Calls for Oslo to join the United Kingdom’s Type 26 frigate programme featured in Commons questions on 5 June.
Patricia Ferguson, Labour MP for Glasgow West, told Defence Secretary John Healey that the 2024 Norwegian-UK strategic partnership could be “further strengthened if Norway decided to purchase the Type 26 frigates—the best frigates in the world—that are built in Govan … and Scotstoun, in my Glasgow West constituency.”
Healey agreed, replying, “They are indeed the best frigates in the world, and I have been working hard to persuade the Norwegians that joining the UK, with our Type 26 frigates, is about reenforcing the deep partnership that we already have, as two nations, alongside the US, protecting the North Atlantic and the High North from Russian aggression.”
Gordon McKee, Labour MP for Glasgow South, noted that he had accompanied the Secretary of State earlier that day to meet workers on the Clyde build line and pressed him to “do everything he can to encourage our Norwegian friends to order the frigate.” Healey replied simply, “I am, and I will.”
BAE Systems is currently constructing eight Type 26 City-class anti-submarine warfare frigates for the Royal Navy, with HMS Glasgow and HMS Cardiff already in the water. Norway is assessing options to replace its ageing Fridtjof Nansen-class ships, and UK ministers hope shared operations in the North Atlantic and a longstanding defence partnership will tip the decision in favour of the Clyde-built design.
The competiton
According to a poll conducted by Nettavisen, nearly half of respondents—49%—favoured the UK as Norway’s preferred supplier for its next-generation frigates, significantly ahead of the United States, Germany, and France.
The poll, which gathered responses from almost 8,000 verified users, comes as the Norwegian government prepares to decide on its largest-ever naval defence investment.
The procurement will see at least five new frigates acquired to replace the aging Fridtjof Nansen-class vessels.
The UK’s overwhelming lead in the poll reflects the close security ties between Norway and Britain, particularly within NATO and the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). British warships, particularly the advanced Type 26 design, have been recognised for their cutting-edge anti-submarine warfare capabilities, a key requirement for Norway’s future fleet.
The United States, long considered a key ally, received significantly less support, highlighting concerns among some Norwegian politicians about the direction of US foreign policy under Donald Trump’s administration.
The choice of supplier has sparked political debate in Norway, particularly regarding whether the United States should remain a contender. Left-leaning parties, including the Socialist Left Party (SV) and the Red Party, argue that Norway should distance itself from US-built warships in favour of European alternatives.
“Norway and the USA do not share the same strategic interests,” said SV’s defence spokesperson Ingrid Fiskaa in comments to Nettavisen. “Trump’s ‘America First’ approach should serve as a warning for Norway to avoid further dependence on US defence suppliers.”
The Norwegian government is expected to make its final selection later this year. With the UK winning nearly half the public vote, there is clear momentum behind British-built frigates as the preferred option. However, strategic, political, and economic considerations will ultimately shape the final decision.
The poll results underscore the strong defence ties between the UK and Norway, particularly as both nations focus on securing the North Atlantic and Arctic regions against growing threats.
This Poll.
“Who should Norway buy new Frigates from ?”
Fantastic way to run national defence decision making, maybe the UK should move towards this approach rather than the myriad of committee meetings and panels of experts.
Having said that though, I hope they don’t end up buying the current third placed option, not sure how well a John Deere Tractor would cope with severe Winter Sea states.
(Disclaimer, for clarity, not all the above should be taken too seriously).
Oh and, surely Harley Davison should be on that list ?
I have a hard time believing that any of the other frigates can meet Norway’s needs. The US frigate is a non starter and it will probably cost a few billion if it ever gets near the water.
Germany has a checkered recent past in surfed ships and no where near the ASW capability of the UK.
France seems like the only real contender.
…and interestingly very unpopular with the public, wonder why the French appear to be so unpopular with Norwegians. Not saying I expected them to be particularly popular just surprised that they are so unpopular even below the Yanks and half that of the Germans. Clearly something has rattled the cage.
I suspect it’s because the French frigate is not a high end ASW frigate..it’s more of a very competent all rounder..jack of all trades.
Indeed, the German option does have its appeal. The Norwegian government has expressed a desire for an expanded air defence capability in these new frigates – the Type 26 is the only option that doesn’t fulfill that requirement, and instead is arguably worse off than the current Fridtjof Nansen-class ships in several aspects. There are also very strong defence ties between Germany and Norway.
That said, the Type 26 is likely still the best contender overall, given its optimisation for ASW, and the Norwegian involvement in the programme. However, I wouldn’t discount the F127 yet.
This may have opportunities for us as well. The Artisan Radar can be used in conjunction with Aster 30 and can have a limited ABM capability. CAMM MR can be twin packed in Mk41 and the standard CAMM with cold gas ejection is the most capable missile in class.
We should double down with Norway and get these capabilities on T26 our selves.
That being said the real danger to surface ships remains submarines, I get a distinct feeling that some navy’s with very limited ASW experience compared to the RN are getting very showy about putting ever more missiles on frigates as a way of measuring off against other navy’s rather than developing actual capabilities.
Having hundred of millions of dollars worth of delicate missiles banging around in North Atlantic storms may not be what a smaller country with a limited budget like Norway needs when Russian SSN’s are making regular incursions.
If chosen by Norway it’ll be interesting to see if the classic CAMM is put into ExLS like the Swedes with their visby corvettes or, if left in 2×24 mushroom farm? If not too late the UK ExLS could still be an option for the T26s and even the T45s. Also the option of having 2 or 4×4 NSM on the roof even with or an sn interim pre FCASW. There’s a lot of punch there.
We’re not going to put Exls on. 2 ships have already got Mushrooms and so does Defender. Let’s not waste money
Far from being a waste of money, moving to quad-packing CAMM could be one of the cheapest ways to increase deterrence, survivability and lethality (leaving more space for FC/ASW and whatever one we do with the Germans), and it might have quietened the Australian worries that there were insufficient silos on the Hunters. Even now Leh is pointing out that the Norwegians want more AAW missiles, so if having ExLS and quad-packing is an export decider, it’s worth every penny to get it on a Royal Navy ship asap in export potential alone.
Jon, it would only delay the programs already underway to fit that system and require increase missile stocks we can’t afford.
Also Norway has like 8 mk41 vls so anything is an increase
@Hugo. I see what you mean about programmes underway, but that wouldn’t apply to Venturer for which it would be a capability insert. As long as we have no ships with it, there’s no incentive for quadpacked CAMM to be manufactured and no confidence in upgrading. Otherwise, we will have to wait for Poland’s use to drive our upgrades. That’s far from ideal.
However, it wouldn’t require an increase in the number of missiles being deployed. That would be “Treasury thinking”. Unless you are going fill the VLS there’s no point in having more silos. So we shouldn’t buy any more. The deterrent effect comes from the ability to add the extra missiles at will. However, I think there would be times we might want to pack the silos. For example in sending a destroyer to the Red Sea last year, don’t I recall it going back to Gibraltar to restock after a relatively short deployment? More silos means longer on station. As for affording increased missile stocks, well that’s above my pay grade, but the SDR and recent government announcements suggest that’s going to happen irrespective of silo numbers. Given the reminder of how quickly you run through missiles in war time, I’m not sure there’s any choice.
We’re not going to upgrade the radar anytime soon, not a priority
BAE have been pretty explicit that this wouldn’t just be Norway purchasing the frigates and then going their own way, they would join the programme and have input into upgrades, particularly of the radar.
This was during the Naval News interview when the interviewer asked the BAE rep whether the 16 NSM amidships were a Norway-specific adaptation and he replied “hopefully not, this is for both navies” or words to that effect. So I hope that a Norway order could be the catalyst for the RN upgrading their own capabilities.
I honestly don’t know why the T26 only has Artisan as its primary radar. I sort of understand the original reasoning behind choosing Artisan. As it’s a good enough radar and the T26 was originally intending to use refurbished radars from the retired T23s, to reduce costs. But time and threats have moved on since the initial design and it really should have an additional long range 3D volume search radar, much like the T45’s S1850M. On the T45 the radar workload is shared between the S1850M and Sampson. Sampson could clearly do both the search and tracking roles. But by splitting the roles, more of Sampson’s signal processing resources can be used clearing up cluttered returns and looking for very small objects hiding in them. On the T26, Artisan will have do both the 3D volume searching and target tracking.
What has been published on the T26 so far, is that it will have a 24 cell Mk41 vertical launch system (VLS) along with a 48 cell (12 x 4) VLS for CAMM. This gives the ship a shed load of options of what it can/could carry for both offensive and defensive requirements. For example the cells that hold a quad pack of standard CAMMs can also house a quad pack of CAMM-ERs. Where a Mk41 cell can accommodate a twin pack of CAMM-ER, or a quad pack of CAMM/CAMM-MRs. CAMM-MR and CAMM-ER will give the ship the ability to provide more than local air defence, by being able to project its protective bubble to at least a 100km radius. This will put it on par with the late T42 destroyer for the protective bubble, but be significantly more effective in dealing with multiple simultaneous threats.
If the ship has CAMM-ER especially, the Artisan radar is limiting the ship’s defensive effectiveness. As the missile is expected to have a range in excess of 100km. Artisan is supposed to be able to detect “fighter” sized objects out to 200km. Which means smaller radar cross section targets must only be detected a lot closer. The problem then becomes what we call duty time. The time it takes to transmit to a long range target, wait for the return, than put that signal through the signal processing to get and display a result. Depending on range, this could be milliseconds or seconds. If the radar environment is cluttered where you are close to land and there’s lots of moving targets at various speeds/bearings/ranges/heights etc. The duty time for each target and the need to eliminate the clutter significantly increases the amount of resource time the signal processing must spend on identifying and classifying objects. Which is where you really need to either massively increase the amount of signal processing you do with more racks, or introduce a separate volume search radar.
If the ship is equipped with CAMM-MR, it will have near destroyer like capabilities for air defence. So why not exploit this capability by fitting a better radar/s?
Aren’t you mixing up CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR?
CAMM-ER is already near service with the Italians and has a range of >45km, can be quad-packed because the canister is the same diameter as CAMM’s.
CAMM-MR is the joint development with Poland that is still in the early stages, with a range of around 100km and concept images showing twin-packing because of the fatter motor diameter.
Bugger, good spot got carried away whilst writing.
Dont forget the horizon is only a fraction of that and sea skimming ASM’s give little warning so the longer range is of little benefit. All radars have that issue and only the higher they are on the Ship makes the warning distant further out (reason) on top of high mast. CAMM already gives a good distant to line of sight in the end and is very effective combination that more than does the job required. Also to add more top means less fraction for upgrades later to the hull.
I agree adding top weight is not good, but heavy 3D radars are kept quite low for that very reason. Having say something like Sampson high up on a mast is only part of the picture. One of the tactical reasons for having a volume search radar, is that you can spot objects above the horizon, in the T45’s case with its S1850M, well over 400km away. An approaching enemy aircraft, if it wants to attack the ship will have a number of options. It may have a decent radar warning receiver that can detect the S1850M. If it does, then it should be able to detect the radar way before the reflected signal can reach the T45 and determine the signal strength. Which means it could still fly at a more economical altitude. However, at some point the reflected signal strength will be large enough to return to the T45. Where if the pilot is switched on, they will descend beforehand to stay out of the radar’s path. However, by descending to lower and denser altitudes, drag massively increases, which rapidly eats in to you fuel. To reach the ship or be in range to deploy a stand-off weapon. The aircraft flying a long distance over the sea (for example) will have to carry less payload weight, and instead carry more fuel.
This was the scenario facing the Argentine pilots when attacking the T42s during the Falklands War. Even though the search radar on the T42 was old and pretty naff, it still made the Argentines fly at low level for an extended period to initially avoid detection. Then to try an stay under the Sea Dart’s engagement envelop. The then rocket powered Exocets had quite a short range. So the Super Etendards had to do a pop-up from low level to reacquire the T42, using their active radar and feed the ship’s location to the Exocet.
Tactically, the long range 3D volume search radar makes your opponent react to your game. Otherwise, the long range radar will detect them as the approach at a medium to high altitude. They have to adjust their attack plan to compensate. Which is where Sampson then comes in.
The height of the radar above sea level, is only one part of the chain. Another part is how quickly the combat management system recognizes and categorizes the threat, works out an intercept solution. Followed by launching a weapon or a number of weapons at the threat or threats. CAMM being cold launched, has a small advantage over a Mk41 hot launch of say ESSM. As the missiles can be more rapidly fired, but also the CAMM’s reaction jets allow it fly faster initially to the target without needing to arc over after launch as per ESSM, which for a sea skimming threat that has just popped over the horizon, wastes time! Having Sampson some 40m above sea level does give the ship a vital second or two compared to an Aleigh Burke, with its SPY radar set closer to the sea level. Which when added with the CMS, cold launch, and CAMMs reaction jets, shaves time off the response. Allowing the ship to engage the target further away (closer to the horizon).
I have long been an advocate for the T45 in particular, getting its own AEW platform. As its not always operating with a carrier group. The reason is so that it can engage low level targets beyond the ship’s horizon. The recent Leonardo Proteus UAS helicopter could be that solution. Where it carries something like a underslung mechanically rotating Thales SeaSpray AESA or Leonardo’s Osprey AESA. It only needs to fly above the ship at 2500ft to give it a radar horizon of 70 miles (114km). Which is sufficient for Aster to engage targets out of the line of sight. The crewed helicopter it is based on has a flight duration of 5 hours. Probably more as a UAS with additional fuel storage.
The Ideal missile loadout for the type 26 frigate would be 12 FC/ASW, 24 CAMM/MR in 24 MK 41 VLS, 48 CAMM/ER in 2×24 SEA CEPTOR VLS and 16 cannister launched NSM above the mission bay
The Ideal missile loadout for the type 26 frigate would be:
12 FC/ASW And 24 CAMM/MR in the 24 MK 41 VLS
48 CAMM/ER in 2×24 SEA CEPTOR VLS
16 cannister launched NSM above the mission bay
You are missing out the RFI put out by the RN regarding an ASROC type missile to carry stingray torpedoes. I suggest that this could be the mainstay of a T-26’s Mk41 loadout.
The CAMm launchers are 2×3 single cells not quad packed
So does that mean they’re going to be using the ExLS launcher?
@DaveyB, no, they’re just a new setup for the dedicated CAMm tubes that T23 use. Look up T26 models
I’d say they’re pretty close on air defence, the Fridtjof Nansen-class ships are better in terms of radar but not in terms of missile armament. There probably exists a suitable middle ground for the type 26, with a more capable radar than Artisan but not as top heavy as the Australian variant.
Maybe any uptake for Norway can be available for the UK T26s?
Did the Canadian ships need any hull modifications?
If not, that probably represents the upper limit for T26 radar upgrades.
Interesting question, I have heard nothing about any notable hull mods on the Rivers as opposed to the beam widening on the Hunters. Is that confirmed?
Had a look at the Navy lookout articles on the Hunter and River classes, and it sounds like the Rivers retain the original hull design despite the bigger radar (possibly because of the shorter mast) whereas the Hunters have definitely had 0.6m of beam added on late in the process to cope with CEAFAR.
So a fixed panel lightweight derivative of whatever the T83 radar becomes seems like a good idea.
ESSM beats CAMM in almost all metrics, save minimum range.
It can also tackle SRBMs.
True, but T26 has more Mk41 VLS cells so there’s no reason that it couldn’t use ESSM alongside CAMM.
They are totally different missiles.. ESSM is twice the weight and requires MK41 siloes.l CAMM does not.. you would never get 36 ESSm on a 600 ton corvette..
CAMM is a far more sensor agnostic missile than ESSM.. you can slap it on and integrate it with any old sensor and combat management system
CAMM can act as a point defence system ESSM cannot..
Now ESSM has a greater range.. but when you mix in CAMM ER that disappears…
The three cell ExLs essentially allows a mix of 12 quad packed CAMM and CAMM ER into a very small space.. with less interaction issue and weight than
28,000Ibs for an 8 cell self defence MK41 silo now for the same weight and space you get 4 3 cell ExLs.. mainly because it does not have the hot gasses management issue. So for less weight and same space you get. 48 CAMM or 32 ESSM
You make plenty of valid points as to why CAMM is a great missile, but you’ve missed that the person I was responding to was claiming that they had a similar air defence capability.
They are not equivalent in that sense. The ESSM has greater reach, significantly greater than CAMM, slightly greater than the CAMM-ER and likely a significantly higher maximum altitude due to its much larger RM.
It’s also significantly faster, flying at greater than Mach 4. This to some extent alleviates the disadvantages of hot-launch, as the time to intercept is significantly reduced once launched. It also means that the ESSM is a more potent area defence weapon that the CAMM, and that it can go after more complex targets.
The active seeker on the ESSM Block II is also larger and therefore more powerful than that found on the CAMM.
So yes, I agree that CAMM is more convenient, easier to fit, et cetera, but CAMM is not equivalent to the ESSM in terms of quality in the field of air defence. CAMM is great and very successful missile, but does not fill the same niche, and therefore should not be treated as offering the same capability. CAMM-ER closes the gap, but I’m unsure that the cells on the Type 26 can actually take CAMM-ER due to their depth, so it’s really moot. After all, Pakistan uses a due, enlarged mushroom farm to carry their CAMM-ER missiles on their corvettes.
ESSM is a much bigger missile. It’s based on the development of the AIM-7 Sparrow air to air missile, which is the forerunner of the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The USN needed a point defence missile and chose Sparrow. As the semi-active radar homing (SARH) allowed it to engage targets head on.
The legacy Sea Sparrow had a range worse than the standard CAMM (Max effective range is 19km). The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) now has a much bigger (10”) rocket motor over the legacy 8” motor of Sea Sparrow. This gives the ESSM a max effective range over 50km. The standard CAMM uses a 6.5” rocket motor, but gives it a range over 20km. Which for a missile based on a within visual range air to air missile in the Sidewinder class is phenomenal. This is attained by cleaner aerodynamics and the lighter weight. It is perhaps better to compare the CAMM-ER variant with ESSM, as it’s classed with a range over 45km. Whereas the standard CAMM should be compared with the RiM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). Which was originally based on the Sidewinder airframe including its 5” rocket motor. The Block 2 version now uses a larger 6.25” motor. The Block 1 version had a range out to 10km, whilst the Block 2 is over 15km.
The bigger question is how much energy does the missile have when it’s reached its max effective engagement range. This is an important factor, as it determines how well the missile can turn and intercept a maneuvering target. ESSM has a terminal speed around Mach 4, whilst CAMM is quoted over Mach 3. The CAMM-ER with the longer body holding more fuel, will reach a higher terminal speed than the standard CAMM. The ESSM compared to both CAMM and CAMM-ER is a draggier design of missile. So it will slow down faster. At this point without the true performance figures of the missiles and using experience. I’d say the CAMM-ER will have more energy at max range.
‘I’d say the CAMM-ER will have more energy at max range.’
CAMM-ER also has a dual-pulse rocket motor, which should greatly increase terminal agility and energy.
The F127 is still in the design phase they are calling it a frigate, but it’s essentially a 10,000+ next generation AAW destroyer..I cannot see Norway buying that as it’s not really what they want… it’s also going to end up stupidly expensive as all very large top AAW destroyers do.
I think the offering is actually F126, which is a hyper modular ASW frigate.
Still over 10k tonnes, but even the towed array is a module that can be removed.
That would make more sense..
I believe the offering is the F127, not the F126. It’s a multi-purpose destroyer, so is intended to do ASW.
Are you sure?
F127 is supposed to be enormously expensive and F126 is a much better match for the Norwegian requirements, being the replacement for the German ASW frigate instead of the AAW one.
I’ve tried to post some links, but they’re in moderation. You’ll have to search, look for the Ulstein group.
There was initially some confusion on the type being offered but it is the F127 not the F126.
I cannot for the life of me see Norway buying a full fat 10,000 AAW destroyer.. the Germans are looking at 15 billion euros for 6 of these ships they will be 2 billion pound very high end large destroyers.
The T26 has 48 Sea Ceptor and another 24 MK41 that could be twin packed with CANNs MR/ER or quad packed with more Sea Ceptor (48 + 48 giving 96 SAMs). Alternatively the 24 MK 41 could be used for US missiles like quad packed ESSM or 24 SSM 3/6. So the T26 is well able to meet anti-air needs. They could even scrap the mission bay and go with the option offered to the Australians. This option was to remove the mission by and foll the space with MK41 VLS. So the design is flexible all without compromising the ASW performance.
They won’t scrap the mission bay. More than likely they will only ever operate sea ceptor and its replacement
The Type 26 uses the Artisan radar, which doesn’t have the performance to operate the SM-6 or especially the SM-3.
They won’t make any major changes, such as scrapping the mission bay, because the specification for the contract is a ship that has a very high degree of commonality with the model used by the parent nation.
The CAMM cells are looking like where a set of six Mushrooms will grow, when completed! So CAMM cells are grouped into four boxes of six CAMM cells each, below the bridge.
It’s Norway’s choice. With Merlin the T26 looks to be the strongest package and we have good relations with Norway. As a Brit I would say that but I think it’s correct. @DaveyB. Agree the addition of S1850M is the most sensible modification to T26.
There is nowhere to add S1850 to T26
You might be able to put it above and behind the mission bay a la Iver Huitfeldt, but the Comms masts would have to go.
I think simply replacing Artisan with a derivative of the T83 radar is a better solution.
The UK government could do more.
Show confidence in the programme by ordering two more for example. Highlight how unit cost continues to come down. Especially with Australia, Canada and the UK operating the ships. Highlight how the Canadian version for example has the highest end anti air capability the Norwegians want.
Two corrections. If the Norwegians order T26, it’ll be the British variant, because they want high levels of commonality with the exporting navy.
The Australian variant is likely the best at AAW. It has a more powerful radar setup and greater capacity than the Canadian variant.
Not certain whether all fully comprehend that the rate of change of technology insertion will accelerate across the spectrum of ENATO weapon systems post 25 Jun 25.
Rationale: more funds will be made available to ENATO militaries on a trajectory toward 3.5% of GDP by 203X. Sytem capabilities will evolve more rapidly (e.g., CMS, DEW, Missiles, Sensors (EO, IR, Radar, Sonar, etc.). Rapid capability for adaptation/evolution will become increasingly important w/the ChiComs considered the pacing threat. In this particular case, envision T-26 as the embodiment of the T-23 evolution since introduction, now on steroids.
System…🙄
Two corrections. If the Norwegians order T26, it’ll be the British variant, because they want high levels of commonality with the exporting navy.
The Australian variant is likely the best at AAW. It has a more powerful radar setup and greater capacity than the Canadian variant.
Apologies, I was trying to reply, not comment.
The RN T26 are so vastly late(HM Treasury constraining funds) that I don’t want anything further to delay the delivery of our order. Certainly build some for the Norwiegians, but don’t delay our dismally late & chaotic escort regeneration.
It seems safe to say that all the shortlisted designs meet Norway’s minimum requirements. If – as is likely – it’s now essentially down to price and delivery dates, the French bid will seemingly win by a country mile. We can but hope that politics and other considerations might yet tip the decision in the UK’s favour.
The Norwegian newspaper of record, Aaftenposten, included on 9 June an extensive article covering Starmer’s visit to Govan and the UK’s call for Norway to buy T26’s. The article said that this still far from certain, with the French FDI proposal also being seriously considered in what has become a two horse race.