Work on ships based on BAE’s Type 26 Frigate being built in Australia and Canada has been estimated to be worth around £6bn to the British economy.

During an Oral evidence session gathering information for the inquiry ‘Defence in Scotland: Military shipbuilding’, the following exchange was made.

Members of Parliament present: Pete Wishart (Chair); Andrew Bowie; Deidre Brock; Wendy Chamberlain; Sally-Ann Hart; John Lamont; Douglas Ross.

Witnesses: Ian Waddell, General Secretary, Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions; Kevin Craven, Chief Executive Officer, ADS Group; and Richard Powell OBE, Chairman of the Maritime Defence and Security Group Council, Society of Maritime Industries.

So here’s the section to note.

Deidre Brock: “You mentioned that you do not make as much money and there is not as much benefit financially to Scotland or to the UK as with those ships being built here. Can you give us an estimate of how much less money? Say these are being built in—”

Kevin Craven: “Richard may be better placed to answer that one.”

Deidre Brock: “Mr Powell, thank you.”

Richard Powell: “BAE did a study on this very subject and it has all the detail. My understanding is that it was in the order of £6 billion for the Type 26 programme that was added to the UK. You will need to get the detail from BAE, but that is a significant sum. That is a class of 32 ships around the world, which is a very significant number but that shows the potential and benefit.

The points have been made here about this creating a new environment. We spoke about collaboration on a national scale earlier but when you start to then move into international collaboration—because there is a lot of components of the ships that are similar, there are elements to it—you then come on to what the First Sea Lord talks about, interchangeability and a greater operational output. It is not just about building the ships. It is about what capability do you deliver. Then you move into a whole new realm of operational capability, which is important. It is a broader consideration that gives you that fighting edge. That comes back to Ian’s point about the first role of Government being security of the realm. It is all linked together, so it is much broader.”

Deidre Brock: “The ones that are being built in Australia are worth £6 billion currently.”

Richard Powell: “It is the overall benefit to the UK from the entire programme of 32 ships. It is in that order, yes.”

Deidre Brock: “If they were built here what would it be?”

Richard Powell: “You would have to go to BAE for that. However, they were never going to be built in the UK. That is not the way it was designed.”

Deidre Brock: “Yes, I understand. All right.”

Richard Powell: “A lot of countries do not have the capability to build their own ships, sophisticated ships. These are very sophisticated warships. These are the high end for navies who are going to use them. That is why a country wants to have an indigenous capability and why it has to build them in their own countries. It is that balance of transferring all the technical capabilities and sharing the best practice. Again, only 30% of the value is in the shipbuilding itself. It is the other 70% that we are really interested in and lots of common systems put in the supply chain for these ships as well.”

To what extent does the UK benefit from exporting military ships (or parts of them) and/or their design licences?

While, for example, the Type 26 Frigate-based vessels ordered by Australia and Canada will not be built on the Clyde it is important to remember that there is still a benefit not only in reduced unit costs in the longer term but there is also a benefit to companies around Scotland and the wider UK making components for these vessels. Export success is also important to the Ministry of Defence; competitive companies, winning export work, enable overheads to be spread, reducing the unit cost to the Department.

In short, I’m getting at the idea that a company only building eight components for the British Type 26 fleet could now be building up to thirty-two components for the British, Canadian and Australian fleets. Export orders benefit the supply chain here in Scotland immensely.

The exports have turned the Type 26 Frigate from an eight-ship class to, essentially, a thirty-two ship class [18].

While it is fair to say that there will be significant local supply chain involvement in Canada and Australia, it should be noted that the businesses based in Scotland will have the advantage of retaining intellectual property and the fully trained people, putting them in prime position to compete for the work, even overseas. In addition, the export of ships and their components is beneficial for the cost related to maintenance and supply lines when it comes to operating the finished vessels.

What I mean by that is that the increased number of units, be they ships or components of ships, in service with navies worldwide makes it far more economical for the company building the components to retain repair and refurbishment facilities for those components here in Scotland, sustaining jobs and sustaining the ability of naval forces to cost effectively repair or replace those components should the need arise.

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
99 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob Young
Rob Young
17 days ago

It would be nice if the benefits accrued by British arms sales were added to the public perception and offset against defence spending – something like defence spending £x, profits from the industry £y, net cost for UK defence spending £z. A similar ‘account’ would be useful for people who complain about the cost of the Royal Family!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

I think we would need a similar cost benefit account for the setting up, investigating and producing of such an overall balance account for the benefits/liabilities of the Royal Family given the depth and somewhat obscurity of so much of it. I doubt we would ever get through even the initial debate on who rightfully owns all the relevant assets, directly the obvious, the Royal Palaces but well beyond those to such matters as the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and further still do we go as far as the assets of the Grosvenors and various other hangers on for… Read more »

Rob Young
Rob Young
17 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

To try and sort out rightful inheritance and tax may be a bit difficult – you would need to do the same for practically everybody and it still wouldn’t be fair! No, I would accept that the Royal Family has inherited possessions – and remind people that income due to the Crown is actually the result of a deal wherebye the Crown got a government income based on the profits of those possessions. So in effect the income is from their own estates. However, people still complain about the cost… so I would limit it to simply telling people ‘the… Read more »

Tams
Tams
17 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

Yeah, property ownership around the Crown is a right spidersweb. Overall, we the public and the Royal Family both get a pretty decent deal from it, so I see no reason for upturning it.

Especially since it would open up a whole can of worms about who actually legitimately owns what (and I suspect a lot would actually end up staying/going to the Royal Family – and then we’d see immense amounts of anguish from some people).

Honestly, best to just leave it as it is.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
16 days ago
Reply to  Tams

If it isn’t broke don’t fix (meddle with) it.

The figure given to Parliament that B.A.E. Systems estimated as the benefit accruing to the U.K. are probabilistic. In fact it is likely as not an impossible effort to undertake. It could be more or less. Some of the most important factors in life have no way of being valued in economic terms but have well understood economic consequences, many social. The wider benefits can rarely be estimated and vice versa. Let us hope this ‘new dawn’ for British ship building gets the support it needs.

David Barry
David Barry
16 days ago
Reply to  Tams

A devout Labour supporter said to me, she stood up in the war; I can not disagree.

Then he said, “the monarchy should end when she goes.” Can not disagree.

Brooklyn
Brooklyn
16 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

I am making $92 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss. 
That is what I do.. http://Www.Profit97.Com

Last edited 16 days ago by Brooklyn
Matt
Matt
17 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

We do have a relatively clear tax setup for Trusts iirc.

Grosvenor beneficiaries, for example, pay normal taxes (eg income tax) on money taken out of it.

The ongoing business of the trust pays normal taxes on everything else. Checking, that is currently approx. £100m a year.

Trusts are (were?) usually set up to avoid Inheritance Tax (which is 40% after the £350k or so tax free allowance), and the alternative they pay for that is a 6% tax on all their assets once every 10 years.

The links with details are:

https://www.grosvenor.com/about-us/how-we-work/tax-policy/our-ownership-and-payment-of-tax

https://www.grosvenor.com/about-us/how-we-work/tax-policy

Mark B
Mark B
17 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I’m not exactly sure how you would quantify any of that or why you would ever want to bother. We as a country have wandered into a system whereby the top politician can effectively be sacked immediately should the House of Commons lose faith in the current PM.

A simple act of parliament could transfer assets from anyone to the state so in essence everything belongs to everyone. Let’s keep it where it is doing some good and bringing in some revenue and running the country smoothly in these difficult times.

Last edited 17 days ago by Mark B
David Barry
David Barry
16 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I’d give you a like. Have a LOVE IT.

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

The Answer is 42 according too Mr Douglas Adams if that helps Spyinthesky

David Steeper
David Steeper
17 days ago

We need to export what our military orders. Good explanation of importance of economy of scale and huge benefits of in article. The 26 and the 31 are good steps in that direction. With 26 it isn’t by design but is benefit of building bigger than currently needed. This makes future upgrades cheaper but also allows export customers to tailor sensors and weapons to their own requirements. At least in the case of RCN it has. RAN is different and to be honest for me worrying.

Andrew D
Andrew D
17 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

To think RCN and RAN ships going to be better Armed then ours it is a ouch ,but well done to them yet for the UK still need to learn .Was it not the Royal navy in the Falklands 🤔

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
17 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Let’s see.

Will they work better than the RN equivalent?

The RAN’s spec is overweight ATM so it will get trimmed – according to the Australian parliament anyway….

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

The RNs 3 x Mk41s, 48 CAMM and helo is not too bad for starters…lol
Even compared to the USN Constellation class which has 4 x Mk41s, 4×4 AShMs, 57mm main gun and helo they look a tad less. I wonder if they’re looking at any potential follow on second batch T26 ASW based model to the USN or have we totally missed the boat (sorry) on that one? The T31/T32 look like they have much potential in this area too.

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

No comparison, RN version significantly inferior.
RN version do not even have a proper radar for next decade.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I would find it hard to believe that the RNs T26 is an “inferior” product for what £1BN+ per vessel? Radar and CAMM can or will get upgrades. It should have a helo + uav(s) and a really decent ASW suite. Class of 8, not bad, originally 9 though. Hopefully the T32 will a useful ship and not too late and the fleet can get up to 24+ ships.

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Canadian and Australian T26 have AAW and have proper AESA fixed radars.

The ideal configuration is to have a C band long range AESA and X band anti sea skimmer AESA . There are only 3 ships classes that have this at moment: Japanese Akizuki and Asahi destroyers and Italian PPA Full.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

The RAN T26s could be having weight, space, lower max speed and less range issues. They’re sure trying to pack a lot into these ships, it’s almost a mini AB. Same with the RCN T26s. Hopefully these radar abilities will come with the T32/ T83s.

OldSchool
OldSchool
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Depends how you look at it. A better radar would be nice but at the fleet level the UK has T45s (which are being upgraded). Also none of the other countries have nuke subs. You need to take a holistic fleet wide approach. T26 is just one part of the fleet puzzle and money is spread across a whole range of assets in different countries in different ways.

Bob
Bob
16 days ago
Reply to  OldSchool

Have to agree with you there. As specialist ASW frigates I would have liked to see a smaller 57mm main armament and an increased VLS capability. The latter possibly including an AShM or ASROC type launcher. It surely wouldn’t be that difficult or costly to develop a Stingray with a boost motor?

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  OldSchool

That is correct, but UK has much more ambition than those countries. So it should invest to have a fit for propose fleet.

Not we are a global navy and have only 6 AAW capable ships…what a joke is that?

David Barry
David Barry
16 days ago
Reply to  OldSchool

Oh, the Cons, the party of defence are building how many Astutes? How many will be at Sea?

Our Navy are woefully under platformed.

Disgusted of Cumbria.

Joe16
Joe16
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Maybe, but those radar panels so high on the mast are apparently causing some sea-keeping issues- because the ship doesn’t have the same low-level weight as a T45 or Burke. There is a lesson here in not trying to make a ship do too much…
All of the vessels you mention feature their AESA panels lower down on the superstructure than the mast-mounted plan for the Hunters. It’s always a toss-up between height (and therfore range) and stability due to the weight of the array.

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

i roughly made a height comparison. In PPA the panels are at 8 level in RN Type 26 are at 11 or 12 level dificult to check in the drawing above. But while in PPA there are 8 AESA panels, 4 in C and 4 in X band with even anti ballistic capability in Type 26 there is only one rotating.

Joe16
Joe16
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Fair enough, I’ve found it hard to find solid information about the height of the radar systems on T26 too- when I was tryign to work out if it would make for a good replacement to T45. I came roughly to the conclusion that it wouldn’t be able to get a mast high enouhg and maintain good seakeeping to make a dedicated top-of-the-line AAW platform. That’s not to discount your point about having some AAW capability though. The radar on T26 is a bit of a puzzle- I’ve read that T31’s system is technically better? I’d imagine that it’d be… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Afternoon, Alex – and a hot one it is. If our Government keep to the brief and equip our T26s with all the equipment promulgated, I’ll be very satisfied. Yet to uncross mental fingers, as always, though. ‘Should not’ be an issue in view of rapidly deteriorating political stability; perhaps too unstable even before we get these vessels commissioned. A slam dunk case of Fitted For And Additionally With, by any measure. I’ve consistently supported the FFBNW mantra to date in an effort to get hulls in the water, with the obvious proviso that that ends when war drums start… Read more »

zavve
zavve
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Ideal configuration C and X bands? Both C and X bands overlap a bit. The perfect configuration is a high-mounted X and S-band with an L band to provide volume search. X band or for surface-search and S-band for missile homing near the horizon while L band can search the skies for ballistic missiles/ hypersonic glide vehicles.

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  zavve

They are adjacent not overlap. The C Band in PPA is said to be able to perform anti ballistic.

Jonathan
Jonathan
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

To be honest I suspect that the T83 will effectively be a batch 3 T26 upgraded with AESA and increased numbers of MK41 launchers.

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I don’t think the Type 83 will be based on Type 26.
Type 26 seems to be too specialised for that and i think there will be enough time separation to develop a more modern design.

Jonathan
Jonathan
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I hope so, but I think cheap as possible will be a guiding light and just going for an AAW batch 3 T26 would be cheaper and less Risky than a whole new 10T quite hull for both AAW and ASW work.

Joe16
Joe16
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Agreed,too much to fit into the hull size and allow for future growth. I’m expecting something bigger than T45 in all dimensions.

John Clark
John Clark
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I would suggest the jump to Camm ER, that one addition would give T26 local ‘plus’ area Air Defence, pushing the engagement circle out to 30 miles.

That and add Bofus 40mm mounts…

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

That is another, there are no ships of this size without AAW capability.

John Clark
John Clark
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

It would be a reality cheap method of adding bang for our buck … After all, T26 might find itself having to provide Air Defence for a future task group of T31 engaging in autonomous mine clearance in the Gulf/ Black Sea or who knows where… 48 Camm ER would push the Airborne threat back to a slightly more comfortable distance. In fact, if you add the ( hopefully) 24 Camm of T31, plus their extremely capable gun systems, then there is precious little out there that would be capable of penetrating that unified AAW brick wall of missiles and… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

I really think that CAMM-ER are minimum necessary. Last Spike NLOS a 70kg missile so you can have many is already in last version with 50km range when launched from helicopters.
It just a couple years that Chinese and Iranians will have something similar.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Maybe a CAMM+ (but not the “full ER”) to fit into the current silos. Not sure if CAMM-ER do.

Jon
Jon
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The new CAMM silos already look like a space-wasting solution; you could have nearly four times the number of silos in the same space (as the Canadian and Polish frigates show). If they also aren’t deep enough for CAMM-ER, the person who specced them is equally a waste of space.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
17 days ago
Reply to  Jon

I raised the same issue sometime ago in a discussion with SB (I think, sorry SB if my memory is playing tricks) and he pointed out the the current silos could easily be lengthened above deck, so depth is not a problem. I am still of the view that a full switch to MK41 and its derivative cold launch version the ExLS makes most sense. The CAMM / ExLS commination has already been qualified as this article on the MBDA website shows. CAMM can be quad packed in to ExLS so it is possible to get x24 CAMM onto T31… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

As Jon below mentioned, if T26 and 31 silos arn’t already deep enough for the ER variant, then someone seriously needs their arse kicked…

It really isn’t rocket science!

Joe16
Joe16
17 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

25+ km range on the standard CAMM is area air defence: at 30 km (that’s a fairly conservative guess on what MBDA might be hiding about range) radius, CAMM defends an area of 2,800 sq km around the T26 or T31. That’s not a bad amount of area.
I don’t dispute that ER would be better, but let’s not pretend that CAMM is a point defence system…

John Clark
John Clark
17 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

I’m not pretending it is Joe, obviously range is classified, but it has been suggested that CAMM ER might be able to engage targets out as far as 50 plus miles by clever number crunching folks with white smocks, red, green and blue pens in the top pocket, slide rules and thick glasses…. (take notes johninmk, you might want to keep your rattly old Flankers back out of the way). Sea Ceptors official range is about 15 miles, it’s probably closer to 30. I suspect they mean 15 miles is the no escape zone. You are a goner, with zero… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16
17 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Sorry, was probably a little harsh- I’ve seen people dismiss it as such before. You’re quite right, ER would be a great upgrade for any vessel not also packing Aster30. My understanding is that CAMM is clear to quad pack into Mk41 via the EXLS module, so a T26 could actually carry an awful lot of them if it wanted to give some over from whatever the RN wants to put in those cells. I understand that MBDA worked very hard to make CAMM-ER’s external diameter the same as standard, so I don’t see why that also couldn’t be cleared… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
16 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

No problem whatsoever mate, Sea ceptor is a superb asset in its own right and you are of course quite right about Mk41.

I hope the necessary software is being integrated to allow all the inherent flexibility the Mk41 could potentially offer the RN.

We need to be able to re role and fill the Mk41 silos accordingly at very short notice for short notice tasking, that might mean additional CAMM or Sea to Surface or Anti ship etc…

A small number of ships means they have to be very flexible and capable assets.

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

25km range is not AAW.
CAMM is a 99kg missile with cold launch. So against a 99kg ASM launched from an air plane – so with launch speed and height advantage – and not needed to be as fast will always loose the range equation. The enemy helicopter/drones can be outside range launching missile after missile.

Last edited 16 days ago by AlexS
Joe16
Joe16
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

So, had to do a bit of reading on this one. Yes, the engagement ranges would put the launching aircraft outside of the envelope of CAMM. But, lessons learned from the Falklands war, defines AShMs as legitimate targets in and of themselves for missile defence systems- the RN apparently doesn’t particularly trust chaff to do the job. It’s clearly stated as one of the primary target sets for CAMM. Exocet and other heavyweight AShMs will always launch outside of a SAM’s engagement envelope, so defining AAD as being able to target the enemy aircraft prior to launch is a nice… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
14 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

@Joe16

The issue is that an Exocet is a 700kg weapon you can’t put that into a relatively cheap drone
If your limited AAW range makes possible to enemy start firing 100kg ASM that is a significant change on the number of vectors that can start firing missiles against you.

Matt
Matt
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Interesting.

On US defence sites there are people complaining about how much has been stripped out of USN Constellation class compared to the Italian and French versions.

I have no idea of the true comparison.

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Where? . Constellations are more powerful than Italian version which is in general terms more powerful than French version.

Matt
Matt
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I’ve seen a few comments.

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Italian ship is more powerful in guns and has hull sonar.
Should be faster too, i don’t see any other advantage.

They are tied in helicopter hangars at 2

johan
johan
17 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Each Navy work different and defend their ships and countries differently. and the ships have a slight change. a big one is the deleted close in guns, where is was shown that in Royal Navy these shells would be ripping thru the hull of the fleet.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

There are interestingly complaints from some parliamentarians in Australia that their version is under armed as compared to their current destroyers which are slightly smaller in tonnage if I remember correctly though dimensions vary a little. That said they set the missile specs which is different to ours and I’m sure it makes up for it in other aspects in particular it’s increased modular space that gives it much greater flexibility than current Oz vessels at a guess.

Pacman27
Pacman27
17 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

I think T26 is well armed and with a modest upgrade to quad packable VLS for Seaceptor VLS and perhaps a radar upgrade if the money is there and we have a ready made replacement for T45.

it is certainly a massive uptick for the RN even in its current format.

T31 needs a minimum of 24 VLS but thats for another day.

Dern
Dern
17 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

But the thing to bear in mind, especially with the RCN, is that these are the biggest budget items in their fleet.
The fighting fleet of the RCN consists of 4 SSK’s and the 12 Frigates.
No Destroyers, No Carriers, No SSN’s, No SSBNs, No Amphibious Assault Capability.

So when you contextualize it, would it really be surprising that Canada arms it’s Frigates better than the UK?

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
17 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

The Canadian Type 26 frigate program is in deep financial trouble.
Halifax shipyard warns warship schedule contingent on more federal funding | National Newswatch

David Steeper
David Steeper
17 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Oh Canada ! I love Canada but they are the biggest drama queens on the planet. They’ll end up building them but not before they cancel them at least once.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
17 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Maybe, but they needed them five years ago. Getting them ten to fifteen years from now is of little value. The current government isn’t exactly pro-defense and it will be around at least until 2025. Look at the fiasco over the F-35s, and that contract still hasn’t been signed.

David Steeper
David Steeper
17 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Yeah on all points.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
17 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

It is almost like CAN/AUS are playing fantasy fleets with the armament levels on those ships – particularly AUS.

David Steeper
David Steeper
17 days ago

It’s depressingly routine for politicians, journos and people like me. It’s hard to grasp what makes a warship effective or ineffective so you focus on something you can understand. How many missiles and guns will it have ? Is there anything out there which has more ? I don’t think Canada will have an issue with their program. They simply can’t afford to mess it up and I think they know that. Australia is much more worrying. I think the RCN and especially the RAN need to come out publically and explain why they wanted the type 26 rather than… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by David Steeper
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
17 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

It has to be ASW?

It has got to be based around T23’s reputation and Ultra Electronics.

Australians are concerned about Chinese SSN threat. Canadians have got to be concerned about Russian and Chineses SSNs longer term.

The T26 hull is, I am told, at another level: Compared to T23 or FREMM or even T45.

David Steeper
David Steeper
17 days ago

Your right and that’s what they have to try to explain to the politicians and journos. The Aussie and Canadian versions of me don’t matter we’re just background noise.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
17 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Canada have got to build them and quickly. They have exhausted all other options for replacement ships. If they don’t start building soon they will have no frigates left. They could always scale back the changes to the Royal Navy specs. Hopefully that could keep costs under control. It’s still a massive upgrade compatriot the current ships they have. 24 mk41 strike length cells 48 sea ceptor 5inch gun Towed array Medium radar(could be changed without massive cost increase) Mission bay Hanger/helicopter No doubt a brilliant combat management system, ECM abilities etc etc. I wondered why they don’t drop 3… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Maybe they will end up buying T23 second hand to fill the holes

Matt
Matt
17 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Would that impact logistics?

Do the posh one and the not-posh one share machinery, for example?

(Avoids confusing the MANY numbers)

Expat
Expat
17 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Yep and this where FFBNW is a huge benefit. You create a base product that can be configured. There so many opportunities out there if we can stop thinking bespoke products. Look at the TB drone, it’s by no means cutting edge but it’s a viable product that’s attractive to many countries. UK industry could have built something like the TB2 15 years ago and could be dominating that market now.

David Steeper
David Steeper
17 days ago
Reply to  Expat

Yep but you have to explain that not filling every nook and cranny on the ship with guns or missiles and leaving them for future upgrades makes sense.

Expat
Expat
17 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

There’s a term ‘role fit’ so the vehicle or hull us configure to conduct a certain role.

Last edited 17 days ago by Expat
Bob
Bob
16 days ago
Reply to  Expat

Fitted For But Never With is no benefit at all.

Expat
Expat
16 days ago
Reply to  Bob

Yes if you thinking is old school and not looking at the wider global market for vehicles, hulls or airframes. With todays rapid progress not having configurable spaces would mean either massive refit or scrap and start again.

Bob
Bob
16 days ago
Reply to  Expat

My thinking was more of a tongue in cheek remark aimed at the Treasury. 😉

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
16 days ago
Reply to  Expat

If it is a big platform with the right starting fit abs spaces to develop as is T45, T26 and T31

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
17 days ago

I’m glad to see they are saying that only 30% of the contract benefits the ship building.
Some seemed under the impression that all the money is spent on the Clyde shipyard.
For the type 31 project of 1.25billion about 350-400m goes to the shipyard who pay for the materials, staff and build the 5 ships. The rest on the stuff in the ship from companies across the U.K. and beyond.

Expat
Expat
17 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Yep but there will be a lot of local.suppliers some of who now benefit for the UKs investment in the T26 and T31.

Matt
Matt
17 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

How are the Canadians managing to estmate these as $4 billion each? That is £2.5bn.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/report-canada-s-new-frigates-will-cost-4b-each-including-taxes

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Isn’t that over double of the RN T26s? My god! And they want 15 of these. They may have to reduce numbers or go for a mixed fleet with a high spec T31. The Polish A140/T31s look well kitted out for the ship size. And we still haven’t heard any more or seen any pics on the next cab T32.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Hi Quentin,

Last I read about the T32 was that the RN is still playing fantasy ships, prior to starting the formal consept phase. The good news is that there is at least someone looking at this project, if I remember rightly a small team working part time started up last year.

I would expect the formal Concept Phase to start in the next 18 to 24 months. Any later and the National Ship Building Strategy gets a big hole kicked through it as there will likely be a gap in the production of ships at Rosyth.

Cheers CR

Bob
Bob
16 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Maybe they could fill that gap with a couple of new-build, fully upgraded T45’s? Ok, just dreaming.

CHariotRider
CHariotRider
16 days ago
Reply to  Bob

Hi Bob, By that time the T45 will be getting long in the tooth. I would prefer to see a couple of extra T26 with an improved SAMPSON radar in place of the ARTISAN unit. That would allow BAE develop technology we will need if the T83 is to effectively fill the future AD role in a timely manner. I would not try to turn T26 into the T83 as I do not think the T26 hull is big enough, as evidenced by the challenges the Canadians and Australians are facing adding in area AD capabilities to their T26’sand maintaining… Read more »

Steve D
Steve D
16 days ago
Reply to  Matt

For context, that cost includes all GFE (radars, guns, comms, etc…) , training costs, spares, POL, new infrastructure (jetties, land-based-test facility, etc), and all operating costs for the first 5 years of service.

Matt
Matt
14 days ago
Reply to  Steve D

Tx.

Allan Wilson
Allan Wilson
16 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Yes, certainly those opposed to Scottish independence quote that figure often as an alleged example of what Scotland would lose. I wonder how much of the supply chain is in Scotland compared to rest of UK as that business looks like it would continue irrespective of where in the world the ships are built.

Simon
Simon
16 days ago
Reply to  Allan Wilson

ITAR just might be an issue

Expat
Expat
17 days ago

It’s easy to romanticise the metal bashing part of ship building and when ships where less advanced it was a higher %. of the build. This article sheds light on where a lot of the larger part of the value is. And what is clear if we make a product that can be exported in any form its of huge benefit to the UK. Its quoted thar 65% of the money invested in a build is returned to the government but the far better scenario is when its export 65% of another countries mony goes to the government to benefit… Read more »

Paul42
Paul42
17 days ago

We couldn’t build 32 here, we’re having extreme difficulty building 8 within a reasonable time frame. Perhaps some of that 6 billion could be invested in increasing our Type 26 order to 10 ships…

Paul T
Paul T
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

That money will likely pay for Batch 2.

Nathan
Nathan
17 days ago

This discussion illustrates how limited peoples’ understanding of the value chain is around wealth & job creation. Its quite disheartening for people to claim – “it doesn’t benefit the Clyde”; because not only is it staggeringly selfish and myopic it demonstrates a small mindedness that limits people and their career choices. Yes, assembling steel and welding are important but so is the software, the electronics, the integration, the ergonomics and so forth. And arguably these are the real determinants of product’s success or otherwise. The UK is still one of the words largest manufacturers and exporters but because they don’t… Read more »

Expat
Expat
16 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

Yep UK is the 9th largest manufacturing country in the world, 7 of those above us have bigger populations so arguably should be above us in the table and if you go by per capita were well up the table. The UK actually beats China, the number 1 manufacture, when you look at manufacturing per capita.

Another little know fact is wages in Manufacturing are 12% higher than the rest of the economy.

Steve
Steve
17 days ago

Good news although its not clear how much of that money will flow through to anyone other than shareholders. I would guess a sizeable amount, but would be interesting to know how much actually goes into wages/tax

Ron
Ron
17 days ago

After reading all the posts I am supprised by the bashing the T26 is getting. They are good (in concept) ASW platforms, with a good missile fit. The ARTISAN radar seems to be also getting some bashing yet this radar is if memory serves me right is based on SAMPSON receiver and signal processing technology. You could call it a SAMPSON lite. Canada does have a problem a large country with a small population that needs to build a two ocean fleet. That is expensive, possibly the Canadians should go down the route of a mixed T26/T31 fleet say six… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
16 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Far too much common sense in that….need to be more negative…..and you forgot the 15” triple turrets…..

Ron
Ron
16 days ago

Dam I was hoping for the triple 18″ guns of the Yamato.

Mark B
Mark B
17 days ago

Military sales are a small part of a financial system which permits a country to spend money on defence, health, education right the way down to allowing it’s citizens to have a holdiday or two.

Countries are very protective about doing as much in-house as possible however sharing the burden amounst like minded countries gives us a greater bang for our buck and consequently is to be encouraged.

David
David
17 days ago

A class of 32 based on the T26 around the world…… Fifty years ago the RN alone had a class of 40 based on the Type 12, plus any number of exports, most built here. How are the mighty fallen……

Mark Forsyth
Mark Forsyth
16 days ago

More ships, means more IPR monies flowing in to the companies who designed the systems initially. As others have commented, the money is not in the fabrication and build, but in the R&D and knowledge base in designing the components and systems in the first place. However many you build, you still have the original design costs. These are the same if you build 1 or 100, so the more you build the less the design costs are per ship, resulting in a reduction in the overall cost per unit. Simple accounting:- Fixed costs versus variable costs !

Last edited 16 days ago by Mark Forsyth
Mr Bell
Mr Bell
16 days ago

Any chance of increasing our order? Unit price must have come down a little bit. Can we not squeeze out a 9th or 10th hull?

Jonathan
Jonathan
16 days ago

This is where we actually need to work in the added value to the U.K. in government supporting U.K. industries and knowledge. Around 50% of that 6 billion will end up back in the tax base, as will 50% of the 11.5 billion U.K. program. So for a tax base expense of 11.5 billion the U.K. tax base gets a return of 8.5 billion, so in-fact the real total cost to the British taxpayer for the 8 T26s therefore is probably closer to around 3.5 to 4 billion…what a bargain. But the government does not look it its finance that… Read more »