The Royal Navy will receive all eight of its planned Type 26 frigates, Defence Minister Luke Pollard has said, confirming that the order will not be cut despite discussions over offering build slots to Norway.
The assurance came in a written answer to Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, who asked whether build slots for the Type 26 had been discussed during the minister’s talks with his Norwegian counterpart in May. Pollard said he had been pleased to discuss what he called the broad and ever-closer strategic partnership with the Norwegian state secretary on 19 May 2026.
Pollard restated the position he had set out to the Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, Mark Francois, in an earlier answer, saying the UK was working with its Norwegian partners to assess options for offering Type 26 build slots currently allocated to the Royal Navy to the Royal Norwegian Navy. “The UK Royal Navy will receive all eight Type 26 ships during the late 2020s and 2030s as planned,” he said.
UK expected to place Clyde frigate order to plug Norwegian gap
He described the wider arrangement as producing a joint Anglo-Norwegian force. “Norway’s biggest ever defence procurement deal will see a combined fleet of 13 Anti-Submarine Warfare frigates – eight British and at least five Norwegian – operate jointly in Northern Europe, significantly strengthening NATO’s northern flank,” Pollard said.
The Type 26, also known as the City class, is being built by BAE Systems at its yards on the Clyde to replace the ageing Type 23 frigates in the anti-submarine warfare role. Norway selected the design last year, joining Australia and Canada as international operators of the British-designed warship and giving the four navies a common anti-submarine platform.
8. Atleast another 3 or 4 would be wonderful.
Alot of conflict hotspots around the world. Only getting worse. Even if we have x amount of ships in reserve just build more than planned.
Agree Elliot. A minimum of 1 T-26 and 1 T-31 making 9 and 6 respectively. Ideally 12 and 6 would be better. However 12 T-26 for the UK and 5 for Norway by 2035 would probably require a second T-26 production line. Unless the government gets truly serious about defence then I don’t see it happening.
Agreed. I also think we should be investing heavily in the infrastructure necessary to expand production if needed. Not just shipyards but factories aswell. If they’re not needed to produce arms or other defence related systems then they can be used for civilian use.
This country is so frustrating, we have the resources and brains to be much better. Just lack the willpower.
May be it could be wise to reduce the amount of taxes paid to bankers from the city for every ship. While some companies are private, some other are public and may not pay taxes to the capital market, which are very expensive. This way, British arsenals may be able to equalize the 40% price gap per ton with orther continental Europe shipyard. It is rather uncomfortable to say so to my UK Friends. And after all, it is not my business. Whish you well friends
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
We have a treasury that’s why.
Personnally…in this climate, then the rule of 8 as an outcome would be fantastic.
8 x T26
8 x T45 replacement
8 x T31s with later orders cw bow sonar (as polish fit out) mk41 and the last 3 with the ‘200’ radar.
8 x River replacements with 57mm and hanger.
I agree with need of a hangar for the River replacement, but do they actually need a 57mm? The 40mm should be chosen in my opinion, not because of the firepower increase but instead it’s 30% less maintenance than the 30mm so pays itself off in a couple years
I would add a ship launched Martlet to any River replacement. It will give it a fairly decent anti-drone capability at low cost. The helicopter will be too slow and vulnerable to react to an unexpected incoming drone.
the rivers are very useful – I would suggest the 120m T31 version for River replacement, as long as it is significantly cheaper than the normal T31 hull form. If we continue as is 16 would be my preference
the question is – are they needed if the fleet is moving to a mothership / USV squadron organisation.
If we are serious about the new concept, then perhaps the MRSS is the way to go. With a lot of mass for big radars, high up and the ability to refuel and maybe re-arm the smaller vessels as well as maintenance – we could perhaps go with an upgraded version of Dame’s JLSS or Davey Yards G-LAM (or a UK version taking best bits of both) could provide the UK with a more cost effective version of the USN San Antonio class.
the ability to stay on station, manage the assigned USVs and provide necessary CnC would probably be key for the mothership concept, rather than a ship that has everything. what does it need to effectively manage, maintain and support its attached unmanned/low manned squadron.
the requirement for T45 could well be superseded by the MRSS in this case and I would probably go down this route rather than a dedicated AAD per se
Two more for the UK bringing our fleet up to ten and the combined fleet up to fifteen would seem like the ideal realistic option. Applying the usual assumption of one in maintenance and one on work-up for every one deployed that would see five T26s available for operations all of the time.
Even an additional one for 9 and rule of three and some additional ASW/MCM mothership type T31s to help control the several hundred drones Mr Pollard was aspiring the RN to the other day.
Absolutely. That would work just as well if the government could persuade Norway to order the 6th ship they have as an option. Another batch of T31 would be very welcome too if we were willing to do what it takes to generate extra crews.
Like your numbers and especially this is an opportunity if there’s a bit of extra money for defence to get some more hulls at current prices and take advantage of any economies of scale. And if the T83 ever gets delayed fill the gap with some more T26s. They’ll need extra hulls to control all the hundreds of drones Mr Pollard was quoting and drones/usvs don’t support helicopters which would be useful or, do Port visits and showing the flag very well. They’re also potentially creating a bloody big bullseye target for their motherships when in formation.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
Atlas…. Fantastic news…. Can I put you in touch with Rachel from accounts…. She needs a few ideas on how to get more income?
We don’t keep very expensive warships as reserve. They still require a significant amount of maintenance and you need a fully trained crew.
I was waiting for someone to speak to this
Everything costs but is there any effort by the UK government to get more recruits off the unemployment queue? There’s got to be a huge resource there, enough to fill a few ships at least?
Very possibly. But we also need to maintain standards. Many roles in the RN are very technical. And not everyone has the aptitude. I’m sure more can be done. And the payrise and improved accommodation should help with retention.
Yes, more has to be done. We have lost so many ships over the last few years and yet we still seem to be having issues finding and paying to crew the ships we have (especially RFA). How are we going to crew the ramp back to 13 new frigates, the FSSS, and MRSS?
It’s not enough to point to drones and that new frigates will require fewer core crew. We also have to consider the loss of the small ships we have previously used to train captains of the future, the Sandowns, the Hunts and OPVs, both in the past and in the near future. Training won’t be getting any easier in a hybrid world.
The RFA manning really needs sorting with some urgency. Fully manned is only around 2800. Yet they are about a thousand short. And the longer uncrewed vessels are sat in port, the more expensive they become to refit and regenerate. Money for junior doctors, but not for 2800 very important sailors.
This has been the position all along.
Hopefully puts this one to bed.
The final T26 in December 2039?
The government (?) indicates a wish to grow the fleet. But doesn’t address the lack of a shipbuilding ability to do it. We could treble the defence budget but , because we produce at such a glacial pace it would be nearly a decade before 8 would see a tangible increase in numbers about the same time as the first one is scrapped 😡😡😡
Glacial is the word Andy. I’m not convinced that we are going to have any A/S ships the way we’re going. Still a while for 3 or 4 T26’s and the T23’s are falling apart. Thirty years of neglect by all concerned.
Hi Geoff.. Still think if the RN had a follow on order for 3 more type 31’s after the 5th Type 31 is finished (Early 2030’s) The RN could possibly be back up to 19 Destroyers and Frigates by the mid – 2030’s. Then as the last Type 26 is finished during the late 2030’s RN escorts numbers would be 22. So this would not be fantasy fleets or unaffordable.. It could be done, also I think having 22 would just give that extra little bit of flexibility to the RN escort numbers. So for example: Carrier with 2 or 3 RN escorts deployed on a NATO exercise with other NATO escorts.. Two Type 26 deployed Baltic/North sea/ Atlantic working closely with the Norwegian Type 26. One RN escort based back in the Gulf again with one RN frigate based out in the far east carrying out exercises with allies and diplomatic visits. So that would be 7 Destroyers and Frigates in total leaving some flexibility for reinforcement or a new deployment.
I’d take that right now, and make RB2 light frigates while we’re at it.
Yes, wondering how things will work out with the River class.. There is potential there, or they might just bring back the two River class based out in the far east when the River class batch one’s are taken out of service. Hope for more than that though, will see. How would you upgrade the RB2’s, Daniele.. Interested to get your thoughts on that one.
I’m not Daniele, but I don’t think trying to force frigate/corvette level capability into the RB2s is a viable plan. They’re just not big enough.
If you want to make an investment to improve the RB2s in their OPV role, then integrating CamCopter would be the best place to start. You could throw a Martlet on their as well to counter small boats, USVs or UAVs. It could operated out of a shipping container.
Unfortunately, there’s no room for a towed array sonar below the flight deck. I doubt there’s room for a hull-mounted sonar forward either. The mast doesn’t have the strength to mount a larger radar system, and even if so, you couldn’t mount a serious short range air defence capability either.
You could throw on some anti-ship missiles, as the Thais did, but you’d have to drop the very useful crane in the back, which isn’t ideal for the OPV role.
You might be able to replace the main gun with a 40mm, or even a 57mm, but I’m unsure as to whether the British RB2s have the required void space still intact, or whether that’s been filled up by something in the last decade.
Hi Leh.. Appreciate the details, thank you..
No worries!
On your original question, my position long term has been leave them alone for what they are, cost effective OPVs. I’d have a rotary Drone as standard across all ships and a lot of Sigint kit as they dail to far flung places.
However, if we’re in a more volatile world now, my position shifted somewhat having read and agreed with Jonathan regards how we could make better use of them.
Hey Daniele.. Thx for your reply also.
Agreed.
I am pro OPVs, but frankly they should be ‘coast guard’ duties for the UK, Gib, Falklands and maybe elsewhere we have some kind of jurisdiction.
I am pro a blue water corvette that could complement T31s stationed east of Suez and possibly for supporting disaster relief in the Caribbean and Africa (the RFAs were far better suited to that, though…). They could also provide escorts for Russian vessels transiting UK waters, the Med, and other areas of UK interest. 57 mm gun, cannister-launched NSM, and Thales have shown an 8-pack LMM turret that would be sufficient, with a hangar big enough for Wildcat and a flight deck for Merlin. The RB2s have done a great job in the Pacific, but there’s a lot more uncertainty these days and we could do with a bit more bite.
The corvette role you just described is what T31 really ought to be used for, if we built them in sufficient numbers – we do need more than 5.
I would like to the the Rivers/replacement ship to have a bit more firepower though. A ship launched Martlet system seems to tick all the boxes – Small, cheap and effective against small targets, ideal for the OPV role and faster reaction times then sending a helicopter up.
The thing is, by the time you make a corvette Blue Water it is just a T31.
I did read that in the Lancaster trials, a lot of work was done to integrate Peregrine into the frigate’s CMS, and that the River 2s were being considered for Peregrine, which as you say fits in a 20ft container. I believe the River 2s are fitted with a ‘lite’ version of the BAE CMS so they should be able to port the Lancaster systems integration work. This would give them a significant upgrade in constabulary capability. Additional defensive armament would also be good. Sutherland tested a 5 round Martlet pannier attachment to the 30mm a while back. I believe the idea was dropped because the missile exhaust constituted a fire / explosion risk to nearby equipment. Maybe it would work for the 30mm on the River 2; an inexpensive and proven against a range of targets.
I believe the type of 30mm mount used for the trials on Sutherland is the same as those on the RB2s, so unfortunately the exhaust problem would be the same. It wasn’t the problem of nearby equipment, but of the efflux striking the magazine for the 30mm itself.
*there, not ‘their’, apologies.
So BAe have designed a B3 version with 57mm gun hanger for Wildcat and although they could not build it themselves. Babcock could easily build it at Rosyth or if we push the boat out (no pun intended) perhaps the proposed Arrow 120 could fulfil this role as a light Frigate but would be able to defend itself.
Would make sense as Argentina reteric is mirroring their 1980 and HMS Forth would stand no chance against their new aircraft and ships
It’s an interesting idea, but honestly, I think you’d probably just be better operating a few extra T31 hulls, one of which could be a Falklands guard ship.
If the plan of having British frigate be paired with a couple of LUSVs for additional firepower pays off, then you could essentially operate a small Falklands guard squadron capable of doing AAW, ASuW and ASW, all from a single lightly armed T31 hull.
Being one who has been to the Falklands and at sea in the South Atlantic. The LUSVs will need to be substantial to handle those seas. I thought the North Sea was bad, but the South Atlantic is on a different level.
I can’t argue with the numbers- that makes sense.
The challenge, as always, is crew. We’ve already had a T45 and a T23 tied up for years at a time- not because of the availability of the vessel but because of crew shortages. In terms of crew numbers, we’ve really had 6-1 T45s and x-1 T23s (the number has been going down so fast, I’m not really sure where to take reference from) for ages. Even if we replace like-for-like hulls, we’d still in theory need to have two tied up if we don’t boost crew numbers.
I know the T26 and T31 have leaner crews than the T23, but it’s not 50% or anything like that. I think it works out that 5 T23s worth of crews changed to a T31 will get you one additional T31 crew (but that’s just bodies, that doesn’t take into account the specialisations). We aren’t changing out that many crews.
Any increase in hulls needs to be pre-staged by 5-10 years’ of dedicated and -crucially- successful recruitment and retainment to make the expenditure in steel and weapons systems worthwhile.
Unless there is a major surprise in the DIP. 19 escorts will be it. Although it is i significant increase in capability. Especially withT36 and th4 T45 weapons upgrades coming. Any future mass will come from unmanned. MRSS will hopefully go ahead, and that could provide more strike capability. The big problem is manning. The RN knows that even with a big budget uplift crewing and sustaining more than 19 escorts will be a struggle. Especially if we are expanding the SSN force with AUKUS and the Fleet Air Arm is short of technicians. Not what people want to hear, but that’s the reality.
T26 and T45. (early morning finger trouble)
I agree we probably can’t expect more than 19 escorts. That said, isn’t the issue that ‘mass’ is not the same as ‘presence’? Could we not replace the batch 1 Rivers with River 2s in UK waters and deploy 3 basic, lean manned Type 31 ‘patrol frigates’ in global presence, constabulary roles? A ‘patrol frigate’ is not an escort.
That would be a good outcome to replace the Rivers with T31s. Again its can we man them, and how do the through life running costs stack up. That’s what the treasury are really looking at. Not just the purchase price. But how much are they going to cost us over 25 years with operating/refit costs. It cost roughly £1 million a day to keep an Invincible class carrier at sea.
So are the treasury assuming the T31s will end up needing T23 style ‘sustainment’🤔? Really, let’s be honest, they have no chance whatsoever of accurately calculating a 25 year cost of ownership. We shouldn’t be basing costing on previous bad practices. I thought the national shipbuilding strategy model was to sell while still in good condition and replace.
I don’t think they will be looking at massive refits like the T23 needed just to keep them going. But they can certainly calculate general running costs. Fuel, crew wages. Planned refits and maintenance plus likely software and hardware upgrades over the years. Warships are high maintenance assets.
It was originally, but I recall that early resale may have been dropped in the refresh plan.
Hi Robert. I think your assessment on 19 Surface vessels is likley to be accurate. I expect the MOD will to use the MRSS vessel to double down in their roles to fill the 5 ship gap. I’d like to see clarity as to how the SSN expansion will be funded. I don’t think there is money for this either.
We need to do two things to my mind John. First is to make sure that ALL our ships are armed and ready to fight. So we need to ensure that the T45’s are all upgraded quickly and the 26’s and 31’s DO NOT hit the water fitted for but not including weapons systems. Secondly surely the U.K. is capable of improving it’s shipbuilding capacity, even if it needs government money, although I suspect that if Bae and Babcock’s we re guarantted more work they would invest themselves. I certainly agree with your thought’s on the T31 but I would go for five, if need be replacing the Rivers as they came into service.
The Spanish will be throwing money into Navantia.
Aye, but you can’t blame people (myself included) for their doubts. I had it as a 50-50 in my mind.
This shouldn’t be a big “good news” article, but it is, largely because it wasn’t certian.
Sure, Jay. With our politicians, nothing is totally certain, given the history of the last 30 years.
Agree
Absolutely Daniele- now we need to build them at pace , along with scale i.e. more Type 31’s and faster
Hi Chris.
Agree on T31, I support buying cheaper assets provide some mass for the tier 1 assets.
Fear t31 Will become a ‘Problem Child’ for the Navy if Issues On ASW Arn’t Addressed…!
We can’t have a 6000t Frigate Sailing the World’s Oceans Unable to Detect a Submarine..!
And People Who give the ‘MERLIN’ Argument Should Realise that Helicopters Can’t fly 24h..
Even if we Had a few Spare Merlins for t31..
Far preferable More t26 Even if it’s less Quantity…!
A unmanned platforms will likely deploy with a T31 filling some of those capability gaps in th4 future. And I’m sure T31 will receive many capability upgrades over the years.
I think your Right about t31 getting Upgrades….It just has to…!
Unmanned platforms are however Another Problem…Still Very much in Concept Mode…let alone being built..
Ukrainian influence on Current MOD and 1SL Thinking is Clear.!..
However Costings on Larger Autonomous Platforms for their Design, Building and Maintenance maybe far higher than Advertised..!.
I believe the T31 hangar can accommodate a Merlin, and will still have Sonar 2170. Not amazing I know but it’s something. There’s also talk of containerised towed arrays, which would fit the T31 mission bays.
Sonar 2170 is a torpedo defence sonar. It’ll be of very little use for true ASW. Using a containerised towed array would require some kind of hatch being installed below the flight deck.
Yup, hence my comment on it not being an amazing item. Useful to know they will have it though.
The mission bays have side doors and a stern ramp if i recall correctly.
I get your point, but ‘not amazing’ is definitely still overstating its value for ASW.
I don’t think there’s a stern ramp at the rear of the flight deck? Might be wrong though.
Hi Chris,
I’m trying to stay positive here but there seems to be an issue getting both T26 and T31 first of class to Contractors trials – 9 months since Glasgow was reported to be nearing this stage. Unless we find out how good these “first of class” are we don’t know how quickly we can expect them in service.
I’d love to hear we are ordering more T31 cw bow sonar but we need to be lighting a fire under someone.
I completeLy agree Novice!
Agreed, it was always going to the case as the orders for all 8 had been placed with BAE.
Still that didn’t stop the Private Frazers on here from announcing it as a certainty.
Hi M8 I just love how everyone ignores the obvious and goes into “Oliver Twist”, “Please Sir can I have some more” mode. This is quite simply a Political statement of survivalist necessity. No More and No Less ! And the timing is significant as we now know the DIP has got to be before June 8th as Trump is attending the Ankara Summit, and Starmer needs to batten down his hatches.
The T26 and T31 are political necessities and not even Labour can cut them as it’s the Charge of the Light Brigade but much worse as retreat isn’t an option. SNP ahead of them (fastest way to ensure Scottish Independence is to cut the 13 Frigate order), Unions to Left of them, Trump to Right of them but BAe, Babcock and now Norway behind them with Lawyers, contracts, cancellation costs and an increase in unit cost (which hits Norway).
What no one has picked up on is the T31 being missing from this announcement ! But I’m pretty sure the 5 will survive as Babcock have HMG over a barrel with Submarine work.
I’ll be quite happy with 13 Frigates and 6 T45 for a while, (8 AAW T83 when that time comes) and more Rivers. Russia and NATO are our priority tasking and for me that’s the 4 new SSBNs and 🤞🏻10 SSN(A) at the top of the pile. Just take a look at the state of Russia other than subs they are pathetic so that’s not a bad force level.
So this may sound odd but I hope they find some extra money to renew the Army equipment (boost the reserves) and enlarge the RAF a bit.
Yeah, I agree. 19 escorts is fine, so long as we see those additional SSNs delivered in the 2040s.
Also 4 out of the 5 T31’s are already under construction or fitting out. Not much left to cut there.
We need more than 8 ourselves. Also, is the timeline for getting service stretching out because of the Norwegian order?
Promises made today won’t hold any weight in 2028 when they’ll inevitably cut the order down to 6.
This is the problem, politicians words have become meaningless.
Now if Parliament as a whole mandated it?
Parliament won’t though, the parties would realise they would lose the ability to cut defence to fund their vote winners like they have for the past 30 years, any sensible person can see that Defence should not be a political tool and should be outside of the scope of a single party and should be bipartisan, with the levels of spending and capabilities set by parliament rather than a party, it would be the best way to start defence reform, no more programs for headlines and talk of action without doing it.
No parliament can bind its successor so that wouldn’t help much.
For the wider ministerial micromanaging problem, the Italian system is to pass naval laws mandating the procurement of such and such a vessel and then control is handed over to the military the rest of the way. I don’t know if it would work here but surely better than our current process?
Aye, I think there should be some ‘minimum force posture’ regulation, that would require the escort force to stick at 19 ships, the SSBN fleet at four, et cetera.
However, I think the culture in the MoD would lead to those essentially being regulations to bypass, giving us a whole host of linguistic trickery in which OPVs become ‘patrol frigates’, or other such word games. You could strictly define what constitutes an ‘escort’, but that would stifle innovation as systems move to by disaggregated in the future.
If they vote extra budget for each ship, perhaps. We need Parliament to vote in the money, more than anything else.
The government of the day has a majority by definition. There’s no vote that can’t be undone by another vote.
Minster are the ones that are accountable to the public. Apart from anything else it is fundamentally undemocratic to hand over control billions of taxpayers money to no one that has to face a public vote or has to face MPs questions. If you think line officers won’t make a total balls up of procurement, I’ve got a surprise for you. It’s not their job to understand risk or contractual law.
The solution to that would be to give the select committees more teeth, so that the procurement people are forced to explain their actions and reasoning to parliament rather than in private to ministers.
No its not. The politicians are elected to make decisions. The voters have the opportunity to get rid if them. Its literally their job. What you don’t understand is that your view of what the government should be spending limted resources on isn’t the view of the average voter.
Except the order has been placed with BAE for all 8.
Dimwit.
Orders can be cancelled at any time, what is it that you don’t understand?
What is it that you don’t understand about it costing more to cancel the order than complete the order?
Go tell that to all the governments worldwide that cancel orders every 3 business days. You’re incorrect.
Australia paid $830M to cancel their French sub order, only 10% of the value that French companies were set to receive out of the total value of the contract ($9B).
When governments cancel procurements or fail to order all of the planned batches, it’s because they want to make short term savings. I agree that in the long term it ends up costing more for various reasons (as we’re witnessing with the Royal Navy) but the short term savings are real too.
And you’re stupid of you think the terms, conditions, and situation of an Australia Government order with French companies is the same as that of an order the British government has with BAE Systems.
Standard practices are standard and BAE or the UK are no exception to this. I already gave you multiple examples while all you do is show your ignorance. Wasn’t Nimrod MRA4 cancelled despite the orders and the fact that multiple units were built?
Like I said, a contract cannot stop a government from cancelling something if it wants to cancel. But if you want to grasp at the “they’ve already ordered 8” straw to believe that they never ever cancel a single unit, be my guest. Then I’ll come back to make fun of you when they do.
Once again you quote a situation that wasn’t comparable. The Nimrods were cancelled because it was a boondongle – years late, way over budget, and likely to get much worse on both counts due to the significant variations in the airframes. But it’s not uncommon for people to put forward strawman arguments when they’re losing..
I look forward to rubbing your face in it when HMS Edinburgh is delivered. But like most Johnny Come Lately trolls on here, you’ll be long gone – at least under this nom de plume.
Not reading any of that. I’m made my point very clear above. You’re free to read that again.
These 8 will be delivered – good to get ministerial confirmation. There’s no political or military will to cancel.
Then stay ignorant 🤷🏻♂️
Every government contract has a get out clause
Yes if you’re prepared to pay the penalty clauses. Which is why Cameron couldn’t cancel the carrier programme.
Oh dear, pentaly clauses are not enforceable under UK law. See the Makdessi Test for details.
Oh dear you don’t seem to understand contract law, if you did you wouldn’t be misapplying the Makdessi Test.
Sunshine, Ive placed over 9 billon quid of defence contracts. You don’t have first idea of what your taking about. There is not now nor has there ever been an enforceable penalty clause under UK law. The Test is the most recent ruling.
Of course you have…🤣
Probably has, these procurement meetings are expensive ya know..
Sure you have, and I’ve won a Nobel Prize…
In the real world, do you many friends?
I’m sure you’re desperate for friend, any friend, but the answer is no, I won’t be sending you, or accepting from you, any friend-requests.
I have standards that you just don’t meet 🤷🏻♂️
It sounds like you are trying to manifest it.
“We want eight and we won’t wait”
😁
Sorry but no matter what these clowns say, they will have a mealy mouthed way of doing what they want, and if need be reduce the number’s if they see an opportunity to do so! Although it’s highly unlikely these muppets will be in charge after 2029.
Replaced by more muppets… plus ça change…
So how much compensation would they be paying to BAE for the cancellation, given the orders for all 8 have been placed?…
In the case of the QE Class the cancellation fee was larger than than the cost of contract completion, and general opinion is that with sunk costs, cancelling remaining Type 26s would also be more expensive than completion.
The compensation for not-yet-built frigates is very low versus the cost of commissioning and operating a frigate for decades. Not to mention that these ships could be sold off as soon as they’re built like Italy and France did in the past with FREMMs. You make it seem like the MoD has never cancelled offers before?
It would cost more in the short term to cancel them, which is more relevant to politicians. If you want to persist with a pessimistic spin you’d be better talking about how they could be sold off once built
How would it cost more? You’re freeing up short term budget by not having to make payments for the cancelled frigates, which is exactly what they look for.
Hopefully people finally give up asking about this. Wouldn’t mind some clarity of the T31s, though the discussion of Mk41 procurement suggests those are all safe.
I would think that both will be safe. The T31s, because they are as cheap as chips compared to the T26. The T26, because of of the political importance of business and jobs on the Clyde. The SNP would have a field day if T26 orders were cut.
I doubt though that the RN will have 8 T26s by 2035, can’t see 8 British and 5 Norwegian ships.bring turned out in the nine years to 2035. Even if Govan and Scotstoun could construct and complete one ship a year, which I very much doubt they could achieve with the fit-out bottleneck at Scotstoun,, don’t think there is enough in the RN budget to afford anything like that shipbuilding pace.
I idly wonder if, as Babcock will complete their T31 work long before BAE finishes their T26 run, whether sone of the T26 construction work could be subcontracted or passed over to Babcock? It would keep them busy and maybe help get over the hump of supplying British and Norwegian navies simultaneously. We have done that in the past, with two yards both working on the same frigate class.
We don’t keep very expensive warships as reserve. They still require a significant amount of maintenance and you need a fully trained crew.
If you want faster construction you have to pay for it. The companies are not going to invest 100s of millions in facilities and workforce that wont be needed in 10 years time. They aren’t going to make a shot to nothing because after the T26 and T31 are built that won’t be the work to keep the yards going. That means that taxpayers would have to fund the expansion of the yards and that would add significantly to unit costs.
‘“The UK Royal Navy will receive all eight Type 26 ships during the late 2020s and 2030s as planned,” he said’.
St Albans, last of the T23s, commissioned 2002 and designed for a 19 year service life. So she will be replaced a decade and a half past that original projected OSD, and that’s the plan? Glad we don’t have any large belligerent foreign powers throwing their weight around!
‘He [Pollard]described the wider arrangement as producing a joint Anglo-Norwegian force. “Norway’s biggest ever defence procurement deal will see a combined fleet of 13 Anti-Submarine Warfare frigates – eight British and at least five Norwegian – operate jointly in Northern Europe, significantly strengthening NATO’s northern flank,” Pollard said.‘
Back in the day we had 16 T23s and 4 T22s to call upon, now we’re pooling resources with the neighbours and still coming up short. The phrase “8 British and at least 5” Norwegian” indicates that while Norway might order more in future, we certainly won’t!
Disappointing to make a song and dance of it, and extremely disappointing that ministers talk about partnerships with small nations like Norway as if we are on the same level. Do they have no sense of history, or ambition? Why are they so intent on downgrading our country?
What happened to us? We used to be a rather classy bunch…
‘Back in the day’ we were facing the combined forces of the Warsaw Pact. Now the majority of those nations are fellow NATO allies and all that’s left is Russia and Belorussia.
You’re right, the modern Russian Navy isn’t much of a threat to us at all, not like during the Cold War when the RN faced off against the might of the combined navies of Hungary and Czechoslovakia!
I’m not saying we need 20 odd ASW ships, but 8 doesn’t give us much slack to deal with contingencies, support our global policies, etc.
More generally speaking, I still feel our language and positioning is weak and lacking ambition. If we get our act together though, we could take the lead globally on diplomatic, policy and defence issues in multidomains and regions, from Europe, the North Atlantic, the Middle East and to APAC, as middle countries lose faith in US intentions. But only if we’re prepared to splash the cash a bit in multinational partnerships (eg GCAP, but equally Norway with the Merlin order – why should they buy any when we are waiting for them to?) and bring some toys to play…hard to take the lead when you should up in a plastic patrol boat or borrow someone else’s…
Oh and when I said “back in the day we had 16 T23s and 4 T22s to call upon”, I was talking about the early 2000s when St Albans was commissioned – over a decade since the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved, the PLAN were still banging out noisy submarines and the general underwater domain was much more benign than now. Yet in the post-Cold War defence reviews, that was the force structure decided upon to maintain capabilities and respond to contingencies.
Our politicians ambitions’ are too limited, and those they have they won’t stand by. We don’t need every Prime Minister to be Clement Atlee or Margaret Thatcher, but every once in a while we need to shake it up a bit with a clear, positive vision of Britain that people can vote for.
Bet that’s the funniest thing you’ve said all year, naming landlocked countries in a discussion about navies. Bet you’re real fun at a party…
So replacing the T23 ASW frigates is t sufficient for you? Well the ‘aspiration’ with AUKUS is to grow the SSN fleet, which are our premier ASW units. I’d rather see these numbers increased that T26s.
As for dealing with contingencies and global policies, I’d rather see a second batch of T31s. The plan being they will be forward based and replacing the Rivers.
I’m sure the Treasury will welcome the donation – I believe they take cheques – that you’ll be sending them voluntarily to increase the defence budget.
Well said Jim…. erm I mean Spock.
You brought up the Warsaw Pact, but anyway…
T26 numbers – it’s a balancing act, like everything. 8 is the minimum we need, replacing tailed T23 1 for 1. But as I said, doesn’t give us much slack. Probably the initial numbers that were talked about for the C1 and C2 variants of the future surface combatant would be good, which would effectively mean 10 T26s and 8 T31s in modern parlance…
AUKUS – yes, important project, hopefully everyone will stay the course, the international participation will keep costs down and ensure smooth delivery, giving an opportunity to grow our SSN fleet. It is a balancing act, though, not one thing or another, but having a mix of assets to cover gaps and prevent adversaries exploiting the weaknesses in any one type.
Additional T31s – yeah I agree an additional batch would be welcome. In addition to forward basing and doing the legwork of FRE and Caribbean deployments, they could add combat mass to the CSG, taking cues from the T45 if we were able to develop a form of CEC. Then when the carrier sails through a region where a T31 is forward based, the T31 can link up and bulk out the CSG.
Money – yeah that’s the question. Defence needs an uplift, but we also need to be smarter with how we spend. BAES said at one point they could build 10 T26 for the price of 8 if we committed to a quicker build rate. Now, that could have just been mischief-making on their part, but other examples are the frequent decisions delayed, the LIFEX money spent on keeping the T23s on life support, the Voyager PFI deal…
Don’t get me wrong, not all projects that overrun are avoidable: sometimes, decisions are made and despite the best laid plans, you run into problems on big ticket items, and that’s fair. But there are also decisions, and decisions to not make a decision, which ends up costing serious money and that could and should be avoided. And that extends across all govt departments…
There are other people making the demands for more spending on their particularly favored areas. I’ve even heard people demand that NHS be cut to fund new opera houses in every city. Other people care just as passionately about their things as you do about defence. What makes the actual difference is the number of people that will change their vote. Defence hasn’t moved the dial politically since John Major. The only way that real money can be added to defence is buy cutting the state pension or by cutting the NHS. Both of which is electoral suicide.
And people like Airborne have written on here that the triple lock is unsustainable, as is the NHS.
People will bote but they need to see leadership and direction from the pollies.
Personally. I would like T32 to be based on an updated Absolom class to fulfil part of MRSS.
I can see an argument for adding things like containerised medical aid, side ramp, a lift to the deck and a mexflote capability to some of the T31s. If they replace some of the River 2s in global deployments they would be able to offer substantially more help in HIDR scenarios. But it would not make them MRSS ‘strike ships’. For that we do need to go to the 20,000 ton ‘armed LPD’.
There’s a difference between making a statement in the House and something fixed and binding. I’ll believe it when there is an actual order in place.
The bleedin order is already in place and has been for years!
OT, a RN Helicopter has crashed near Dartmoor.
Not good is it.
It was a Merlin.
Not sure if a Mk4 or HM2.
It’s gone, photo shows countless pieces.
I hope the pax and crew got out.
Realistically with war on the horizon The UK needs frigate and destroyer levels like from the 60-70s, so multiple by ten the numbers some are commenting on to 80+ and perhaps you will have some ‘minimum capability to at least defend yourselves and go from there (you know history and all that) – of course this doesn’t mean the rest of the RN doesn’t also re-arm as well.
.
.
Yes some will say that’s not achievable or affordable, to this I counter, well fine, you will simply loose, as no supplies, including food, energy, resources needed to sustain fighting a war won’t get to The UK – and given the likelihood resources will be prioritised to the military effort, well….
Loose? Nahhh we are tight, we’ll be fine 👍
No, we don’t. The Russian fleet is vastly diminished from what it once was, so why are you suggesting force levels so absurdly overmatched as to be a waste of money.
Hopefully right, but the Times is reporting that the expected £18bn boost in defence spending over the next 4 years was agreed as being unfordable when Starmer met with Reeves today (Tuesday), and will now be reduced to £15bn. With the DIP expected to be announced in the next few days, the simplest and quickest cut to “save” £3bn is reducing the RNs T26 buy from 8 to 6 ships. Another corollary is that the UK reaching 3% defence spending by 2030 will cease to be even an aspiration. For the next four years we will stuck be at 2.2 – 2.3%, or 2.5 – 2.6% including support for Ukraine and some other dubious costs that have been reclassified as defence related.
Simpler still to sack Reeves and her fiscal rules, magically making the £18bn spend affordable. Fancy having one rule that specifically lets you invest in real capital assets and a second that specifically stops you, then burying both rules in accounting jargon so nobody notices.