The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that resources have been allocated for the next batch of five Type 26 Frigates to be ordered on the Clyde.

It’s also understood that a significant number of long-lead items have been ordered for the last 5 of 8 Type 26 Frigates. In addition, work is soon to start on the build of five Type 31 Frigates at Rosyth.

The information came to light in response to a written question submitted in the House of Lords.

Former First Sea Lord Lord West of Spithead asked:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ring fence money for the next five Type 26 frigates in the forthcoming spending review.”

Baroness Goldie, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“Resources have been allocated by the Ministry of Defence to build and support the next five Type 26 Frigates. Funding lines are continually reviewed as part of routine programme management to ensure value for money is maximised for the taxpayer, drive the schedule and manage risk and opportunity.”

Additionally, the procurement of the Batch 2 Type 26 Frigates is expected to happen “in the early 2020s” according to the Government.

Luke Pollard, the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently asked via a written Parliamentary question:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he plans to order the next batch of Type 26 frigates.”

Pollard was directed to a statement made earlier in the year by Baroness Goldie which states:

“The procurement of the Batch 2 Type 26 Frigates will be subject to a separate approval and contract which is expected to be awarded in the early 2020s.”

Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total with three in the first batch.

Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers and recent Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Type 45s first batch order was for three vessels for example.

Last year, the next batch of Type 26 Frigate propulsion motors were ordered. At the same time Nadia Savage, director of the Type 26 programme, was quoted as saying:

We will enter into the negotiation phase in the next 18 to 20 months. As we progress through the maturity of the design, it allows us to commit to the next batch and the timeframe around them.”

The Type 26 Frigates will be named Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, Edinburgh and London.

Work recently started on ship 3 of 8, you can read more about that by clicking here. Additionally, you can read more about the progress of the first ship in class, HMS Glasgow, by clicking below.

HMS Glasgow to enter service 12 months sooner than planned

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
42 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
eclipse
eclipse
25 days ago

Good news, at least we have 8. Hope everyone had a good Christmas and is having a good holiday season.

Farouk
Farouk
25 days ago

I think Hedgehoppers Anonymous summed up this story brilliantly 56 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AglW6QpmPp8

David Barry
David Barry
24 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

Er… radioactive bombs, asians being slaughtered… you did listen to the lyrics, right?

Peter Parker
Peter Parker
24 days ago

Another waste of tax payers money? Gov did nothing with the last ones, why would they want to anyway

Andrew D
Andrew D
24 days ago

Will batch 2 vessels be different in size ECT like other types back in the day ?

Paul T
Paul T
24 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

There might be slight improvements and enhancements with the Batch 2 Ships, nothing too major though.

Andrew D
Andrew D
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

👍

Meirion x
Meirion x
24 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

No, the same size. Could have different missle loadouts, 32 Mk. 41 and 36 Sea Ceptor.

Andrew D
Andrew D
24 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

👍

David Barry
David Barry
24 days ago

I do wonder, as they “enter negotiations” would it be possible to speed up completion AND could we see a batch 3?

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
24 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

We can live in hope. I think the defence select committee have been clear. The RN needs to double in size and quickly if we are to face down the threat from a resurgent Russia and a beligerent and uparming China.

James Fennell
James Fennell
24 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

‘Batch 3’ could be the Type 83 multi-role Destroyer.

David Barry
David Barry
24 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

That’s where we disagree. It’s been admitted that the idea was slow build, now Reality is on the horizon, I’d love a Batch 3, with joint procurement of Aussie Ceefar to reduce costs BEFORE we move onto T83(?), it would really add to a fantastic battle worthy fleet that could give account of itself in a confrontation.

Need to get a prescription for my meds as well.

James Fennell
James Fennell
23 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

To increase the size of the RN we probably need to buy more cheaper platforms – athough evolving Type 26 is probably a good option for Type 83. Quite feastible to build more ships faster without too much additional expense on infrastructure – BAe are extending their sheds at Govan, and Babcock have their new shed. Appledore needs work too. Belfast and Birkenhead can take care of FSS and MRSS. The generic response on here is that we should either buy some other nation’s kit or more of something in production – neither of those options is good for the… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by James Fennell
David Barry
David Barry
23 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

What I missed from the CSG deployment, was what % of crew were rotated home on leave? Did the F35 pilots sail for the entire exercise? How many returning from this prolonged stay away from home PVR’d?

Which leads us to the fly in the ointment, where are the crews coming from?

James Fennell
James Fennell
23 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

I think a new crew rotation system is being introduced. Montrose was the guinea pig. Each ship has two crews (P & S), rotated on a four month basis. I think Portland also has this system now and it will be introduced across the fleet – it saves people and also provides consistency for planning, and is preferred by the crews themselves. When not at sea a crew is involved in career development, individual and simulator training as well as leave and any reassignments are made. Also Project RENOWN is reducing the length of maintenance and refit periods by improving… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by James Fennell
Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
24 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Likely so. Without increasing our shipbuilding infrastructure, I don’t think we”d have capacity for both extending one type whilst introducing another.
Naturally, would prefer to see us increasing the necessary infrastructure, though.

Clueless Observer
Clueless Observer
24 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

If it performs as expected, follow on orders would be fantastic and the unit cost would hopefully come down, but as the recent report said, we need a larger navy. Do we always need top spec equipment or could the 2 or 3 T31’s you get for a similar price as a T26, do a good enough job?(admittedly they would need a bit more equipment, but then with FFBNW most of the fleet does!) I think with T31 and T26 in the water there would need to be a comparison of final costings and a decision then made. Don’t get… Read more »

Challenger
Challenger
24 days ago

I agree. An island nation with a large economy and intricate global relationships needs a bigger navy than we currently have but whilst more T26 would be great at around a billion pounds a pop it’s pretty pricey!

If T31 comes in at around 250 million as promised it’ll represent great value for money – a large, modern hull with decent sensors and a basic defensive weapons fit that won’t take much more cash per unit to give them a bit more bite and become good general purpose frigates.

David Barry
David Barry
24 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Hence my question. Should Aus and Canuk be buying in, surely, if they are now “entering negotiations”, some account of those foreign sales should be bringing the unit price down? Or I’m stupid? (Please take the fifth on that Q.)

An increased build rate, lower unit costs on some items and the realisation that we do need these platforms to augment the T45s, could a Batch 3 not be possible, manpower permitting because the other upside is playing the trick the RN played this saying no need to lifex and feed cost savings into other programmes.

Heidfirst
Heidfirst
24 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

I imagine that they will be paying a royalty/design fee & some of the basic items e.g. propulsion will be common but they are building locally & have gone their own way on high value items e.g. combat systems etc. so how much their builds have an effect on our builds …

David Barry
David Barry
24 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

Steel is cheap 😉 There must be some IP to cough up!?

Heidfirst
Heidfirst
24 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

as I said I imagine that they are paying a royalty/design fee (but does MoD get that or BAE?) but the big money in the builds imo is in the combat systems, sensors & weapons & they have largely gone their own ways on that

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
24 days ago

Type 26 is a bold concept in some ways. A powerful GP warship but one in which a significant amount of investment has gone into its anti-submarine capabilities in an effort to take subs on at their own game. That does not come cheap, anymore than nuclear subs come cheap. That said, if the type is then used as the basis for a follow on destroyer (Type 83), then a lot of the design groundwork may well have been sorted, with commensurate cost benefits. Type 31, and even T32, then make separate sense as lower tier vessels. May help to… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
23 days ago

If you look at build rates, we probably need both the T26 line and the T31 lines. in truth the capital costs of building frigates to get to a fleet of 24 T26, T45 and T31,32 is not really the issues. 5 extra T31/32s for a couple of billion in capital ( with at least 60-70% of that returning in the tax base) is in reality pocket change to the 5 wealthiest nation in the world. The big problem is going to be finding the crews to run the ships, some of the specialities will take a good decade to… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
24 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

There’s certainly a strong case for a batch 3 of four ships.

That would be sensible, considering the rising tensions in the world today.

A T26 based AAW Destroyer replacement for T45 based on T26 would then feed into a continuous stable production line.

9x air defence TXX
12x T25
10x T31/32

That gives a small but capable Navy, with enough assets to forward base a small number, while retaining enough for Carrier task group escorts, SSBN safeguarding and wider NATO standing requirements.

Clueless Observer
Clueless Observer
24 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Would it not be a cheaper option to just use the T31 for a new AAW ship as per the original design? Would it need the T26’s quite hull etc when it’s working as part of a larger force ?

Meirion x
Meirion x
23 days ago

It would need a quite propulsion like T26 as well as quite Hull.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
24 days ago

I wonder at what cost/ unit price. Surely not another £1.4 billion each if Australia and Canada have now bought the design and are building their own type 26s. If unit price is reduced could the RN not squeeze out a 9th hull?

Mark
Mark
24 days ago

Don’t forget the 8 hulls planned will be followed by the T83 fingers crossed. Hopefully a destroyer that’s a carnivore and not a herbivore like we have now. But definitely a yes to having a third building shipyard in England a must and a forth in Belfast doing the resupply ships a bonus. Each yard producing that way can get export orders which will be self funding and give a massive boost to economy and jobs. And if barrow can get an order for the astute/vanguard from the assuies even better.

Ron
Ron
24 days ago

Good news on the Batch 2 front, now Santa can I have for next Christmas a batch 3, 10 Type 32s and an up armed T31 and please oh please if we have some icing left the Mk41s for the T45s.

Thought I would get my wish list in early to give Santa some time to get his elves to work. Hope you all had a good one and have a much better New Year.

David Barry
David Barry
24 days ago
Reply to  Ron

There’s a queue… get in line 🙂

Meirion x
Meirion x
24 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Sea Ceptor is going in the extra cell space behind main gun. No room for Mk. 41 anywhere else.

TS
TS
24 days ago

Now we are getting 5 x T32, would it not be worth considering swapping out the 5 inch gun on the batch 2 T26 and putting them on the T32 instead? T32 has been stated as supporting littoral and amphibious groups so would be far more worthwhile on these. Last 5 T26 could get the 57mm instead as these will be supporting the carriers and the added defensive capabilities of them would be useful.

Challenger
Challenger
24 days ago
Reply to  TS

Obviously in an ideal world all 24 frigates and destroyers would be fitted with the 5 inch main-gun, but yes with it being an expensive system to purchase and operate I’ve long thought it’d make more sense to give the T45/T26 something like the 57mm and the T31/T32 the 5 inch. Realistically the T31/T32 are the platforms that would operate in the littoral and away from any task-group whilst the high-end T45/T26 will both always be required to protect the carriers and too expensive to risk on a solo detachment. A mix of 40mm and 57mm would be perfectly good… Read more »

Meirion x
Meirion x
24 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

As I told TS above the T26’s are ASW vessels, so 5″ gun is much more useful for anti sub or surface action.
Yes, 57mm is appropriate for T45.
Do you Not believe in the use of depth charge rounds?

Last edited 24 days ago by Meirion x
Meirion x
Meirion x
24 days ago
Reply to  TS

No, the 5″ gun can fire depth charge rounds, very useful for surprising lurking subs.

Meirion x
Meirion x
24 days ago
Reply to  TS

It doesn’t surprise me, you want this changed, especially for your master Putin.

TS
TS
24 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Wow, OK it’s been a while since I last posted, but why have I become a Russian troll just for asking the question about which ships get which guns?? Lol. I wasn’t aware of the depth charge round for the 5″. If that’s the case, then the current fit makes sense, simples. So is this what this site is reduced to now? Question anything and you work for putin haha!

Meirion x
Meirion x
23 days ago
Reply to  TS

“…but why have I become a Russian troll just for asking the question…”

Because I read another posters post a few weeks ago associating your style with three or more pro Russian posters, most likely because you disappeared for a while, so is it true or not?
I have Not experienced your posts as obvious Pro-Russian myself.

Last edited 23 days ago by Meirion x
Meirion x
Meirion x
24 days ago
Reply to  TS

There is a minimum requirement for 8 ASW T26’s, so they need to be armed appropriately for that role. T26’s would need to work with a amphibious group as well.

Last edited 24 days ago by Meirion x
NICHOLAS CONNOLLY
NICHOLAS CONNOLLY
24 days ago
Reply to  TS

Personally, I wish someone would take a serious look at our warships over the horizon offensive capabilities. They need a serious ship to ship missile fitted. Would trade that for guns all day long!