Sweden has selected France’s Naval Group to supply four frigates for its Luleå class programme, passing over a competing British bid from Babcock in partnership with Saab, the UK Defence Journal understands.

The decision was announced at a press conference in Stockholm by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Defence Minister Pål Jonson, alongside Supreme Commander Michael Claesson. Jonson cited rapid delivery, technical maturity, cost-sharing with France and Greece, and the inclusion of a proven air defence system as the reasons for selecting the French offer.

The four ships will be based on Naval Group’s Frégate de Défense et d’Intervention design, already in service with the French Navy and on order for Greece. Displacing around 4,000 tonnes, the vessels are designed for air defence and anti-submarine warfare. The first fully equipped frigate is planned for delivery in 2030, with the remaining three following by 2035. The four ships will be named HSwMS Luleå, Norrköping, Trelleborg, and Halmstad.

The Swedish government intends to equip the frigates with systems from domestic industry, including Saab’s RBS15 anti-ship missile, Torpedo 47, G1X radar, and Trackfire weapon stations, alongside a 57mm gun and 40mm cannon from BAE Systems Bofors.

The vessels will also carry the Aster 30 air defence system, capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, and the CAMM-ER medium-range air defence missile currently being fitted to Sweden’s Visby-class corvettes.

The loss represents a significant blow for Babcock, which had been bidding with Saab on the Arrowhead 120, a design derived from the Arrowhead 140 pedigree that underpins the UK’s own Type 31 frigate programme.

The Arrowhead 120 proposal envisaged steel hulls built at Babcock’s Rosyth yard with composite superstructures constructed by Saab Kockums in Karlskrona, before final integration and outfitting in Sweden. Had it succeeded, the programme would have created a degree of surface combatant interoperability between Sweden, the UK, Poland, and potentially Denmark, all of which are either procuring or considering Arrowhead-family vessels.

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa holds a degree in Media and Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University. With a background in media, she plays a key role in the editorial team, managing industry news and maintaining the standards of the publication's online community.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

92 COMMENTS

  1. Not a massive surprise I’m afraid.

    Would have been much move even if #1 T31 had been in trials.

    Whilst, I’m told, the T31 general hull build quality is very good that doesn’t make a fully functional debugged warship.

    The mess RN Is in won’t have helped either.

    • It is a shame, but you can’t argue with the form of that French hull- I would want one…
      Denmark is still on the cards, and I’m led to believe a surer thing, but I guess nothing is ever certain.

      • I can’t see Denmark or New Zealand going our way as both are looking at South Kore and Japan now suggesting price is the main determining factor. The good news is this is likely to force the governments hand to order more frigates for the RN. Babcock shuttering up production just before the next election is not a headline they are going to want.

        Selling modern frigates with out government subsidy was always a pipe dream, British tax payers are never going to stand for subsidising foreign warships like France does, Norway was a one off.

        • Denmark choosing T31 is relatively safe bet; it’s an improved version of a ship already in service, accommodating StanFlex isn’t an issue, and the optics look good for Danes.

          New Zealand is the real question. HMG should’ve been pushing hard for the RNZN to purchase subsidised T26 or Hunters for commonality, but that opportunity is gone. Best bet now is to offer discounted T31s as part of a second UK batch – 5 more frigates, 3 RN + 2 RNZN.

          • There’s no way New Zealand would have the budget for even “subsidised” Type 26s, and the Hunters are Australian, how would the U.K. even be involved?

            • 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

            • I’m referring back to when T26 was the only game in town; before T31 was formalised and the RAN reduced the Hunter purchase down to 6. The RNZN is effectively guaranteed to go for commonality with Australia or the UK, which would have make selection of one of the two versions almost inevitable. In either case, all variants of the T26 utilise the same core hull, and a lot of the more valuable equipment (e.g. the turbines) are coming from UK suppliers.

              As it stands now, the option for cheaper ships delivered faster will almost inevitably win out in New Zealand. It’s always tricky to compare costs for ships not yet in service, but UK-built T31s are likely to be both cheaper to buy and run than Australian-built Mogamis, due to being CODAD instead of gas turbine-powered. If NZ opts to go for Japanese-built ships, the upfront cost is likely to be much closer; the contract for the first two Upgraded Mogamis (the variant Aus is getting) comes out to about £410m each, compared to around £350m for a T31 in 2026.

          • In no way is it a ‘safe bet’.

            The Danish commentariat seem to favour FDI across the board. As we’ve seen today, industry interest is not enough to persuade governments alone.

            • They favour a design already at sea and by all accounts a good bit of kit. The T31 I’m afraid does not cut it. The only things going for it are price and growth potential

              No sonar in this day and age is really a non starter

              Lets not forget also the French are knocking them out at a steady pace.

              Denmark will go to France

              NZ will go to the Mogami.

          • As the months have past, Babcock have got every more cautious in their statements about a potential Denmark T31 order. The Danes are being aggressively courted by France and Naval Group, and selling FDI to Sweden will obviously help. And in terms of the required 2031 delivery date, Babcock has lost any credibility whilst Naval Group has a proven track record.

            The T31 still has a chance, but whilst the hulls were originally to be built in Rosyth, it’s now expected that they will be licence built locally by a Danish consortium.

            • In terms of track record, apart from the second French hull being launched this week, there’s one of the Greek hulls well along, just waiting for her bow from the Greek yard. So yeah they have a good drumbeat going, and what over a dozen more hulls to work through at this stage between the current 3 national orders, if they get Denmark as well, the FDI is going to be a hell of a seller.

              • In a way though it’s an advantage for Babcock, because they have delivery slots at the end of the decade while NG will now be busy. Babcock need to get at least one completed ship in trials ASAP to prove their capability and have a demonstrator vessel.

                • NG say they can manage 2 a year, so at the rate Babcock are building the 31’s I’d say more of a toss up.

        • Hah, like this Government will either last that long of car about losing a Supply Chain shipyard like it.

        • Pardon JIM, mais affirmer que la France subventionne la vente de navires de guerre est une pure calomnie ! C’est juste une affirmation dépourvue du moindre début de commencement d’une preuve. Et c’est, en passant, insulter les autorités suédoises en laissant croire que vos frégates anglaises même pas encore construites auraient dû être choisies par eux sans cette distorsion imaginaire de concurrence. Seriez-vous juste un très mauvais perdant ??

            • It seems to me that what the French govt does is to commit to buying what the builder produces in sufficient numbers to make sure the ‘fixed’ costs of development and set up are recovered by the govt buy of the first batch. The sales force can then propose lower prices to export customers whose sales revenue needs only to cover variable costs and profit. We should show more commitment and confidence in our own defence products. Instead, what we see is the UK govt waiting for export deals to keep BAE and Babcock in business so that the Treasury doesn’t have to spend any money for the RN. We seem always to be on the back foot.

              • Well, what you describe is not subsidies; rather logical to have decreasing prices when volumes increase.

                • Correct. What I describe is not subsidies. It’s a way of working that requires trusting relationships betwern govt and supplier in the national interest. Well done France 👏

    • Hi mate I agree , with all the madness going on with the UK government at the moment and our recent bad defence decisions in lack of will and interest and unwilling to fund Equipment for our own Armed forces you can’t blame them for looking the other way .However Sure these will be fine vessels.

  2. That’s unfortunate- and without wanting to be too sore a loser I’d be interested to know how much of a ‘discount’ the French government were able to provide to sweeten the deal. That said, by all account the French design is good, and it’s certainly good looking.
    Most interesting to me, though, is that Sweden are already fitting CAMM-ER onto their Visby corvettes and will be fitting them to these new frigates too alongside Aster30. I’m not entirely clear on the performance characteristics of -ER compared to normal CAMM, but seems like they’re overlapping the envelopes with Aster30 a lot more.
    Maybe it’s just to achieve commonality with the Visby, but maybe they’re looking at a High/low mix (assuming that Aster30 is a lot more expensive than CAMM-ER and higher in performance- not sure how accurate that assumption is) out to longer ranges- so they can select which missile they use based upon target without having to let it get too close. I’m struggling to see another reason for it, and it’s certainly something we should be considering for T45. If it’s already been navalised, too, we should definitely be getting CAMM-ER for all of our frigates also.

    • 5 Billion Euros total price i read somewhere, don’t know how much of a discount it is.. maybe useful to compare it to the other bidders

      • Fair point- I recall someone somewhere stating that CAMM-ER is larger diameter as well as length.
        Quentin63 below says Naval Group are coming up with a special launch cell for it- may be worth looking at for T26 and B2 T31, even if it’s too late for T45. Options for double or triple-packing in Mk41 might be worth exploring too, I doubt a quad pack would work if they are wider.

        • CAMM-ER has nearly double the published range of the standard CAMM. It is 1m longer and an inch wider in diameter. As far as I’m aware, the launch canister is the same width, just longer. It should be capable of being quad packed in Mk41, ExLS and Sylver. Like the standard CAMM is still has a very short minimum engagement range. In this respect CAMM-ER is closer to ESSM.

          • Thanks, that’s good to know. That should mean that they can clot into Land Ceptor too without too much difficulty- as long as the wheelbase of the truck is long enough.
            Do you know if the CAMM launch system that’s being put into the T45s is a ‘new-new’ one, or coming from the T23s? I thought that the T31s were taking the old mushroom farms from the T23s, but really not sure anymore. If the T45 ones really are new, they could also be ready to go for CAMM-ER. Or am I being far too optimistic..?!

    • There’s also the fact that CAMM-ER can be quad packed into a Sylver cell which would otherwise only take a single Aster 30. So a small ship like FDI can obtain much greater magazine depth than it would otherwise. Integration of CAMM-ER into FDI was a big push the French were making to sweeten the deal.

      • I believe the Naval Group are building a specific 32 CAMM module for these FDI frigates. Not sure what the Visby upgrades are getting, if ExLS or CAMM farm. The FDI is certainly a jam packed ship!

        • Interesting, that would result in a sovereign European quad packed CAMM solution that is presumably cheaper than Sylver and better than the mushroom farm. Sounds good to me. It’s my understanding that the Visbys will be using ExLS.

          Agreed though, the FDI is an excellent package and I’m not surprised it won. The key advantage of Arrowhead 140 is it size and therefore versatility, as soon as Babcock started talking about Arrowhead 120 I was dubious that it had anything going for it other than potentially increased Swedish industrial content.

        • 24 CAMM ER (3×8) is what they’re developing. It’ll be a different launcher than Sylver so it most likely won’t be compatible with Aster without having 2 different launchers on 1 frigate. Eventually I hope they develop a universal launcher that can fit everything from (launched missiles, Aster, cruise missiles) to properly compete against Mk 41.

      • It cannot be quad-packed. The Italians trialled this. If you google the internal dimensions of the Sylver A50/A70, and then those of the CAMM-ER, you’ll see the issue.

        • Well then I guess this is more reason for what Quentin said about Naval Group developing their own dense soft launch system.
          Either way the advantage of CAMM and its variants over Aster and its variants is that it can be packed more densely due to its soft launch, provided that a sufficiently dense VLS is provided.

    • Hi Joe,
      France bought 2 Awacs + 2 in option. This plus the fact that we provide the next 2 FDI to Sweeden instead of serving our fleet mean that they will get the first 2 in 2026 and 2027. I think it does play a role.
      Don’t worry, there are many other deals UK has allready won and many more to come.

      • Don’t worry mon ami, I happen to be something of a francophile so there’s no bitterness in my post. I think the government has a responsibility to support strategic industries, as the French do.
        That said, you make a good point about the AWACs and that a successful design in-service will always carry an advantage against one that has only just got into the water.
        As I said, I really like the look of the FDI- look forward to seeing a couple sail with HMS Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales at some point!

        • So do I! I look forward seeing our ships sailing along QE carriers! Plenty has to be done in the Atlantic Ocean!

    • there is no discount since Sweden is paying more for its 4 FDI than Greece did.
      FDI is a mature design with proven production capablility to deliver on time, not to mention a flexible design to include many Swedish demands (Bofors 57 and 40, RBS15, Torped 47, triple packed Camm ER, etc…) as well as ABM role with Seafire 500 + Aster 30 B1NT which is a key Swedish Navy requirement.

      • Thanks, I don’t doubt the strength of the offering- it’s definitely solid. I hadn’t realised they’d come up with a special launch pack for the CAMM-ER, and that they were already on with B1NT.
        It’s very hard to argue with that combination, and we probably need to take a look at what we’re doing with our T31 at the very least. I’m not proposing we fit out our frigates with Aster, the Swedes need it because they don’t have AAD Destroyers. But CAMM-ER and NSM needs to be seriously considered.

        • Naval Group is developing a cold launch Sylver VLS version that is able to triple pack CAMM-ER. Sweden will be the first navy with such a system

          Aster 30B1NT is already a reality, both France and Italy have each received their first SAMP/T NG in early 2026. Furthermore Aster production has been both significantly shortened from 40 months down to 18 months and increased output is planned to be doubled in 2026

          I would be surprised if Sweden went NSM, they chose to replace Exocet with the swedish RBS-15 anti-ship missile for their FDI. The RBS-15 mk3 is a fairly new upgrade, so it will be on FDI for some years
          More likely they would switch to Stratus missile in future if they decide to upgrade, since Stratus will be better than NSM.

          • Sill no details if this cold launch VLS is a redesign Sylver A50 or a completely new Sylver for just CAMM or Aster + CAMM?
            Also we will find out in due time if Sweden is planning on a VLS configuration of 48 CAMM-ER + 16 Aster 30 or 24 CAMM-ER + 24 Aster 30.

          • Sill no details if this cold launch VLS is a redesign Sylver A50 or a completely new Sylver for just CAMM or Aster + CAMM?
            Also we will find out in due time if Sweden is planning on a VLS configuration of 48 CAMM-ER + 16 Aster 30 or 24 CAMM-ER + 24 Aster 30.

  3. Fair enough. Can’t argue with the logic when FDI is already in the water and a proven platform. Squarely rest the blame on the MoD for not ordering T31 soon enough

      • Program was dead on day one. Germany made a bad call siding with France, France made a bad call kicking the UK out over spite. The UK is the only country in the world that can run these programs. No other country has ever run a successful international joint fighter aircraft production other than the UK.

        Unfortunately the UK is now stuck with Japan who’s time line and requirements may well be the programs undoing. Trying to get this done by 2035 is probably too hard. The UK really could have done with waiting five more years and building more Typhoons in the interim. The cost of GCAP has become ruinously high for development and the program is starting to appear to be too focused on manned aircraft due to Japans insistence.

    • Babcock shares a good chunk of the blame. They’ve had two major write downs now for in type 31. The second most recently due to how wrong the first and second hulls are. That’s not the MoDs fault.

      • I don’t believe the designs were wrong at the time. They were changed when the MoD asked them “ok can you also make it do this” mid-build, which as usual leads to extra costs, production headaches and slipping timelines as seen in countless other programmes when they do the same thing.

        • The first two hulls are built to the original spec, the RN’s requested upgrades will only be done to later builds.

      • I suspect they pushed the schedule a bit too hard for the optics of getting hulls out of the shed, and now they are paying the price of building to an immature, incomplete design. There was an interview with the CEO where his whole shtick was ‘do it quicker’. I do recall that N-A-B predicted on NL that exactly this would happen due to Babcocks lack of build experience with complete ships. They do seem to be improving the process though, the later hulls should go a bit smoother.

    • I’m not sure I’d describe 1 frigate delivered in October 25 and currently still undergoing sea trials & work up to have IOC later this year , as «  proven « .

        • I didn’t forget it but it’s even further behind in its work up than Ronarc’h and hasn’t had many of its weapons fitted yet so I’m not sure what it was protecting .

    • If the UK had won, where were these ships going to be constructed? We don’t have the capacity to build our own and Norway’s orders…

  4. Here here lets hope there ground forces fair better. Lol see charles has a meeting go well archives mad Charlie lol love fin like love fist only its a girl lol coined already hum b le beats kins

  5. In the end it’s probably a better fit as it will give them both ASW capabilities as well as a good AAW frigate that can provide ABM capabilities.. they went for a different fish than Babcock were selling.

  6. That’s a pity, but I guess the mature nature of the FDI and the French Government’s willingness to offer subsidies would have swung it.

    Hopefully Starmer will actually get around to announcing something significant regarding the defence budget this week, as has been reported over the weekend. Hopefully, AUKUS, GCAP and more frigates will feature in the MoD’s long term plans and these programs will be put on to a firmer footing. There have been a few articles knocking around various online publications that our long term funding for AUKUS and GCAP has not been fully committed too. GCAP in particular was reported to need firm UK funding commitments by the end of June..!

    Fingers cross decisions get made. At least it seems likely Starmer is going with Healey’s £18b rather than Reave’s £10b..!

    Cheers CR

    • what french subsidies? can you procide details?
      Sweden paid premium price for FDI compared to Greece

      • Hi LT

        To be honest I wasn’t really up to speed on the details, but I have had a search and the French Government has had a long established strategy of using arms sales to unpin their independence, as they see it, from the US. The subsidies take various indirect forms particularly loan guarantees phasing their own procurements to support sales and targeted public investments, whatever that means?

        This strategy has had long cross party support and gives French defence exports significant advantages when bidding for exports as that kind of state support significantly reduces risks for the business involved.

        It would be good if we did something similar, certainly being flexible on the RN’s T26 slots will have helped BAE Systems to win the Norwegian frigate order.

        Cheers CR

        • financing has nothing to do with subsidies. all military procurement requires financing and it’s very common practice.
          french tax payers are not paying anything for Swedish purchase which is what a subsidy would entail
          secondly there is no mention of any french financing for Swedish contract, unless you have a major news scoop.
          in fact Sweden is paying more for its 4 frigates than Greece did, probably due to a combination of inflation and more integration of custom equipment
          – Bofors 57mm instead of Oto Melara 76mm
          – Bofors 40mm instead of Rim-116 RAM for CIWS
          – mix of Aster 30 + CAMM-ER (triple pack in a cold launch VLS in development)
          – Torped 47 instead of MU90 torpedo
          – RBS15 instead of MM40 Exocet
          – Trackfire 12.7mm RWS instead of Narwhal or Lionfish 20mm
          – addition of Giraffe 1X compact radar

  7. I always felt as though the FDI was the favourite, it’s a capable ship for such a small size and from the 3 offerings it was the only one in service. They’re also able to be built quickly.

    Hopefully there is good news on the Danish front. I personally can’t see NZ picking Type 31. The Upgraded Mogami seems like a no brainer for them.

  8. Japan has been nagging the UK to cough up the money for the next phase of GCAP development, which we been holding up. We have now apparently committed our £6bn share, so things can get back on track. We need the Japanese keeping us up to the mark or it will turn into another long-running, late saga. This thing has got to start arriving by 2035 to enable the replacement of the 67 tranche 2 Typhoons, or we will be seeing a big cut in our already-tiny number of fast jet aircraft aircraft. If we want export sales for GCAP, I would think it essential that we more or less match the US F-47 timeline, as our probable main competitor.

    Our share of GCAP development is something like £18bn, which is a heck of a lot of money to find from a cash-strapped defence budget. We could really need to get a couple more partners in the programme, ideally Germany and Canada. Better to have a 20%.share of something than a 33% share of nothing, which could be the outcome if we are continually struggling to pay our share and holding everything up.

  9. The first Greek FDI frigate was delivered to the Hellenic Navy in December 2025 (HS Kimon).
    https://www.euronews.com/2025/12/18/greece-takes-delivery-of-kimon-frigate-from-france-as-25bn-military-upgrade-continues [armyrecognition.com]

    One of the key arguments behind Sweden’s selection of the FDI appears to be Naval Group’s ability to deliver on a tight schedule. This is supported by an already active production line, an optimized construction and commissioning process, and a mature, in-service design.

    There is also a political dimension, with France reportedly willing to prioritise export deliveries (to Sweden)—even if this results in some delays to its own follow-on units. [navalnews.com]

    Beyond the points highlighted in the article, another important aspect is the ship’s digital architecture. The FDI relies on data centres and virtualised control systems for its combat system, which simplifies software maintenance and future upgrades. This should make it significantly easier to keep the vessel’s combat system up to date throughout its service life.

    Finally, the strong availability record of earlier French frigates (80% for the FREMM class) likely contributes to confidence in the FDI design, particularly regarding long-term operational availability.
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/05/french-navy-details-steps-taken-to-build-frigate-availability-to-80/

  10. Thank goodness.
    Not sure the RN would survive T31 slots being handed over to other nations as well as T26 slots.
    Sweden cant have been impressed with the 140m surcharge Babacck needs to pay after getting modules and actual T31s in the wrong order…

  11. I am glad, it means slots will stay allocated to RN and Norway. We need stuff urgently, and not playing silly buggers faffing around. I blame politicians totally.

    • Different ships and production lines, and still leaves the U.K. with the question of what next after the fifth 31.

  12. Well then I guess this is more reason for what Quentin said about Naval Group developing their own dense soft launch system.
    Either way the advantage of CAMM and its variants over Aster and its variants is that it can be packed more densely due to its soft launch, provided that a sufficiently dense VLS is provided.

  13. Considering that manned traditional escorts are now obsolete, according to some, why the fuss?
    Just build some smaller autonomous instead, Sweden doesn’t need these! 😉

    • Just walk round Swedish coastal towns, you get a drone, and you get a drone, everyone gets a drone. Now first one to find a Russian sub gets an all expenses paid vacation.

  14. 30 by 30 is going out the window.

    However, Babcock do need to get their house in order and the first of class in operation. Simple as.

    We all want export orders but we need viable, affordable, quality, proven in service, product and we just don’t have it because of mal-administration by several governments.

  15. Capacity and throughput are the main problems that will complicate or deter foreign warship orders.

    BAE and Babcock have spent a lot of money on build halls and hull fabrication improvements.

    But fitting out is painfully slow and the dry docks needed for that are too few.

    The UK could do with a 3rd shipyard to help out on T26 and T31.

    • Another ship yard won’t happen as there won’t be the reliability of orders to keep them all going, Babcock is already out of work after T31 is done if nothing else is ordered. If T31 had been on schedule and designed with a proper fit out from the start rather than trying to be excessively cheap they may have had a better shot at the Swedish order as there would be completed ships.

      BAE have said a number of times the T26 could have been sped up but the Government chose to spread the payments across as many years as possible which means slower deliveries by choice.

      The now Navantia owned yards will also be out of work once the FSS ships are done in less than a decade, the issue is more consistent ordering and funding, like the still non existent competitions for MRSS, T32 and multirole/ drone motherships. How can any company invest in additional capacity when orders just get delayed and delayed to the point where it’ll just follow on other programs anyway.

        • Theyre busy enough with maintenance, and again, by the time they get upto speed on construction and fit out there wont be enough orders left.

  16. T26 and T31 are going to be great ships, especially when T31 finally gets fitted out properly as should have been intended from the start.

    Quality isn’t an issue, but the delays to both programs and slow delivery schedules is a major negative for foreign buyers as most seem to want deliveries on tight schedules once they commit to replacing their ageing fleets and delays of several years. It leaves you in a position like the U.K. is facing with the T23s which are way past their service life and the U.K. has very low availability of escorts in general, smaller navies would be hit even harder by this level of availability.

    Reliability is a major factor when searching for a foreign supplier when there are multiple options. The U.K. Government should remember that when they delay and underfund programs they want to sell abroad.

  17. Embarrassing stuff when even french wipe the floor with us when it comes to defence exports and ship building. These orders should be in the bag for the UK and we should be experts and best of the best with ship building. Nothing will change until mechanical and electrical engineering are mandatory parts of the curriculum. Silly things like RE, Drama, painting, clay making are part of the curriculum but not engineering. Just madness!

    • Interesting take I guess, completely missing the fact that the UK has been lagging other European naval exports for decades at this point, while the French have had a continuous sales operation. Why exactly should the UK be “the best with Ship building”?

    • Italy, Germany, France and Netherlands at least build more. Fincantieri is the only euro shipbuilding company in 10 worlds first.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here