HMS Cardiff, the second of eight Type 26 Frigates, is currently starting to look ship-shape in Glasgow.

Work started on HMS Cardiff in 2019.

An over-exposed image of the hull section.

Here’s another shot.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

“The Type 26 Frigate is a cutting-edge warship, combining the expertise of the British shipbuilding industry with the excellence of the Royal Navy. These ships will be a force to be reckoned with, there to protect our powerful new carriers and helping keep British interests safe across the world.”

Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total with three in the first batch, the contract for the second batch will likely be negotiated in the coming months.

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 for example.

In 2019, we reported that the hull of HMS Cardiff had entered construction. The frigate is being built at the BAE Systems shipyard in Govan, Glasgow and is the second to enter production as part of the £3.7 billion contract, announced by the MoD in 2017.

BAE Systems said at the time:

“It was a pleasure to welcome representatives of the City of Cardiff to our ceremony. The contract for the first batch of three Type 26 ships provides a solid platform to sustain our industrial skill base & ensures the Royal Navy have the ships it needs to protect UK interests.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
92 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Challenger
Challenger
27 days ago

Feels like they are starting to really motor along now! With Belfast now laid down too it’ll be interesting to see how quickly they can commence with the next batch once Glasgow moves to fitting out.

Last edited 27 days ago by Challenger
Steven B
Steven B
27 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

First steel was cut on Belfast in June

expat
expat
26 days ago
Reply to  Steven B

So we’ll need to see the next batch order in 12 months or less based on the time between first steel cut for each.

Mike
Mike
26 days ago

Great news, gaining some momentum at last.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
26 days ago

The direction of travel is encouraging. Sustain this please!

Airborne
Airborne
26 days ago

Considering the planned slow build process, it does seem to be coming along quite well. Lets just hope they are eventually equipped with weaponry accordingly and not a FFBNW in sight!

Jonathan
Jonathan
26 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Unless it’s FFBNW Officers cocktail bar.

Lanre Ihenacho
Lanre Ihenacho
25 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Regarding the FFBNW debacle, do you think the currently underwhelmingly spec’d Type 31 vessels will be retrofitted with weapons systems scavenged from the retiring Duke class? This is what the Danes did with their Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt frigates and is said to be how they brought them in so cheaply.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
2 minutes ago
Reply to  Lanre Ihenacho

Yes its called Government furnished equipment. Eg scavenge everything useful from type 23s except their 4.5 inch guns. Unless some of those are going to type 32s?

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 minutes ago
Reply to  Airborne

Hopefully there is potential to accelerate the programme and order a couple more. That would be brilliant news.

Klonkie
Klonkie
26 days ago

slightly off topic – but I do wonder if the US should have paused their frigate acquisition competition until the lead type 26 commissions?. Possibly a USN evaluation team could work with the RN crew as the lead ship goes through trails and works up.

I see benefit in being involved from the start of the process to test and adapt requirements. Purely a layman’s perspective , the Type 26 appears to be more capable than the FREM design. -no disrespect to the FREM consortium.

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
26 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

No, its not like the US is going to go back and order T26 at this stage, they’ve already awarded the contracted for the first two ships. Also these 20 frigates are a sort of replacement for the cancelled remaining 20 out of eventual 60 something LCS’s. We all know the LCS’s weren’t the most reliable ships out there, with many mechanical issues and all that. The US needed an in-service design, so they wouldn’t have any trouble with the issues that plagued the LCS’s. Also, if the American DID decide to buy T26, it would have to be with… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
26 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

Type 26 like UK US free trade deal would never get through Congress. And for the same reason.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
26 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Why did the Fremm get through then? Whatever the design it will need to be modified and built in the US. The advantage for the Frem is that Fincantieri is far more established as a ship builder in the US than Bae which is more directed towards servicing and refit though a deal like the one the Australians got with their trimaran design I’m sure could have been done if chosen just wasn’t a proven design so couldnt be considered. That said one Senator did indeed last year call for the very delay in the programme that Klonkie mentions above… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
26 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Why USN would want a more expensive ship for not reason at all?

Fincantieri have shipbuilding capability in US like you say.

FREMM frigate have GE LM2500 GT because Italians build them too.

Type 26 have RR MT30 GT. A side note i think the huge size of T26 is related to justify the MT30.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
26 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

A T26 More expensive?… Chances are that the Fremm will work out more expensive than a T26! A congressional report on 19 Oct (CRS Reports Web site ….worth a read) highlighted serious cost underestimates from the USN. First of class is probably going to come in at 1.3 bil USD. With cost growth that has not been factored in of around 17% on the initial estimates, they are going to cost as much if not more than the first T26 and be less capable in the ASW realm. For surface warfare they will be better because they have 16 NSM… Read more »

Netking
Netking
26 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

In my opinion the Fremm will cost even more than the already projected cost overrun. The USN is trying to get these into service as cheaply as possible with the hopes of up arming them in the future. To be fair it’s almost certain that the T26 will end up costing more than is projected right now as well.

AlexS
AlexS
25 days ago
Reply to  Netking

T26 are supposed to cost more than 1 Billion pounds. A pound is today at 1.38 dollars. You can bet it will be more.
I don’t know if the +1 billion pound includes the RN assets like radar and other stuff that were supposed to come from Type 23/26 to cheapen it.

Pete
Pete
26 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Better than that…T26 is getting 48 Ceptor split between 2 x 24 cell clusters.

AlexS
AlexS
25 days ago
Reply to  Pete

What matter the Ceptor when the enemy just stays at 30km lobbing missiles or guided iron bombs?

Pete
Pete
25 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Don’t disagree.. but 48 is better than 24. More opportunity to take out the incoming missiles if it’s simply a distance numbers game then I’m not aware of any AAM that will take out the launch aircraft lobbing 1000 km range anti ship missiles but having 48 to deal with incoming on a high probability of kill basis is better than 24 Also we all know that CAMM is good for 40+ km. In a peer hot war. it will be Type45 providing the wide area coverage for the task group plus F35b if CSG is involved. Would the CAMM… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
25 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Or if it has an area defence missile system and the enemy sit outside that range lobbing missiles and glide bombs…

Whatifery…

AlexS
AlexS
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

“Or if it has an area defence missile system and the enemy sit outside that range lobbing missiles and glide bombs…”

That implies bigger missiles and a bigger vector.

At 30km you can just lob Spike light type missiles from a medium drones like BK2 hitting radars and making mission kills.

AlexS
AlexS
25 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Constellation will be better AAW with Standard, it is a grave mistake Type 26 not to have AAW.

Type 26 will still be more expensive with a mediocre radar and no AAW. While Constellation will be integrated with Aegis system, CEC etc.

An Italian FREMM costs 800M Euro and the French FREMM slighty less, that is why there even been lots of teeth gnashing in French naval circles connected to Marine Nationale since the new FDI frigate will cost more with less capability.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
26 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I think the problem is that USN needs something pretty fast that is good enough.

Keeping old platforms running is very expensive and increasingly hard. Never mind the fact that they are just, well, old and EOL.

It is the oldest adage ‘don’t let perfect stand in the way of progress.’ Which we turned on its head with T45.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
26 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

see below…its a lot!

David Steeper
David Steeper
26 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Northern Ireland.

expat
expat
26 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

BAe could partner to build in the US, In Canada they have done just that.

Klonkie
Klonkie
26 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

Thank Goldilocks – informative post!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
26 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

It isn’t that unlikely that they will need at top tier ASW frigate.

Whilst the ship will have to be built in the US not every screw and bearing is primarily manufactured in the US.

Stuff is made of smaller stuff.

I agree the electronics will have to be US style and the weapons. As we are fitting Mk41 VLS anyway that isn’t a big change.

CMS and radars are going to have to be US native but that is already in the Canadian/US version.

AlexS
AlexS
26 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Type 26 appears to be more capable than the FREM design.

In what way? The British version certainly is not.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
26 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Its got a bow sonar for a start… That’s pretty important for an ASW frigate…

eclipse
eclipse
26 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

It definitely is. If we compare to French FREMM those have 16 Aster 15 missiles 8 Exocet and 16 Storm Shadow. Italian are similar but don’t have the Storm Shadow fitted. Americans have a 32-cell Mk.41 VLS (possibly with ESSM but more likely RIM-66) and 16 AShMs. City class will have 24 Mk.41 for hypersonic/stealth (or whatever FC/ASW ends up being) missiles and 48 for Sea Ceptor. That completely outclasses the European FREMMs on air defence, anti ship and land attack capability. Against the Americans, we have more anti-ship missiles (rather a surprise considering that doesn’t seem to be a… Read more »

eclipse
eclipse
26 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

Btw I’m aware I only focused on armament here, besides other advantages like a bow sonar, better acoustic quieting etc.

AlexS
AlexS
25 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

I already talked about Constellation above.

Italian FREMM have Aster 30 besides 15 , so AAW that Type 26 lacks. They have Milas Anti submarine missile instead or with reduction in Otomat
Some with 5″ guided rounds – which was also chosen for Canadian Type 26. Guided rounds for 1 or 2 76mm.

eclipse
eclipse
25 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

City has a 5 inch gun and 2 30mm guns… the French have 1 76mm and the Italians 2. I don’t know what point you’re making here. About the AAW, that’s irrelevant. We have (or will have once Sea Ceptor is fitted to Type 45) 48 Aster 30 on our destroyers to cover air defence. Our non-air defence ships don’t have to also take on roles that are not necessary (I.e. area air defence such as with Aster 30). Type 26 just needs to be able to defend itself and maybe a few surrounding ships, but we have Type 45s… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
23 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

So you think it is “irrelevant” that RN have only 6 ships with AAW when for example Italy will have 16, USN all their major combatants DDG and FFG will have AAW, so dozens,
the Canadians will have 15 and Australians also more than 10?

With drones and missiles increasingly being produced by everyone do you think that is wise?
Not even CAMM-ER the RN ships have.

AlexS
AlexS
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

USN: >68 Burkes + 20 FFG – and assuming Ticos are all retired

Italy 2 Horizon,10 FREMM , 2-4 PPA, 2 DDX from 2030 (not counting 2 obsolete De La Penne)

Australia: 3 Hobart+8 Type 26

Canada: 15 Type 26

klonkie
klonkie
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Hi Alex. I think the Burke numbers should swell a bit more with the Flight 111 ships coming on line in 2025. I recall there was a planned life extension reft for the late model Ticons , not sure if this went anywhere though.

eclipse
eclipse
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

We will not have “only 6 ships with AAW”. We will have the 6 Type 45s with 48 Aster 30 and 24 CAMM/CAMM-ER, the 8 Type 26s with 48 CAMM/CAMM-ER, the 5 Type 31s with 24 CAMM/CAMM-ER and the 5 Type 32s which will probably be similarly or slightly better armed than the Type 31s. I don’t know why you’re trying to compare the RN with the USN; they have a budget about 10 times bigger. The only thing we can compare them on is ships one-on-one, i.e. Type 45 vs AB, Astute vs Virginia etc. When you say Italy… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
23 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

@klonkie indeed, that is why i put the > before the 68. @eclipse AAW is not short range. PPA have no CAMM. Have Aster and the Full version will have 2 fixed array panel types of band C and X band to be able to control Aster ABM capable. FREMM have a rotating AESA and Aster 30 besides Aster 15. So the anti aircraft range of a FREMM is 120km(more when BN1 arrives) and >20km ceiling while RN Type 26 is 25km and probably about 10km ceiling. I notice you don’t use same rules even for your RN and MM… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie
20 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

cheers Alex I missed your “> before the 68″ re the AB numbers- apologies.

Meirion x
Meirion x
23 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

I am surprised that hypersonic FC/ASW are going to fit in Mk. 41 cells, more likely in Mk. 57? I wonder if the Mk. 41 cells on T26 are being made bigger than 21 inch, to accommodate the future FC/ASW. It would still be essentially a Mk. 41 system. No reason why can’t Mk.41 launch a 25 inch diameter missile with a larger cell fitted?

Last edited 23 days ago by Meirion x
Klonkie
Klonkie
25 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Hi Alex. Look like GB and Eclipse gave good summaries, hope that helps.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
26 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

The USN FREMM design looks nothing like the Italian design. They have lengthened it, increased the beam at the waterline, increased displacement,lowered the main deck, removed the bow sonar(!) . Removed the masts and replaced the Fwd mast with a lattice. Bigger gensets for higher speed… US law states that certain materials must be of US origin….things like pumps. So all the pumps and pipework to them, electrical supplies etc have all been reworked. Only orders for 2 have been confirmed. Options exist for others but have yet to materialise. One of the LCS builders Austal on the great lakes,… Read more »

message-editor_1632863410462-ffg-62-versus-fremm-graphic.jpg
Jonathan
Jonathan
26 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

That is effectively a new hull, not sure what the point was of demanding a current proven design and then changing the hull shape.

Johan
Johan
25 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

agreed

AlexS
AlexS
25 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Not a totally “new” hull.
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/navy-says-constellation-hull-change-wont-affect-internal-design/

“The Italians did a very good job in the design of the internal spaces, and the flow of a lot of those spaces,” Capt. Kevin Smith, program manager for the Constellation class, told attendees at the Sea Air Space exposition on Monday. “You could say we bought a bigger house, [but] from a modeling and simulation perspective, it’s exactly the same.”

Jonathan
Jonathan
25 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

But the dynamics of how the hull will work in different sea states will have changes and hull form/dynamics is a big part of any ship design.

AlexS
AlexS
23 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I agree with that Jonathan.

Klonkie
Klonkie
25 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Morning GB, thanks for the reply -really informative stuff! I’m hoping we see a flurry of US ship building activity heading into the next decade.

Lots to replace , Ticon, AB & they’ll need to shake a leg building Virginia’s to replace the LA class subs!

Johan
Johan
25 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Sounds like the AJAX program, this is the winner, BUT WE JUST WANT TO CHANGE THIS. why bother selecting a class if it wasnt what you needed

AlexS
AlexS
25 days ago
Reply to  Johan

Any foreign ship would have always to be Americanised.

You can’t escape that when dealing with USN and the Congress laws in place.

criss whicker
criss whicker
26 days ago

a closer picture would be nice.

Quentin Drury
Quentin Drury
26 days ago
Reply to  criss whicker

An additional order for 1-2 more would be even nicer… Lol 😁 l

criss whicker
criss whicker
26 days ago
Reply to  Quentin Drury

fully agree whith you

Quentin Drury
Quentin Drury
26 days ago
Reply to  criss whicker

The unit costs for any additionals should be a bit less. A fleet of ten would allow for more presence and extra protection for CSG deployments. Still, expensive if you don’t really have the money for it. Looks like a pretty decent ship for the RN. Hope for a bit more export success with these or at least with the T31s.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
26 days ago
Reply to  Quentin Drury

It would be difficult to see who else would buy the T26 that have not already done so.

Who else has a high tier navy and the budgets to do this.

Italy, Hapan and France won’t as they will want to support native designs. Germany hadn’t the chops for T26.

Which leaves whom in the market?

David Steeper
David Steeper
26 days ago

A very long shot but Japan.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
26 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Even longer shots…India…under licence…maybe Chile, a replacement frigate for Norway….and we mustn’t forget…NZ!

David Steeper
David Steeper
26 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Yeah. LOL.

Quentin Drury
Quentin Drury
26 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

And it would be really great if the USN bought some! Keep trying BAE!

Jonathan
Jonathan
26 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

NZ may actually look up and start realising it needs to take China seriously. Unlikely but they do pay attention to what Austria do.

Ian M
Ian M
26 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Australia maybe?😃

David Steeper
David Steeper
26 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Dumb and Dumber ! Jim Carey at his best.

Lusty
Lusty
25 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Who? 😂 I think Ian’s post was an amendment of Jonathan’s.

Klonkie
Klonkie
25 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

You have my vote! On a personal note, I was pleased to see one of our NZ frigates join the Task force exercise near China.

I remain envious of our Aussie cousins who are are far more thorough on matters defence!

Andy a
Andy a
20 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

China financial owns NZ!!

Lanre Ihenacho
Lanre Ihenacho
25 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

India has already got a major future logistics headache with its variety of international weapons suppliers. NZ doesn’t appear to have the belief in its own defence needs or willingness to commit resources as seen in the disbandment of its fixed wing fighter squadrons. I think two or ideally three Type 31s would be a closer fit plus some sort of integration arrangement with the RAAF for rotating NZ based aircraft manned by bi-national crews.
ignoring China’s looming threat and relying on AUKUS for their own protection would be negligent.

Klonkie
Klonkie
25 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Hi Quentin. I doubt our NZ Navy can afford Type 26. I do think though the type31/2 is a possibility to replace our two ANZAC frigates.

Paul T
Paul T
26 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Japan has no need for the Type 26, they are quite capable of using their own ASW designs, the new Asahi class being a case in point.

David Steeper
David Steeper
26 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Yeah it would be a very long shot.

Jonathan
Jonathan
26 days ago

You never know which rich oil state will decide it needs to throw a Big lump cash the UKs way. It is after all one of their major geopolitical tools when working with western allies.

Johan
Johan
25 days ago
Reply to  Quentin Drury

Bare in MIND, raw materials prices have skyrocketed, and any additional order may be done in another 3. energy prices will not be accounted for in current costs.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
26 days ago
Reply to  Quentin Drury

Hi Quentin,

My understanding is that negotiations for 5x Batch II T26’s have been underway since the beginning of the year. Hopefully, we’ll hear more soon.

Cheers CR

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
26 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I was thinking that a slightly bigger batch of 7 might help us forget all the troubles with the T45s… Lol 😁. Then they’ve got to fill in all those silos with something that goes whoosh, zip and boom. At least the T26 production line is rolling along nice.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
26 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I have my fingers crossed for a batch 3 of say 2 ships – possibly with upgraded radars. They could be prototypes of a mid-life upgrade for the rest of the fleet.

Chances of a Batch 3 – pretty much nil I think, but we can hope.

Cheers CR

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
26 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Yes, keep hopeful.

The Artisan radars are pretty widespread across the fleet. Would you know what the NS100 radar on the T31 like in comparison? I wonder what the T32s will get?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
26 days ago

My uncle sailed on HMS Glasgow during WW2 (quite a history), I remember listening to some of the stories he and other members of the family had to tell about their time at sea as a boy, including being torpedoed by the Italians!

Ron
Ron
26 days ago

Now its time to start thinking about Batch II contracts, possibly with some upgrades such as a more advanced radar suite, possibly locate anti ship missiles above the multi mission bay. Generaly take some of the good ideas from the RAN and RCN versions and build them into the batch IIs.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
26 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Nice one Ron. With you on this.

Paul T
Paul T
26 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Negotiations for Batch 2 are ongoing, whether they will be of a different specification has not been revealed yet AFAIK.

expat
expat
26 days ago
Reply to  Ron

But isn’t this part of the UK’s problem changing specs adds cost and time. So we then end up with a cancellations as we’ve used the budget. on 6 ships not 8.

Ron
Ron
26 days ago
Reply to  expat

Understand what you are saying, but with warships the reason for diffrent batchies is to increase capability, improve somethings that was learnt in the batch 1 build. Also this time there are two extra variants of the T26 being designed and built which could be used to the RNs advantage. That is what I was thinking use the advatage that we have been given for the first time in many years and use it. It could save money on further improvements.

Johan
Johan
25 days ago
Reply to  expat

More to do with upgrades and improvements over the construction timescales, also if they ordered 8 ships on a set spec, onboard electronics could be outdated, and Variations on orders could be just as expensive. MOD no longer works this way, and the Next order could go to a different yard. be more worried over the Raw Material cost currently ie Steel would be a concern to future numbers,

Expat
Expat
25 days ago
Reply to  Johan

It makes sense to keep systems upto date. But larger spec changes will attract price hikes from the supplier and prolong negotiations. Steel makes up such a small part of the 1 billion price tag and its a very competitive market. Bespoke software and electronics get expensive very quickly and are difficult to switch to other products or suppliers.

eclipse
eclipse
26 days ago

Maybe if costs are low enough Batch 2 might end up being 3 and another 4 Batch 3… then again I always get stressed when that happens because of the T45 situation…

expat
expat
26 days ago

For anyone interest a great walk through of the T26 in build.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzFXV9foi10&ab_channel=NavyLookout

Robbo
Robbo
26 days ago

Rather than the T26, would suggest that the USN should look at the Canadian Surface Combatant which is the Canadian version of the T26. Lockheed Martin Canada are leading on the provision of the Combat System, using mainly US systems. The CSC requires an Area Air Defence capability, additional to ASW. For Nigel Collins, the Dartmouth museum have rather a nice model of the WW2 Town Class cruiser, HMS Glasgow, if ever he is in the area.

Jonathan
Jonathan
26 days ago

I suspect the batch 2 will remain five hulls and not be much different from the batch 1s. Let’s be honest these 8 batch one and twos are going to pretty much always do the job they are intended for, high end ASW to protect strategic assets like the nuclear deterrent and carriers, as well as any major amphib task group. That’s going to take up the time of all the hulls, 2 for the carriers, 1 for deterrent and home waters and if lucky a spare for an amphib task group! That will be an organisational problem itself with… Read more »

eclipse
eclipse
25 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Sticking the SAMPSON on Type 26 wouldn’t work because it’s very high up, very heavy and the Type 26 is already very heavy for its size. The balance would be poor to say the least. Don’t wish for stuff that is no good; I would much rather have 6 Type 83s properly built with air defence in mind, and a sufficient number of VLS cells than 8 or even 10 AAW Type 26. That wouldn’t have enough VLS cells, it wouldn’t be optimised for air defence, and I don’t think it would be much good.

Jonathan
Jonathan
25 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

But you have to remember Sampson is now, we don’t know what sensors will be looking like in 20 yeas and pretty much every other navy has accepted a lower down sensor. The RN is going to have to make a decision around the next AAW platform 1) the very best in the world but so costly you don’t have as many as you need or 2) a compromise design so you can afford the number you need. Yes the T45 is probably the best platform in the world and a type 26 AAW will be a compromise. But what… Read more »