The remaining five of eight Type 26 Frigates have finally been ordered, bringing the total number of Type 26 Frigates being built on the Clyde up to eight and the total number of frigates being built in Scotland up to 13.
The Prime Minister is attending the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, where he announced that BAE Systems has been awarded a £4.2bn contract to build five more Type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy, on top of the three already under construction. According to the Government in a press statement:
“The UK and allies are taking steps to bolster their security in the face of increased Russian threats. Today the Prime Minister has announced the next phase in the Type 26 frigate programme, with a £4.2bn contract awarded to BAE Systems to build five more ships for the Royal Navy – in addition to the three already under construction.
“The project will support 1,700 jobs at the BAE systems sites in Govan and Scotstoun, Glasgow, over the next decade. 2,300 additional jobs will be supported in the supply chain across the UK.”
The Prime Minister said:
“There can be no normalisation of Putin’s behaviour, which has no place in the international community. Russia’s actions put all of us at risk. As we give the Ukrainian people the support they need, we are also harnessing the breadth and depth of UK expertise to protect ourselves and our allies. This includes building the next generation of British warships.
“Putin and his proxies will never have a legitimate seat at the table until they end their illegal war in Ukraine. At the G20, the Putin regime – which has stifled domestic dissent and fabricated a veneer of validity only through violence – will hear the chorus of global opposition to its actions.”
Long-lead items were ordered previously
The Ministry of Defence had earlier confirmed that resources have been allocated for the next batch of five Type 26 Frigates to be ordered on the Clyde. A significant number of long-lead items had also been ordered for the last five of eight Type 26 Frigates.
The information came to light in response to a written question submitted in the House of Lords. Former First Sea Lord, Lord West of Spithead, asked:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ring fence money for the next five Type 26 frigates in the forthcoming spending review.”
Baroness Goldie, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“Resources have been allocated by the Ministry of Defence to build and support the next five Type 26 Frigates. Funding lines are continually reviewed as part of routine programme management to ensure value for money is maximised for the taxpayer, drive the schedule and manage risk and opportunity.”
There is now a steady drumbeat of orders
Even just ten years ago shipbuilding in Scotland
was described as a ‘feast and famine’ industry with effectively one or two shipyards hiring large numbers of new staff to work on a small number of new ships. This would then be followed by the ‘famine’ stage, with layoffs and uncertainty over whether or not there will be any future orders and whether or not the yard would have to close.
Now, I believe, the industry is facing a much-improved situation. Shipbuilding in Scotland is, primarily, structured to be able to meet the capability demands of the Royal Navy. However, the National Shipbuilding Strategy aimed to encourage the shipbuilding side of the defence industry to reduce its dependence on the Ministry of Defence as a sole customer and concentrate effort in securing a wider potential share of the international market.
With the success of the Type 26 and Type 31 designs in the export market, this aim of reducing dependence on the Ministry of Defence is being achieved to a small degree. Additionally, another aim of the National Shipbuilding Strategy
was to reduce reliance of the Ministry of Defence on one provider for the UK’s surface warships, namely BAE currently building the Type 26 Frigate and eventually, it is expected, the Type 83 Destroyer. This shift in strategy has allowed Babcock at Rosyth to enter the business of complex warship construction in Scotland with the Type 31 Frigate and to sustain this down the line with the planned Type 32 Frigate.
There is now a steady ‘drumbeat’ of orders at two shipyards and plans for future classes are well known in the industry. This allows for certainty, the retention of skills and greater investment. All of this contributes to bring down the cost of the vessels in the longer term. In short, there’s now more work for more people at more yards than in previous decades.
A growing sector
The UK Government also recently launched
a refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy to “revitalise” the UK’s shipbuilding industry. The strategy, they claim, will deliver a pipeline of more than 150 new naval and civil vessels for the UK Government and for the devolved administrations over the next 30 years.
The military vessels outlined in the plan include the following ‘big ticket’ items, the Type 26 Frigates, the Type 31 Frigates, the Type 32 Frigates, the Multi Role Support Ships, the Fleet Solid Support Ships, the future Auxiliary Oilers, an Ice Patrol Ship and the Future Offshore Patrol Vessels. There are also a range of smaller support craft planned. Not all of these vessels will be built in Scotland, but Scottish industry could potentially benefit from taking part, in varying degrees, in the work. In short, the shipyards on both coasts now have work or are planning for work up to the 2040s.
With regards to growth expected in the sector, it is important to note that according to the Ministry of Defence, due to increased regional expenditure in the Shipbuilding and Repairing industry, Scotland and the northwest of England
now account for 62% of all MOD supported employment in the shipbuilding sector with the bulk of that present in Scotland.
The document states that the rise in direct jobs supported from MOD expenditure in Scotland since 2018/19
was 22%. This rise is attributed to “increased expenditure on Construction and Shipbuilding in Scotland helped to boost total direct jobs supported in the region in 2019/20”.
In 2019/20, £3.8bn was spent in the UK-wide shipbuilding industry, which supported 27,100 direct jobs in the same industry group and a further 19,400 indirect jobs across all industry sectors, this effectively means that every three jobs in shipbuilding and repair are generating two indirect jobs elsewhere.
It is my belief, based on the data, that with the continued and steady drumbeat of work the sector will grow not only in direct jobs but also indirect jobs, as demonstrated by the figures above.
Batch builds are common
Eight Type 26 Frigates will be built in total, alongside the three in the first batch.
Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers and recent Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Type 45s first batch order was for three vessels.
Last year, for example, the next batch of Type 26 Frigate propulsion motors were ordered.
The Type 26 Frigates will be named Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, Edinburgh and London.
Work recently started on ship three of eight,
you can read more about that by clicking here.HMS Glasgow, the first of eight, will be in the water before Christmas
Photos and videos
captured by a drone show how HMS Glasgow looks as the warship prepares for launch later this month.
HMS Glasgow will be moved onto a barge soon before being transported to Glen Mallan to be lowered into the water. She will then be brought back upriver to Scotstoun to continue fitting out. Not quite a conventional launch, but a launch nonetheless.
This is good. In the current political climate especially considering the Chancellor’s position on spending the news are welcome and indicate the continued importance of defence. That Sunak announced this while at the G20 meeting implies he is attempting to demonstrate that Britain is not abandoning its defence commitments and will continue to lead European military efforts and, particular, strengthen its place as Europe’s foremost navy.
As a separate question, does anyone have any idea of the potential differences between Batches 1 and 2? Weaponry, CMS, radar/sonar/sensor equipment, size, etc.?
You have preempted my principal question. 🤔
What position is the Chancellor in? Many people are calling Bravo Sierra on this forthcoming budget – most of which is due to the incompetent administration of the last 12 years.
Position in the sense of the stance he is taking, as opposed to the other meaning. What I was trying to say is despite his insistence of cutting spending and levying taxes, Batch 2 have survived and well on time.
It would have been a near Tsunami of a shock had the batch 2 been cancelled, still plenty of time for a little trimming around the edges down the line mind if a future Govt actually wished it.
I think you mean incompetence over last 30 years …… although I’d add deliberate to that element ,globalism as an agenda is very real despite what the mob in here believe. This isn’t one particular political group responsible it’s the entirety of those engaged in this rotten system including the voters..
As George (Carling that is ) stated “ITS A BIG CLUB AND YOU AIN’T IN IT’
Fantastic ships though RN #1
🏴🇬🇧
Politics aside are we not all (from a defence perspective) judging the Government at this point on it’s commitment to ensuring continued support for the Ukrainians & detering aggression by having a strong military. Will the Chancellor/PM see beyond the spreadsheets to the benefits of pushing Putin into a withdrawl from Ukraine and the consequential normalising of relations and trade with the west.
If one were a cynic I guess the timing might be considered good cover of positive defence developments to cover prospect time less positive news for defence in the ‘budget’ in a few days. Let’s hope not.
I would agree, Batch 2 was already a given and it’s straight out of the Cameron/Osbourne play book to announce drastic cuts by trying to make it look like your spending more. They did the same with the Integrated Rail Plan where they took a bunch of existing planned maintenance work and lumped it together with HS2 spending to try and make it look like they were spending £96 billion when they had in reality just cut HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail in half. The fact that it us Sunak and not Wallace announcing this fills me fool of fear… Read more »
The budget for all departments will not match inflation, Why should it as energy costs may well drop giving negative inflation in the next 12 months or so depending on the outcome of the war. I wish the Government would get their finger out building nuclear power capacity. Energy independence would be helpful to the economy.
The irony is that nuclear power capacity was not built because it was too expensive. Can you imagine past few years if the government announced billions of spend in nuclear industry the opposition and media would have been going nuts.
France went the other way from us on nuclear and is currently f**ked. The UK has a temporary problem due to high LNG prices but our offshore wind capacity is world class and in 15 years energy prices will be close to marginal. France won’t have built a single new reactor in 15 years not already being built today. They will have desperate problems for decades. I’m all for nuclear at the right price however it’s price point continues to exceed renewables by a factor of 3 and it just keeps getting more and more expensive despite multiple promises of… Read more »
Renewables are not as cheap as they would have you believe- its all smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand and bullshit. A sufficient dependable Nuclear Power grid has been overlooked for decades (since the 80’s) by pandering to the mad green fraternity an look where that has left us (and The Germans). We were front runners in Nuclear Power tech & now have to go cap in hand to The Chinese and The French for our critical infrastructure- bloody disgraceful. If they do not look to make ammends for this oversight now given the position we find oursleves in –… Read more »
Current auction for offshore wind £37 per Mwh. Hinkley B price is £92.50 + inflation for 45 years + the government has to pay for waste disposal. Can you tell me how nuclear is cheaper than renewables? Offshore wind is the most expensive form of renewable being deployed at scale with onshore wind and solar being even cheaper. The reason the UK got out of the nuclear power business along with the USA and everyone other than France is that there is no money in it. PWR is a dead end technology. Are you aware of the current situation in… Read more »
I’d happily pay 9p per Kwh & have a core capacity for when it’s dark and there is little wind. That said there is the potential of the SMR built by Rolls Royce and Fusion which may well be far cheaper.
Sure but what about manufacturers and exporters? We need a competitive price and renewable is crazy cheap. Storage gets better every day and it’s fairly easy to have massive gas plants on stand by or even diesel generators. The equation has very much changed in the last few years while nuclear is standing still.
I’m not against the technology but I have no ideology over it either.
There are 100 times more jobs in renewables than in nuclear reactors.
Why is having lots of jobs in energy generation a good thing? We need a productivity boast in this country not to susidised jobs through out energy bills. Sounds like we could be heading down a dangerous path where improvements get blocked leaving the public and tax payer to pay for a bloated system. If we’re going for the cheapest form of energy let’s nake sure it remains cheap. Providing cheap energy will help energy intensive industries compete and create jobs in these industries and others through winning orders Storage, you mean lithium batteries? We’ve had the best storage for… Read more »
I meant in export
Maybe, but we’ll need to compete with the likes of the Chinese and Koreans globally. China as we know is willing to finance these type of developments. Big developments will likely see countries want to manufacture themselves like we see in naval vessels. Our next government will remove restrictions for onshore wind which is easier to develop and therefore easier for other nations also. Not sure where that will leave offshore, likely taking a vack seat initially. Solar also dominates where there’s regular sunshine, UK Companies like Globeleq already run power generation projects in Africa but they’re largely solar. It… Read more »
It is not really a choice. We should build as much renewables as we can but in reality fossil fuels might be relevant today but we can do better. I am 90% sure that nuclear fusion will provide energy in the long term in abundance. We will use it to replace gas with hydrogen, grow food for the planet, stabilise the weather & many other things we haven’t thought of yet. 😀
Those prices do not include the extra capacity, infrastructure, land rental and storage costs required to make renewables work.
The Nuclear that is being built at Hinkley point will only be an interim measure. I suspect the new nuclear revolution will unveil itself in the next few years and we will once again be at the forefront.😀
To be fair to the French they are in a far better place at the moment than other EU countries as the are still generating shed loads of Nuclear power and exporting it to Countries reliant on Gas. You should not forget the ITER project going on in France which has the potential to kick start the next phase of nuclear power worldwide not just in France.
Until a few years ago that’s what France use to do. It’s now a massive net importer. Half it’s reactors are offline.
Agreed France have indeed shut down a lot of their nuclear power stations for repairs brought on, I understand, by dry weather and deferred maintenance due to Covid. It will be interesting to see if they have them back up by winter but I can’t argue with their stategy of taking the hit now. It should be remembered that they are, as I write this, still able to generate more than 50% of the power from Nuclear. I wish we could..
France is still meeting 58% of its demand from nuclear; so hardly “Half its reactors shut down” given it was set to be around 70%.
Problem is with offshore whilst it secures us economically but its a nightmare to secure physically. And were hanging evething on it unlike offshore oil and gas which was part of a mix. Dense on shore power generation is by far the easiest to secure physically., nuclear is the only tech that you can easily stock fuel for and properly protect in the event of full blow conflict. Problem is no one bothers explaining the realities to the public, at keast let the public make an informed decision. It basically a choice between secure or cheap.
Ah but the Johnson Government set the groundwork for private financing for nuclear last year – it was only opposed by the greens (ironically) and the nats. It just needs a kick start and a few decisions. Oddly the media ignored it completely.
I think we’ll have the same issues with big fusion as we have with big fission, and just as SMRs will work out cheaper in the long run, it’s possible the big Tokamaks like ITER and STEP will be eclipsed by smaller, smarter ways of working, such as First Light’s projectile fusion. The site for STEP was selected last year and nobody is expecting it to be built until 2040. That’s a long time, and it probably won’t be commercially viable. so when will a fully scaled up version be ready? 2060?
I think you are right I’d put my money on the more agile fusion solutions. Ignition no longer seems to be the problem just keeping it running (which might be the real challenge) from a safety perspective is far better than the dangers of fission reactors. In theory I could see this tech developing rapidly however. There is no necessity for it to be as pondorously slow as Fission or ITER.
Ordering in batches allows first of class and the next few to be built to same spec, with the work force gaining experience in the build process. As they go into service, minor/major faults are highlighted by the various crews. The first break point to address and rectify any issues comes with the construction of Hull 4. It might well require major redesign work to address any issues. But all following hulls will have the fixes. The first 3 hulls will then normally get their fixes at a suitable docking/amp period. This is the reason for the long delay between… Read more »
Strategy did not work for the T45. If only we could have had a shared design/components between destroyers and the various types of frigates we would now know what works and what does not. It is not a good thing to be reinvesting the wheel everytime. That said the strategy of having a little competion with the T31 has it’s upside as well
That’s going to disappoint all the doomsayers that have been predicting the programme being cut, but I’m sure they’ll find something else to complain about…
A contract of £4.2b for 5 more, gives £840m each.
This compares with £3.7b for the first batch of 3, giving £1.23b each.
I know initial production is going to be more expensive as they get things set up, and cost decreases with batch size, but that still seems quite a sizeable reduction in cost per vessel. Especially when factoring in inflation since 2017… 🤔
Biggest costs that were included in the first batch but not second would be specialist production and construction equipment that had to be procured only once (assuming we build the ships 3-4 or so at a time). In addition, although design costs were spent a lot earlier logistic costs for the design (how something should be produced, sourcing of materials etc.) would have also been included in the Batch 1 cost. I agree though, £840m is a very good sum for what will be a front-rank sub-hunter and that will also carry a punch.
Would an incremental cost reduction be realized for a Batch 3 purchase, or has asymptote been reached?
A batch 3. There’s a lovely idea. Trade off three T31’s for two more T26”s. Probably start a riot in Whitehall.
…and at Babcock.
Couldn’t agree more. My son in law works for them!
You would need to trade off 5 T31 for 1 T26.
why?
Not quite Jim but my brain was only having an away day anyway!
Batch 3? We were only ever buying 8.
I believe there is more flexibility with Type 31, as it has been said that we will buy a minimum of 5.
“asymptote”?? Bloody hell, FormerUSAF, I’ve never heard that one before. Looked it up on Wiki and still can’t understand what it means!
Got to be my ‘word for today’ tomorrow…
Cheers
😁
The new production shed has apparently had a effect on the cost of the last two apparently, though that’s balanced on the cost of building it and how that’s financed I guess. But a great advantage for the future that’s for sure. But one does wonder how and indeed how long it would take to transfer future ship building to rest of UK should Scottish Independence occur. One has to take into consideration that there is two and half times the value going to England in building these alone as there is to Scotland so one suspects there won’t be… Read more »
If, and it’s a big if, independence happened the UK could accelerate the build and get them delivered before separation, which will take years of wrangling. They only need to get them out of Govan remember before the split, remaining fit out could happen South of the border.
BAE and Babcock were pretty clear that it could be done swiftly.
Aided by the T31 pencil sharpener that Babcock forced BAE to use.
£830~m was what BAE did offer to build the original 13 for.
In present times it looks like a substantial cost cut to me.
I seem to remember (correctly I hope) that they ordered 4 x 127mm guns for the first batch with the 4th gun being for shore-based training. I wonder how many more of the initial component purchases for the first batch might have included extra units for training purposes.
Theres probably an entire copy of the ships mast for EM compatibility testing of radar and communications in some warehouse somewhere.
Or even fully assembled, tested or being used for training. Just go on Google Earth and take a look at QINETIQ Maritime centre of excellence at Portsdown or BAe at Cowes.
Was announced a couple of weeks ago the First batch were running a year late due to Co-vid and price had increase by around quarter of a billion making them £1.307bn each but yeah drastic reduction in cost for the second batch.
In addition to tooling and amortized design work a large cost reduction is likely to be the financial risk the shipyard assumes due to the mature design, construction and system integration experience.
I’d hope the MoD would have a fixed-price contract for Batch 1 so that the cost delay due to Corvid would be met by BAE… but I suspect BAE could claim force majeur, so yes the MoD is probably paying some part of the costs that arose due to the pandemic.
Er, research Fixed price and Firm price contracts.
I’d hope the MoD would be gunning for Firm price contracts in these financially straightened days; let BAE take the pain.
Agree. Learn from past kistakes and make BAE sign the contract in blood. No squirming around asking gor additional money after the contract signed.
Learn from past kistakes? Surely you mean Pisstakes?😂
Sorry😅🤣😅😆 big fingers small screen
Don’t be daft then BAE could not afford to higher ex civil servants. 😀
Well that all depends on how the inflation /act of god/effects of XYZ causes are worded.
The simpler and more understandable the product the more fixed the prices can be.
Also there needs to be a ‘good idea club exclusion clause’
BAE don’t do fixed price contracts 😀
That isn’t true.
If you shift the risks to the contractor expect to pay a risk premium.
Commercial risk isn’t free.
If a contractor offers to take a big risk for free then they are desperate: walk away rapidly.
Good luck on getting BAE Systems to sign a high value fixed price contract! Their view is that the UK is just too small a market for that. They have frequently warned that that they would walk away from the business if the MOD tried to squeeze them too much on price and risk. The low point was in the early 2000’s BAE Chairmen Michael Turner and Richard Evans openly threatened to close the company’s UK shipyards and factories and concentrate on the American market – leaving the MOD to face the political storm of having to buy foreign. To… Read more »
If the basic design were used to create the T45 replacements I wonder what sort of savings might be possible if any the times it’s fundamentally re designed.
Interesting point Sean. First thing that entered the old brain cells. £4.2 billion £800 million odd each. Sounds good. Let’s crack on.
Hi Sean,
I thought it looked cheap, relatively speaking, as well.
The thought that occured to me was that perhaps the new covered construction hall might have a part in cutting costs, although I think the points above relating to cost structures probably account for the lions share of the reduction.
Another more cynical thought I had was that MoD is providing some of the kit as GFE – so hiding the true cost…
Of course, only time will tell if the costs are stuck to.
Nevertheless, a good news story.
Cheers CR
Yes the new shed will reduce costs on the last two I have read.
Actually the price is looking to be in the right ballpark, as the 2nd of the USN’s Constellation Class frigates is expected to come in at £850m.
It was already cut from 13 to 8, not really any way to cut it further without shutting up shop on the Clyde and paying BAE to get out of the minimum spending requirements.
Plenty of other stuff to cut though.
We’re still getting 13 frigates.
8 Type 26 to replace 8 ASW Type 23
5 Type 31 to replace 5 GP Type 23
So no “cut”. It was just decided that having two types would be better than different versions of the same type. While cost was no doubt a factor, so was getting a second supplier for RN warships so that BAE had competition.
It’s a cut because we were getting 13 Type 26 and the T31 is in no way comparable to the T26.
I think having a T31 is a good idea because there is a need for a multi purpose forward deployed vessel for lighter duties however T31 is not a replacement for T23 or T26. It’s very much second rate in its primary task of ASW.
The escort fleet will be reduced to 12 vessels moving forward.
T31s primary task is NOT ASW, which is why it’s cheaper. That’s why the 5 GP T23s were cheaper than the 8 ASW T23s, and should really have been far cheaper. ASW is very expensive, not just from the towed array, etc, but vibration dampening rafts for the machinery. Expense that T31 doesn’t need because it’s not a sub-hunter. The RNs foremost sub-hunter is neither of these, it’s the Astutes, but they’re even more expensive again! Originally 16 T23s – 3 sold to Chile, 1 retired = 12 in service. 8 T26s + 5 T31s + 5* T32s = 18… Read more »
26 plus 31 will one for one replace 23. I can’t even remember the last time we had a one for one replacement of anything in the armed forces never mind Navy. Be happy.
Given previous commitments this order always seemed certain – but good to have it confirmed. Focus now moves to the T32 and actually increasing the strength of the RN’s escort force in the early 2030’s.
Given inflation, this is a surprisingly good price. I recall an admiral in testimony to the Defence Select Committee earlier in the year saying that because of lower risk (having built some of the first batch), the price for the second batch would be cheaper. Nevertheless, I wasn’t expecting it to be this low.
I hope we find out they will also be built quickly, before/as the Type 23s are taken out of service, rather than at the pace of Batch 1.
Have a like! These need to get in the water much faster, free up naval personnel and give the UK punch.
Flog off the lifex T23s and order batch 3s with a better AAW fit as per @QuentinD63 thoughts.
Unfortunately, there’s still quite a few of us, who believe the current T26 hull is too short. The main reason for this, is the missile count and in particular the number of vertical launch cells needed for medium to long range missiles. The main issue is that even with the T45’s expansion to 48 medium to long range Aster 30s in addition to the extra 24 SeaCeptors. There is a thought that once the main magazine gets down to 1/4 (12 Asters) strength. The ship will loose its long range effectiveness and deterrence. Especially when you consider the ship cannot… Read more »
Hi DB, what you mention above about the small T45 vls capacity with the Asters could be improved upon prior to T83 by putting in 2 xMk41/DCNS Sylver 70 and 2x CAMM silos down the sides of the Asters (like shown on the BAE T32 adaptable Frigate) and you might get 2x 3×6=36 and even 4×6=24 CAMM on top of the hangar. That’s a potential 60 CAMM which should last a while. Not sure if CAMM can be reloaded at sea but at around 100kg this maybe manageable? Are the RAM systems reloadable at sea – anyone know? Obviuously all… Read more »
You do have to remember the sea viper is a one missile one hit one kill system. SM-2 family missiles are not ( the US Navy expects to fire more than one per threat).
I thought the price had to come down. Especially as the R+D costs for the hill are spread over now 30+ vessels with RN, RCN, RAN all having purchased the design.
In addirion there must be big efficiency and building cost reductions by moving into the covered frigate hall being built now.
Well the last two will be built side by side maybe that’s where part of the savings on those two come from and speed up their build too (if politically enabled) plus whatever comes after of course but that’s potential over certainty but would help in terms of export opportunities where early ship(s) at least may be built there.
Could we then have brought payment forward and had the last four built in pairs, reducing the price even more? I’m not saying that would necessarily be a good thing given the straitened times, but it’s an interesting question of how unit-cheap we could get things if borrowing was allowed, and shipyards could produce at full tilt.
Good news to go to bed on. Add in CDS and Def Sec making positive statements about future very good. Others have commented about decrease in unit cost but i’d like to add it might be important for future exports of 26. £840m is still a lot of money but for what we or others would be getting it’s a bargain. Anyway i’m off to bed a lot happier.
Geoff bowler
Canada needs to take note of these costs . The last estimate for Canadian built type 26 is Can $84 billion for 15 ships at todays prices and 40 years to build them all . Irvin shipyard, most expensive ship builder in the world and friends of our PM.
These are not the prices UK will pay for Type 26. These seem to be hull prices only.
Canadian T26 will have also much more capability and that RN T26.
Then it also matters how the accounting is made: those 84B$ account for what? includes the whole price of acquisition of weapons , sensors, training, etc?
“These are not the prices UK will pay for Type 26. These seem to be hull prices only.” Knowledgeable individuals, is this in fact the case? Thought UK usually allocated funds for fully wrapped projects?
It’s wildly expensive for hull only, but it’s worth noting Artisan radar and Captas sonar are expected to be ported from T23. Things like the 5″ guns may or may not be included, they will have been bought on a separate contract; integration and fit out definitely will be. So it’s a mix, not the final price.
It can’t be for hulls only. Perhaps there are a few added extras to go on but this will be the rough price.
They are the full delivered T26 costs fully kitted out.
How to read this below from the text above? If they were ordered last year they are not included in current price i think.
Besides if Artisan came from T23 which i think is bad decision lots of costs are not the real costs of a new T26 with current systems.
Unlike T31 the T26 is suppose to be an all encomposing contract. T31 will have government kit provided.
Those costs are for everything for the life of all the ships. Then there is this.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigates-pbo-canadian-armed-forces-1.6631702
Canadian and Australian defence reports are both as bad as each other and they include 40 years of speculated inflation and wide speculation on over runs. Remember the nonsense they did on F35?
Yes, I thought it was only Canada but I see other states have procurement woes. The Australians however don’t take as long to figure it out like Canada does. They at least make a decision in 5 years. Double that in Canada. The F-35 was a no brainer for Canada and it took the invasion of the Ukraine for Canada to finally decide. Of course after a decade of kicking can down road.
Propulsion seems was ordered last year so how can that is included in this cost?
Maybe the Canadians can save some dollars and weight if they go for the UK 2x 4×6 48/CAMM configuration and maybe do away with 36/MK41 ESSM altogether which I think individually (300kg approx) is over three times the weight of CAMM (100kg approx)? And the same for the RAN too. I know it’s unlikely for both.
Irving holds the threat of layoffs in the Halifax area (Atlantic Canada) unless they are the builder of any RCN project. Putting this contract under one supplier is the federal govs folly. It does not matter who is in office. Davie and Seaspan should have gotten some of these contracts to spread the wealth around and the dependence on Irving thus lowering costs. 30 years to build these ships is an insane project time frame. Canada needs these ships now.
No warship should ever be built in a province that continues to whine about separation. As for BC’s SeaSpan, they aren’t exactly outshining Irving. Just look at the JSS project!
Oh you will get know objection from me on Quebec.Expansion and investment of shipbuilding is what I was gettin at for Canada. Shipbuilding in Saint John and St.John’s are other options for investment. Saint John already has the infrastructure Putting all eggs in Irving’s basket is folly and gives that company too much power. The JSS project is frustrating to watch.
B-21 unveil and HMS Glasgow in the water before christmas. Nice.
Perhaps RAF and/or RAAF interested in an export version of B-21? Could we pencil you in for a Wing or two apiece? 🤔😉
Perhaps you could do us a deal, mates rates, so to speak 🙂
Otherwise, I suspect we could buy a couple of extra F35B squadrons for the cost of a flight of B-21. Would be nice to get back into the strategic bomber game but the chances are vanishingly small obviously.
Cheers CR
Who would we want to strategically bomb? We’ve long been out of that game – leave it to the Americans.
Yes the cost of the weapons just doesn’t bear thinking about on top when we need more of what we produce.
I wasn’t actually being that serious fellas… 😉 Also, I was thinking more about long range reach with operational level weapons e.g. an air launched version of the FC/ASW.
Although I’d rather an extra couple of F35 squadrons.
All of which is dream land, of course.
Cheers CR
Presumably, the usual suspects: Mad Vlad, slimeball ChiComs, crazy Mullahs, and whackadoodle NK leader Kim Nutbag. Virtually no end of fruitful choices.
Yes, very true. I just think we got out of strategic bombing in the early 80s and it would be prohibitively expensive to re-create the capability. Over to the good ol’ USAF!
Doesn’t really matter as it would give the UK a significant step up in capability. Primarily as a stand-off weapons carrier for use against either land or sea targets.
If we do get FCASW. One of the proposals is for a 1000km ranged version to replace the French MdCN, that can be air, surface and sub launched.
A modernized Vulcan would prove to be very handy carrying a brace if FCASWs.
The prime and most of the subs will begin a quiet lobbying effort of Congress before first flight. Guaranteed. Once track greased, lobbying of RAF/RAAF will begin, “we’re gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.” 😉
Lend-Lease or Rent-to-Own, both American financial engineering firsts. We really enjoy Carribean beachfront property! 😉
Perhaps the RAAF as a replacement for the F111/super hornets.
A lot would depend on the B21 sensor suite, weapons carried etc.
Cruise missiles, anti ship weapons.
Step right up, please, we have option packages for even the most discriminating buyers! 😉😁
I would put a purchase of 7 B21 high on UK wish list, it would be a great complement to our shorter range F35B and replacement for deep strike Tornado. However zero chance Sleepy Joe would sell them to us. He f**king hates us as does Pelosy. I can’t see Margery Taylor Green or Josh Hawley being our friend in congress either. I’m personally amazed they have not canceled out rights to Trident II missiles but I’m sure it’s on the cards. You can see the US military and Security services constantly trying to side step the political side in… Read more »
Most Dems and their media hate us. Most Republicans couldn’t care less. They’d be an improvement.
Perhaps the Irish Catholic wing of the Democratic party is not overwhelming in their enthusiasm and perhaps the “woke” fanatical fringe, but don’t believe label should be appended to entire party; moderate to conservative Democrats do exist. Similarly, there are country-club Republicans, as opposed to the MAGA contingent. Basically, the American populace has a normal distribution, and if you ignore the +/- 2 sigma cases, reasonably rational.
…greater than +/- 2 sigma ..🙄
Anticipating the follow on question/argument–there were increasing levels of ticket splitting during the midterm; demo of rational voters seeking the least objectionable weevil.
I agree however seems to be the fringe on both sides controlling the dance and with a constant 50.50 split in congress it just takes one or two grandstanding politicians to block anything. We are suppose to be operating trident II together until 2070 and given the current trends I’m not overly enthused as to the prospects of the US political establishment allowing us use of those missiles in 50 years time. We are a long way from a Reagan or Clinton in the whitehouse and I don’t see much prospect for a repeat of such a political relationship. Cutting… Read more »
Advancing age eventually resolves impediments induced by octogenarians.
True however the younger generation are not exactly enthusiastic about Atlanticism either.
I disagree with nearly everything you have said. America will put its interests first but in the last 20 years it has been Britain’s best ally in any defence matters.
Hang on, were not some items pre-ordered and paid for in advance? Sonars? Guns? Machinery?
Were design costs sunk into the first three?
What payback do we get from exporting the design to Australia and Canada?
Not a good news story at all, this Con of a Govt could have pushed this design into the water far quicker and helped us gain a US Navy contract!
Of course, if they have saved so much and have budgeted already, give us a 9th !
With you DB, if it’s such good value order a 9th and maybe a couple of AAW variants to bolster the fleet prior to T83.
You know it will never happen 🙁
Maybe “we” can compromise on 1-2 more T32s then? The T83s are still a way off so we all hope the T45 upgrades come as soon as possible and with more CAMM and MK41s please. Why not a second 24 CAMM on the T45s hangar if not too heavy? Maximise over their remaining service life. Talking of the T32, the BAE Adaptable frigate looks like a blend of their Leander T31 with a bigger hangar and a container cargo ship facilities. Lol. 😆 Good to see the next order of T26s though. That’s a commitment in steel!
I’d go with more T26s – look at the Canuck and Aus designs and harvest their best features for AAW: ceefar for example.
The other elephant in the room is the lack of helos across the fleet… that needs to addressed… Polish SH60s?
I think the type 45s need more offensive weaponry. So mk41vls cells x16 for 80 million each. Agree more Sea Ceptor could be fitted on Hangar roof. The type 45 design can take the additional top weight.
On a trivial note, why are we getting this new (old) fashion of inverted bow shapes that were so common in 1st WW ships. Seems it’s the most aerodynamic design for cutting through air but is that really the only reason? Does it potentially give you a bit more space below deck but why now and if there were advantages why move away from it in the post 1sr WW period.
Usable hull volume is increased.
Otherwise you struggle to fit magazine and VLS in the bows.
It is also more stable so a better sensor weapons platform.
I agree that would take so much weight off of the T45 fleet and allow on paper, as is happening in Japan, some capacity to provide our island with the potential at least some anti ballistic missile cover.
Fear not, there may well be a Batch 2 FFG competition, wherein T-26 receives due consideration. Remember, US builds ship classes for decades, on a routine basis.
I think USN will just get more Conatitution/FREMM class surely?
Although it would be great to add a full fat heavy ASW warship to the USN. FREMM isnt nearly as capable as type 26 will be.
USN, and for that matter, USA/USAF/USMC always seek to protect their flanks in terms of systems acquisitions. They all scope out market participants, w/ the intent to secure best available products; some accuse US of Mafia lite product purchase strategies. 😁 If T-26 proves out as better than FREEM, USN will find a path for acquisition. Guaranteed.
…FREMM…🙄
Too expensive, not what the USN wanted, cheap frigate to handle traditional frigate roles with decent weapons fit, T26 is top end sub hunter and by the time the US puts their weapon fit on it will be extremely pricey
The American frigate is far from cheap. That may of been the intention but the ones ordered so far are coming at $1.28b for first ship, estimated $1.05b for the second. I’d expect that may go up a bit as well.
From what I’ve read the price is high not from the ship but from the fact “it’s loaded for bear” with a better load out than most of RN ships plus mini aegis. The high cost of t26 however isn’t from the load out it’s from the fancy sub fighting infrastructure. If you took a t26 and put all that kit on it it will come out at practically the cost of an AB destroyer which would be pointless
That’s not entirely true, is it? T26 and for that matter T45 and Astutes are expensive because they kicked the economies of scale in the gonads and rather than going full fat Agile in their programme management, decided to phish in the wind over a prolonged period which yesterday, the Chancellor admitted, the UK had been a tad rich in 2019… I do wonder what went wrong, global markets? COVID, govt mismanagement or the word that can’t be spoken in polite circles.
Gotta find a way to spend $800+B/yr., in some manner; delta covered by rounding error, if product indeed superior.
These economies of scale from a 5 Eyes contract for T26 would be eye-watering – just gift 4 to the New Zealanders.
Actually conceivable; true story (honest): Sometime in 1980’s Pentagon conducted an audit of holdings and was aghast that ~7000 MBTs had disappeared from the inventory. After a suitable period of panicked soulsearching, someone realized that tanks had been transferred to NATO war reserve account. Given this as background, 4 T-26’s should be no problemo. 😁
Part of the problem is crewing… bringing in New Zealanders is no bad thing – ask the Graf Spee at the Battle of the River Plate 😉
Excellent point seems odd in the uk we seem to want to keep re inventing the wheel when budgets and numbers are rather less plentiful.
Give us a 9th, 10, 11th and 12th.
Done!
(Not) Lol.
I think you’re forgetting how many T22 and T23 we started off with 😉
Calling Daniele.
Took longer than expected for a doomster to join the conversation!
It would have never got the American contract, they wanted a cheap upgunned frigate to increase hull nos for traditional frigate roles. The T26 is extremely expensive top end sub hunter which is massive.
The Americans are paying over $1 billion a ship for the first 2 and that before they are even built. The USN still need a frigate with a gun, missiles, helicopter and a tail.
Will be interesting to see when both ships are finished and work together.
Yes and the American ship comes with price mini aegis, more firepower than RN surface fleet put together, what it doesn’t come with is all the fancy anti sub kit that makes the t23 and t26 deadly quiet. They are completely different. If you took a t26 then put aegis plus land attack, ship attack, anti sub and all their firepower on plus the t26 £billion pound initial build with out weapons and kit it will become more expensive than the AB destroyers
How do you get to that?
The main difference is more VLS?
The radar approach is just different!
Who says Aegis (which is BTW a software library) is better than RN / BAE CMS. Some would say it isn’t.
That isn’t what I said at all, at no point have I said aegis is better. I merely commented that the constellation frigate is very well armed, far more weapons than any comparable RN vessel. The USN also don’t have a requirement for the cutting edge anti sub tech that makes the t26 so expensive ie £1billion with out weapons fit out. The US need a vessel that can fight on its own (traditional frigate role) is well armed and increases hill numbers and can act as picket in a task force. The RN however are aiming to have the… Read more »
USN may not profess a CURRENT requirement for cutting edge ASW, but wait 10-15 yrs., given the current rate of modernization of scum-sucking, slimeball ChiCom PLAN SSN and SSBN fleets. Then let us revisit the issue of an ASW requirement…🤔
Hope your right we have given them far too much head start already. Politicians need to realise they make Russia look like a cuddly teddy bear
26 will be £1bn ‘without weapons fit out’ where did you see/read that ?
Well it’s unlikely to be much for weapons as there not putting in any land attack missles.
There not putting in and anti ship missles(only major navy in world to consider it.)
There not putting in any anti sun torpedoes or missles.
The sea ceptor are coming from decommissioned t23.
CIWS are from stock, so it’s only the main gun and couple of 20/30mm canons they are paying for.
Yes this isn’t fitting fit so far there not paying for much weapons wise
We actually have not idea what weapons fit the RN will put into the MK41 silos. Could be anything as they are strike length.
It’s in the grammar. It may have been true that the USN did not have a requirement for cutting edge sub hunting kit, however, given the intentions of Russia and China, they now do have a requirement for prime sub hunting kit in all oceans.
5 Eyes T26 would be a world beater and cheap to boot.
(gift some to New Zealand).
My point was if the USN were to buy t26 plus a proper US weapons fit it will probably cost as much as the improved AB destroyer
I wouldn’t necessarily agree that a YS weapons fit was ‘better’ or more ‘proper’
Yes, there is much more ‘stuff’ but T26 is a very heavily armed frigate with lots of margin to upgrade.
With a lot of fitted for but not with. No ship mounted weapon for subs, what if the helicopter is down for maintenance, every other navy disagrees with this Will fit the new French/English missle that could take 20 years Nothing in the vls system No anti ship offensive weapons With the cut backs to come mr sunak will be cutting many corners and has proven to think defence is a waste I agree has potential to be world class but even my friends in RN rank file agree the RN always go for defence and are always short on… Read more »
It’s a bit early to say that since we have not a foggy notion or idea what will be going in the MK41 silos…the point having the silos is they are weapon/capability agnostic.Also with the kingfisher set of weapons the 5inch gun itself is going to be a key ASW tool.
Well again but early to say as kingfisher is idea at the moment. Having seen th U.K. waste billions on gold plated weapons that never come to fruition I think buying a torpedo system like every other blue water navy on earth would be a better idea
I suspect that the pleasant surprise in the price is the payback from the increased economies of scale in the supply lines due to the RAN / RCN buys. And that will not just be confined to the U.K. sourced equipment being fitted, but just consider the base ship buy is now 32 and not 8 (which it was when the 1st 3 were ordered). So same RR MT30 / MTU power plant, same 5” gun, same Ultra sonars and same RR Mission Bay handling system. That is a bulk purchase of quite significant proportions. What a massive shame the… Read more »
Which brings us nicely to US pork barrel politics with your last point because I understand FREMM is being Amercanised…
The T26 was never in the running for the USN frigate contract. From the start it had to be a proven design that was in the water and serving with other navies. After the failures with Zumwalt and LCS, the USN couldn’t afford to have another failure on its hands.
The T26 would also be Americanised or you think US would use obsolescent Artisan instead of new version SPY/AEGIS flat panels and CAMM instead of Standards, Asroc etc ?
And worse the T26 hangar would have to be changed for 2 helicopters capability.
Just as the T31, being originally Danish, is being ‘Britished’, and as the Type 26 derived ships for Australia and Canada are being ‘Australianised’ and ‘Canadianised’. 🤷🏻♂️
All national governments modify naval designs to include both native alternatives and systems they prefer over the original design.
As I said T26 was never a contender for America, they wanted a proven design already in service, not a ship that existed only on a drawing board.
I really don’t understand your frothy mouthed anti-American ranting 🤷🏻♂️
BTW – Artisan isn’t obsolete 🤦🏻♂️
Note that i said obsolescent not obsolete. Artisan is in rotating antenna. That will be in next 15 years or more in T26 and T31 No top player and i am including in that all major countries in Europe and Asia, America is choosing rotating devices for their new combatants only RN. All of them will have fixed panels: France with FDI Italy with PPA, DDX Netherlands Germany F126 Japan: new frigates Korea: Aegis, others US: in Constellations , Ford Carrier, next DDX Canada in T26 Australian T26 Israel Saar 6 All these countries will have fixed panel all 360º… Read more »
Maybe the RN simply places higher importance on radar range? The use of a rotating array allows for a higher placement atop the mast rather than on the superstructure as with the Aleigh-Burke’s. This is also the approach with Sampson, the radar used on the Type 45s, regarded as the best air-defence destroyer in the world. It wouldn’t be the first-time the RN has chosen a different path to other navies and later been proven to be right. I would regard use of the term ‘Americanised’ as being anti-American. Nationality has nothing to do with a navy requiring specific customisations.… Read more »
No one else in the radar community seems to think artisan is obsolete. The t26 is made to fulfill the RN traditional role in NATO as the anti sub force, the deal was always the U.K. would deal with the Russian subs while US fight the surface war. The t26 isn’t made to compete with aegis system that would be t45 sampson sea viper
The T26 hanger has a 2 rotor facility, just not two merlins, which are huge great big rotors and not really medium rotors at all. Most other nations including the US use more modest size small ship flights than merlin.
That is ridiculous.
You don’t usually say Canadasing, because Canada do not have a significant own weapons/sensor industry.
Of course it has or why you think RN had the 4.5″ for so long?
I think you were meant to reply to someone else.
Correct Jonathans, apologies about that. It was to Sean.
Agreed, but at some point it will be in the water, w/ a track record. Then it may become a viable alternative in future batch acquisitions for USN (not a high probability event, admittedly, but a non-zero possibility).
If the USN is unhappy with the Constellations then it’s a possibility, but I think they don’t want to operate two types for any class as they did with the LCS.
Focus by then will also be on the replacement of the Arleigh Burke destroyers which are the backbone of the USN. A process that will take decades.
If they went for T26 then they’d have 2 types of frigates and 2 types of destroyer in service, compared to a single destroyer type currently.
Believe that at some juncture USN will become very focused on successful ly accomplishing ASW mission. The appropriate vessel could be DDG(X), or some future batch of FFG. In either case, USN will probably be knocking on the Admiralty’s door, requesting a cooperative effort from the acknowledged experts. AUKUS will probably be the forum in which project is surfaced. Buying a hull, propulsion system and sonar optimized for ASW, already developed for T-26, is one straightforward approach. Alternatively, USN could seek cooperation on the new DDG design. Development timeline ultimately dictated by pacing threat–ChiComs. My best estimate is that the… Read more »
Ideally I would like to see cooperation with regard to RN Type 83 and USN DDG(X). I believe these will have similar roles and will be required around the same timeframe.
The Constellations do seem to be the USN’s equivalent of the RN’s T31. A cheap off-the-shelf proven general-purpose frigate design; though of course the USN significantly over arms it vessels compared to other navies. Which means a Constellation will cost almost as much as a T26.
But that does mean there could be a gap between the top-end DDG(X) and the Constellations for a ASW focussed vessel…
Constellation is similar to T26 in ASW. It has electric propulsion that T31 do not have.
And very superior to T26 in AAW.
Constellations were chosen by its ASW capabilities.
Otherwise they would have went for Spanish design that already had the SPY/AEGIS system integrated.
French FREMM have been collecting ASW prizes from USN.
Not sure about the RAN version, but Canada selected a different supplier for the 5 inch gun: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/canada-selects-leonardo-naval-gun-systems-for-the-csc-combat-ships/
Indeed,and an impressive looking Frigate it will be – https://www.tanknet.org/uploads/monthly_2022_11/image.png.e761d735b4bfcdc859c8ebd4ffd23202.png
Not sure how old the photo is atop the article but I am assuming the bow sonar housing will be fitted prior to going in the water?
The photo was from this article the other day. I can only assume the photo is from last week when the article went up.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-drone-images-show-new-frigate-hms-glasgow-before-launch/
.
Spotter!
Thank you David.
Can’t wait to see her in the water!
Also looks like no slots cut yet for both the 3x Mk41s and 4x Camm six pack silos.
As i understand it the Bow Sonar will be fitted after fitting out in Scotstoun and will need a dry docking period to do so.
Good news. Unit price has come down from the ludicrous £1.23 billion each on first batch to £840 million each.
With budgets stretched and HMG looking at cut backs and raising taxes I think this is the best possible outcome.
Jopefully in the future we might revert back to 13 but I’m not jopeful that is ever going to happen. I think we will have to hope for large numbers of type 31/32s in the future to return fighting power and numbers to the RN.
“Jopefully”, what a wonderful word that would be…..
Agree our best hope of expanding the fleet is T31 and T32. Personally, I think we should go for more T31 and put any remaining budget into making them what they should be, with bow sonar, 24 CAMM and quad launchers for NSM.
Considering initial cost, all the detail designing, construction jigs, manuals, procedure setups, “£1.23 billion each for initial 3” to “£840 million each for another 5” is no surprise.
For example, Frech FREMM program needs 3-unit hull equivalent cost for those initial costs (from their congress report). No surprise.
Meanwhile in todays Mail Online, Rishi takes all the credit for the confirmation of the 2nd batch. In reality it almost certainly would not have been cancelled. Also one bright spark commented that “‘ Ät last we have a British company making ships for the Royal Navy!”
Yes, 🤓well…
I don’t care if he takes credit, as long as it gets done. More false credit and more actual ships is a bargain I’d make any day.
Correct but some have an agenda they just can’t let go!🙄
Absolutely Jon
The cost of cancelling them would have been massive.
That said it takes a bit of guts and persuasion from Wallace and Radakin to make this happen.
Putin’s Russia a constant threat to the U.K. So no defence cuts then?🤔
Hmm, Sunak the bean counter and financier at heart. If defence doesn’t take some kind of hit I’ll be amazed.
What is coming is austerity Mk2 and look what the Mk1 version did..!
We’re definately just keeping our heads above water at the moment so I’m watching what is coming with a certain amount of err, concern… to put it mildly.
Grim times are a coming, again!
CR
Fingers crossed✌
In addition, work is soon to start on the build of five Type 31 Frigates at Rosyth.
Is that an older quote, as thought the first cut commenced end of last year? What is the latest status at Rosyth?
On the Navy Lookout Twitter feed there was an Armistice Day photo of the build hall in which you can see the build to date albeit at a distance
Cheers. Never accessed Twitter or 😮book, etc. May await George’s drone 😉
Hi Gavin,
I thought that as well.
I haven’t seen news lately, indeed, the most update news I could find with a very quick search was that Babcock have scheduled the first delivery for 2025… Of course, that does not mean that she’ll be available for ops. I think IOC is 2027ish for the first of class.
Cheers CR
Yes, our modern definition of quick and simple does leave something to be desired, what?
Hi Gavin, To be fair to Babcock the T31 concept was first raised in the 2015 SDSR so compared to most defence procurements, from cheap words in a political blah blah document to delivery is blasted quick… Of course, the T31 only came about as someone axed the GP version of the T26, but that wasn’t Babcock’s fault. Also the programme was briefly suspended in 2018 and then restarted with an additional bidder and extra work to make the bids compliant. If that had gone smoothly we could have been looking at 2024 delivery perhaps… By most defence / government… Read more »
Great news. Good to get this order in the bag 🇬🇧
Excellent news.
Simple, direct and true.
Great news for the Navy and the Nation. The RN, in broad brush strokes, seem to be getting the main procurements of surface ships and S/Ms very right indeed – and before the spending cuts happen. I don’t hold out much hope for the Army’s procurements after Thursday.
Good news however it does not stop there, we need to drastically speed up the build rate on all warships.
We need more of every class of vessel and sub ( except the new iCBM ships)
Basically more of everything!!
This is a very interesting dual article on the Mission Bay aspects of T26 in Navy Lookout. Sounds very impressive flexibility. They are devising all manner of potential use for an area that can hold up to the equivalent of 14 containers. Talking about extra helio space, weapons including Dragonfire (not sure how that works) all manner of boats and drones, obviously disaster relief, hospital space, workshops, almost endless possibilities indeed. It’s certainly going to be a game changer.
https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-1-design-and-development/
A wrong idea in my opinion. You can use only one helo/or sizable drone in practice. it would have been better to have a full beam hangar for 2 helo/drones and the mission bay area for other drones and mission modules.
Yes I’m not full sure how the second merlin would work if it’s stored away in the mission bay. You would need some very clever air opps, But everything I’ve read says it’s possible and logically if your using your fight deck well you can easily shuffle around the merlins which are 5 meters wide when all folded down.
The hanger will take two side by side small rotors as far as I understand.( Wild cat size).
Exchanging helicopters in flight deck is no no specially in not so good weather, i am not even sure if weight restrictions will have not a saying in that.
Great news and I think the price reflects the Economies of Scale in the supply chain now that there are now 32 baseline hull builds rather than just 8. But being a cynic (realist) I can’t help but thinking that the timing is very suspicious and a very shrewd, risk assessed Political move. Real-Politic in action ? Pre-empt some bad news on Thursday (maintain present 2.2 % of GDP for defence) by making a positive but inevitable announcement and spinning it. I know there are some real knowledgable people on here, so can someone confirm that the Terms of Business… Read more »
My thoughts are you’re seeing connections between events where there are none and consequently jumping to conclusions.
With the current and emerging threat to the UK ref the vulnerability of the cables and pipelines crucial not just to the UK but much of the world especially communications. It would appear the emphasis on the budget is spent on the Royal Navy. One commentator in these forums recently told me I was wrong in saying this country threat from another state.
Defence will probably not be given the priority it needs but it is certainly further up the ladder spending priorities.
Army to be retained at its current manning level. The Airforce is anyone’s guess.
Now get the FSS order signed and completed … in all honesty, don’t care who gets it as long as they get built, but the more UK involvement the better, but UK workforce will need to be trained up, so some external input will be required if first ship is to be delivered this decade..
Hi Steven,
Don’t forget the MROSS buy just annouced as well.
Also, there is an article on Navy Lookout at the moment “A Future Vision for the Royal Navy…” that briefly saying that a MCM mothership has just being procured. It only appears in the laballing for one of the pictures (MCM drone) so I assume it is referring to one of two vessels to be bought second hand that was just annouced.
All very interesting.
Cheers CR
Notice ‘build 5 more ships’ instead of confirming to ‘build 5 replacement ships’, to give the impression to the general public that this is a big move to bolster up the navy.
At the latest price in US$ looks like the US missed out on a great hull for the FFGX.
“£840M each” (of course I guess inflation must be corrected) means, if RN want 3 more T26, it will be less than £2.5B (in 2022 GBP). RN ordered 5 T31 GP frigate (lightly armed) with £2Bn in 2019 Price = £2.3Bn in 2022 price (inflation corrected). At least, it is an interesting comparison. If RN orders modified T31 as “T32”, the unit cost will be lower. But, if T32 is brand new design, it will be more expensive than T31 itself, because T31 is far from being “new design”. Comparison: – 5 more T26 = £4.2Bn (2022 price) – 5… Read more »
I think we will be lucky to see HMS London in service, before the end of the next decade (30s). Will we then really want to be building a frigate with a 25 year old design, delaying the construction of the newer Type 83? Only way things will improve is if production rates increase, because without that, there is no point of a 9th, 10th or 11th type 26.
Thanks. As I think a frigate after T83 is T26-replacement, last of T83 destroyer shall be handed over in 2025 plus (at least) 30-35yrs = 2055-60. This is “must” to keep the “complex escort building” continuous. If six T83 be built in 2 years drumbeat plus 5 years build (before hand over), the start of T83 build will be 17 years before 2055 (or 2060), which is 2037 (or 2042). So I agree starting T83 build around 2037-42 is good. Then, on the “3 more T26”, I am thinking it as a candidate for “T32”. In other words, adding it… Read more »
Hi DoT, i think with the current tensions there will be a focus of maximising the number and capabilities of all the ships/subs/helo’s we have now and planned to get within this decade including anything that can be brought forward and be built in a shorter time frame.The 30s are still a way off! We can’t “fast-forward” the “present” away! Lol.
The problem is they haven’t divorced the payment cycle from the build cycle, so slow money = slow build. We await the fine print on the speed and frequency of build of batch 2. Depending on choices we could see London operational by 2037.
I’d hope we’d be better off with Type 83s than more Type 26s. Of course we’ve yet to see what a Type 83 is.
Hi… so this is just confirming the 5 more, bringing the total to the 8 planned type 26’s yes?
Correct.
Yes. Simply confirming the second batch of T26 to bring it up to the planned 8.
NOT an “extra” 5 ships over and above what’s been planned.
AA
Am I the only one who think they should bulldose that entire facility and build something state of the art. 24 warships capacity? Rubbish. We should be able to achieve 4 times that & assure quality. Maybe we would get some more orders that way.
No. BAES was of the same mind, and it nearly happened. In 2015 the idea was that the MOD would order 13 Type 26s, and BAES would build a new larger frigate factory in Scotstoun, moving production from Govan. The MOD decided it couldn’t afford the £11.5bn estimate for 13 ships, and cut it to 10 ships (from memory). The navy complained they needed more hulls and the order was cut again to 8 hulls along with 5 more lower capability frigates, the Type 31s.
BAES cancelled the Scotstoun frigate factory as it wasn’t worth it for 8 hulls.
The solution would probably be to get it funded by private finance backed by a Government guarantee of future orders. Keep the ownership of the facility independent so they can rent it out to the builders as needed thus keeping some sense of competition. I suspect something could be worked out.
Is this extra ships on top of the original order or just payment ringfenced for the next batch
Contract signed for previously planned batch 2.
“Russia’s actions put all of us at risk”
..and yet the order for 8 Type 26s has not been increased.
Blame is 50:50 with the government and the general populace who:
1. have no idea that it is them who hold the government of the day to account
2. have no sense of history (re 1930s), and
3. that history repeats.
V
Far to good for Russian rust. Superb ships.
To good for Russian rust