So far, just under £2.5bn has been spent on the Type 26 Frigate since 2017, with just under £530mn being spent on Type 31 over the same period.
Expenditure for the Manufacture phases for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigate programmes (rounded to the nearest million) is detailed in the table below.
According to a statement given by Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, “the costs incurred against the Assessment Phase have not been included, in line with normal reporting against Business Case approvals. The costs Spend data for the current financial year (FY2022-23), is excluded as this is incomplete”.
| Project Name | FY2017-18 £ million | FY2018-19 £ million | FY2019-20 £ million | FY2020-21 £ million | FY2021-22 £ million |
| Type 26 | 288.8 | 464.3 | 507 | 572.3 | 642.2 |
| Type 31 | 75.4 | 199.2 | 252.6 |
BAE Systems recently confirmed that HMS Glasgow, the Royal Navy’s first Type 26 frigate, is set to enter the water for the first time this year.
BAE Systems said in its half-year results:
“The Type 26 programme continues to progress with construction underway on the first three City Class Type 26 frigates. Preparations continue for the first of class, Glasgow, to depart our Govan shipyard and enter the water later this year. She will then transition to our Scotstoun shipyard where further outfit, test and commissioning will take place. Half of the major units of the second ship in class, Cardiff, are erected, while the third ship, Belfast, continues to progress after entering manufacture in June 2021.”
A massive submersible barge, one of the largest in Europe, will carry Type 26 Frigate HMS Glasgow down the river before ‘floating’ her off in the deep waters of Glen Mallan.
According to Malin Group, the barge will initially be used to transport and ‘launch’ the Type 26 Frigates being built by BAE Systems for the Royal Navy and then berthed on the Clyde and made available to industry as required, “catalysing further opportunities for the wider supply chain in fields including shipbuilding, civil construction and renewable energy”.
Eye watering amounts but hopefully money well spent on these warships. Frustrating the timescales involved from first steel cut to in service and some concern over the proposed offensive weapons packages but each class is designed for a long life with upgrade potential so I am quietly optimistic.
On an international comparison the T26 and especially the T31 are looking pretty reasonable. T26 is coming in at half the cost of a flight III now due to the drop in GBP.
T26(RN) do not look like any good regarding price. Not even AAW defence it can do. It is basically T23 mission capability with tomahawk cells added and an empty mission bay.
T31 seems it would be better but not really much data to make a definitive answer.
The Type 26 was never designed as an AAW platform but as a specialised sub-hunting frigate with a primarily role to protect the carriers. AAW is the purview of the Type 45s – something they do extremely well.
That said, I do believe that given the few hull numbers we have, more should be made of them. E.g., there’s no reason a canister AShM can’t be added to the Type 45s permanently and Mk41 VLSs should have been added instead of the 24 Sea Ceptors planned, giving more versatility.
Anyway, hopefully more money can be afforded if the new PM’s stated increase in defence spending is manifested.
I give her the benefit of the doubt for now.
If it was a specialized ASW platform, for this size it would have 2 helicopter hangars and anti submarine missiles.
The point is that is too expensive for what it offers.
The radar is a rotating asset from 15 years ago, no 360º fixed panels, no dual frequency.
The sonar is state of art but nothing different than what is deployed in FREMM or the derivated Constellations(which have 2 helicopters and ASW missiles) and are area AAW costing 1-1.2B$.
Mmmm, a T26 can take two Wildcats or a Merlin plus RUAVs, by using the mission bay three Merlins.
The Artisan radar is based on Sampson.
As for the comparrison of Fremm frigate to T26, the two types have diffrent roles, however with the 48 Sea Ceptors and a possibility of 24 Aster 30s. I have just sent a request for information to BAE if this is possible.
FREMM frigate Italian navy does not have fixed panels, French do. The US Constellations have a lower to horizon coverage as well as a possible limitation of missile salvo due to the need of missile guidance radars. All three nations have a max of 32 Mk41s. Remember this is for anti air, land attack and anti sub missile load outs. The T26 has 48 anti air plus 24 for anti air-land attack and anti sub. IfI quad pack the Mk41s for Sea Ceptor that gives 96 anti air or double pack for SeaCeptor ER thats and extra 48. So a good anti air platform if need be. The ER is good for interception of sea skimmers at the range of the horizon of the Artisan radar 100 ft above sea level. The fixed arrays of the US and French navy is less, yes its only about 4km but every second counts. Not only that but you forget about offset, where the panels are fixed the rotation has offset.
As for VL-ASROC for the T26, this is possible, we do not know as yet what will be the load out for the MK41s.There is also space for SeaRAM above the hanger if money was available.
So no matter what the T26 looks to me like a good all round multi purpose combat ship that will get better with upgrades. I also think I would rather have these than the US/French/Italian frigates.
1 Merlin is not equivalent to 2 Merlin/NH90 (or SH-70). Wildcat is no ASW and will have a small capability if it gets.
Mission bay don’t works well for that, it is on the way.
You have to take off the mission bay helo and only then land the helo on the air. Hangar should be side by side like in Italian FREMM/ Constellations/OHP to have their ways unimpeded.
Radar is no good enough for area AAW with Aster 30 a 150km missile.
FREMM Italian is a 12 year old ship so it has a rotating radar of same era as Artisan. New PPA(or the new Japanese frigate) for example have fixed panels in 2 frequencies.
I put the Constellation as the best all around then the Italian FREMM because i consider that area AAW is crucial.
Italian FREMM should be more noisy than T26 due to variable pitch propeller(US Constellations and French FREMM have fixed propellers), but have 2 medium helicopters and MILAS nissile.
Note that all the missile options improvements you are stating are possible but will increase the T26 cost.
In my opinion the issue that defined the Type 26 is the MT30 RR Turbine. Being the most powerful turbine it defined the Type 26 size from outset.
Connie has no hull mounted sonar…bit of an issue.
That is something that is puzzling me, is hull sonar considered a bit of marginal advantage?
Note that i think Type 31 will also not have hull sonar.
The T45’s are crap. Only one has successfully had the PIP, the other 5 constantly break down when on operations and have spent most of their time alongside. We would do better paying them off and buying South Korean Aegis destroyers at half the price. And they work.
‘Empty mission bay’, isn’t that the point of a mission bay though, it’s there to use as per mission dictates by offering flexibility, you don’t dictate what’s in it before the ship is even launched. As for AAW it has a very effective short/medium capability probably well suited to a predominantly anti submarine frigate. All bells and whistles are the ideal true but aren’t easy to accomplish in reality.
Anti ship is still to be seen mind but surely it will be fitted for effective missiles… but fitted with is perhaps the concern if one is a little cynical on past experience. With the building threats surely it will however. .
The point being: if it is empty you need to pay for what goes there in top of paying the ship.
As opposed too….
I recon the fact that it has more export and foreign orders than any surface combatant in half a century would disagree with your assertion. Also clearly you got no idea about ASW escorts.
Not if the US ends up building +20 constellations. There are currently 18 FREMM in service and +2 being build for Italy.
Meko frigates have got more than 40 orders. I think that OHP’s also got a good number of export orders.
Huh? Try taking Economics 101, it might help.
That assumes the original build cost still stands, depends how much of the ship is bought in from abroad. If lots of parts are then the cost of purchasing due to the pound dropping has gone up.
That is a good point, the whole ship in theory can be more ship if the GBP goes down but components( MBDA?), US 5″ guns , Thales sonars might get more expensive. Without numbers is impossible to know.
BAE need to sort themselves out with the frigate factory ASAP. It’s looking ridiculous moving ships the size of ww2 cruisers around like this. One can only imagine the additional cost associated with outdoor work and continuous moving operations.
Will the frigate factory will change moves to Scotstoun and floating off at Glen Mallan? I didn’t think it would.
We see the facilities in Australia and weep with envy.
The companies and unions together have lost us much ground in ship building skills, efficiencies and orders
Agreed people moaned about the T31 competition saying it was unhealthy for yards to compete but the result is investment and 2 ship factories.
No but a ship has to be launched at some stage, it’s the work in getting to that stage as with any ship that counts the most, there’s always a lot of work done after launch but mostly internal.
Money well spent jobs and apprenticeships should ensure the future of UK shipbuilding with probably about 20% returned through taxes.
Nice to see that all 700 of you share the same view.
Much like the Geth, they form a consensus first.
Nop the reality is about 40% return in tax, you forgot the 20%VAT plus income tax profit tax, tax on new equipment, NI etc Oh and profit returns. Thats the issue, we forget that to buy something overseas we pay the tax in those countries, if we buy something in the UK it might look more expensive but we pay tax on it, so money comes back to the treasury.
An example the Tide class built in Korea, UK workers were not involved in the build, no VAT on goods bought by workers, no tax paid on saleries, no income tax paid, no NI tax paid no profit tax paid no extra support workers such as bar staff, shop workers, house builders etc employed. So short term saving for long term loss.
If we built the Tide’s in the UK we would now have the ability to build the new FSS ships, future MRS ships etc. This build program would give Liverpool/Newcastle/Belfast work for 10-15 years.Thereby reducing unemployment meaning reducing DWP payment, increasing tax returns due to work and supporting industry employment, creating further work as secured employment creates house buying etc.
Now comes a question, would I what would be a new ship yard in the Uk for three FSS ships, no, would I do it for a contract of three FSS and 6+ MRSS yes maybe, for three FSS, 6+MRSS and three LHDs hell yes. I would even take the investment cost out of it. Don’t forget we also need the Points to be replaced soon. So a potential build of 16-20 ships of 20,000-40,000 tons. Thats just an extra half a million tons in steel needed from UK steel yards. At the moment we seem to import the steel for ships, subs, Boxers etc.
Now also look at it in a diffrent way say Scotland got this contract, what chance does the SNP have. Especialy if London says no Indy ref until the contract is finished. Liverpool, they would love the contract, Belfast the same as Newcastle.
Agreed but what’s nicer still is if its an export order that’s 40% of foreign money going to the treasury. We shouldn’t hide behind tax returned to the treasury to support inefficient builds. Remember that tax money will ultimately go to government employee or pensioner so if they spend it on a BMW or Samsung TV the money leaves the country anyway just takes a bit longer. So we need to export to keep the balance.
Ron totally agree with the above , the UK economy is in a perilous state and ALL Govt spending should seek to support UK workers. I don’t support the Scot Govt but to give them credit they have passed a public sector procurement law that any award must show benefit to local communities, hasten to add this has worked against the ferry operator when it awarded contracts to Turkey
Overall I agree. But, the tax return may not be so large.
See T31.
Even in case of T26
Tides
Of course, “welding, wiring, integration and testing” and “program management, systems engineering” covers major part of the cost. But, anyway, it is not as simple as “order abroad = no tax cash back, order locally = all tax cash back”
Again, not saying you are wrong, just saying each and every program will have different “cash back” rate. Also, why not you force “off-set” contract?
The most important point will be to provide enough work for UK ship industry and design engineer, but not exceeding it. For example, PIP slow move on Cammel Laird are said to be because of shortage of electric engineer there. (not only in CL, but UK-wide, as NAB-san says).
If we’d have been willing to spend £700m per annum instead, the first ship would be in RN hands and twelve more could have been following, one every year and a quarter.
damn right!
It’s critical that we get the maximum return on the sunken costs of T26 and improve the efficiency of the yard further to bring prices down dramatically.
16 T26 should really be the optimal with the next 2 batches having an upgraded radar (Sampson replacement) and a central VLS with 72 quad packable tubes with 24 strike length to replace the T45, by the time all these are built we will need replacements and should aim for 1 every 2 years indefinitely.
This only works with a much bigger fleet of Poseidons, which are far cheaper to buy and operate than a T26, buy 12 more and also 3-5 more wedge tails.
8 T31 would then be the RN’s C2 solution with 24 smaller T32 (think 100m corvette) being the main type and C3 solution replacing the mine hunting, rivers and echo fleets over the longer period (plenty of good designs out there) or just a smaller/ rejigged T31.
CEC across the combat fleet is critical to make the most out of all this info and targeting solutions.
This is more than doable and the numbers are in line with what we have today, it just needs a bit of balls to pull the trigger on a clear 25 year strategy to build these.
Should also say that the sub surface fleet needs enlarging And have gone for a class of SSK’s for the waters around the UK.
A 100 ship RN/RFA is about right and the RM will need doubling to provide a northern flank division and help secure the new expanded NATO and this also needs supported by shipping.
Build plan (25 year)
Barrow in Furness (£75bn)
4 SSBN (replaces vanguard)
8 SSN (replaces astute)
8 SSK (capability increase)
2 CVF (do not replace)
BAE Scotland (£25bn)
8 T26 Global Combat Ship (AAD/(ASW) batch 1 (replaces T23 ASW)
8 T26 Global Combat Ship (AAD/(ASW) batch 2 (replaces T45)
Babcock Scotland (£16bn)
8 T31 Global Mission Ship (Pods) (replaces T23 GPF)
8 T32 Multi Mission Ship (Pods) batch 1 (Replaces hunts)
8 T32 Multi Mission Ship (Pods) batch 2 (replaces Sandowns)
8 T32 Multi Mission Ship (Pods) batch 3 ( replaces Rivers)
Camel Laird (£8bn)
8 Multi Role Support Ship type 1 – (replaces Forts, Points)
8 Multi Role Support Ship type 2 – (replaces albions, bays, ocean, argus).
4 FFT (Tides)
Babcock Devonport ((£6bn)
128 CB90 (replaces P2000 + ORCs + pacrhib)
Caimans
S2S connectors
2400 smaller vessels
£130bn over 25 years (£5.5bn pa) we can definitely afford it as we have just handed out the same to help pay for 1 winters fuel.
What will fly off there decks ? Royal Marines, Helicopters or UAV’s not included. Manpower and operating costs not included. Additional capital spending and manpower for basing, maintenance and refit of all of the above not included. £5.5bn p/a at least doubled. RAF and Army extremely unhappy if they don’t get the same increase in budget. Result at absolute minimum an extra £33bn p/a increase in Defence budget.
Not at all David, most of these ships will require less personnel than the current ones, and the RN are moving to pods and unmanned systems (that’s what all the new classes are about).
will we require more air assets, personnel and RM – yes definitely but the above redresses the savage cuts undertaken and the increasing requirements of HMG.
we will build ships in similar numbers, be in no doubt, but this way we get the best price and equipment for our money.
The defence budget does need increased in my opinion by about £12bn pa. And defence has to make choices as to what it will or won’t do.
I believe the UK should protect the Northern flank and commonwealth and let other NATO members protect Central Europe. But politicians want something different and will need to pay for that.
the UK also needs a ballistic missile defence shield urgently, so there is another £10-20bn that must be spent.
but not all at once, it’s a 25 year plan my friend…
I can guarantee the RN has fully factored in that the newer classes will have lower manpower needs than the ones they replace. The current recruitment and training programmes will be designed around those future needs. The RAF and Army will expect to receive the same increase as the RN. Now you want a BMD programme on top of all the above. In less than 20 mins the cost has risen £10-20bn imagine what the cost inflation would be over 20 years !
You are aware the new PM has promised an increase to 3%of GDP
i am more than happy to have a BMD instead of an armoured division sitting in Germany, a country that really should pay far more into NATO than it does.
thats my choices and I believe they can be delivered within a £60bn pa defence budget that s linked to inflation.
the key is to stop cutting the budget and making short term cost savings that hit us further down the line.
italso means we spend money on replacing equipment instead of the vast amounts of money we are spending on keeping knackered equipment going.
I don’t share your view on spiralling costs, we simply can’t continue shrinking our military to fit a budget whilst HMG of the day sets ever increasing tasking.
something has to give. What is it?
You are aware that the new PM has promised many things some of which are contradictory and will be lucky to be the in the job for 18 months.
I don’t want to call her a bare faced liar and an opportunist but…… well.
Then why did you? Talk about not giving somebody a chance.
I mean were talking about Ms. Pork Markets and Cheese.
Not to mention her incredibly opportunistic changes in character.
While everyone should be given a chance, we are allowed to be incredibly doubtful ans skeptical.
I presume your making a point there somewhere but I have no idea what it is.
And what if another pandemic springs up over the winter months costing however much?
What if the war in Europe spreads?
What if the energy costs keep rising and the cost of capping it to the government doubles or trebles?
Its all well and good slating decisions if they have to change, but if they change due to external factors and we simply dont have the money (which we dont) to see them through then just blaming the person who said it as a pledge initially is completely the wrong thing to do.
Figures are baffling l no wonder the defence budget is in such a mes, we’re being mugged by the defence manufacturers
I don’t disagree with your judgement on Defence stategy for the future but I think it’s impossible to prioritise in the way you describe. It might be possible to move some items from one of the service budgets to another but any change to the services share of the budget would provoke all out war within the MoD. Defence inflation has been an issue for over 100 years and sadly there is no indication that it will cease to be an issue for the future. Technology is progressing in leaps and bounds as it has for those 100 years and it doesn’t get any cheaper.
A point to comment…
> and the RN are moving to pods and unmanned systems (that’s what all the new classes are about).
This does not mean less man-power needed. Un-manned assets needs man-power to handle it. In principle, increased maintenance needs may even INCREASE the man-power needed.
Just a comment on this single point.
I’m glad you pointed this out, most people assume UAVs fly themselves around. It would be interesting if the RAF would do a comparison on say a Reaper squadron Vs a Typhoon squadron to see whose more manpower intensive, I think it’ll be a lot closer than what most people would thin.
i didn’t say pods will reduce manpower, I said the new ships will (which is a fact based on RN data), The big advantage of pods or containerised solutions is that vessels can be standardised and are more easily configured for specific tasking and those trained go with the pod not the ship.
I also see these as capability enhancers rather than full replacement with a prime example being a T23 with 2 Schiebel 100’s in air at any given time with a wildcat for the more precise engagement. Likewise with pods we do not need dedicated minehunters so can standardise on a more general platform that has more utility and delivers savings of scale.
can I ask you to read my post again please, it is easy to pick holes but the thrust is we have an opportunity to rebalance the Navy and support an industrial strategy over the next 25 years build cycle. What should that look like given hat we know now. I accept it will cost more than is currently budgeted but also believe we are entering a period where this is justified.
Thanks for clarification. So it is good that someone else who read it do not misunderstand it as related to “man power”, which is not.
On your own comment, my top concern is the shortage of RN (and RFA) man power. For example, RN is currently manning only 12 escorts, out of 18 hulls. RFA is putting two Waves in extended readiness, mainly because of lack of man power.
Increasing the number of assets needs significant increase in man power. Without such increase, those assets will be a ship “Fitted for but not with CREW” = just kept alongside in extended readiness.
In this point, improving the capability of each asset is less man-power intensive, and I think RN must pursuit along such way. Just a comment.
No doubt in my mind,crewing of R.F.A. ships has slowly got worse,since the take over by the r.n. Especially as the number of r.n. personnel on board has vastly increased. Also doing away with the Stonnery crews. I think was a big mistake !
Batch 1 type-26 is 3 ships, batch 2 is supposed to be 5 ships, type 83 an all purpose destroyer, ie not specifically AAW will replace type-45. The last all purpose destroyer the RN had was HMS Bristol. This was significantly larger than the Type-42 AAW destroyer that followed it into service. I expect the T-83 will be significantly larger than the type-26 or the type-45. At present the scoping work for type-83 and type-32 is going on. If there are to be increases in the fleet size I suspect that it will come with these vessels and not with T26 and T31. You mention fixed wing support, but no rotary aviation, or drones.
I don’t think we should design a new ship for T45 replacement, we should accept that by adding more missiles in the middle section, perhaps at the cost of mission bay space is worth the cost savings, after all the reality is these ships will benefit from the best hull acoustics and will only ever really be used for sub hunting and CSG AAW.
with the money saved we can buy more T31/32’s and quite possibly avoid another 20 year wait and reduction in hulls.
can we get everything we want from a dedicated AAW from the T26 hull I believe so, but the flex deck will go n it’s current format.
I hope that the star wars weapons ordnance and electo sonar/radar improvement can enhance the performance of the ship or tank I do think that British defence should be ahead of the rest maybe we’re not so far away, as we think from from totally autonomous warships altogether. Food for thought
I think the naval service could do with doubling along the existing assets. This could be achieved with XLUUV instead of ssks and more astutes along with converting the vanguard’s into tomahawk carriers. Navy pods are really what going to help achieve this plan by getting more ships out there that can be quickly converted to the situation as apposed to sitting on a large number of dedicated vessels.
Wow it just shows how much money is actually sunk into a project before 1 ship hits the water. Type 31 is already over half way through the budget. Hopefully much less chance of changing minds about the ships now.
Will need to try and get to bridges area with binoculars for a look at rosyth when Prince of wales arrives.
The expensive bit of a warship isn’t the hull: it is the weapons, machinery and other systems.
The weapons, machinery and systems need to be ordered well in advance. That is why the cash flow curve is so skewed.
You cannot build a warship with just in time deliveries otherwise it takes forever and costs explode.
Most of the bits of T31 will be sat in a warehouse already waiting to be called off.
That’s the problem with giving out these figures, without the context of what has already been purchased, it’s impossible to really say if the money has been well spent so far or not.
Type-31 total program cost is £2Bn.
Type-31 spent is £527M, which is only 26 percent of this.
The “£1.2Bn Babcock contract” is only a part of the T31 program. “£250M per hull” is just a propaganda. It is clearly stated it does not include SeaCeptor system, SeaSentor torpedo defense system, and many other support costs, which are usually included in build program cost. Simply, T31 cost is £2Bn.
Yeah not sure what I was thinking with half way through the t31 budget.
I thought it said £700m (not sure where I got that from either) so over half of £1.25b.
As you say that without the bells and whistles added on.
What I was kind of saying was that when someone cancels projects part way through this just shows how actually wasteful that is.
Sub brief guy on you tube did a great video about prince of wales, rosyth, westlant 22. Had a great description of the problems the ship suffered.
https://youtu.be/K8amC7BLrXc
Yes, followed that. Interesting that Aaron said likely fault was very rare – to the extent of effectively never 😐
Yeah. He had a great description and graphic of the part. I now know how 2 shafts are connected. Also the fact the propellor appears to have hit the rudder shows how broken it must of went.
He wouldn’t put an estimate on the time scale for dry docking apart from its a big job.
He did say she was meant to be getting a hull inspection next year so maybe they bring that forward.
Hopefully it’s just one of the shaft parts that’s faulty. If it’s all 4 we could see both needing done on each carrier.
It will be interesting to know a rough ball park figure for each unit to be built and fit out (excluding development costs).
I still can’t find a unit price for the type 45’s (excluding development costs).
Interesting comments as I read the figures as cumulative demonstration and manufacture costs to year end rather than annual costs.
Also things like equiping the type 31s with SeaCeptor are not additional costs to the type 31 programme as all the equipment is already paid for or already in the future MoD programme.
The Type 45 programme cost just over £6m for the 6 ships including the developments of roughly £2b so the cost saving for not buying 8 was only £1.3 b not the £2b claimed by the government at the time and the capability gap caused was planned to be partially filled by fitting CEC. Also the saving was meant to allow the Navy to deliver the GCS early !!
Just re-read what I posted yesterday, of course it should be £6B for the Type 45 not £6m