New photographs taken today of BAE Systems’ Scotstoun yard show HMS Glasgow moving deeper into the final stages of her build, with the ship’s 127mm main gun, both communications masts, and a series of smaller topside fittings now clearly visible.
Over the past six months, Glasgow has advanced through the core outfitting phase. Some major weapons and sensors have been installed, including the bow sonar and the mission bay handling system. Much of the recent work has involved powering up electronics, running cable routes, and aligning the ship’s systems ahead of trials.
Both 17-metre pole masts and the central composite mast are now in place, with radar, satcom and electronic warfare equipment entering their testing cycles.
The fitting of the Artisan radar remains a still-to-be-done item, however.
Glasgow is now positioned for the move into sea trials in early to mid-2026, when contractors will take the ship to sea to test propulsion, steering, communications and mission systems. If those trials proceed as planned, the ship will transfer to the Royal Navy in late 2026, followed by a year of Navy-led operational trials and live weapon tests. Full operational capability is expected in 2028.
As the first of a now thirteen-ship class, Glasgow’s progress will set the pace for the wider Type 26 programme.
Thirteen ship class?
Eight for the Royal Navy, five for the Sjøforsvaret.
Ahhh. For some reason I thought it was 6.
Its been a long day…
There’s an option for a 6th
Add at least 11 for the Canadian Navy and 5-8 for the Australian Navy and the type 26 class is becoming the go-to multipurpose frigate- heavily optimised for ASW role.
They have 3 on order and started building out of an initial run of 9, but as they intend to also replace the previous 4 Iroquois DDG as well as the 12 Halifax Frigates the project is for 15 overall.
If I were a betting man I’d say the last 6 (if they don’t revert to previous habits) will be a derivative with more AAW focus.
And if they just stick at 9 then they can kiss their SB Industry goodbye 🤷🏼♂️
6 for Australia, only maybe 15 for Canada
Although the Australian government has stated that the destroyer replacement build will still start immediately after the 6 Hunter frigate build ends (at the same shipyard). As per Rodney’s comment above re Canada, AAW versions of T26 are already being showcased by BAE with 48, 64 & 96 mk41 cells. I would suggest for Australia, it will be 6 frigates & 3-6 destroyers all based on Hunter T26 version.
If only…lol. 🇬🇧
I assume George is adding in the Scandinavian order which is being built here
It is a mystery to me why they call these things frigates. Cruiser seems more appropriate in view of their size and place in the pecking order.
probably more like a destroyer than cruiser in tonnage terms
It’s all very arbitrary.. just take the US they had cruisers they first called destroyers, then frigates then finally cruisers..
We had the Dido Class AAW cruisers which were about 5500 tons and Colony Class (with originally 12 6″ guns) which were around 8500. So these are cruiser sized by WW2 standards, not just destroyers. The T26 range is also cruiser level.
Because the current, flexible, definition used by the RN IS Destroyer = air defence, frigate = anti submarine (primarily) but definitions change, they always have, and always will.
Destroyer originated in the late 19th century as a shortened form of “torpedo boat destroyer,” a type of fast warship built by the Royal Navy to counter the threat of new, small, and cheap torpedo boats, that definition has changed multiple times since it’s first use.
The term “frigate” originated in the Mediterranean in the late 15th century to describe a light, fast warship that used both oars and sails. The word evolved over time, with its meaning changing to refer to different types of fast sailing warships, such as the small, fast privateers from Dunkirk in the 17th century and the larger, specifically designed sailing vessels of the 18th century. Again a long way away from today’s frigates.
The short answer is that language changes over time.
An ex-R.N. type who served in a County class told me last century these cruiser sized ships (very good ships too!) were described as ‘destroyers’ to fool the bean counters in the Treasury.
Counties’ size was largely dictated by the massive scale of the Sea Slug system. It was the smallest ship that could take that system. The whole ship was designed around it.
The Sea Slug magazine ran the length of the ship. With two linear rows of missiles that were then pushed out the launcher arms. The missiles at the front were fully built fuelled and armed whereas the missiles at the back were not.
I was never sure if the design was inspired by a Bond film or if the design inspired Bond films but all the vertical ‘blast doors’ through which the missile trundles and the electromechanical systems are were straight out of a schoolboy engineer’s dreams!
Good to see the progress.
Lot of sensors still to be fitted on the mast, I wonder why they were not pre fitted?
Looking good. Shame we can’t have a decent MG on the T31s. A 5″ shell hits a hell of a lot harder & does far more damage than a piddly 57mm. If only the RN was getting 13 T26. I’d like to see B2 T31/T32 with 5″ main gun & better ASW capability, like most other western navies do on their frigates. Our lack of mass & extreme vulnerability with such a tiny fleet could leave us virtually defenceless if an enemy strike knocked out several of our escorts.
You need perhaps to appreciate just how useful those modern guns are on the T31 especially when using the latest precision and intelligent ammo. Fitting Mk41VLS will give so many missile options too – the need for a heavier gun is arguable especially when the costs of adding such to the design might have been considerable
If we’d hit on the idea of a split frigate fleet right from the start, T31 would have had the 5″ and T26 the 57mm. T26 is either by itself in the middle of the Atlantic, where there’s no need for NGFS or in a CSG where the extra defensive capability of the 57 is useful. T31 will be by itself closer to shore and with a lot of small opponents, where having a big gun is a lot more useful. Some of the T31e candidates had the 5″ (a lot of them were much more capable than what we are now receiving, but nobody combined the gun with the big hull the RN really wanted) but Bofors’ combination of 57 and 40 were chosen instead.
That said, the ASW rounds for the 5″ look very interesting and the T26 would obviously be able to make best use of them.
Interestingly the 57mm and 40mm were apparently the most effective gun fit for the target types the RN gave the contractors.
Kingfisher
Yup, but is it worth the extra foredeck space that could have been used for an extra mk41 with VL-Stingray in it?
If UKR tells us anything having a wide range of effectors is necessary so there are alternative answers available.
Given the size of the T26 and the inefficient singly-packed CAMM arrays, we have by no means optimised for missile load out. We wouldn’t need to sacrifice the main gun to get more if that’s what we wanted.
I have wondered before whether if we managed to pack more CAMM cells in, it might become worthwhile to apply the principles of Kingfisher to a CAMM- or Brimstone- based missile. Something like a cross between ASROC and the Soviet anti-submarine rockets, delivering a large sonobuoy or an inertially guided depth charge. The advantages over Kingfisher as it stands would be:
Larger payload due to the ability to use a thin-walled charge rather than a thick carrier shell. This would allow for a guided submunition (not sonar, just inertial) or just a lot more bang/ a much more capable sonobuoy.
More range, as it could loft ballistically giving it much more range than CAMM or the 127mm.
Cheaper or more reliable electronics that don’t have to survive being fired from a cannon.
The disadvantages would be the increased cost of modern rocket motors (though range could be sacrificed) and reduced magazine capacity. Oh, and it would make sense if we had a family of CAMM missiles (we could include VL-Spear) to develop our own compact-packing VLS, which is extra expenditure.
Like your thinking TJ. Should be room enough for 2 ExLS forward and even one rear as on eariercRCAN T26 models. I guess too expensive and weighty? We wished the same for the T45 upgrades too. I don’t know why they couldn’t have made the 6 CAMM farm more compact and into a 8 CAMM…just for a bit more punch. Anyway, nice looking ships. Wonder if when the Artisan NG might be brought into service on the T26s as they’re showing it on the T91 models?
The RANs Mogami class will have 5″ plus 4 mk41s and RAM. Quite a powerhouse. Going to be interesting seeing the T26/T31 and Hunter/Mogami come into service. Is the T31 and the proposed models of the T83 look to have a 57mm main gun. Horses for courses. I’d like to see a longer barrelled 57mm for extended range if that were possible.
One of my pet ‘what ifs’ is the Steller Spartan T31 candidate. It was much smaller than Arrowhead at 120m and 3500t rather than 140m and 6kt, but had 16mk41, 8 ExLS packs and the 5″ (at least in their concept), plus twin hangars and a stern mission bay with ramp. That would have been (initially at least) a much more capable vessel and possibly with fewer crew as a result of being a smaller ship.
The 57mm is currently on the mk3 and has been since 1995, whereas the 40mm got upgraded around 2010 to be the mk4 with the new lightweight casing and ammunition handling. Perhaps its larger sister is overdue?
They hell are you hitting with a 5 inch shell these days?
The USN has found their 5” shells with timed air burst are pretty effective against both air and maritime surface drones used by the Houthis. So much so, they have a number of research programs looking at how to make the 5” more effective against drones and in particular a drone swarm attack. .
Yet were not buying into any of those with the T26
From Navy Lookout, “In Focus: the 127mm Mk45 gun that will equip the Type 26 frigates”
“The standard ammunition types available for the Mk 45 include: High Explosive, Point Detonating Fuze (HE-PD), High Explosive, Variable Time Fuze (HE-VT), High Explosive, Controlled Variable Time Fuze (HE-CVT) and Illumination/star shell.”
It would be exceedingly strange if we weren’t buying one of the bog-standard ammo types with our new guns.
PS Cheer up mate!
Those are nothing special, not compared to the guided rounds the Italians have for their 5 inch for example
No, but your post implied that we were only getting impact fused shells for our frigates. We have our own special shell programme in Kingfisher and I see no reason why we couldn’t get HVP as well, or a 127-sized version of the new ramjet shells that we seem to be interested in.
The USN have “unshelved” the HVP project. The operations in the Red Sea played a big part in this along with them using the 5″ to very good effect. The past trials when fired from the main gun of an Arleigh Burke, showed that the guided HVP was able to take out cruise missile drone targets at distances greater than 10 miles (16km). But also take into account, that the Mk45 can lob shells at a rate of 16 to 20 rounds per minute, whilst the HVP can reach targets over 50 miles (80km). This would give the ship a substantial boost to its layered air defences, but also an enhanced capability for offensive operations.
Simple fact is that with a 5″ gun you have a magazine loaded with 100’s of answers to various modes of attack where it would be waste of a missile.
That is why there is a threat table that uses the most appropriate effector for the answer.
With an autoloader you can also have a variety of shell types ready for rapid dispatch.
Morning DB, as an interim fix would the RN look at restoring the AA functionality of the 4.5″? Better than not having it.
I think i also asked this before too, would it be worthwhile putting a Phalanx atop the hangars of best remaining T23s? A wobderful sweep of unused are of fire there.
Yes, to both of your points. The Mk8 4.5” gun has a faster rate of fire than the Mk45 5”, as it uses one piece ammunition. The fuse is programmable, but the ship’s CMS is missing the ground to air mode. The earlier ships with the Mk8 had it, so why can it not be re-installed today? I guess only the RN can answer. The types of drones that the ship could face are flying much slower than what the system was designed to take out.
Putting Phalanx on the T23’s hangar roof, to me is a no brainer. It would be an instant capability upgrade. However, weighing just over 6t, would the roof need reinforcing? #
As I understand it, there is a deal between BAE & Leonardo as to interoperability of ammo in regards to their respective 127mm guns. So the BAE gun can fire Leonardo rounds like Volcano (Volcano since at least 2018) & Leonardo will be able to fire BAE rounds like Kingfisher.
Volcano requires a FCR which none of our ships have
Given the height of the sensors and the height of the target, wouldn’t Vulcano ammunition come into its own far beyond the ship’s sensor horizon? So why the need for a dedcated FCR? Wouldn’t the fire control guidance system use sensor information from rotaries or UAVs?
T31 could be given ASW capability quite easily with a couple of USV or uncrewed subs with the SEA kraitsense towed arrays. Not as capable as Captas but would be a useful addition. Rotary drones could also drop sonar bouys and they will have a helo. Not sure if NGS is going to be needed when a tube launched drone like the longer range switchblades could be bolted on the deck. No one is going to want to get that close to the shore to shell dug in troops or airfields.
Speaking to a former Nimrod mate in the office he was saying he couldn’t understand why the RN have never fitted tube launched sonar buoys to their non asw focused escorts . Clearly they they would work better with a basic hull.mounted sonar , triangulation etc but if you laid a pattern just as Nimrod did and now P8 does apparently the sonar buoys can get an effective fix on their own . Nimrod if course had MAD , magnetic anomaly detector as well but apparently the latest generation of sonar buoy as developed by Ultra etc are so effective this wasn’t considered essential for P8. If sonar buoy dispensers were fitted to T31 or even B2 Rivers this should be a useful force multiplier particularly if working in conjunction with a T23/T26 . The advantage of course is that T31 will carry a helicopter so the sonar buoys if fitted with a smoke generator and basic GPS tracker could easily be recovered at the end of their task. Just a thought !
Hoping the RN procure the BAe Kingfisher modular carrier system. This is a 5″ gun launched carrier, that can be used to deliver a depth charge, sonar buoys and apparently noise makers. But can lob the carrier out past 10 miles (16km). It could easily deploy a pattern of sonar buoys.
Interesting, I hadn’t heard of Kingfisher – thanks. I spose the beauty of simple sonar buoy launchers/dispensers is they can even be fitted to a Batch 2′ River or USV example and you don’t need a 5″ gun.
That said the kind of sonar buoys that can be soft dropped from a large drone with a small parachute might well be cheaper to deploy.
The Kingfisher advantage is that subs can operate in sea states that challenge anything taking off. So the effectors can be launched even if a drone or a cab cannot get off the deck.
Don’t underestimate the lethal capability of the 57mm and twin 40mm mounts.
They combine to produce a wall of defensive firepower and are exactly what’s needed to protect against todays airborne threats.
I would like to see the T45’s retrofitted with the same gun systems, their old mk8 mounting really is obsolete now, it’s about as useful as a chocolate teapot, probably make a reasonable washing line I suppose.
For AA The 57mm is excellent. When you need to disable another warship or merchant ship without using a massively expensive AShM(or if your AShM launchers are KO’d) you need longer range & heavier hitting shells that 57mm can’t provide. Exquisite missiles are excellent, but so expensive that we often have few reloads even ashore, so we’d be back to gun systems(or drones) PDQ.
That’s true Frank, but in reality, we haven’t closed to within main gun range of an enemy ship since WW2.
After all, if you close to main gun range, you are also probably in range of his main gun and its drone relaying targeting data over the horizon!
If you were a real gambler mind you and you fancy a knife fight in phone box, then maneuver the 57mm into range and its blistering effects and rapid fire will take the opposition out of the fight very quickly by peppering its communications, weapons, electronics etc.
But, I would doubt the relevance of using a main gun in this role in the 21st century. Anti air has become the guns primary role.
Too expensive to replace and T45 has enough upgrades going on
True, but its mk8 has become a pointless pointy thing, no ability in the AA role and absolutely no way on God’s earth would a precious T45 be risked in the NGS role.
Yes, especially if these T45s are going to have another 10-15 years of life. It would simplify hin and shell logistics. And do they then fix up the sonar suite? It might all take away from T83 funding and purchase quantity before its started.
*gun
“…If only the RN was getting 13 T26…”
If only the RN where to get 9 T26s, it would allow the RN to deploy three T26s at any one time.
They could still order an extra one to make the 9. Often wonder how they get to 8? Eight is still quite a lot and must work. Someone somewhere thinks that’s enough. Still an extra one would bring a lot of “extra” too and take advantage of being inbuild and costs.
8 is because of the treasury and the fact we’ve persisted off 8 ASW ships for the past 20 years, there’s no military logic to the number
Enclosed FX judging were the fairleads for the headrope is positioned haven’t seen that before on a Destroyer let alone a Frigate .
These are going to be really good looking ships. Love it when form + function work together.
Still no radars fitted …..how long untili sea trials?
Please see the penultimate paragraph of the article for the answer to that question.
Yes, early 2026: hopefully the same for Venturer.
Would be another embarrassment for BAE if Venturer gets to Sea trials first.
Not sure I agree there. Happy to defer to the experts but I suspect T26 engineering is an order of magnitude more challenging than T31. Anyway, looking forward I hope to Daring, Venturer and Glasgow doing ‘trials’ in early 2026. And bye bye Lancaster of course.
It was cynicism/sarcasm …. apart from 2 comms masts, I don’t see much progress externally, since the last published photos.
Besides saying when sea trials are taking place, the article also lists the progress that has been made in recent months finishing the ship.
A fine looking ship that is finally coming together 8+ (eight!) years after construction officially began. The crew will presumably build up significantly after Xmas. I don’t have any great problem with the T26 / T31 split – as long as we get at least 8 T26’s. Using a T26 rather than a T31 for some taskings is a luxury that the MOD and UK cannot afford. But the speculation that the two(?) ships likely to be sold to Norway won’t be replaced is very worrying, hopefully the supposedly imminent Defence Investment Plan will confirm that the RN will still get eight.
How many lean manned Triton Type 92 could you buy for 2 Type 26?
Maybe 2, maybe
Think of where we’d be, with just 2 more…
Just 2 more Rivet Joint.
Just 2 more Astute
Just 2 more E7
Just 2 more Type 45
I could go on….
And now? An opportunity for just 2 more of this excellent ships. Will we take the opportunity or not?
But we would need 2 more sets of crews too.
Ever decreasing circles like a whirlpool to the very bottom.
We’ve had massively more warships & crews in the past with a far smaller population to draw upon. UK population is higher than ever & even if we doubled the escort fleet we’d not be close to past manning levels.
The RN used to be the largest industry in the UK and by far the largest employer, it’s slightly ironic that that title now belongs to the NHS.
Or 2 fewer? If the RN shares the ASW work in the Atlantic and high North with Norway there would be no reduction in total joint fleet size. Our contribution might be 6 Type 26 plus half a dozen lean manned Type 92 ‘sloops’.
You’re naive to think reducing T26 will have any benefit
So we shouldn’t bother with the lean / unmanned T92 drone networky thing then?
Agreed but to be honest I would rather three more T31 but with all fitted with MK 41. T26 is by all accounts a great ship and has been very successful commercially to date but it is shockingly expensive too so if you want force multipliers and to grow the fleet IMHO T31/T32 has got to be the way to go – oh yeah and equip UK F35 with JSM.
Like everyone else I’d love to see more Frigates ordered, but right now it just wouldn’t make any sense as the yards are full to capacity. Being a realist I also wouldn’t just order more T31 initial Venturer has been accepted into service (neither Rosyth nor Babcock have ever built a Warship from scratch before).
Saying that both types are looking good and who knows what will be in Santa’s bag of DIP goodies (I expecting an emphasis on SSNs myself).
What does concern me is the long term maintenance problems caused by having 2 Frigate classes with very little in the way of equipment commonality, it could end up being a maintainers / logistic support / training / availability Nightmare.
If you look at them both they have different Radars, DGs, CMS, weapons fit, etc etc etc, they will need 2 separate supply chains !
So the T31 may end up as cheap up front but expensive in the long run, who knows it may not be an issue, but this is U.K MOD we are talking about 🤷🏼♂️
So I’m B+ that we are actually getting 13 Frigates to replace 13 Frigates (Bloody miracle), but B- about long term costs. Just remember the amounts spent may effect subsequent £££ availability for the next surface Warship replacement project (T45 / T83 ?).
So next year 2026 they will start sea trials with a view to reach full operational capability in 2028. Two questions- does that imply they will have some operational capability as they work up next year increasing through the whole of 2027 until FOC sometime in 2028? i.e. could they be pressed into service earlier in an emergency? I know nowadays things are all much more complex but more than a decade to complete?? i.e. if they had started to build in 1939 at the start of WW2 this frigate would only enter service in 1949, the year I was born!!
UK armed forces have history for getting equipment through trials PDQ when faced with conflict. Sleep easy.
Indeed-the Falklands campaign being a case in point!
Truem
Well if there’s a Bismarck equivalent out there I guess they would be pressed into service early with workmen still aboard. Had mixed results back then mind.
Ps as an aside, HMS Vanguard was, despite many delays for various reasons, built in 5 years. Have a look at the photo in the Wikipedia article-she was a magnificent symbol of power. Pity things have moved on from there for obvious reasons…
Well if we needed armed Liberty ships I guess we could build them in months. Well perhaps not, but I wonder how quickly the frigates could be progressed if it suddenly became crucial.
The time frames with the complexity of modern equipment have changed drastically Spy, so gone are the days of ships and planes by the week!