Norway has moved to reinforce its long-term defence expansion with an additional NOK 115 billion uplift announced on 27 March 2026, a step that appears to steady earlier uncertainty around its planned acquisition of British-built Type 26 frigates.
The increase sits on top of a wider NOK 1.6 trillion programme running to 2036 and confirms that the surface fleet renewal effort remains embedded within Oslo’s core procurement pipeline.
Norway selected the Type 26 design in 2025 as the basis for replacing and expanding its surface combatant fleet, with at least five vessels expected to enter service in the early 2030s. However, in the intervening period, there had been discussion around affordability pressures and the sequencing of major programmes, particularly as Norway sought to accelerate spending on air defence, munitions and near-term readiness, with speculation growing that the order could be cut.
Against that, the March 2026 funding increase provides a clear signal of intent and rather than revisiting headline procurement decisions, the government has chosen to expand the overall financial envelope, allowing existing commitments to proceed. Norway, like many European allies, is attempting to balance long-term capital programmes with urgent operational requirements shaped by the war in Ukraine and a more contested security environment in the High North.
The ship
The Type 26 frigate, also known as the City-class, is a next-generation surface combatant developed for the Royal Navy under the Global Combat Ship programme. It is intended to replace the Type 23 frigates and is optimised for anti-submarine warfare, while also supporting air defence and general purpose operations. The design has been selected by multiple allied navies, including those of Australia, Canada and Norway, marking a rare instance of a shared warship platform among close partners.
The programme was formally launched with a contract award in July 2017, with Royal Navy entry into service expected from 2028. Current plans include eight ships for the UK, alongside larger fleets for Canada and Australia and at least five vessels for Norway. Costs vary significantly by programme, with the UK’s first batch estimated at around £1.3 billion per ship, while international orders involve larger total investments that often include industrial participation and technology transfer.
The Type 26 is a large frigate, displacing around 8,000 tonnes at full load and measuring nearly 150 metres in length. It uses a combined diesel-electric or gas propulsion system built around a Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbine and diesel generators driving electric motors. This configuration enables both high-speed performance and low acoustic signature, the latter being a key requirement for anti-submarine warfare operations.
In terms of capability, the class is equipped with advanced sensors and weapons tailored to its role. These include the Sonar 2087 towed array and Type 2150 bow sonar, supported by the Artisan 3D radar and a suite of electronic warfare and decoy systems. Armament includes vertical launch systems for Sea Ceptor air defence missiles and future strike weapons, a 127 mm naval gun, close-in weapon systems, and facilities for helicopters such as Merlin or Wildcat, alongside a flexible mission bay for additional payloads.
Norway’s selection of the Type 26 in August 2025 was a major expansion of the programme’s strategic footprint. The £10 billion deal covers at least five frigates to replace the Fridtjof Nansen class and forms part of a planned combined British-Norwegian force of anti-submarine warfare vessels operating in Northern Europe.
Lets face it after the 1st 2 all bets are off and I get Treasury are salivating at prospect of punting next few to Norway
Well given that 6 Ships are currently under construction and the order has been placed for the final 2, saying all bets are off for anything after the first two is a bit ridiculous.
👍🏻
To be honest, given previous and current governments attitude towards defence, just because they are currently under construction means nothing. I will not be in the least bit surprised if we sold some or all four of the T26s currently under construction to the Norwegians, they will come up with some insultingly BS to cover the “ decision” . The fact we are decommissioning frigates at a faster rate than we are building them, we will shortly struggle to have enough Frigates to meet our commitments let alone defend a carrier, mean absolutely nothing
So what you call “ Ridiculous” I call Tuesday at the MoD.
Give me an example of a ship that the government had cancelled that was already under construction. Not numbers reduced before the order. Ships that where actually canned once the order had been placed and steel cut.
We have never been in a situation where we have a ready and willing buyer waiting in the wings.
Time will tell which one of us is right
Oh so what you’re saying is you can’t and you’re resorting to mischaracterising the situation to save face.
Gotcha.
If you want to score points and that makes you happy , who am I to spoil your day.
However if you want an example , There was a lot of talk of selling of PoW while she was under construction but that ultimately, for whatever reason , didn’t come to pass. There was a lot of talk of scrapping her but the contract to build her was written in such a way it would have required massive amounts of compensation from the then government, it was cheaper to finish her.
However you miss the point I am making. The vessels under construction will not be scrapped , they will be sold. We have never been in the situation where ships under construction already had a ready made buyer.
In short a golden opportunity for the MoD to claim the Norwegian need is greater than our own, or something like that and claim the vessel for the RN will be bumped further down the queue.
I have, after many decades of following defence , especially in the U.K. found it pays to never underestimate the MoD myopic capacity to save a quid today that cost five quid tomorrow.
It’s not point scoring, it’s you just wriggling out of the argument.
So nice the best example you have is of something that didn’t happen. Cheers. In the meantime you want to be a doom monger based on nothing other than your own pessimism. Cool story, I don’t care that you have unrealistic pessimism.
Didn’t happen because the carrier delivery contract was written by a group who knew full well the MoD and made sure they wouldn’t be stung when the MoD walked away.
Either way time will tell as they say.
You don’t think BAE did the same?
Not exactly the agreement was based on the BAe Terms of Business Agreement that was put in place when BA & VT merged to build the T45’s.
It’s been rolled on and renewed ever since, just remember it was BAe that got burnt by HMG over Astute and T45 numbers.
Closest example was Invincible which mod decided ( in 1981) to be made avaiable for sale after being commissioned in 1980. The decision to offload was made while both illustrious and Ark Royal were in fit-out. As we know the Falklands war stopped the sale of Invincible to Australia.
Err hundreds of ordered RN ships with Long Lead items ordered, steel being cut, on the slip, in fit out etc etc were cancelled or laid up incomplete post WW2. Battleships, Carriers, Criuisers, Destroyers, Frgates and Submarines. Same in WW1 in fact 3 R class Battleships were cancelled in build and the material diverted to build 2 Battlecruisers (Repulse and Renown).
What stops it now is BAe has had its fingers burnt so many times the contracted numbers are very tightly cancel proof. The cut in numbers of T45, Astute plus delays in orders cost them a fortune so contracts have penalty clauses which are prohibitive to cancel.
So just to be clear, you had to go back over 100 years to name a ship.
Nope just can’t be arsed naming all 727 RN ships cancelled at end of WW2.
Biggest ones were the 4 Malta class and 2 Audacious Class Carriers one of which was 23% complete and named Eagle (Audacious was renamed Eagle).
Later on in 1959 Weymouth, Fowey and Hastings were 3 Rothesay class frigates cancelled after being ordered and long lead items built, Weymouth and Fowey had been laid down and under construction when cancelled. Materials used / ordered became Leander, Ajax and HMNZ Otago.
In more recent times Astutes were cut from 12 to 8 to 7 (it was going to be 6 but industry kicked back), same for the T45 12 to 8 to 6 (so that the T26 could be accelerated 🫢).
When ww2 ended? Hardly a relevant comparison point
The solution will be to sell an aircraft carrier, and that way frigates won’t be needed to escort it. We’ll see.
We need the aircraft carriers and it is either both of them or none.
Knowing the MoD mindset it won’t free up frigates , it will give them the excuse to buy less.
Nope…..they could easily divert any of that number after 1st 2 to Norway and kick our bill down the road delaying our delivery
Yes. Me again and just as I said pressure from the Treasury has decreased the type 26 order to 6.
For all your posturing I think you owe some on here an apology.
Nope. You can apologise for portraying a single telegraph article with one line saying “rumours” as fact though.
“Current plans include eight ships for the UK, alongside larger fleets for Canada and Australia and at least five vessels for Norway.”
Suspect this was partially lifted from an older article, but should probably be updated to reflect Australia’s reduced order.
Good to see one Govt taking their national and energy security seriously. There’s common sense out there
Norway take defence seriously.
Our government is nothing but hot air, spin, half truths, lies, and ignorance.
Until the dismantling of the armed forces ceases and rebuilding begins, nothing will change my views on this, or this government that so many here were desperate to see elected.
Exactly how I feel. I’m not going to stop talking about the mess the military is in either. I’ve had some Labour voters on twitter telling me the Navy is fine bla bla when its not. Most ships are in refit/maintenance etc and constantly argued with me on everything. I wasn’t even blaming this LAbour government as its been a problem for decades and the tories slashing the budget didnt help.
… so you dont want ships in for refit/maintenance. gotcha.
You think the Tories were any better?
Both are guilty, and know doubt future governments.
Just as awful perhaps arguably worse as they called themselves the party of defence! Lying b’sta*ds
No, both are as bad re Defence. I don’t know many Tory CND types though.
Cameron was nearest !
Compared to this crowd,Yes.
I reckon we’ll be lucky to get 5 T26! For sale the greatest navy in the world, once!
God, no, surely that’d be the end.
I think we get the 8, they’ve been ordered.
Treasury just get to drag them out.
Even another 3 T31 and we’d be getting somewhere. It’s a national scandal what has bedn inflicted on our military the last 30 years, sadly, such a scandal it’s not on the public consciousness at all.
Yeah, the people who think we might see a British frigate order be cut forget that the primary purpose of defence for these governments is jobs, and nothing wins as many ‘job programme points’ as shipbuilding. 13 frigates will likely be built by BAE.
I hope you’re right, but my guess is if Norway do buy 5 then the UK will only get 5 too.
😂
That’s such an arbitrary division of hulls, where did you come up with that?
Because there were going to be eight. Then Norway ordered 3, and the debate became would we therefore lose 3, which would have been a contentious decision. Now Norway are ordering 5, it’s much easier for the Treasury to say 5 + 5 =10 so that’s more than enough. Especially as Canada are building their version of T26 too.
Norway were always ordering 5, as direct replacements for their existing frigate fleet.
There was talk at one stage that they would reduce that planned purchase in order to fund more of other assets, but the Norwegian government ultimately decided to increase the budget and fund everything instead.
The debate wasn’t if we were losing ships; it was what ships the Norwegians were getting. There was a lot of speculation on whether they’d have to wait until after the RN’s order was complete, or if they’d potentially be allowed ships earlier in the queue as a sweetener and immediate replacement for the frigate lost to grounding the other year. Hull 3, HMS Belfast, was the front runner, but some of the commentary on that was simply because some people didn’t like the name being reused while the WWII-era cruiser still exists. At no stage was there serious discussion about reducing the number of T26 ordered for the RN.
I agree that so far there’s been no serious discussion about reducing the 8 for the UK after Norway takes some. I guess that’s because the DIP is in purdah on Starmer’s desk.
My concern is that, given there is a big row going on between the Treasury and the MOD about overspend, letting Norway have the 3 (or is it 5) out of our build schedule, the Treasury might say, “Well if the UK and Norway both have 5 that is 10 in total, which is more than enough”. It saves £6B (£3B from the sale and £3B from not building anymore beyond 5 for the UK).
I actually think 10 T26 between the two countries and 3 more T31 (as. Sop to the MOD) is not the worst outcome.
Sorry about my strangling of the English language in the post, but I hope you get my drift.
It’s irrelevant BAe has a RN contract for 3 T26 B1, 5 T26 B2, plus the 5 for Norway. The U.K will move some of theirs over to Norway but due to the clauses in the BAe TOBA the contractual number to be built remain the same or they still pay BAe for them !
Besides which Norway chose the T26 over other options due to the interoperability with the larger RN ASW fleet.
One caveat to the above is there is nothing to stop MOD selling some T26 to a 3rd party Navy post build (see T23 for details).
Pound to a penny one of our T26 build go to Norway. Probably number 3 or 4.
Doesn’t matter, we’ll still be getting 8.
That doesn’t really mean anything in this conversation, though. It’s all about how many ships BAE get to build. Prior to the T31, they were promised 13. In exchange for stripping 5 of those back, the UK gov agreed to massively push a sale to Norway, which succeeded, and now they’re back to a 13-ship order book again.
The sensible thing to do would be to allocate ship 4 and all even number ships after that to Norway with the UK getting all the odd number ships plus number 2.
The problem I see is that to date we have had no indication of what investment is been made to speed up production from vessels 5 to 13 so that the UK gets its last ship on time.
It needs to be on time or we face a delay in the type 83 production which we can’t afford.
Mmm you need to do some reading BAe already put in the investment to do precisely that and their CEO told everyone why when the new hall was opened.
As I see it there are three stages to the building of each frigate, block construction which can be carried out at various ship yards both in the UK and now also in Norway. I don’t think that will be a problem.
Block assembly in the Janet Harvey hall. Each vessel can be in there only about 18 months to meet the build rate required. However I don’t think this will be a problem the working conditions are much better than outside. No weather delays quite possible to work safely 24 hours per day.
The problem I see and which I was querying why no announcements for is that it is taking much more than 18 months to fit out a vessel after leaving the Janet Harvey hall.
There are only two dry docjs available at Scotstoune.
Possible solutions which I’m expecting an announcement about one way or another are.
1) Bring additional dry docjs into service. There is one at Scotstoune which needs extending.
2) Carry out fitting out while afloat at a suitable quoy. Not sure where but there are potential options which may all need investment
3) Speed up work in the dry dock, does it need to be covered to allow working in all weather’s 24 hours per day.
4) Transfer hulks to a Norwegian yard for fitting out needs investment in training man power in Norway and possibly not the most cost effective way of working as experience has less chance to build.
I’m an electrical engineer not a ship builder so I don’t know which option would be best, but I am keen to find out and expand my knowledge.
Hi M8, Actually just for once HMT is pretty well handcuffed from slowing things down, they have no wiggle room due to the BAe TOBA (Terms Of Business Agreement) on one side and the only export customer we have won in decades on the other.
Back when the QE’s were ordered the 2 Big Naval firms were BAe and Vosper Thorneycraft both had been badly burnt by previous cancellations or delays and HMG wanted them to merge.
The price was a long term agreement with what was then called BVT, and it’s a financial handcuff on HMT, if they cancel they pay, if they delay they pay (or order other equipment), it is basically the document that under wrote BAe having confidence to invest at Govan, Scotstoun and Barrow.
And now they have the Norwegian Government to deal with and they want a very tight delivery schedule on time and on price and have a reliable long term Strategic Partner for ASW in the High North, guaranteeing that little lot was what got us the contract. The First bit can be facilitated by diverting some of the RN ships to Norway, but the cost depends on the overall numbers so they have no choice but to backfill those RN orders. They can’t even cancel some the RN T26 and order cheaper T31 instead because Norway can’t integrate with them, they aren’t ASW orientated, use completely different sensors, CMS etc and would still have to pay compo to BAe for breach of the TOBA T/C’s.
As an aside I’d be interested to know if the contracted price of the RN T26 B2s will come down due to the increased production efficiency caused by the Norwegian order. There is actually a clause about efficiencies in the agreement.
I hope that explains why our beloved Political Masters and their money pinching officials are obligated to just let BAe get on with it PDQ.
Hi mate.
Well explained, thank you.
I don’t believe I expressed doubt we’d get the 8, only whether HMT would try to delay further, so good that is not the case.
Spot on, as ever…
I’m not sure it’s a labour thing. It’s a government thing. No other parties would have done anymore no matter what they say
My take….Thank you Norway. This decision enables the Treasury to space out the RN T26s, helps the UK to afford Bastion and makes it more likely we will see a follow on order for the cheaper T31/32 in the DIP.
So we end up with no serviceable ships for another decade or more? The 1 or 2 type 26s we get being ran into the ground doing the workload of a whole fleet? Thanks but no thanks! Type 31 is all well and good for showing the flag, counter drugs etc but with its current weapons fit is of little value in a hot war, there no logic in favoring more of them at the expense of slowing down arrivals of genuine warships.
Isn’t t31 getting mk41 vls? That gives it some kick.
Not ordered yet
That’s a bit over the top. The RN will still have 6 Type 45’s, and the Type 31’s entering service, only hull 3-4 will be given to Norway, in return an extra hull will go onto the end of the build, so we’ll maybe be down 1 hull for another year. Hardly “no serviceable ships for another decade”.
🤡
So, what we are seeing is the effect of Treasury ‘buy to budget’ discipline. The defence budget will increase but it will never be limitless. The T26 program hit the buffers because the T26 is an expensive ( gold plated) design so the RN were forced into a hi-lo mixed fleet of T26 and T31. Not all our frigates need to be gold plated. A further benefit was the advent of the batch 2 Rivers which by common agreement do a great job and are exceptional value. We are creating a RN fleet with a sensible, affordable profile mix of vessels. Along comes increased threat and drone technology: the RN ( and I think the SDR) have prioritised Bastion. This concept accepts that it is not feasible to create the sort of Atlantic net we will need by deploying ASW frigates alone, however good they are; and it involves spend on new technology development and testing up front. As the concept crystallises and hardware is selected money needs to be found for mother ships, USVs and UUVs. A T31 variant would be a candidate for the motherships. As we juggle increasing our resilience and migrating to new technology, sharing the cost burden and responsibility of the ASW frigate component of the evolving Bastion architecture with Norway, who have a shared interest makes obvious sense.
A batch 2 OPV would also be a good candidate for a mother ship for underwater drones and we could have more of them for the same expenditure.
To be honest Martin, I’m a bit confused. But I don’t think it’s a simple as all you need to launch and recover tricky UUVs is something with a deck and a crane. I don’t think a River 2 could do what Sterling Castle or Proteus does; or a Bay for that matter. Do we want something with a well dock or maybe a slipway? Maybe a mission bay will cut it? And which ships are you adding or replacing? Are we looking for a new ship to combine roles e.g. OPV, UUV surveillance and / or MCMV mothership?
It would be ironic if it turned out that the Bay class is what we need.
There’s the BMT Venari 85 model for MCM and patrol roles thst could be dusted off amd looked at again? A touch shorter than a B2 River.
Take a look at the cost of the 3 T26 B1 and then the 5 B2s, the R&D costs were loaded into the first 3 hence the very significant cost difference.
Take a look at the cost of the 3 T26 B1 and then the 5 B2s, the R&D costs were loaded into the first 3 hence the very significant cost difference.
So the Norwegians have the money, surely the Economy many times bigger will have the money to buy their expanded fleet, right. Right….
Norway is the richest country per capita on the planet, or thereabouts. It has more money in its savings accounts than most countries GDP. There is very little it can’t afford.
Wrong.
Norway drills for gas in the same North Sea field as Labour refuses to, and then sells that gas to us up to one third of our requirement, making a shed load of money in doing so. They then use that money to buy the T26s we can’t afford to pay for because we’re not drilling for gas. Riddle me that!
🤥
It’s a pity we haven’t got oil and gas in the North Sea like Norway. Oh, I forgot. We have but we’re not allowed to use it says Milliband.
🤡
We dodged a bullet by not electing that twat in 2015
The problem is that Dipshit net zero minister, has I either an inept understanding of how how gas and oil pockets are drilled, or blatantly doesn’t want to know. Where the same pocket of gas/oil located under the North Sea can be drilled by either the UK or Norway, the difference being a line on a map. So currently Norway are as is their right, taking the whole pocket, as the UK aren’t taking their share. What an absolute cockwombl!
Asking from here in Aus. Do both UK Labour and Tory think the same on the no oil & gas drilling…but it’s okay to buy from Norway and others?
Tories are in favour of expanding,where practical, North Sea oil. Labour are vehemently opposed. Milliband is going to bankrupt us if he can.
All questions will be answered when the DIP is published. Unless either A it’s never published, or B it’s full of vague nonsense and has no concrete figures in it.
42
I’d take an escort force of 42 frigates and destroyers. 🙂
There isn’t a single party in this country who takes defence seriously. We needed to increase defence spending BEFORE shit hit the fan in 2022 (and the little green man invasion prior to that), and yet they’re still procrastinating the DIP and any defence spending uplift.
Exactly that Jonny. People like to forget that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. That should have been the wake up call.
I see this as good and bad news, good in respect that BAE gets the order, bad the the Treasury will now have yet another excuse go through another modelling exercise and more delays to find out the same answer, the best kit is expensive and defence needs increased funding.
If there are no follow on orders for T31 from us or export to Denmark/Sweden etc, maybe BAE could contract Babcock to build blocks for this T26 programme in the 2030’s? Could help with capacity before the next destroyer programme.
So now we know…….2 Type 26s by 2030 and then what? 5 to Norway and RN gets frigate 3 or is it 8? by 2042.Ah but as Norwegian ships they will be deployed against the Russians so it saves us buying them,manning them,all that expensive stuff….If only we could persuade someone to buy Type 83 destroyers…Might get away with not actually building any for the RN!!!….Big wins all round!!!
The government has ordered 8 for the RN, that’s what we’ll get. Otherwise you can be sure BAE’s lawyers will go after huge compensation payments for the cancelled order and the cost of the frigate factory.
So x5 T26 in build and x3 T31.
Replacement of T23 ASW frigates is the priority.
Crewing is going to be the issue in the short term so odds on RN and Norway share crewing and training until the x5(+) Norwegian T26 are available.
Both parties get trained crews and maximise hulls in service.
I’m afraid it isn’t just the political parties:.the general public no longer care about the state of the RN. Many people would say “scrap the lot and put the money into the NHS”.
🤡
hard to see how surface ships will defend themselves against a massed low level drone attack
How many has Iran managed to hit with their masses of attack drones? I think at last count it was…zero.
have their been any massed low level drone attacks against surafce ships yet ?
What type of drone are you talking about because if the ship is moving, shaheeds can not target it.
Massed missile attack? Take out the launchers, and hope your intelligence was bang up-to-date.
Yes, but it depends on your meaning of massed.
During the fracas with the Houthis is 2023, the USS Carney (Arleigh Burke destroyer) was at the forefront of meeting the Houthis threats. I hate to quote wiki, but: “shot down four cruise missiles and 15 drones over a period of nine hours”, on 19th Oct 2023. Then late shot down 14 one-way attack drones on 16th Dec 2023. Which was verified by CENTCOM.
However, CENTCOM didn’t give any further details of the attacks. Were they coordinated time of target attacks, where the drones would converge on the target at the same time? Or were they just launched in sequence thereby making it easier for the ship to take out? We do know that the Houthis did like to add in other anti-ship weapons such as the C802 sea skimming missile (Iranian/Chinese copy of Exocet) along with their “locally” developed anti-ship ballistic missiles. In the hope of overwhelming the ship’s defences. However, the Carney in particular dealt with all the threats thrown at it.
In a Sky News report dated 10th Jan 2024, On the 9th Jan, HMS Diamond along with a USN destroyers and carrier aircraft, shot down 18 one-way attack drones, as well as two suspected C802 anti-ship cruise missiles. HMS Diamond used a mix of gunfire and Asters to take out the threats. Some of the drones were deliberately target Diamond. It’s unclear “publicly” how many Diamond shot down herself during this engagement. But she arrived in Gibraltar with 9 drone kill markings, that happened over three engagements.
What is clear though, is that there was/is a huge disparity between the cost of the Houthis threats vs the surface to air missiles used to defend against them.
Yes, there are drones and then there are drones… the scale of the attacks, should they be able to be targetted, will eventually overwhelm Allied missile power.
That last comment should have the remark, especially if they put to sea with empty missile silos. In another article, interesting what the Rocks have achieved, and comments re creating a navalised version.
Agreed.
The Houthis use “derived” versions of Iranian drones called Qasif and Samad. Both can be configured for either reconnaissance or attack, carrying either a DSLR camera or a 20kg-ish fragmentary explosive. I know they use one variant as a dumb version, that flies via programmed waypoints to a programmed target location. But some are also first person view with a satellite datalink that include the explosive. Which I believe were the ones used to target ships.
Key lesson learned from defending against Houthis drones, is that you need an effective secondary armament, based around a gun system. As you will rapidly burn through your available magazine of missiles. But again, there are gun systems and gun systems. I believe, the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden was the first time the Phalanx has successfully been used in anger. Where it was used to take out a drone that the ship’s SPY-1D (S-band PESA radar) had missed. It was detected by the Phalanx’s search Ku-band radar. But I’d also say at the other end of the scale, the Italian Navy successfully used their 76mm Strales combined with the guided DART round, to take out a load of drones. I guess the USN should also get a shout for using their 5″, firing timed HE shells. Which also did pretty well at taking out drones.
But for the RN and with the T31 in particular. The 40mm and 57mm gun combination, may be a solid choice in dealing with massed drones threats. Especially as both can use BAES 3P ammo, that includes an impact fuse, a programmed (timed) fuse, as well as a proximity fuse. Where the later two fuses will be very useful against airborne threats. If and it’s a big if, the 57mm gets the guided rounds as promised, this will be a game changer. As it means airborne threats can be dealt with further away from the ship, where the effective range will be around 7km. Where it could be used to thin out the crowd of drones letting the two 40s deal with the leakers. It’s a pity the T26 and T45 aren’t getting the 40s, as this would provide a better protection bubble than the two 30mm guns. Similarly, not reinstalling the surface to air mode for the 4.5″ is a significant missed opportunity. As it would also be useful for taking out drones, as proven by the USN using the 5″.
But it’s what’s coming next, will be interesting. The Navy are initially fitting the laser based CIWS Dragonfire to the T45s, then have said other ships. Which has during trials shown it can successfully take out Banshee target drones, which are faster than the similar looking Shahed drones. But importantly is the target effects dwell time, i.e. the length of time on target to burn through and cause internal damage. Dragonfire (a 50kW class laser, yeah right!), has shown it has a very short dwell time, so it will be able to switch between targets pretty rapidly. Plus whilst on-shore, it has been shown to be phenomenally accurate (We will wait and see what its like aboard a ship rolling in heavy seas!).
Ukraine have also shown that anti-drone drones are now a thing. Drones like the Octopus have been used by Ukraine to take out quad copter reconnaissance, FPV and even Shahed type drones. But the Octopus has a pretty large footprint on the launch stand. Which would be no good for a ship. Which needs something that is folded up in a tube, lobbed out and unfolds during flight, much like the Switchblade. But needs to be capable of 300kph with an effective range of at least 10km, meaning it could intercept a target in 120 seconds.
Or the ship is equipped with Martlet, that has a terminal velocity of around Mach 1.5 (1852kph), meaning it reaches the threat in under 20 seconds.
I hope there is more than me who reads your excellent addition to this thread. Thanks DaveyB
Pleasure mate
Yes same here. Great read as always DB! 👍
Whatever type of drones are used to attack ships ?
One by one European countries are stepping up leaving the UK looking moderately somewhat pathetic. Still at least our NHS continues to be funded at record levels and improvements are being seen across the board….oh no wait a minute no they aint! Still benefits are going up double the rate of inflation. How long before Russian GCSE needs to be added to the curriculum just in case? Starmer has his head so deep in the sand bucket it will still be there when Putin parks his tank in Downing Street. This country seems to have decided we can just sit back and take whats coming and has a government that has given up totally and utterly on everything except welfare, windmills and whining. Now it seems one in 8 parents claim they have a disabled child, what we used to call naughty in the days of yore. Defence will never be a priority in this country just face facts.
According to rumours control, single mums, and not only, are putting two cans of monster drinks into their kids before the kid’s assessment. Payment sorted as child displays hyper everything