway is that they will practically sail the same seas around the uk , do the same job as mostly as RN t26 would do . A positive spin would be that Norway has to provide crew and daily running costs while uk obtains their benefits operating in similar waters . And I’m sure Norway would provide escort for the carriers if asked . Its a no brained to me 🙂

          • Agree on that and then upgrade the last 4 with more AAW defence capabilities. Better still build another 2 as well.

        • Unfortunately it would have been worth it if we had started building them in 2010 were not faced with what is essentially a race to the bottom as the T23s fall apart one after the other. Now we need that first 26 and we need the RN to get the second as soon as possible as well..if there was anyway for BAE to put an extra ship on the blocks and Norway would accept the first ship after 2030 then it would be worth it…as is Europe NATO massively outweighs the northern fleet already…but I’d china and the U.S. kick off the RN will likely be involved early doors and need that type 26 on a carrier battle group in the Indian Ocean or pacific…if we give it to Norway it will not be there.

          • I think Norway would accept the third one as their kick-off ship, and if it all goes Pete Tong in Taiwan about the end of the decade, might not Norway help us support the carrier group if we need it?

          • If they accepted the third and BAE could have four building at once ( 2 in the new shed, one in the old and one on the hard standing ) then it would work.

          • If the Norwegians can man the ship and we can’t that issue might become mute. Equally if the US and China kick off inevitably Russia will attempt to exploit matters in the high north so that ship will be needed there either way. Norway covers our potentially weak northern front as Australia covers the Pacific southern front which is why the US is willing to sell them much needed subs so as an initial weakening of their personal stock be omes a later strengthening of numbers in the region.

        • The hefalumps in the room are:-

          – how much Norway pays for its early T26 ..the problem being that a later T26 might cost a little more and a B1 a lot more!! Norway won’t want to pay for the increased price of T26 in the B3 run….and Norway won’t want to pay the full B1 price that includes R&D!! See the problem?

          – RN would be daft to give up a T26 until a nailed down contract for the B3 T26 was signed in blood. Otherwise it is just a cut.

          – if RN can’t show a viable manning plan their hand could be forced. ‘No point in having ships rotting on the wall when the Norwegians will buy them, old boy?’ This could well be why the Albions are going nowhere to forestall this. This could also be why T31 running late isn’t such a big deal and fitting Mk41 VLS might make more coherent sense than…get the drift!

          It is always a big game of chess.

          This is all speculation after a nice sunny day and a superb glass on wine.

          • I’m not sure I do see the price problem, as long as Norway pays more than the replacement cost. The original cost is irrelevant. Totally agree about having the contract for five signed in blood before any agreement. We could raise the firstborn of Treasury officials in MOD Main Building as hostages against good behaviour, but I think a solid contract would be preferable.

        • I agree, Norway operating a ship in that arena rather than us may well be advantageous as they will inevitably know it as good or probably better than us. Remember it was a Norwegian who really predicted the weather conditions for D Day so don’t let’s doubt their capabilities in their own back yard.

        • I agree that if we could get Norway onboard the T26 program it would be worth the delay for the RN.

          It could also solve some other issues, for example we all know that BAE will get the T83 project. However there could be a gap between the completion of the T26s and the start of T83. The five extra frigates for Norway would fix that gap. I would even accept for the RN a Batch 2 T26 of four ships in a AAW variant replacing the Sea Ceptor tubes with two Mk 57 vls mid ships and one or two Mk 41s forward replacing the Sea Ceptor tubes there. Upgrading the ships radar suite possibly to the one expected for the T83. There is a reason for my thinking, first is that the AAW T26 would work with a pair of ASW T26s as a independent ASW group or convoy escort group.

          Second, I would expect the T83 to be dedicated to the carriers as they would have the command and control of the surface combat ships in a carrier group whilst having flag staff aboard. These would be big ships possibly in the 10-12,000 ton range and about 560 ft in length with I expect about 112 Mk41 cells. I would think that we would only get four of these ships. Four T83s and four T26 AAWs I could live with.

          Possibly with a Norwegian order and a AAW order the cost to the T26 program could come down even further, if that is the case although I would like to see more T26s the savings will not be that much. However the savings could be enough to build another 2 T31s or a stretched T31 that Babcock proposed as a T32 variant.

          I know at the moment the RN is in a p*ss poor condition, the T45s going through major upgrades (PIP then Sea Ceptor then BMD), the T23s going well beyond their life span, the youngest HMS St.Albans is 22 years old for a ship designed with a 18 year life span. No dry docks for the Astutes, the Vanguards being pushed to the limit, no solid supply ships (well Fort Vic?), the LPDs tied up and not been to sea for years. Limited anti ship capability, limited land attack capability, limited anti submarine ability (7 ASW T23s possibly only 6), limited if no amphibious assault capability and limited FAA aircraft numbers.

          Speaking of dry docks etc I am concerned that we are falling into the same trap, we are at the moment upgrading the docking for the Astutes however, 20 years from now we will have the new SSN-AUKUS which looks like they will be about 10,000 tons. Will our upgraded dry docks be able to take them or will we need to upgrade them again. What about the docking capability for the T26/T31 these ships are 50-75% heavier than the T23. Will Devenport be able to carry out deep maintenance or will new sheds need to be built.

          To be honest after the 2025 deployment of the CSG I do not think that the RN will be able to deploy any task force for several years. It looks to me as if the RN would not be an effective fighting force until about 2032. What happened to our once proud Royal Navy and looking to our moat.

          • RE AAW T26, it is clear that a more cost effective platform for such an interim AAW ship would be the T31 hull.
            That has room for two radars (Thales has a single panel rotating array that can do BMD, based on the S1850 set) and less of the hull cost sunk into quietening measures. Additionally because the design was built for multiple weapons systems and customers, it is easier to swap out weapons to suit AAW over current roles , for example with extra ExLS or mk41 in place of the B position gun.
            At present Rosyth will have nothing to do at all after T31 is finished around the same time as T26, so both yards will become available simultaneously.
            If BAE then add in some export T26s or RN replacements for earlier sold hulls, that leaves Babcock ripe to build these T31 AA for service after 2035.
            I like the idea of testing out radars for T83, as well as your approximation of the large carrier specialist command destroyer.
            Can’t see where something that big would be built, though.

      • The Norwegian navy had two of the most advanced frigates in the world. They lost one in a stupid accident. I guess they decided to go outside supplier for their new frigates. I wonder what the reasons for the switch from home grown.

        • They want to build submarines and 18 other surface ships in Norway over the next decade and don’t have the capacity to also build the 5 frigates. And as Dern said, the Nansen class was Spanish built, so it’s not really a policy change.

      • Personally I wouldn’t have thought Norway wouldn’t buy any of the T26’s that are already in build as I’d imagine they would want it tailer it slightly to there own needs and the build would be to far down the road, so as long as the RN has at least the first three then BAE and the government should push hard for the Norway sale

  3. The problem is we don’t seem to have capacity to built for export. The best BAE can manage is licensing the design. I don’t remember who but a Nordic country was interested in Type 26, but they wanted it soon-ish, and that would have meant handing over one of the Royal Navy’s units, because there is no capacity in the UK to build more, unlike italy/france/etc who are all actually selling ships overseas, the UK yards seem to just hinge on getting work exclusively from HMG.

    See all the contracts naval group etc are winning to supply subs and FREMM etc. What are BAE/babcock/H&W winning???

    • A while back I read a report that claimed the real profit is in licensing the design and signing contracts to service the ships and support facilities thereafter which is in part or whole what Bae and Babcock are doing very succesfully. The most recent FREMM sale to the US is of the same type, T-26 beat out FREMM for Australia and even if it gets the GP contract it will be built there. Indeed most sales these days are in part or all built in the Country of the buyer to develop their own capabilities in the field. Only those Countries incapable of doing so now simply buy from abroad and they increasingly are few and far between for these size ships. The Greek buy from the French was always going to happen due to political support to Greece against the Turks even though better and cheaper solutions particularly from the Dutch and indeed Babcock though a late contender were offered.

      The other issue is that we have unlike the French and Italians neglected our ship building capability which until recently has left us committed to uk focused designs and lack of competitiveness however in recent years though much still to do Bae and Babcock have become increasing competitive and successful at selling their designs abroad and remember the Australian T-26 is being built by Bae there. And equally the Australian derived design multi hulls for the US littoral vessels were built in the US.

    • Two ways to improve build capacity, I can see.

      Clyde new frigate factory hall enables two T26s built within alongside. This will surely improve the build speed, which is needed to realize “1hull per 12 months” plan. But, the old building are designed to provide 18 months drumbeat. So, if there be enough engineers/labors and build gears to do it, Clyde can provide 5 hull every 3 years (3 hulls from the new hall, and 2 hull from the old one). Of course, it can be mixed.

      The other idea is to use Rosyth to provide large blocks for T26. There T31 build work will cease around 2030-31. Building blocks for T26 (and FSSS) might be very good for them?

    • The capacity… I would not say that. UK can have capacity or expand them. Real issue is the lack of productivity. The 40% spread between France or Italy and UK in term of price per ton still remain. I don’t know why it exists, but it does. This is the main issue of the shipyard and the one UK must tackle to be export ships again. And once again, engineers, technicians, workers education get involved, industrial base get involved and top of it work organization. If the nation has a clear direction, everything is possible. I am French, as a competing nation on export market, I am fine with the current situation. As a country who may have to create much stronger security ties with UK to stabilise Europe security, I am definitely not happy of this spread that harms common security. I cross my fingers that decision makers will look deeper into it.

      • There’s little need to look too far. The answer is His Majesty’s Treasury and the UK government. The most obvious example is the first batch of the Type 26. A small batch built deliberately slowly in order to pay the least amount each year, costing 45% more than the second batch which is being built a lot faster.

        Even though the government said it intended to build eight, the number of times batches have previously been cut means BAE couldn’t rely on that, and as there was only a batch of three ordered (plus a stone/test frigate on land), that’s what was costed. The promised investment in the shipyard at Scotstoun never happened, because that needed a commitment to a larger number of ships to be viable. Besides the order rate was so slow, there was no need to create modern facilities first.

        Other countries, particularly France, Italy and Spain, have governments that invest directly in their shipbuilders (Naval Group, Fincantieri and Navatia), whereas the UK government wouldn’t even guarantee a loan to one of ours to reduce their cost of borrowing.

        Consistency of orders means you don’t have to recruit and train as much and your workforce is simply more practiced. Instead in the last five years we have Babcock starting shipbuilding from scratch in Rosyth, Harland and Wolff starting almost from scratch in Belfast and going bankrupt, and both Ferguson’s and Appledore going bankrupt, with one being nationalised by the Scottish government, the other going bankrupt a second time. Always building is the right kind of consistency, always restarting isn’t.

  4. Capacity. We need to build up our ability to make ships a lot quicker, and that means more facilities – facilities that are being used continuously on RN ships if there are no export orders for them. If we finish up with a couple more hulls then it would be a lot better than not being able to react.And if it could be set up so that there is a match up between older hulls needing replacing as it’s replacement is ready… well, a lot better than the gaps we have today.

  5. Hope they land it with NZ and trying for the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Chile, Sri Lanka, India, Qatar, Oman, with icence builds if that helps. Even Eire as well as a few more T31s for the UK.

    • Ireland has no plan on buying something like a T31, the fleet replacement has the P50s up next circa end of the decade as they are aging quicker than expected, but its a variant of the EPC that is being considered.

      • Might still be worth a try with new PM just elected and the country seeking a new loan from the IMF probably, maybe to help pay off some of their Chinese debt? There’s still linkages to the West and the CCCP hasn’t taken up cricket…just yet!

  6. In 2021 the Chilean Navy wanted to buy some UK built T31s to replace some of its 30+ year old second-hand frigates. The government said “No” and instead decided to pursue a national frigate construction programme that’s unlikely to deliver any ships before 2035 – by which time most of the existing frigates (including ex-RN T22 and T23’s) will be in their mid 40’s and probably non-operational hulks. No obvious interim solution as western navies are now working their remaining escorts as long as possible, i.e. no frigates for sale at a bargain price half-way through their designed service life as was commonplace in the 1990’s and early 2000’s

    • The Litoral Combat ships of the Freedom class are available from the U.S. The Hellenic Navy seems to like theirs but their overall reputation precedes them. Their not selling very well.

    • They bought two Australian built Adelaide class frigates that had been recently updated with 8 kms 41 tubes , each tube can be quad packed with 4 evolved sea sparrow Sam missile, they where named Melbourne and Newcastle built at Williamstown in Melbourne Victoria

  8. The question that never seems to be answered is how much of export sales flows back to the treasury. I have no idea if it’s a lot or none.

    All well and good boosting BAe profits but they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves without sound tax payer money on it.

    • Not just Bae and Babcock. Don’t forget the other jobs in the supply chain that support the construction of the ships that manufacture sub-systems and other components…

        • As I see it, the labour govt investment, training and taxation policies are focussed on strategies which create ‘well paid’ i.e. hi-tech jobs in the UK. The ‘working people’ with these jobs will pay tax, raise families and spend, so the Treasury collects income tax and VAT (as they will from the public sector workers who have just been given pay rises). The problem is that this is a long lead time strategy. The conservative approach ( to the UK growth problem) was to encourage ‘the brightest and best’ immigrants and to discourage low paid immigrants like care workers and fruit and veg pickers, many of whom came from the EU. After Brexit these workers went home. Replacing them by people from the wider world hasn’t worked – NHS and care sector falling apart and the horticultural sector struggling. So now we are on Plan B….training our own people and paying a decent wage so pay for a care worker is competitive with stacking shelves in Tesco. It’s a significant exercise to restructure society and the economy, which requires financial discipline and the consequences of which not even all traditional labour voters understand. E.g. cutting pensioner heating allowance.
          The good news for defence is that it is a hi-tech industrial sector, we are good at it and there a major export opportunities. I think I heard Ms Reeves say, ‘it matters where things are made and sold’. 😉

  10. Based on the amount of time the destroyers and carriers have spent at dock being repaired, I doubt anyones going to want to touch British engineering

    • I heard its a bit burny after losing some arsenal’s lol I am British I just know out navy’s spent more time in Port for retro fits than at sea. Hopefully they learnt from that in the new frigates but we will see shortly how they go after trials

      • Oh I’m sure you where bought in Britain, but it’s pretty clear who you work for.

        “I just know out navy’s spent more time in ports for reto fits than at seat” aside from the questionable grammar and grasp of English, very Kremlin talking points that aren’t even true. Say hi to Johnsky from me, I’m sure he’s in the next office over.

        • Actually I’m sitting in my conservatory staring at the rain right now 😅 but everything I said is facts . My English grammar is a true indictment of the 1990s education system under labour

          • I’m sure i didn’t imagine the propulsion retro fit of the destroyer fleet to fix the deploying to warm water problem

          • Ah and now the goal post shifting begins, suddenly, being called on on repeating Kremlin propaganda it’s shifting from “the RN spending more time being repaired” to “Hey I recall a specific issue that didn’t actually affect at sea days that much.”

    • It can’t be much worse than the Spanish ships Australia bought two landing doc carriers and two fleet supply tankers, they all had major mechanical issues in first years, currently both new tankers are out of action being fixed under warranty

  11. They should come and lobby it to our navy. Lord knows we are in desperate need to replace the 1990’s frigates we got….
    Talking about Portugal btw.

        • What’s wrong that? Not too big, not too small, could be just right for them. It was good enough choice for Poland. They operate EH101/Merlin’s, so the flight deck would be okay.

        • Now i am just curios to know why do you think they wouldnt fit for our navy.
          We need new ships, this design is already proven from the many other frigates already in service with other navies. So what specifically is wrong with our navy in particular? The only thing i see not matching with our requirements is the 57mm main gun and the lack of towed sonar. If those can fit, i can assume that hull can be a good value proposition. Either CODAD or CODAG.

          • It’s a 5.5K-7K ton ship, depending on fit out, so of course it can carry hull-mounted and towed array sonars (the Polish Miecznik’s have these) and can sport a larger main gun (Denmark and Poland opted for a single 76mm, Indonesia for two forward 76mms). All builders so far have used CODAD.

          • As Jon said, it certainly can fit those, but just to add to what he said: When Babcock offered the design to the RN they specifically offered a variety of gun and CIWS layouts, they now routinely show the Arrowhead scale model at defence expos with interchangeable guns.

  13. Having some export potential is an underappreciated benefit to keeping unit costs low. For a unit that costs in the low hundreds of millions (rather than 1 billion +) there’s some prospect of finding buyers.

  14. ’The MOD is actively…..with the support of the Dept of Business and Trade’. Understand the fit with labour economy growth agenda; but UK has always promoted UK defence products in export markets e.g. BAe aircraft sales to SA. Have to say though that I have the impression the French are more successful; Rafales to India and frigates to Greece being two examples that come to mind.
    So what makes this news; are we doing the selling it differently; different sales team?

      • Absolutely. It was labour question to Ms Eagle to give her the opportunity to say something…that the Polish Arrowhead 140 has the Oto 76mm, Mk41 , torpedo tubes and Captas-2. She is reinforcing that UK defence capabilities rather than foreign aid or the EU, is the conversation we want to have with foreign nations. Lammy in Norway, Healey in Poland, Starmer in Italy.

    • France last year was the 2nd largest weapons exporter in the world, beating China and Russia. they have a much larger defence industry than the UK simply because around 95% of it is homegrown as opposed to the UK constantly relying on US imports.

      • Exactly. IMO its also key that the French govt and French industry wotk as a single team in the national interest. I see the labour govt trying to emulate this model – make our excellent technology UK products affordable using exports to achieve economies of scale.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here