The latest Type 26 Frigate, HMS Cardiff, has received pennant number F89 as it nears launch.
Currently being built in Govan, the vessel is scheduled for launch later this month.
This launch involves a detailed process where the ship will be floated downriver on a semi-submersible barge to Glenmallan, lowered into the water, and subsequently brought back upriver to Scotstoun for fitting out.
HMS Glasgow, Cardiff’s sister ship, is also being outfitted alongside at Scotstoun.
The pennant number F89 was recently observed on HMS Cardiff through drone images that captured the number painted on the vessel at the Govan shipyard. A pennant number serves as a unique identifier for naval vessels, aiding in identification and communication. These numbers are essential for tracking and operational purposes.
The pennant number F89 has a storied history in the Royal Navy, previously assigned to HMS Battleaxe, a Type 22 frigate.
You can see how the first in class, HMS Glasgow, looked as she was moved onto the barge ahead of launch.
Although construction and assembly are concentrated at BAE’s yards on the Clyde, some 120 firms and contractors are involved in the programme, which will run into the 2030s and support well over 4,000 jobs.
The Royal Navy’s version of the Type 26 frigate is equipped with cutting-edge technology. It features the Type 997 Artisan 3D search radar and Sea Ceptor (CAMM) air-defence missiles launched via 48 vertical launching system (VLS) canisters. Additionally, it has 24 Mark 41 “strike-length VLS” cells positioned forward of the bridge, capable of launching various missiles, including the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile and anti-submarine rockets. Designed with future threats in mind, the Type 26 is set to accommodate the Anglo-French-Italian Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.
Like the Type 23 frigate it replaces, the Type 26 is built for stealth in anti-submarine warfare, boasting an acoustically quiet hull and advanced sonar systems, including the Ultra Electronics Type 2150 bow sonar and the Sonar 2087 towed array. For defence, it’s armed with a BAE 5-inch, 62-calibre Mark 45 naval gun, two Phalanx CIWS, two 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Guns, and a range of miniguns and machine guns.
The ship also features SEA’s Ancilia trainable decoy launcher for enhanced protection against missile threats. Its propulsion system uses a gas turbine direct drive and four high-speed diesel generators driving two electric motors in a combined diesel-electric or gas (CODLOG) configuration, powered by the MT30 gas turbine engine from Rolls-Royce.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Lovely to see the continuation of legacy pennant numbers. I think that F89 was actually for HMS Battleaxe, a sister ship to HMS Broadsword (F88) the latter being the Type 22 Batch 1 class namesake.
F89 last worn by HMS Battleaxe 🤔.
Yes, HMS Glasgow had received F88 (previously HMS Broadsword’s).
Yes, that’s what I thought too. She was sold to Brazil, (I had to look it up) I think the author might have got a bit confused with the Broadsword Class name though.🚢
With the present frigate hull life disaster unfolding let’s hope this goes smoothly.
Also that similar good news comes out of T31 land…..
Yes they really really need to be throwing the kitchen sink at speed of fitting out and commissioning. personally once the new assembly hall is completed I think they should consider the viability of building one in the old assembly hall, one outside the old hall and 2 in the new hall. you could have: Belfast and Birmingham being assessed in the new hall Sheffield being built in the old hall Newcastle blocks being built by Ferguson, camel laird and AandP then assembled on the outside hardstanding then Edinburgh and London assembled in the new hall after Belfast and Birmingham… Read more »
It depends really. More efficient to keep working methods consistent. Mixed working methods are a recipe for confusion. Better off doing the integration fully indoors. In the new hall. Maybe making mega blocks in the existing shed so that as soon as #3 rolls out the bits of #4 go in like clockwork and are lined up for integration in the hall. Depends on the new cranes capacity how big the blocks can be pre integration. The new frigate factory was designed with a build process and plan in mind – varying from it now might makes things worse and… Read more »
We know that frigate three has been partially assembled in the old shed and will be moved to the new shed for final assembly and that a lot of blocks for frigate four are being built in other yards for movement to the new shed..so it looks like that would be a solution that could be taken forward…simply build 5 and 6 in blocks and shift over to the new shed…the big issue would seem to be fitting out..as they may have to do more fitting out in the new shed..but if the blocks are being assembled in the old… Read more »
Would require alot more staff to be hired and more likely more payments to increase the build speed. They’re not going as fast as they could because we can’t afford it.
BAE have publicly stated a decrease in build time to 60 months – like that is fast IRL!!
The question is the Norwegian orders and how they are slotted in. The excuse will be no crews.
My concern is also Daring which also doesn’t look good and she is vital to missile defence.
Have a look at the images of the completed hall and you will notice that the sub assemblies are still built in the Old halls. They will then need to be moved into the front of the New hall for assembly via the same hard standing that the present ship is being built on.
Better idea is stick to plan A but maximise the throughput. Heaven forbid they put a night shift on 🤷🏼♂️
Just imagine all these ship structurally complete all outside one dry dock…. Refit before fitting out.
never mind bloody numbers when will she come into service she seems to have been in fitting out forever now.
2028 I think.
She was sabotaged and some people cut a load of cables two years ago…which cost about a year….speculation was industrial relations…but personally I think it needs to be looked at more as “treason” or to understand if it was encouraged by an enemy state actor…
It was caused by some disgruntled employees who were working for a sub contractor. Not too happy about doing the same job as BAe own staff doing exactly the same job but on far less money.
Same thing happened repeatedly on Queen Elizabeth Line. It became a bit of a thing…..one of the reasons why it took so long to open that they had to reduce the number of specialist electricians…..
Just how long will HMS Glasgow actually take to be ready, it seems like years and years since she was erm, launched ?
She was sabotaged.
whatever, I still think that more or ‘fitting out’ could be done during the initial build stage. much of the ducting and interior mesde KS and valley fitting could have been done back then modular building shouldn’t be limited to the hull construction stages. it was a treasonable act and if state sponsored, a warlike act.
I never heard that before Jonathan; was it not treason to damage anything in a naval facility?
Granted BAE are not an HMNB, but the same law should be applied.
It’s in tom clancys Red storm rising, with ‘hatchet’
What the devil is a Reuben James?
I believe the anticipated commissioning date for Glasgow is not until the latter half of 2026?
Christ, She’ll need a refit by then !
Thats just hand over date, anticipated IOC is not until October 2028……is there any other country that takes so long to build a warship and get it into service?
Russia – they do have a full fleet of model aircraft carriers?
USN Ford Class?
But I agree it is painful to watch the slowness of it, presumably for budget reasons, given that the shake down is essential for feedback for Batch2….etc.
And that we need T26 ISD ASAP to cope with T23 hulls falling apart.
restarting the T45 production instead of a T83 from scratch would get my vote.timelunes for the expansion of the navy are fantasy perhaps we could have a revived graphic of the planned build and in service date for the ‘ new fleet’.
The Type 45 design has several issues like appealing ASW that need corrected in successor design.
Hi Hugo,
T45 was designed to a reasonable ASW standard but acoustic damping was ‘cancelled’ as a savings measure. So a MT30 powered version of the T45 with the acoustic isolation tech reinstated is a relatively simple theoretical possibility. Perhaps call it the T46…
Won’t happen of course partly because I don’t think we currently have the build capacity and there would be a desire / need to fit new kit. In effect a T46 could be a ‘developed’ T45 which would require funds…
Cheers CR
Remember the sabotage and delay probably took a year from the timeframe…it was neatly put down to industrial action..but I have not seen anything further about it…personally I think it’s probably more in the realms of treason and interference by an enemy state…it’s just the sort of thing china would help facilitate or encourage…
whatever the reason really was, the police should be backed what has been found out about the incident just putting it down to a bunch ofW⚓RS having a bad day, is not good enough I think it should be made clear to the yards and their workforce workforces that the production rate is not acceptable and withholding payments should be carried out. ships have been cancelled on the slipways before the yards should be reminded of it
We’re not paying them to go fast.
In the era of types 42, 22, and 23 it took an average of 3.5 to 5 years from steel cut to commission
And even more crazy, all 4 Polaris SSBNs in about 4.5 years each.I know; I was there.
How long for a tribal class destroyer? Does anyone know? Just personally curious.
Yes they did, but they were far smaller and simpler ships, you need to compare like for like. IMHO a better indicator would be the T45’s which averaged 5.5 years and they delivered all 6 in 5 years. What everyone is forgetting are the big differences between those last Century builds, the T45 and the T26. HMS Dauntless left the Clyde in 2012, Cameloon cancelled the last 2 (please feel free to laugh) so they could use the money to speed up the T26 build 😆. Which was total BS, it was a cut which meant a 10 year gap… Read more »
San Marino.
😁, 👍🙃🕳️Btth.
venturer and active too
it was said last year that venturer would be ‘feet wet’ before mid/late 2024. more slippage and another reason for not ordering or investing in the Clyde the rewarding of contracts should be made with the requirements of launch dates and delivery to the fleet made with optional cancellation or reduction in terms of efficiency given a higher level of importance the Clyde taking 4 years to deliver a river class should not have been rewarded with frigate building.contracts.
No where else to build frigates
In the 50’s 60’s and 70’s, it seemed that anywhere with water a couple of feet deep were building ships.
The tribals, the Whitby type 12’s the Rothesay type 12’s the Leander type 12’s, 40 or more of them
unacceptable and the yards s should be told it
F89 was Battleaxe
Great article, good to see the ship getting close to it’s first ‘dunking’ in the water. Also great to see the progress of the huge build hall.
Just one thing if I may, HMS Broadsword was pennant F88. I know this, as a school friend of mine served on Broadsword, during the Falklands.
I believe HMS Battleaxe was F89. Other than that, another great article.
I recall the order they went was
Broadsword
Battleaxe
Brilliant
Brazen
Then..B2s
Boxer
Beaver
Brave
London
Sheffield
Coventry.
Then the beloved T22B3s!
Bring back those great names.
Hi folks hope all is well.
Just as a matter of interest. Has France now removed their pennant numbers. I recall recently that they were going to be conducting the removal, is that correct? A strange thing to do if so.
Cheers
George
Yes, they did it a few years back and they also removed their navel Bases from Google Earth.
Yes, I don’t want my navel on Google.
What is the point of removing a naval base from Google….it won’t actually have moved from the last picture.
Re slow delivery..its down to the treasury payments. Not sure how many times it needs to be repeated.
In war yes remove pennant members. Otherwise?
Fit 57mm and lmm to River B2. Not ideal, but no other choice to maintain “frigate” patrol numbers. They were built with extra damage control, cms, protected magazine space…why..? Did they know something we didn’t?
AA
57mm won’t allow them to do anything more than they are now
Oooh. I think a shell weight 8 times more than the 30mm and programmable ammunition would allow them to engage a much wider range of targets and at far greater distances than the 30mm.
Anyway. That was a throwaway remark nor connected to the issue of anything else in the thread, which as usual has drifted off course. AA
Without a basic missile system they couldn’t deploy to a region like the Red Sea so all they can do is Patrol still.
F89 was not the pennant number for hms broadsword that was hms battleaxe. The broadsword was F88
Will it have any offensive capabilities ?
5 inch gun, Mk41 vls with land attack, Asroc type weapon and probably Ashm
Thanks
Has there been any more talk of Norway selecting the T26?
All behind the scenes, dont know when theyll run a competition but id Argue there will be steep competition from the likes of FDI and other competitors, T26 certainly the best ASW design but falls well short in its radar compared to current Norwegian Frigates.
Are there any pictures of HMS Glasgow’s pennant number? Keep reading that it’s F88, but haven’t seen anything official.
It is F88,and you are right pics available show it is missing.