Canada has selected the Type 26 Frigate as the preferred option for the Royal Canadian Navy’s future Canadian Surface Combatants.

The Canadian Surface Combatant is the name given to the procurement project that will replace the Iroquois and Halifax class warships with up to 15 new ships beginning in the early 2020s as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. The replacement vessels will be somewhat larger than the existing Halifax class, and presumably provide a wide-area air defence capability, anti-submarine warfare capability, as well as anti-shipping capability.

The options were:

  • Type 26 frigate proposed by Lockheed Martin Canada and BAE Systems
  • Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class frigate based design proposed by Alion Canada and Damen Group
  • Spanish F-105 frigate design offered by Navantia.

The BAE Type 26 team, known locally as “Canada’s Combat Ship Team” combines Lockheed Martin Canada with BAE Systems’ Type 26 Global Combat Ship – also involved are CAE, MDA, L3 Technologies, and Ultra Electronics.

According to an official statement:

“The Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. have identified Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. as the preferred bidder to provide the design and design team for the Royal Canadian Navy’s future Canadian Surface Combatants.

While this represents a significant milestone in the competitive process, more work is required before a contract is awarded. Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. must now go through the “due diligence process,” which includes:

  • negotiations with the company on intellectual property rights
  • an assessment of combat systems performance
  • an assessment of the company’s financial capability to deliver the project, together with the verification of various other administrative matters

Should the preferred bidder not successfully demonstrate to Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. that it meets all of the due diligence requirements, then the next highest ranked compliant bidder will become the preferred bidder. The new preferred bidder will then have to successfully demonstrate that it meets all of the due diligence requirements.”

A contract award is expected this winter, with construction beginning in the early 2020s.


  1. Excellent news, the key to winning this was the Canadian industry team built up by BAE Systems. By partnering with Lockheed Martin Canada in particular the bid incorporated the CMS330 system already used in the Canadian fleet.

    • LM Canada is actually the prime contractor for the Canadian T26. TheIr CMS330 combined with a dedicated ASW design from BAE is what the RCN favoured. It is important to note much needs to be finalized, e.g. IP rights, vendor qualification, and price. This assumes most Canadianization issues were worked out during the cure stage of the bid process. Irving will be involved in the pricing details as there had in Halifax will actually build the ships.

  2. Hats off to Canada for making a wise choice.

    If the UK government purchased more of the same we wouldn’t have to make do with second-rate ships for the Royal Navy.

    I wonder what an interim PM and Chancellor would do to boost our defence spending?

    • Whilst I would never argue against more ships, what the Navy really needs right now is more man power. There’s no point buying a load of new vessels if they’d just sit idle in port due to not having a crew. As much as it pains me, 8 + 5 T31 is the right fit for the Navy at the moment.

    • While this is good news, I’m not allowing myself to get carried away just yet. The Canadian government has an unfortunate history of mucking up large defence projects, letting costs spiral and then cancelling late in the game and starting again from scratch. I’m thinking here of their plans for large helicopters and fighters. Maybe they’ve learnt from their previous mistakes, one can but hope.

    • Totally agree Steve. If so many are being built why are BAE systems continuing with the notion that each ship must cost over £1.23 billion each. Surely those costs have been nullified by Australian and Canadian orders. Royal Navy should definetly now get the green light to order at least another 2-3 ships.
      Superb news. The type 26 is shaping up to being the NATO standard frigate. Just need the USN to get in on the party and we will be really rocking.
      Sorry. You can tell I am delighted.

      • In terms of savings for the MOD, I can’t see it happening. The really expensive bits aren’t common such as the combat management system, sensor suite and weapons. The hulls are built in different countries and so there’s no increase in economies of scale for the uk build. There is more certainty around the economies of scale for the non combat gubbins like engines but the supply chain is convoluted, arent running in parallel and batch one contracts have been signed in the uk at a set price. I can’t see BAE handing back a slice of its profits unless the uk commits to more than 8, which I don’t think the RN will do as it moves to a two tier force, aiming for more hulls via the type 31 tier. The real opportunity is through life supply and refit, but that is in the future rather than the upfront production costs. I’ve no direct knowledge of all this so happy to be corrected by people who know otherwise. Also unsure if MOD gets a share in the IP/licensing.

  3. So assuming a full order of 15 Canadian ships, that brings the total number of future Type 26 platforms to 32. That blows FREMM out of the water and makes it the largest class of British frigates (or derivatives) since the Leander. Granted, it’s a shame more of them aren’t being built here, but at least numerous major components will be.

    It also reflects well on BAES, which (un?)fortunately improves their odds of winning the Type 31 competition.

    • (Chris H) Callum- I really was with you entirely until you as you made a telling point about Type 26 but then had to part company as you felt the need to have a pop at BAES. So they are good enough to win huge contracts in Australia and Canada for Type 26 Frigates but not good enough (in your opinion) for Type 31 Frigates?

      Ignoring the minor point that BAES are not actually bidding for Type 31. Cammell Laird and Babcock are.

      I never quite understand the urge for people to knock a British company that is a huge success all over the world. Don’t you like British companies succeeding?

      • (Chris H) Callum – sorry typo moment …
        “I really was with you entirely as you made a telling point about Type 26….”

      • He was obviously not knocking BAE… he was knocking their Leander design which is inferior to Arrowhead. I agree with that view and think that this was made perfectly clear. Let’s not go start the same silliness here that ruined Warships1.

      • I’d just like to say that I wasn’t taking a cheap shot at BAES, hence the formatting of (un?)fortunately. In regards to the T31 competition, Leander is clearly the safer option: supported by BAES, built at a single yard, likely to be cheaper build and integration costs.

        However, I personally feel the Babcock approach could yield potentially more long term benefits IF it works. A more capable and attractive T31, a distributed build strategy in line with the NSS. It would require the political will to follow through on, but it could see a genuine revival in British shipbuilders across the country if the RN orders more, exports are sold, or the MCMV replacement is built similarly.

        • But what is Babcock’s approach?

          They’ve dropped the Arrowhead 140 from their website like a red hot potato. So what design are they submitting for the Type 31e?

          • If we’re going by whats on their website, Arrowhead 120. If that’s the case, perhaps Arrowhead 140 proved impossible to fit into the required budget and they’ve returned to a smaller in-house design.

            HOWEVER, that’s pure conjecture. We won’t know for sure until its announced. Like the supposed interest of Atlas UK, we’ve seen absolutely nothing from them aside from occasional mentions online, although its safe to assume it will be a MEKO derivative of some kind.

        • We will see a genuine revival of British shipbuilding across the country, better, more efficiently and more cheaply by building the Type 31s at Cammell Lairds on the Mersey, and giving Rosyth assembly of the solid support ships with blocks built at Fergusons on the Clyde, Harland & Wolff Belfast, A & P Tyne and Appledore in Devon.

    • The T31 designs are surprisingly different ships. If T31 is just going to paddle about in the Med say then Leander is OK. If we want a self deploying unit and one that can bob about with the big ships then Arrowhead is the better choice. 2000 tons and 2000nm in range is quite a difference.

      The combat system is the important thing I suppose because of RN training no reason it couldn’t be forced on the group pushing for Arrowhead.

      • Ditch type 31 and just pump all that money into another 3 type 26. Or better still do both. More type 26 as cost per hull must surely have come down and build 6+ type 31s for long range guard patrols in lower threat areas eg return to Pacific, Falkland Islands patrols and anti piracy around Africa.
        Also would be good if the type 31 was at least moderately capable at anti submarine warfare. Eg can it be used as a modern Black Swan or Sterling class and guard merchant shipping crossing the Atlantic?

          • Don’t know about hull sonar, I haven’t seen anything about that. Seen that both arrow and leander have the possibility to fit towed sonor. Also merlin wise only arrow can fit it in their hanger.

        • Please don’t start with the “ditch T31 and buy more T26” thing again. It’s a discussion that’s been had repeatedly for years and boils down to a simple answer: T26 is too expensive to procure another X amount of. The £1.25bn left alloted to the T31 programme is enough to cover the cost of a single T26. No amount of licensing agreements are going to bring down the cost of the T26 by the 60% necessary to enable the order of 3 more T26s, and those ships wouldn’t be available till the 2030s anyway.

          • (Chris H) Callum – To put some context on to the costs of T26 and T31 apparently the MoD have found $3.5 Bn (£2.7 Bn) for 16 new Chinooks and spares.

            So: 2 x Type 26 or 10 Type 31 Frigates? Nah better spend more money with US Incorporated …

          • The Type 31e budget of 1.25b could buy two more Type 26.

            Problem is that they would be delivered far too late to replace the Type 23’s going out of service.

          • Chris – firstly that’s a potential sale, not yet confirmed. It’s likely part of the Defence Equipment Plan for the next decade, which in its current 2017 iteration plans for £10bn to be spent on the helicopter fleet. Shockingly enough, the MoD has our entire defence to fund, not just shipbuilding, and even then it’s currently billions over budget. Helicopters are one of the most useful assets a modern military has, and they’re expensive to maintain. These new Chinooks are likely replacements for old ones just to maintain our current fleet.

            Ron – The Type 31e budget is, as you said, £1.25bn. So how do you think it would cover the cost of 2 T26s that cost £1bn each? Spreading the development cost out a little more will bring that down a bit, but at most we’re talking tens of millions, not the £375mn plus that would be needed.

          • (Chris H) Callum – I think you are lecturing the converted. I have no preferences for any individual Force be it Army, Navy or RAF. But having done 15 I do have a personal bond with one that I will keep to myself. I was simply comparing numbers and what it would buy in the context of the discussion in hand. That does not mean I prefer T31s to Chinooks. I do prefer Merlins to Chinooks however …

          • Scrapping the T31 in favour of a couple of T26s is a bad idea. We need to be exporting ships, raise GDP and defence will get more money. T26 design has proved exportable but the T31 will hopefully make us more long term. Either have 2 frigate products 1 high end the other low is a good thing.

  4. With Australia onboard and now Canada, does this mean we can get 5 extra Type 26 in place of the planned 5 Type 31?? With Canada’s planned 15 ship buy, in addition to the Australian and RN orders, surely the hull cost should decrease significantly…

    We live in hope!

    • The hulls for each nation are being built at costs and locations within those nations. UK built type 26 hull numbers shouldn’t change in price as a result.

    • Given that each T26 costs a billion pounds (including R&D), you’d need a reduction of 75-80% in cost to get 5 of them out of the £1.25bn remaining budget.

  5. It shows that we can still design world leading kit that when marketed correctly, the rest of the world wants it.
    Makes you think, with government backing, how many other areas could we be dominant in and produce fantastic stuff again. This is why we have to rebuild our aeronautical industry, modernise our ship yards etc. There is much success to be had if we can believe in ourselves again.

    • I think we need to bear in mind the re-emergence of the submarine threat from Russia and now China. Without that, it would have probably been light frigates all round.

      There seems to be unanimous view that type 26 will best sub hunter and that must have counted.

    • Exactly this, another thing we should do for ourselves is trains. We shouldn’t use Britain’s railways EXCLUSIVELY to keep foreign train makers going, this is an area we could excel at, indeed that was our thing (George & Robert Stephenson, Richard Trevithick, Flying Scotsman, Mallard, Intercity 125, etc., etc.).

      Let’s be realistic, it is never going to be like the 1800s/early 1900s again, but we could certainly, and should certainly be doing more for ourselves than what we are, it impacts badly on our country’s prestige.

      We should certainly build all Royal Navy and R.F.A. ships in Britain, we should increase our steel production to over 10 million tonnes per year, have a British train making company and have products in the aerospace sector both aeroplane and space rocket. We should also buy back at least 1 of our iconic British car makers (Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, etc.).

      • (Chris H) Stephen – I fully support any comments that support more Uk manufacturing. Indeed I am pretty forthright on that myself. And yes all RFA ships should be built here.

        But where I do part company with you is on train building. We have had continuous train building in Derby (now owned by Bombardier) since 1840. Hitachi build trains near where we built the very first steam engines in the world. Spanish CAF are building a new factory in Newport, Wales. Having said that there was no excuse why the huge Thameslink train order was not made conditional by the UK Government of the day on Siemens building them here. But at least they are now building a factory in Goole. The new fleet of 60 High Speed Trains worth £2.7 Bn will be built here.

        We also have a huge network of British and Foreign owned companies re-manufacturing, maintaining, rebuilding and supporting all trains operating in the UK. We are world leaders in train control systems and software. Guess what – we do actually have a growing systems and component export trade as well.

        We live in a global trading world and its where we always were as good as anyone else. The days of Union Flags flying over every front gate are maybe gone but that doesn’t mean an Indian owned JLR isn’t a good thing or that Rolls Royce owning factories in Germany, Singapore and the USA makes them less ‘British’.

        • Trains will become obsolete. Hyperloop type technology will dominate intercity transport. Virgin took a major stake in A hyperloop company a few years ago. I believe Holland and the UAE will have working routes by 2022.

          • Rubbish! Hyper loop will be only for the very rich and for long distances, will not move freight either!

  6. (Chris H) – What odds that the Pentagon are now asking the US Navy why on earth the Type 26 was never allowed into the US Frigate competition …?

    Out of the ‘5 Eyes’ partners the UK, Australia and Canada have chosen Type 26, the USA disallowed it entering and New Zealand are not in the market (yet).

    • Evening Chris
      T26 now has mass, a credible platform that has been picked by 3/5. New Zealand normally follow Australia with regards to frigate platform choice.
      We now have a credible world beating platform with 3 different weapon fits and integrators.
      Who is to say Trump, as trade deal one, says I’ll have those – built by BAES in the US fitted with AEGIS
      Crazier things have happened….

        • Agreed, they are only just going through a mid life update. I doubt that they will seek to replace them for a long while yet.

        • The Type 26 is likely too large & too expensive for the RNZN with its regional operations, although the need for heightened ASW has been reinforced by the RNZAF purchase of P-8 Poseidon aircraft.
          I agree that the Type 31 appears to better suit the RNZN requirements, although there are also a number of other frigates of comparable size and functionality that they could also chose from, via tender.
          As Fedaykin pointed out, their 2x ANZAC class (Meko) are undertaking a mid-life upgrade, and it is reported that the NZ Government will only commence the business case for their replacement in 2023.

      • (Chris H) LeeH – you make a valid point about ‘critical mass’. It makes future sales bids more credible (if not easier). I am open to correction but I believe the Aussie T26 is exactly what the US Navy is looking for with (as you say) RIM-66 Standard SM-2 missile and its vertical launchers paired through an AEGIS combat network plus other US systems but using Aussie CEAFAR radar ….

        • Hi Chris
          CEAFAR can change; its USN appetite now. What we need is a bit of sovereign territory near the US coast, with senior RN and USN personnel talking about the art of the possible.
          Do we know of any such event taking place….

        • It would be a highly capable ship class Chris and as I’ve posted before, I really wish the USN had taken a harder look at it if only for the (large) benefits of so many standardized components and features shared with the Five Eyes navies buying them. Also for the optics. The Anglo navies operating the same ship types would send a huge, unspoken message to a couple of countries… Alas, too rich for the budget. I believe ~ 900 mil a copy is what’s being sought… I think the RNZN will end up buying the T31. It would be a very good fit.


    • New Zealand typically goes with Australia’s choice in major warships for several reasons. There will surely be some buys in Europe after this.

      • The ANZAC Class was the first and only joint purchase with Australia, NZGov typically brought from the UK prior to the ANZAC, big difference now is that our two ships have diverged from the RAN ships and are no longer compatible in most of the on board systems.

  7. Excellent news. Can the UK get more type 26 please? It’s foolish to only have 8 fully ASW capable escorts & embarrassing that both Austrailia & Canada will operate more T26’s than the RN.
    Will these frigates be built in the UK or in canada?

    • Reading the piece, it does mention Canadian shipyards, so I guess they will be built there, but I would guess that at least some components will be built here

    • UK industry will benefit from sub contracting work, engines and components that it does not make sense to manufacture in three separate places etc. The combat management system will be US based so no big benefit to the uk on that one, but over all still good news for the UK. Hopefully this will also help bring down the unit costs for each one ordered.

      • the combat management system will be 100% Canadian , not US, CMS 330 , developed by lockheed martin canada. derived off of the system originally developed for the Halifax class in the 80’s. it is currently on the midlife refit Halifax class ships..and is being installed on New Zealands ANZAC’s…which are undergoing their mid life refit in Canada.

      • The Combat Management System CMS 330 is Canadian developed and owned thank you very much! While Lockheed Martin is US based, Lockheed Martin Canada is very much Canadian and actually develops our own products. Not to mention the LM Canada has won two other international competitions to refit other navies ships with a combat system including our CMS.

    • It’s foolish to send a very expensive asuw platform to do constabulary, defence engagement and presence east of Suez. Enough type 26 to protect the carriers, deterrent (if we must) and NATO SMG1. T31 for the gulf, Asia and Falklands please.

      • All warship crews must be trained & experienced for every role they’re likely to be called on to conduct, so I don’t think the T26s will be restricted to ASW any more than any frigate is. With so few DDGs & FFGs we don’t have the luxery. What worries me is so few fully capable ASW FFGs as an island trading nation which must keep its sea lanes safe. If we also madly remove anti-ship missiles simply to save money, we really are risking our national defence along with crew & seamen on mercvhant ships relying on RN escorts.

        • The Project is designed to replace both the City (Halifax) class as well as the Iroquois (Tribal) class of ships. To do that some will have to be ASW and some Area Air Defence (Standard 2 blk 2 was the loadout for the Tribals) Out of 15 (presumed) ships then, bet on at least four to be configured for Area Air Defence and Command and Control platforms. The second lesson (learned from the Ex-Upholder and now Victoria class, is that while UK/European designs can work for the RCN, second and third line support, particularly on material quickly becomes a nightmare. What will probably aid from the US perspective is that some aspects of the design (hotel services and perhaps propulsion) will likely be North Americanized as part of the Canadianization process.

    • Agree when you think that the UK has a larger GDP and a larger population to protect than either Australia and Canada combined.
      Makes 8 type 26s look pathetic and a real example of miserly bean counters in the treasury.
      Here is the answer…if anyone in the treasury actually reads any posts on this site
      Cut flippin foreign aid FFS. Did anyone in the UK actually vote to allow our government to send £14+ billion a year abroad without any oversight or tangible benefits to the UK?
      If we cannot afford social care, NHS, national infrastructure and a decent armed forces put up taxes for the rich again. Why was higher rate tax cut when Tory’s came into power? Why was corporation tax cut? Why do you not pursue Amazon, Google, Facebook etc for correct tax contributions? Each should be paying well over £4 billion per annum in tax by my calculations on their actual profits.
      Summary type 26, hull should come down in price so we can afford 2-3 more
      The UK should be ashamed of its miserly defence budget. It is high time the government got serious. With us leaving the EU and a resergent Russia we need ASW and multi purpose warships that are actually armed and capable more than ever.

      • Because Canada and Australia don’t have two CBGs or ssbns.

        We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, so we don’t have regular plebiscites on specific policies like foreign aid.

        • If you can run a referendum on membship of the EU whose to say it can’t be done on foreign aid? They are both after all handouts of the public money to other countries and the handing over of a country’s sovereign power to other organizations such as the UN, NGOs, and the ICC.

          • (Chris H) Elliott – Two comments if I may?
            1. The EU Referendum was about who makes our laws, whose Court is Supreme, who controls our borders, who dictates our trade policy and who controls our domestic waters. Amongst other matters.

            2. In June 2016 we voted on a matter that has troubled this country for 40 years – the EEC and EU. Foreign Aid is a matter of Government expenditure and is verified at every General Election by the British Electorate

            The £13 Bn a year the EU costs us (plus EU External Tariffs) is similar to what we fund in Foreign Aid but that is the only similarity between the two.

      • When you cut taxes the tax take increases. This has happened every single time and has done so under the current govt. when you bleed the rich, they leave the country. If you stifle profit you cause unemployment. Socialist policy number 1 is to always do the opposite of that which creates wealth to pay for their Euotopia – which is why it can never happen. Meanwhile, back in the real world ….

      • It’s not even about the aid budget, they are not spend extra on defence because of dogma, the truth is 3-4 billion extra over a decade to buy 5 26s instead of 31s is pocket money to the government, 3-4 hundred million a year of capital spending over a decade is nothing to any wealthy nation and we are very wealthy. It’s all about principle, if we give it to you we are shown as not being fiscally hard and everyone will start asking.

  8. Great news! Does this mean BAE will reduce the cost of the U.K. order or better build a couple more for free. They’ve had a ton of cash from us over the years!

    • The cost impact will be marginal as limited to the common internal non combat systems. It doesn’t help sustain the main build workforce in the UK or the sensor and weapon systems.

  9. I thought the T31e was supposed to be the ‘frigate design for export’? Seems like T26 is doing that role already, at least when it comes to the design.
    To do better the T31e would need to be both designed and built in the U.K. for export.

    Looking forward to see task groups of U.K., Canadian, Australian (and hopefully Kiwi) Type 26’s in formation.
    Hopefully if the Australians and Canadians have there’s armed to the teeth the RN might have a better chance of ensuring ours are “fitted-with” rather than “fitted-for” weapons systems.

    • Blue water navies covering a lot of open ocean. The usual export partners the 31e is targeting are those looking for oversized corvettes to patrol the Med/Gulf.

    • T26 is the high-end ASW frigate for those who can afford the best, but T31 are aimed at general export, being cheaper, more affordable & more attractive for lesser nations. The challange is for us to get a design package which does the job at a low price. Getting it wrong can make the ships death traps or too expensive. For the RN the T31 is needed because we couldn’t afford more expensive T26s to fully replace the T23s, with escort numbers already being too few.

  10. Can someone spell out what we gain when other countries select British designed ships? I don’t understand much about exports etc.

  11. I have to say well done Canada and Australia, you have made a wise choice, Now for the US to follow suit.

    Congratulations BAES for pulling these export orders off.

    Lastly, to HMG its about time you ordered another 5 T26 for the T45 replacement and upgraded the current fleets radar to Sampson (or its replacement).

    I also think we need to use the T26 hull form (perhaps without some of the fancy ASW silencing pieces and a chinook capable deck) for the T31 and commit to at least 10(preferably 25), thereby really creating a two type escort platform and leveraging our R&D costs on this hull.

    So the UK can order 13 T26 (full configuration) and order a smaller more basic version of this hull form for the T31 that we can also build in volume.

    Post Brexit – time for some bold confident moves, build a global supply chain and who knows, we may even get the US purchasing T26 (I am sure Mr Trump would support this – given 3 key allies are on this platform) it then kind of becomes the F35 of the frigate world.

    • Trump doesn’t give a toss about allies, he’ll be more interested in what Russia or north Korea are buying.

      Only half in jest…

      Bombardier anyone?

    • “I have to say well done Canada and Australia, you have made a wise choice, Now for the US to follow suit.” –

      The USN FF(X) contest is well advanced now, the rules sensibly stated only types already in service. Adding T26 now would risk legal action by the other bidders, the US DOD does not want a repeat of the Tanker debacle! I would put money on the Navantia solution winning that contest as it closely fits what the USN wants.

      “Lastly, to HMG its about time you ordered another 5 T26 for the T45 replacement and upgraded the current fleets radar to Sampson (or its replacement).” –

      No need, the T45 are not even midlife and are going through an expensive propulsion upgrade. T26 does not need SAMPSON, ARTISAN is more than adequate for its current role. SAMPSON is out of production anyway and significantly more expensive.

      “I also think we need to use the T26 hull form (perhaps without some of the fancy ASW silencing pieces and a chinook capable deck) for the T31 and commit to at least 10(preferably 25), thereby really creating a two type escort platform and leveraging our R&D costs on this hull.” –

      That would be a T26 by any other name and rather defeat the point of the whole T31 exercise. The RN could not hope to operate or crew ten T31 let alone 25! They are struggling with what we have now!

      “So the UK can order 13 T26 (full configuration) and order a smaller more basic version of this hull form for the T31 that we can also build in volume.” –

      Where do you find the crews for all that?

      “Post Brexit – time for some bold confident moves, build a global supply chain and who knows, we may even get the US purchasing T26 (I am sure Mr Trump would support this – given 3 key allies are on this platform) it then kind of becomes the F35 of the frigate world.” –

      For the reasons I expressed above the USN and DOD are not going to risk the result of the current contest by adding T26 this late in the game when it is not compliant with the rules of the contest.

      • (Chris H) Fedaykin – Quote:
        “The USN FF(X) contest is well advanced now, the rules sensibly stated only types already in service. Adding T26 now would risk legal action by the other bidders, the US DOD does not want a repeat of the Tanker debacle!”

        That ‘debacle’ proves the point that what the US wants the US gets – regardless of the $ cost or who they shaft. It in now way proves they think they were wrong. Airbus won that tanker contract by a 2:1 margin on assessment features, the USAF wanted it (because it was the best) but US politicians said ‘No’. So if the same politicians decide they want a US built T26 that is what will happen. And Congress are having a hard look at what the US Navy are doing – has speed of procurement coloured their judgment of what is actually needed.

        I am not in any way defending what the USA did over the KC-46 but it illustrates the US mindset very well and the arguments are the same for FFG (X) programme.

        • “So if the same politicians decide they want a US built T26 that is what will happen. And Congress are having a hard look at what the US Navy are doing – has speed of procurement coloured their judgment of what is actually needed.” –

          The tanker debacle happened because on a small technicality the A330 tanker did not meet a program requirement, whilst the USAF realised that the advantages outweighed the negatives of not meeting that small deliverable it was enough for Boeing and its supporters in Congress to get the order struck down.

          In recent years defence contractors in the US have become highly litigious with support of various members of Congress. That means the DOD are very careful when laying out requirements and highly sensitive to any violation.

          Under the requirements of the FFG(X) contest T26 does not qualify as it is not currently in service and has missed the submissions deadline. The DOD and USN are not going to risk the outcome of this contest or incur further delay for what is a very important programme.

          It doesn’t matter how good T26 is or if it finds supporters in Congress and the USN, the scope and deliverable of the FFG(X) program precludes it participating. Nobody can even submit further bids as that deadline has passed. The programme is locked in and if T26 was allowed on now it would put the whole programme at risk.

          I would be surprised if the Navantia F-100 does not win that programme, it just feels right for the USN. Having been on an F-100 it looks and feels like a US designed vessel in form and fit. That should hardly be surprising as the yard that built them was upgraded with US help when the Spanish license built the Perry Class.

          • It is precisely because of Congress that I would give the F100 design a high chance.
            Navantia partnered with Bath Iron Works (BIW) in Maine to build their bid in the US. Shrewd or luck I do not know but very good for their bid. Because one of the senior Senators on the Defense Appropriations committee is Senator Collins of Maine. A textbook Purple State Senator if there ever was one. She is whatever my disagreements with her on social issues a vociferous champion of anything that keeps jobs in her State. BIW is one of Maine’s largest and highest paying employers. Add to this Senator Collins positions herself to be the swing vote on pivotal legislation so she can call in favors in both parties. Which she has done multiple times.

          • Technically, the 5 entrants in the FFG(X) RFP were for conceptual design only. If you read the text, there will be a new RFP, and it will be open to other entrants not selected in the conceptual design phase. Type 26 does have a chance.

      • Fedaykin

        In response: 1. Agreed – a bit of wishful thinking, but not necessarily undoable. Stranger things have happened in the world of defence sales.

        2. the shipbuilding Strategy is a 25 year endeavour, we should be ordering the T45 replacement now and add it to the schedule, when the first ones come off the production line the first T45’s in 2030 the ships will be 20 years old which is prime time to replace as running costs start becoming astronomical.

        3. I think putting artisan on T26 is a missed opportunity, we could create a Burke class asset for a few million more. Wasn’t aware Sampson was EOL, but we can go for CEAFAR or Sampson replacement and for me this means we have 13 ASW/AAW combat vessels instead of 6 AAW and 8 ASW. It also allows us to reduce the high end fleet to 13 but make them better (T45 still no mk41 VLS).

        4. As for staffing the T26 is manned by circa 40% less sailors than our current high end escorts and T31 is also supposedly lean manned, so this is a logistics exercise. I also do think everyone realises that the RN is under resourced and will correct in the next 5 years.

        5. 25 x T31 is doable and can be manned (with double crews actually). With the advent of the Mine countermeasures system we can retire (over time it is a 25 year plan after all). All our Minehunters (15) and OPV’s (5-8), add in the 5 T23’s and 1 T45 saved by consolidating the high end fleet and you have enough funding and people for 25 T31’s that become our general frigates or multi mission ships as I like to call them.

        6. Accept your comments on shortening the T26 hull – but would say why cant we re-use the T23 hull design (build new of course) for T31 and redo all the internals to modern standards, it is tested and proven and surely the MOD hold the rights to the design. I am sure Spartan Systems would do a great job of re-designing it all into a modern ship – and it is the right size for T31.

      • Agree crews and personnel numbers are a problem across the armed forces. HMG are going to have to allow theRN to increase numbers. Perhaps they should have not cut 2000 personnel away in SDSR 2010.
        The RN above all other armed forces needs the manpower. It should be our primary tool for expeditionary warfare and ensure our contribution to NATO is relevant and powerful.
        13 type 26 I think with Canada’s order should be made a reality whilst the type 31 is reserved as a second line escort for lower threat, patrol, interdiction duties. Fleet ready escort. Falklands patrol, Pacific duties etc.
        Interesting times ahead. Let’s see what the budget says next week about increasing money going into defence.

        • The problem is increasing recruitment now whilst a help does not fix the underlying problem or cause of the current staffing issues the Royal Navy has.

          The underlying cause for the current issues was the ‘Options for Change’ defence cuts in 1990! The recruitment taps were switched off for a large proportion of the following decade. A green behind the ears recruit in 1993 would now be a grizzled and experience member of the service with 25 years of experience. The 2010 SSDR only exacerbated the issue by showing the door to mid career personnel (that the MOD are desperately trying to tempt back).

          Just increasing the amount recruited now won’t fix that underlying issue for a long time. Even worse the smaller core of experienced personnel (and this is the same for all three services) end up being harder worked with longer deployments and awkward relocation. This leads to quality of life issues, a new recruit might not mind being bounced around but if you are in your late thirties/early forties with a family it can be too much leading to retention issues! Humphrey has a good article about this issue on his blog that is worth a read.

  12. Evening all
    Unfortunately even with the Canadian purchase the math for 9-12 still don’t add up.
    Whilst unit cost should now come down for ships 4-8 the manpower issue still hasn’t gone away.
    For those that say that we should stop the procurement of the T31e also, in my opinion, miss the point.
    1st – RN have 5 GD ships to replace, so replace them with designed from the ground up GD vessels but build growth in.
    2nd – BAES and HMG have done a great job in marketing what is a very capable but very expensive weapon system. Only 1 other country can afford them and that is the US (Saudi discounted for political reasons at this time and it’s too early for NZ).
    3rd – Success for the T31e will give HMG access to the 2nd teir warship market, those nations that want capability but can not afford £600m single role warships.
    If we can compete and dominate in the teir one and tier tow markets and diversify away from our reliance on aviation we have the chance to open up new markets, expand legacy forgotten industries and help diversify the nation from being just a service industry based state.

    12 T26 would be great
    We haven’t got the manpower
    We haven’t got the money
    We haven’t got the strategic requirement

    Get T31e awarded, get it on the market – get it built!

        • The type 26 118 complement is the minimum amount. Like Australian t26, UK will probably have a true complement of around 180. Otherwise the 118 will be overworked just like the crew on the US LCSs

    • HI Lee

      I agree with you on T31, but on T26 we should order 13 as we need to replace T45 shortly (relatively speaking) ships 9-13 would be built from 2030 onwards, so we can place the order now and give BAES even more confidence, up arm our current fleet and run the T45’s hard.

      I would even go as far as not providing the propulsion upgrades if really not needed and accept their limitations as is, but am not technically qualified to know if that’s possible.

      • Paceman. I agree with 99% of your posts. But on the type 45s I disagree. These vessels have 15-20 years service life left. Therefore I would do the propulsion upgrades and add Mk41vls systems and a torpedo defence/ anti mine rocket system aka Italian Fremm fit.
        It is all about using what we have got to the very best capability and ending fitted for but not with travesty.
        Type 26 derivatives should be capable from 2040 of replacing type 45s but only reason we should get an air defence optimised version would be to add to our fleet numbers and supplement not replace the type 45s.

        • Fair Comments Mr Bell,

          Think it does show how difficult this all is. I would definitely add Mk41 VLS if the budget allows, but the engine fix probably equates to 1 T31 and I think we can live with the tactical fixes (but not totally sure).

          Ultimately I agree with you

    • Lee H – Excellent news for BAE and UK industry,like others have said on here maybe just maybe Mr Trump can be persuaded to move the Goalposts just a bit to offer the T26 to the US Navy,surely this would tie in with a Canadian build in economies of scale etc (think their requirements and equipment fit would be pretty similar) but as far as the Type 31 goes things need to get moving as this market for as you say a tier 2 class of ship is getting very competitive,The French FTI and the Italian PPA Frigates(to name just two) are already in build,the T31 would need to be pretty good to secure some orders in this market,From what I have read the type of Frigate NZ would be looking for is more T31 than T26.

      • Hi Paul T
        Sorry for the delay in reply.
        Yes tier 2 is very congested but these are the markets we need to be aiming for if we are to be ambitious in getting ourselves out there into the world market.
        Which ever platform is chosen for T31e export opportunities should be chased even before steel is cut. Once the UK order has gone in that derails the project and makes it more attractive to those nations that need to refresh their fleets – I still think NZ will go for the high end T26 if only for its range and to complement its airborne ASW, costs will be helped if they declare the ships available for missions overseas.

    • So increase the manpower. There were 35,000 plus in the RN and RM prior to the Cameron/Osborne defense cuts. Screw, uh , delete that, to heck with aid to 2 nuclear powers.

      • Interesting the USN is massively overmanned at 600,000 strong with a population of 300m vs UK 60m. On that basis UK would have well over 100,000 sailors something last seen in 1960’s! Even so UK should increase to at least 35,000 as you say.
        Good news is that Canada is joining UK and Australia with type 26 frigates. Now start to agree on more collaborative efforts.

  13. I really don’t get why everyone keeps reacting so strongly positive to these news without knowing any detail of what, if any, jobs or income it brings back to the UK.

    Frankly, i am feeling pretty negative about all this, i can see the Canadian versions being better armed and it seems there will be more of them, its all a bit embarrassing for a country who’s economy is meant to be significantly larger.

    • If this means that the unit price comes down for our 2nd batch, then its great news for uk defence, but if it just means more money to BAe overseas arms, and no to little value to our armed forces, i am indifferent if they went this or any of the other options. Details is what we need.

  14. Great news: for Canada and British, also Australia which they win bid as well not sure which type 26 or 31e correct if me wrong please.

    Hope it help to british to get more type 26, prefer get other 4 for type 26 total: 12 that what actually british royal navy need to replacement old type 22 (they are build 16) also i think british should get other 3 type 31e total: 8. replacement type 23, (they also were build for 16 too)

    Royal navy are terrible amount of fleet which we use be have double number in end of the cold war; We couldn’t match which fleet defence for british and strike them back with currently and also future fleet. Which worries for me.

    Also i believe answer what british need to bring convette type or “combat” cutter type /war-of-sloop (16 of them) to combat our problem number fleet as i reckon combat ships is better cost effectiveness in combat to big ships down ie small ships swarms with long range supersonic cruise missiles to attack long ships.(pergeus)

    Ie one stealth cutter/corvette ships contains each 4-8x pergerus, 8-16x camm, 8x spear 3 missiles, 8x spearfish torpedo with 40mm ceaseless cannon, short-medium range aesa radar, 1x dragonfire defence for anti missiles, it would bring down 4-12x ships down per 1 cutter/convette:- cost effective Might i am wrong about it.

    Also we need build small carrier for uacv. 2 of them to support qoe carrier class.

  15. This is great news. I can see New Zealand joining in eventually.

    I wish we would arm ours with more mk41 VLS though instead of the dedicated sea ceptor launches. Having at least 32 mk 41 plus 8 ASM deck mounted launchers like the Australian version is so much more versitile.

  16. All,

    this is fantastic news.

    1. Several key allies have the same asset type as the UK = Lower cost for parts and a bigger more global supply chain.

    2. many components are British – perhaps not all, but a significant portion.

    3. It puts us back in the export market – we have a winner.

    4. It actually gives some close allies access to great kit, they have supported us a lot in the past and I see this as a win/win

  17. The beginnings of a standardised Canzuk Navy with perhaps Australian and Canadian F35s using our carriers, Australia buying our Ajax light tanks, and UK buying Wedgetail and perhaps Bushmaster vehicles – anyone see a pattern here ?

    • Mmm. They’re not buying F35bs. Nz can’t afford t26. Ajax aren’t light tanks. Wedgetail is made in America I think. Sorry!

  18. Am new on here and what a welcome: Brilliant news. To those who complain that more content isn’t from the UK, I’d suggest that this just the way it is nowadays. Local content and capability building are important. All the consortia will have known this, it’s just that a British company was most skillful in assessing the very tough tradeoffs involved between this and all the other metrics that go into a winning bid. And they’ve now done it twice.. Well done to the LM and BAES teams.

    • As the second largest exporter of cars in the EU seems were not doing half bad in the Frigate market either lol.
      Big boost for Global Britain.
      Imagine what we can do without our hands tied.
      Onwards and upwards.

      • Doesn’t seem to cause Germany any problems. World’s third largest exporter. Italy, France and UK also currently in top ten

          • Maybe we could interest them in some Type 26’s? Unlike their homegrown product the T26 is adequately armed, isn’t top heavy, and doesn’t have a permanent 10 degree list to starboard!!

          • They can afford. They had a surplus of €38.4 billion in 2017.

            More than enough to plug the gap is spending and put their Eurofighters and submarines and who knows what else back into service. Even that money would just churn through their economy so it isn’t as if they lose out.

        • (Chris H) Anthoiny D – without opening up the whole Brexit debate on your inferred point that “Germany does well despite being in the EU and therefore so should we” I would point out that German exports and its industry were suffering with a high value Dmark, it couldn’t devalue by fiscal means and so created a lower value currency and called it the ‘Euro’. So the ‘Euro’ was created by Germany, for the benefit of Germany, it is run by Germany and why it is based in in Frankfurt.

          Whereas we thankfully never adopted the Euro and by implication have our economy run from Frankfurt (ask Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal how that feels) and retained the Pound Sterling. With the positives and negatives that comes with having an independent currency and fiscal policy.

          Germany’s success has nothing to do with the EU itself or its policies. It is all to do with German power and control OVER the EU’s fiscal policies and currency. We were never going to have that level of control nor indeed wanted it.

          • Monetary policy is set in the UK so what you just posted about Frankfurt controlling the UK is mistaken. Monetary and fiscal policy are firmly a UK competence and no EU member can ever change that.

          • (Chris H) Anthony D – Firstly I was discussing how Germany controls the EU’s FISCAL policy not monetary policy and therefore has a huge advantage over the UK within the EU. Its called a ‘2 speed Europe’.

            And quite why you think repeating my point that the UK retained full Fiscal control because it retained the Pound Sterling disproves my point totally defeats me ….

            You inferred that being in the EU works for Germany and so therefore should for us as well. I pointed out we have two distinct currencies and therefore two distinct fiscal policies. Germany dictates the EU’s policy and so will always make sure it works for them while we have the positives and negatives within the EU of having an independent fiscal policy and currency. You are comparing apples and pears …

      • Agree EU “allies and friends” probably really pissed off that the UK is actually going to take off once we are away from being shackled to the greater Germanic Republic. Aka the EU.

          • Hi Chris. It was the wording of this that confused me…

            “Whereas we thankfully never adopted the Euro and by implication have our economy run from Frankfurt…”

            I thought you were saying Germany controls us. Apols.

            However, you do confuse monetary and fiscal policy in your second post. Monetary policy is used to devalue a currency. Also Germany pays the EU bills so has a right to make sure economies that overspend reign it in when it is bailing them out of their budget deficits.

      • All of our car makers are in foreign hands though, all of France’s, Germany’s, Italy’s, Japan’s, etc. most certainly are not. If some were in foreign hands fair enough, but not all of them. Would we respect Germany and their products more if every single one of their car makers was sold to foreigners? Of course not, it would obviously detract from their prestige and by extension the attractiveness of their products of the World stage. If a country doesn’t even believe in itself, why should anyone else? It would be nice to get at least 1 iconic British car maker back in British hands.

      • Talking. Exactly. They can’t not be paying their fair share for something that doesn’t exist.

        You moved onto talking about Germany’s NATO contribution and I agreed with you.

        Before that you were talking about the EU hamstrunging the UK’s trade policy, which I completely disproved.

        • Whatever you’re talking about they’re not talking about meeting their commitments until the 2040’s.
          Which as the largest economy in Europe is a joke.
          With regards trade policy…EU market is shrinking whilst the global market is growing…know which id rather be in.

          • It doesn’t matter whether the EU market is shrinking, stagnating or growing. The point is it doesn’t stop us or any other EU country being an export success. Let’s also remember that in the context of this article we have exported a design and not a hull. What we do export is cars and planes as part of an integrated European supply chain. Oh and as a member we have access to trade agreements with 60 further countries. But what the hell, let’s start over and do over everyone working for airbus or Nissan etc al.

          • (Chris H) AV – Right with you on that comment and that last point. we trade over 60% (and growing) of our exports under WTO Rules to the rest of the world hamstrung by the reverse effects of the EU External Tariff we must charge on all imports from those trading countries. Like the USA.

            Barely 8% of UK companies export to the EU and probably why we run a £100 Bn a year deficit in Goods with other EU countries. And yet every aspect of our lives is governed by EU Laws and Directives.

            And apparently despite voting to leave the EU we are now finding it is almost impossible to carry out the wishes of the British electorate without carving off parts of the UK from the rest (N. Ireland). That tells me all I need to know about this organisation I never voted to join. I did vote to Remain in the EEC in ’75 though and wish it had never been changed to the EU.

        • Ah Chris I see you are back to posting nonsense-drivel about the EU.

          “Right with you on that comment and that last point. we trade over 60% (and growing) of our exports under WTO Rules to the rest of the world hamstrung by the reverse effects of the EU External Tariff we must charge on all imports from those trading countries. Like the USA.” –

          Barely any countries trade under WTO rules due to their restrictiveness. The EU that the UK is a member with already has trade deals with the US. We are not hamstrung by the EU, our trade is supercharged due to membership of a large trade block.

          “Barely 8% of UK companies export to the EU and probably why we run a £100 Bn a year deficit in Goods with other EU countries. And yet every aspect of our lives is governed by EU Laws and Directives.” –

          We don’t export to the EU, we are IN THE EU so part of the single market. We help draft all those EU rules and directives that then have to be ratified by the EU and UK Parliament. Any deficit in trade is down to UK government policy over the decades not the EU.

          “And apparently despite voting to leave the EU we are now finding it is almost impossible to carry out the wishes of the British electorate without carving off parts of the UK from the rest (N. Ireland). That tells me all I need to know about this organisation I never voted to join. I did vote to Remain in the EEC in ’75 though and wish it had never been changed to the EU.” –

          Some of the British electorate voted for Brexit, many others didn’t including myself! If you voted to join the EEC then you did vote to join the EU as everything that has happened since the 1975 was voted for and ratified by elected politicians. What you think you know about the organisation that is the EU is wrong.

          This is one of the most divisive events in British political history that could well break up the Union. For people like myself the loss of my EU citizenship against my will is an unacceptable loss of rights that cannot be left to lie.

          Get used to it!

          • (Chris H) Fedaykin – And there we have it: The self righteous superiority, the sanctimonious preaching, imaginary ‘facts’ and disrespect of the democratic process for all to see.

            I have been wondering for a long while quite why I found you such a totally objectionable individual with whom it is totally impossible to have a concise discussion. Someone who makes everything personal rather than objective – Its because you are a Remoaner! Nothing more need be added!

            We leave the EU Ponzi Scheme on March 29th 2019. So YOU get used to that and if you like your ‘EU Citizenship’ so much jog off to Germany

          • “I have been wondering for a long while quite why I found you such a totally objectionable individual with whom it is totally impossible to have a concise discussion. ” –

            I don’t find you an objectionable Chris H even if you are a Quitling just an amusing windbag, how is it possible to have a concise discussion when you post so much nonsense on a regular basis?!

  19. Spot on Sean!
    German engineering at its best.
    I’m sure they’ll manage to fudge some stats on the diesel engines on the codog system..😉

  20. Evening all
    I’ll try and answer some of the points replying from my earlier blog and try and give an articulated answer to why I think the split fleet 26/31/45 still offers the RN the ability to fulfill the tasks assigned by HMG.
    Crewing: let’s wait on platform for that one, BAES or Babcock T31 still requires less manning that T26. Each crew member on average cost about £100k per year. 10 extra crew is £1m multiplied by 5 and when multiplied by the number of years (25) they plan to be in service is an extra £125m over the lifecycle of the platform. When budgets are planned this is how it is done. Those 10 bodies also need to be found and trained, at the 1/5 rule, for every 5 one will leave therefore 1 will need to be trained each year just to sustain manning. For the T23 you are correct in that the 2087 is the difference, we have an anti sub platform without its primary detection system and therefore due to cost it fulfills a GP role. This does not represent best value to the taxpayer and misuses an ASW platform.
    T31 is designed with GP in mind, reducing running cost and increasing value for money.

    Hi Paman27
    The fleet needs to be balanced
    We have too few 45
    We have too few 26
    We have ordered too few 31
    This isn’t going to change
    We have however purchased River II, Tide et al
    We have to balance requirement against available manpower, platform and resource (money).
    We have to work out what we want to do in the world, who we want to be – from that we can build our armed forces to better provide the outcomes to satisfy the aim

    • Couldnt agree more Lee

      My only comment is for me T45/T26 need to merge into a fully blown ASW/AAW asset and be fully loaded and fully functional.

  21. Congratulations to BAE for another win! I look forward to seeing the details of the combat suite being installed. Any word on that?



  22. I would imagine there is growing pressure on the corridors of power to ditch T31, reverse course and build 13 T26’s.

    An excellent, world beating British design, that’s just what’s needed to face down a resurgent submarine threat.

    I’m not opposed to a Leander ” type” light escort, 5 or 6 on top of the full 13 unit T26 procurement, taking the Navy back to 30 escorts with the 5 River batch 2’s.

    A mixed low end T31 and River class fleet would greatly free up the RN’s tear 1 escorts from pedestrian duties.

    We have to hope extra money is available in the much awaited SDSR..

    • The River 2s are not escorts by any stretch of the imagination. I would love to see more T26s ordered but there isn’t the man power to use them anyway, we already have a T45 alongside indefinitely because of this issue. Unless the MOD goes to town on lean manning, retainment of experienced personnel and automation for the mine hunting fleet (which would show almost unimaginable foresight) then any increase in hull numbers is just a fantasy.

  23. In honour of our Australian and Canadian cousins deciding to also purchase and operate the Type 26, may I cheekily suggest we rename it the Commonwealth Class?

    Go CANZUK!

    • That does have a nice ring to it you know.

      I like the Type 31, but at this stage, I really wouldn’t be against reverting back to 5 general purpose Type 26 frigates. If we can also order the Type 31 that’s a bonus! However, let’s be realistic. The Type 31 is the only way to retain numbers and potentially grow the fleet. I just wish the powers that be can see we need quality equipment, but also numbers.

      • Have to say I disagree

        The FSL has a modernisation strategy that I think moves us to a 2 class escort navy

        T26/T45 – High level escort (should merge into 1 class in my opinion) 13-14 ships.
        T31 – moderate level escort in volumes to replace the t23 GPF’s, minehunters and OPV’s ( 25 vessels) operating a range of UAV’s dependent upon tasking.

        There also needs to be a large ship strategy around RFA/Amphibious/ solid support vessels and I think that will come out over time.

        I believe this is the right strategy and if we execute properly we will end up with a sustainable naval drumbeat and industry that might just end up being able to export even more in the future (but dont bet on that)

        • I agree with Pac.

          T31 and River2 needed to enable T26 T45 to concentrate on where they are needed, which is not flag waving, chasing pirates and smugglers, and being deployed as singletons around the globe.

          • Me too. Between type 31 and innovation in the remote delivery of mcm and hydrographic roles there’s a real opportunity to grow the escort fleet. That won’t happen if we go down the road of more type 26.

          • The Type 31s and River class definitely have their place, we just need more of them, and more submarines.

          • I do agree, however.

            Whilst I’d ‘like’ additional T26, T31 is the only viable solution – and it has its place. I just hope we look at ordering additional numbers.

    • Brilliant suggestion No.1:
      Brave Tars of “The Four Royals”,…. A Happy Trafalgar Day indeed!
      I can see the headlines clearly:”The First Commonwealth Sqn have just arrived in Gibraltar for commemoration services this morning October, 21st,2025″.
      Joining HMS Tin Lizzie, Daring and Dragon are:
      HM ships:Cook, Cook, Cook and the most famous of them all, Cook

      HIP HIP

  24. Great idea Dave, we buy 13 and name some after Canadian and Australian cities…

    Commonwealth class has a beautiful ring to it!

      • Commonwealth class works for me. Our current Halifax class uses Canadian city names so small city/town names would have to be used, might need a different nomenclature.

        • Don’t agree John Fedup. Commonwealth Class does not have a “Canadian” ring to it. I believe the first ship should be named for our country, and the second ship for when our country first became of age (as Vimy Ridge is considered sacred Canadian ground):I have proposed we call the LM/BAE Type 26, the “Canada Class” as such:
          Halifax N.S. Based:
          Esquimalt B.C. Based:

    • Totally agree, Commonwealth class sounds perfect. With the rise of many navies in Asia pacific procuring subs it’s not too much of a stretch to see other friendly navies taking a serious look. India, Singapore, Malaysia all have close links to the commonwealth and all take Asw seriously. Also flogging top notch kit in the Middle East seems logical. Saudi Arabia for one, they always buy top shelf. Great to finally see British ships being sold around the world again. As an ex pomme living in Australia I’m looking forward to seeing various type 26’s slipping through Sydney harbour. The more foreign flags the better

  25. Champagne corks flying all over the place!

    I don’t want to be a wet blanket but I think I should point out that this is a preliminary decision by Ottawa to purchase the Type 26, there is still some work to be done before an actual contract is signed.

    A quote from the following link:

    “While this represents a significant milestone in the competitive process, more work is required before a contract is awarded.

    Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. must now go through the ‘due diligence process,’ which includes:

    -negotiations with the company on intellectual property rights
    -an assessment of combat systems performance
    -an assessment of the company’s financial capability to deliver the project, together with the verification of various other administrative matters

    Should the preferred bidder not successfully demonstrate to Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. that it meets all of the due diligence requirements, then the next highest ranked compliant bidder will become the preferred bidder. The new preferred bidder will then have to successfully demonstrate that it meets all of the due diligence requirements.”

    Reports in the media state that all of the above should be done over this winter at which point the CSC project moves to the next stage and cutting steel begins in the early 2020s.
    In all likelihood, the Type 26 will be the chosen design for the Canadian navy. But we should all keep in mind that the selection of a new warship is not a one-step process.

    Just my 2¢ worth from this side of The Pond.

    P.S. Perhaps we could name one of our ships HMCS Marmite. 😉

  26. Wonderful to read through the depth of knowledge in the above posts. On the basis that steel is cheap(one of the justifying points for making the QE’s such large ships) would it not make sense to base the 5 type 31’s on the type 26 hull-even if the length is reduced it would surely make for a considerable saving in initial tooling up and in the manufacture process-the proverbial economies of scale? Even if the T31 does attract foreign orders, an initial run of 5 is simply not enough to spread setup costs. Much better to be part of a build of 40 plus ships that incorporate considerable commonality?

  27. While the type 26 certainly looks to be an exceptional product, the RNZN does not need something so big. We only have 2000pax total (apart from reserves) in our navy and a smaller hull would be a better buy for us. Many of us rue the purchase of the glorified fisheries-protection vessels – RNZN Wellington and RNZN Otago and wish that money had been better spent on a class of up-armed corvettes. The ANZAC class are wasted on us too. We need smaller vessels that can hunt subs AND patrol our EEZ, something equiped with Sea Ceptor and drones perhaps…

    • Anthony, the published figures for manning are that the T-26 will have a smaller complement than the ANZAC’s. Why would a smaller hull be better. I think the ongoing running costs would be far more important. Far better I would have thought for NZ to be able to decide which of the three T-26 versions fits its needs best and ask for a couple of hulls off one of the what will be three active productions at the time. I am suspecting that the deal the NZ government could get would be nearly as cheap as a bespoke T-31e of similar. The key would be to keep to the equipment fit that one of the three production lines is already producing. From what you say above, to my mind that is the RN one.

      • A smaller hull certainly would not be better, but with a smaller hull we could hopefully have more than 2 ships as currently the 2 ANZAC frigates are overworked and seemingly never in the right place in our EEZ to police it properly if in fact they are ever in our home waters which is seldom. We have 2 fishery-protection ships but that is pretty much all they are good for – chasing Chinese trawlers. We have a very long (but not contiguous) EEZ that extends from Antarctica up to the Cook Islands and I know from chatting to people at Maritime NZ who monitor the EEZ, that most of the time they don’t bother to report incursions as there is nothing to go out and put eyes-on it anyway. Ideally we need 6 frigate-sized ships and either 8 P-8’s or some big UAV’s capable of making it down to Antarctica but this is a pure fantasy wish! Maybe we will end up with the Americas Cup boat with a Bren on it’s bow. At least it goes fast!

        • Thanks Anthony,
          I have appreciated your insight into the stabs at a future RNZN frigate discussion, and have now joined your call not for a replacement frigate like the Type31e, but a number of better armed OPVs or a Corvette solution for the RNZN, and more of them.
          Interestingly, the RAN has recently committed to 12 new OPVs based on a German Lürssen design. These are replacing 4 different ship types in the RAN including all the RAN mine hunters, coastal survey ships and 2 separate patrol boat classes, to be built in AUS with the first launched in 2021. NZ could get on the band wagon there, as they are similar size to the Wellington and Otago, but I perhaps a ASW mission-set should also be added.
          Something else akin to that with ASW could be the Damen Sigma Corvette (Dutch company that builds ships for Asia in Vietnam). The RAN commissioned a training vessel from Damen recently (but run and operated by private company).

          I like your thinking.

  28. A lot of good posts, particularly Lee H and for once we can all be enthusiastic about some good news. Picking up on odd points I think the 45/26/31 mix is still best because it gets us into another export market and the phrase “at least five” has been used more than once. With the River class able to take up “soft” patrol work ten ( I hope) T31’s would give us great scope. But, another good point, we surely need to increase our anti air cover, maybe more so than with A/S? Adding in two more AA T26’s must be a good way forward.
    Like the Commonwealth idea.

      • Good point Anthony. I don’t think we’re going to get 53 of anything. Perhaps we should name all the Chinooks instead!

      • (Chris H) Anthony D – On a more lighthearted I note the USA of course does qualify to be a member of the Commonwealth being an ex colony of the United Kingdom.

        I make no further comment than that ….

    • Hi Geoffrey
      Many thanks
      I would be a keen supporter of a further 2 T26, if equipped properly. It would allow the T45 to be deployed more appropriately instead of being used for anti piracy patrols. It would be interesting to see what other functionality RN would like to give the 45. Ballistic missile defence must be high up the agenda now, putting one in the gulf would relieve the pressure on the USN, which could result in reciprocal benefits elsewhere.

  29. F*#&ing brilliant. Well done to all involved at BAE. I bet there are some very, very happy – and soon to be a lot richer – members of the T26 sales team right now. Congratulations and respect also for the Canadian decision makers for caring about their armed forces and selecting the most capable vessel to equip their people with even if it wasn’t the cheapest.

    Despite LeeH’s articulate post I’m still in the let’s negotiate sharper pricing on T26 now that BAE can amortise certain costs across more vessels and hopefully get some bigger economies of scale for many subcomponents and let’s be prepared to kill T31 and use some of that cash (which was set to be spent at quite an early stage given targets for first T31 into the water) to accelerate the T26 build schedule on the 3 orders already underway which I suspect would be a significant bargaining chip that the MoD could use to renegotiate T26 pricing on the later batches.

    I would say don’t spend absolutely all the T31e budget on extra T26 with some left over to look at increasing lower cost and crew-requirement (to address LeeH’s comments) vessels in the River B2 sort of size and also invest in drone capabilities (e.g. a UK-developed Schiebel S-100 competitor) to significantly enhance their surveillance reach and other capabilities in low-intensity policing roles (smuggling, piracy etc). Perhaps if MCM replacement is coming onto the radar a new MCM mothership could be the next UK design project to also fulfill the low-intensity roles (dare I say Black Swan?) rather than T31.

  30. Started Reading a few of the Comments above but There are just so many, All I’d like to Add is, Absolutely Brilliant News, Well done BAE and Everyone Involved. Oh and,” Please Sir, Can We have some More ? “.

  31. Great news but I have serious reservations that either Australia or Canada will buy the full order that they’ve claimed they’re buying, they like us are maxed out with Manning and recruitment issues not to mention the actual cost as these as they start being built.
    That said a 3 nation consortium could bring significant savings and training benefits- as a sign of confidence in the program the mod should immediately speed up construction of the first ship and start building the rest much quicker than planned

    • Could be. Australia has just begun its huge OPV programme and has ambitious plans to increase its submarine force even though they are struggling now.

    • Given the huge coastal area of Canada along with our NATO commitments, 15 ships is a minimal number. Policians will likely try to reduce the number in the future as the true extent of junior’s mismanagement comes back to bite us in the a$$ in the late 2020s. Still, less than 12 (size of our current fleet) is the breaking point unless we forego NATO obligations or ignore sovereignty over substantial areas of our coasts (which are increasing as global warming gets worse).

    • For the RAN, there is no significant increase in ship numbers, they are replacing old kit, so the sailor recruitment is not unduly under strain – if anything, they get to offer the latest technology to new recruits.
      Even the new OPV programme is a replacement and consolidation of 4 differing ship classes.

    • J:
      Totally agree with your second statement about training, however don’t know why you are under the impression that Canada will not build all 15 Frigates. We do not “”claim” to be buying 15. Our Prime Minister and cabinet have already stated that there “will” be 15 ships built and they have a signed contract with Irving shipbuilding to build no less than 15 ships! We cannot give our Navy anything less than 15 as we are also replacing our AAW ships as well with one single class of Warship (12 CPF’S and 3 Iroquois class Destroyers). Yes, it is true we have had some recruitment issues but we are still able to man all the ships we have now and “will” be able to fully man all 15 Frigates along with our Joint Support Ships (JSS) in the future no matter if LM/BAE does or does not win the contract, as this is not a “done deal” yet!!

  32. What a great piece of news, first Australia and now this, I’m over the moon. It’s great to see British shipbuilding doing well in the export market again after a very long absence. This is great news for British industry on the World stage and will do our country’s prestige a lot of good.

  33. Squeezing every last cent (penny) out of the type 26 design makes sense. America has consistently done this to create large classes of vessels, think ddg51 and Los Angeles class, the type 26 Hull is just the ‘frame’.
    Same goes for aircraft think f16,
    We can learn a lot from America, create a great design, then squeeze every last drop out of it. Creating new designs ‘just because we can’ might work in other fields, but in warships it just makes for more through life headaches.
    The genius in the type 26 design is modularity. Think of it like LEGO. Same materials, infinite possibilities.
    Lastly let’s learn from history. In ww2 Germany built amazing kit in infinite designs and paid the price. Even though it was technically superior, it was a bastard to maintain. The Russian t34, nailed it. Brilliant design, endless possibilities within that design, Germany was partly defeated by economies of scale.
    If we want to counter future adversaries, we need to do the same.

    • Absolutely key point and something we in the UK keep on screwing up.

      Scale is required in a lot of our assets.

      Do we need Wildcat when we have Merlin and Apache?
      Do we need Ajax (and loads of other platforms) when we could go big on Boxer?
      Do we need Bays, Albion’s, Forts etc when we could have a fleet of Karel Doorman JLSS?
      Do we need a fresh design for T31 when you could re-use the T23/T45/T26 designs for what after all does not have to be a cutting edge design.

      The list is endless from VLS silo’s to radars to personal weapons, we just dont seem to be able to make a good decision even when we have exceptional kit available to us.

      • I would take Ajax and run with it personally. As when it comes to terrain track beat tires every time. What needs to be done is the complete replacement of all of the previous CVRT family variants with the Ajax (ASCOD 2) variants as way to make the British Army highly mobile. Some variants can be combined due to advances in weaponry so it should look like this:
        Sabre, Scimitar, and Sabre replaced by 40mm Ajax.
        Scorpion and Strike replaced by Ajax with either the GD or preferably the Cockerill turret in 105 or 120 due to it’s ability to launch the new Falarick series of missiles. Falarick has both a AT missile and a indirect fire high explosive missile for working with infantry an drones. The Cockerill guns elevation angles of up to +42 degrees allows combined with indirect fire from gun launched missiles and he can have it stand in as short range artillery in a pinch.
        Spartan, Sultan, Samson, and Samaritan all replaced with separate turretless variants of Ajax.
        Their is even now a 155 howitzer module available. So a possibility of replacing the AS90 when comes time to is a possibility.
        Combine this with Boxer variants and JLTVs for rear and mid echelon work and you have some thing mobile and with some relatively sharp talons.
        All with very high amounts of parts commonality and maintenance procedures allowing for a higher readiness rate. This in addition to reducing the burden on the training programs. By making many of the vehicles
        If the plan is for Strike Brigades to be relatively mobile but still packing enough punch to be worth the name “Strike”, this what it should look like. A formation made up entirely of vehicles capable of being airlifted to theater or transported by relatively light support ships. Then once arriving in theater capable of either launching rapid difficult to counter attacks on the offensive or conducting a elastic defense capable of being able to bleed the enemy without being pinned down.

  34. So well done to BAE and LM for a further 15 Type 26 derivatives. It is only a pity that BAE cannot make an offer to the US Navy for their frigate program.
    I have seen the arguments here about scrapping the Type 31 and having more 26’s instead, possibly we can have both with some rethinking. The Type 45 will need to be replaced in the next 15-20 years, at the same time we do have a manpower shortage and the RN needs to save some money so lets try and do something different, and we need to beef up the defence of the carriers.
    We’ll start with the Type 45’s
    They are a good sensor platform but as we all know do have engine issues and a limited AAW missile fit. So as they will also need replacing why not use the Type 26 design with a Aus style radar fit and 48 Aster 15/30s, we could have 6 of these to replace the T45s. and it should be cheaper due to the production run. I am though not finished with the T45’s, lay them up, and rebuild them, they are not really needed until the carriers become operational. This will save money at the moment, and give a chance to rebuild them by ripping out the helicopter hanger and install a further 48 VLS tubes for Aster/ ASROC/Cruise/Harpoon replacement. We need three. (four would be better, as one could be in refit) of the six T45’s rebuilt in this way making them into Carrier/Amphib escort AAW cruisers. The main gun should also be replaced and the powerplant should be upgraded.
    That would give 4*T45 AAW cruisers with 96 VLS launchers, 8 *T26 (F) and 6 *T26 (D). These should be completed by 2032.
    As for the T31’s I know I have said it before the idea is good but I still think that we need a minimum of six of these and base it on the Type 23, this is or rather was a good general purpose frigate so give it a modern hull. These vessels should be permanently deployed in Gib, Caribbean, Falklands and the Indian Ocean. To save costs much of the equipment could be stripped out of the T23’s such as the hull mounted sonar, Artisan radar, Sea Ceptor tubes, 4.5inch gun etc, I think the powerplant is also being upgraded in the T23’s, if so use it. This would leave the main units to act as either Carrier or Amphibious battlegroups.
    In some ways people are going to scream cost, saving money man power issues etc. Again do it a different way, create permanent battlegroups, the group works together, refits together, goes on leave together etc. The likelihood that the RN would have two carrier battlegroups at sea at the same time is hopefully never. That would only happen in a major shooting war, so it means that one complete battlegroup is stood down for refit, repair etc.
    The issue that the RN as well as the other military arms have is moral, with numbers being so small they are being deployed for longer periods of time, salaries are falling behind. The armed forces were always badly paid, some might say it is the average salary, starting salaries works out at about £500 per week. What people forget is that serving in uniform is a 24 hour per day job, leave is a privilege not a right so what it means is that the young sailor/soldier has an hourly rate of £3 per hour. So now they are being asked to accept low wages, higher deployment ratios, sometimes buy their own kit and get no protection from lawyers and government. Then to cap it all cannot get a flat or house when they leave. Is it any wonder that moral and retention rates are low.
    Ideas and rant over for a Sunday Morning.

    • It’s a vicious circle: we can’t get enough people to join up partly due to low pay, and we can’t afford the massive expense of paying them a good wage (plus pensions) hence our navy gets smaller and inevitably moral lower among those already serving. Either we up the bugdet (or at least be less wasteful with the one we have got) to increase pay and the size of the navy or we accept our lot as it is now. It seems in the current climate that the latter is the likely outcome.

      As part of a long-term solution our youngsters need to be taught the benefits and absolute necessity of having a strong military, even if they don’t want to serve themsleves. But this will take, it seems, a cultural shift as I get the impression that people are either not interested in the military or/and have no understanding that we have enemies that are loving every second of the shrinking of our military forces and their assets.

      Our foes pay their service men next to nothing and/or have massive populations so can maintain massive militaries.

      Probably gone completely off the point of the question…

    • My advice, Ron, is ignore claims that we could have more T26s instead of T31s. There seems to be a fair few people out there who can’t accept that the £1.25bn is only enough for a single T26 that wouldn’t be in service until the late 2030s, at which point the RN will have been short on frigates for over a decade.

      I confess your plans regarding the Type 45s and their replacements confuse me. Firstly, the engine issues already have a fix in the works, and the two ships most effected by the issue (Daring and Dauntless) are already laid up waiting for that refit. Laying the rest of the class up deprives the RN of its entire mid-to-long range air defences, downgrade our role in NATO (where Type 45s usually fulfill the role of group flagship), and deny crews operational experience with an important platform.

      You also highlight the limited missile capacity of the T45s. This is true, although it is partially addressed by replacing the Aster 15 with Sea Ceptor, which offers near-same performance in a quadpackable form. 16 A15s for 64 SCs alleviates much of the T45s capacity issue. However, you then suggest arming the T45 replacement with the same limited VLS loadout. Forgive me, but that just seems daft.

      Your proposal for converting the T45s into what you describe as AAW cruisers (they’re still destroyers based on your description) is also heavily flawed. Ignoring the fact that by the time they’re operational in 2032, our carriers will have been without AAW escorts for over a decade, such an extensive and flawed conversion wouldn’t be much cheaper than better designed new build ships.

      A more practical and realistic escort force mix (in my opinion at least) would consist of:
      -the 8 T26 dedicated ASW frigates, unchanged from current real world plans
      -the 6 refitted T45s (primarily engine upgrades, but preferably with the additional 16 strike length VLS they were designed for and Dragonfire), which starting in 2033 are replaced by…
      -6-8 future destroyers, production starting as soon as capacity is free on the Clyde in order maintain the workforce. These could be a T26-derivatives, AKA T46, or they could be a new design, but both will feature 64-128 VLS, first class radar setup, and lasers.
      -11+ T31 GP frigates. This covers the 5 current T31 as well as like-for-like replacements for the Hunt class MCMVs, but could include more depending on cost. Entering continuous production with Babcock and co, its design will focus on self defence armament (30mm guns, CIWS, Sea Ceptor, decoys), 8-16 Mk41 VLS, hopefully a towed array, and space for mission specific equipment. Helicopters and drones would allow it to fulfill ASW and MCMV missions, while Perseus/ASROC could be loaded in varying numbers to provide AShW/land attack and more ASW.

      Acting on the rule of 3, peacetime deployments would see 2 T26s permanently assigned to the GIUK gap to guard our waters and the deterrent, a destroyer and a T26 as dedicated carrier escorts, a T31 as fleet ready escort, and T31s deployed in place of the replaced Hunt MCMVs, which would remove the need for further escorts in the Med and Gulf. Depending on availability (which may allow operating on the rule of 2 instead), that leaves 1-3 destroyers, 0-1 T26s, and 2-3 T31s to reinforce the CBG, conduct anti-piracy ops, operate with NATO, or form a permanent Far East Squadron.

  35. @Ron

    I have modelled this exact organisation for the whole UKDF – It sees the RN organised into 8 Fleets

    2 x Carrier Groups of 10 vessels each (1 on 1 off – I have called them Juno and Sword)
    4 x Task Groups of 9 vessels each rotating through our different tastings (2 T26 + 4 T31 is the core)
    1 x Strategic submarine fleet – 14 subs – 10 SSN – 1 per group(6) +1 per SSBN(4)
    1 x Maintenance Fleet of 7 vessels in deep refit or maintenance.

    The above is achieved in an 80 ship major asset RN (so no different to now) and requires an annual build budget of £3.5bn p.a to achieve.

    Using double crewing for all assets – the minimal viable size of the RN is 26,000 sailors (not marines), realistically the navy needs 30,000 sailors (exc Marines) and a lot of new kit if it is to become an employer of choice and an annual budget allocation of £11bn to run itself properly and sustainably (does not include aircraft costs).

    Lastly, there is something wrong with our country in the way we treat anyone who serves (military, police etc) in the US they are heroes, here they are not.

    The military used to be a great career and option on leaving school, we need it be so again.

  36. TO ALL:
    As a proud Canadian, no one is more pleased than me that Canada has announced it has chosen the Locheed Martin (LM) Type 26 warship design by British defence firm BAE to replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s Halifax-class frigates. But as a pragmatist, I have to mellow my enthusiasm with the facts as they are now. A group of companies led by the multi-national defence giant Lockheed Martin has just been selected as the preferred designer for Canada’s next generation of warships, by the Liberal government……or has it? The government is planning to build 15 new warships starting within the next three to four years. These ships will replace Canada’s 12 aging Halifax-class frigates and already-retired and scraped Iroquois-class destroyers that will serve as the navy’s backbone fleet for most of this century. The announcement represents a significant step forward for the long-anticipated $60-billion program to replace the navy’s aging fleet of frigates. This announcement follows the decision made by the Australian Government in June 2018 to select BAE Systems and the Type 26 as well, to be known as the “Hunter” class, as the successful bidder for their $35 billion SEA 5000 Future Frigate program. This brings a total of 32 “sister” ships into the fold. If only we could convince the USN to come on board as well, that would give over 50 ships around the world!!
    But “hold the horses, laddie-buck”! The hardest and possibly the most complex part of this process is just about to begin. Defence officials say this is not the final step. Negotiators for both sides as well as Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding, which will actually build the warships, must now hammer out the details, including the final costs, before a deal is formalized and confirm it can deliver everything promised in this complex proposal. Some observers have compared this process to placing a conditional offer on a home, by first doing a home inspection and final walk-through before the final papers are signed. The evaluation, which will take place over the winter of 2018/2019, involves verifying the consortiums’ financial where-with-all to complete the project, confirming that the proposal meets the military’s combat requirements and nailing down aspects of intellectual property licences on the complex systems that will be put into these new warships. Obtaining the necessary clearances is essential for the federal government to be able to maintain these vessels in the future. Failure to do so could cost taxpayers untold tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars over the five decades the ships are expected to be in service. Some design changes are expected after the Canadian government selects the “official” winner and a contract is in place. How many changes are required is a critical question, and it is anticipated that cutting of the first steel on the new warships may take up to an additional four years. The government has said that Lockheed’s proposal won out the two rival submissions in this long and extremely sensitive competition to design replacements for the navy’s entire frigate and destroyer fleets.
    One of the key negotiating points is the amount of intellectual property that Lockheed will be required to hand over, which Ottawa wants so it can operate and maintain the vessels on its own after these ships are built. The intellectual-property issue has proven contentious in the past, which is why the government and industry agreed to wait until after the curing process decision was made to iron out all details. Lockheed’s victory could be a catalyst for legal action by the other bidders after questions about why the LM/BAE consortium’s bid, which was based on the British-designed Type 26 frigate, was allowed in the first place. The two other Companies that provided proposals for the CSC Frigate included Alion Canada and Damen Group with a bid based on the Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class frigate as well as Navantia, who offered a solution based on the Spanish F-105 frigate. The stakes will be high for government, Irving and Lockheed negotiators, with hundreds of millions of dollars in play as well as pressure to make up lost time after numerous delays in the project. The government has reserved the right to walk away from these talks if Lockheed drives too hard a bargain and will instead negotiate with the second-place bidder, which is not being identified by the Canadian Government. It is hoped that won’t be necessary.
    The bid by Lockheed, has been contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016. The federal government had originally said it wanted a “mature design” for its new warship fleet, which was interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy. But the first Type 26 frigates are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been “proven” in full operation. There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26’s favour because of Irving’s connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada. Several industry insiders, however, predicted Lockheed’s selection as the top bidder combined with several changes to the competition after it was launched, including deadline extensions, would spark lawsuits from the other bidders. Government officials have acknowledged the threat of legal action, but expressed confidence that they would be able to defend against such attacks. Last year a French-Italian consortium also declined to formally submit a bid and instead offered Canada a fleet of vessels at a fixed price. Officials with Fincantieri of Italy and Naval Group of France said they did not believe the procurement process as currently designed would be successful. The federal government, however, rejected the deal.
    Should the preferred bidder, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems not demonstrate to Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. that it meets all of the due diligence requirements, then the next highest ranked compliant bidder will become the preferred bidder. That company will then have to successfully demonstrate that it meets all of the due diligence requirements. A contract award is expected this winter, with construction beginning in the early 2020s. The CSC project is the largest, most complex procurement ever undertaken by the Government of Canada. These ships will form the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy and will be Canada’s major surface component of maritime combat power for decades to come.

    • The Liberal government will push this decision to a PO fairly quickly as they don’t want a procurement cluster $uck with the approaching election ( they already have one with the fighter replacement program). IMO, only Navantia might have a legal argument and a small one at that. I would to see a similar legal “go away” resolution like the Leonardo FWSAR suit where the government gave them an order for AW101s and upgrades on existing CH-149s. A couple of JC class LHDs for Navantia should do the trick, something Canada should have.

      • Hi John Fedup. Could not agree more. The acquisition of not just 2, but 4 Juan Carlos Class LHD’s would be superb! (Two per Coast with at least one per coast in build-up/build-down in refit. It would give our languishing shipbuilding industry in Quebec and also Halifax (18 month bare space in shipbuilding) a reason for living. The hulls would be quickly built in Spain with the Island and interior fitted out in Canada. This would give Canada a leg up in the Strategic Sealift Capability. These ships are superb HA/DR ships as well as being a vessel to carry our Canadian Batallions to conflict areas!

        • Two LHDs would be a miracle if it were to happen but four, an impossible dream although I understand why such a number makes sense. LHDs will be ordered shortly after the big one occurs off the BC coast. By then it will be too late. The Mistral opportunity was the only chance to get something IMO although I consider the JC design preferable.

          • Agree John, however these LHD’s could easily be built if Canada were to increase it’s Defence Budget to at least 2% of GDP with not any implications for our economic or social economy. I believe there may be “something-in-the-works” with Spain as PM Trudeau had an impromptu one-on-one private meeting with Spain’s leader while he was at the NATO Summit a few weeks ago for no apparent reason…….or was there? Yes, Canada really missed the boat with the Mistral Class but agree that the JC LHD is a much better ship! Cheers!

  37. Type 26 will find additional export markets. NZ will come on board eventually, from the Aussie production line. That’s what they do, but not needed for another 10-12 years, just about near the end of the RAN run.
    The US should not be counted out. Wait for the RFP

  38. its incredible that we havnt actually seen any media exposure to the fact that Australia and now Canada are going to be sharing a British designed basic hull design as us isn’t it. the one time that the media should be actually building the UK up and not a peep not even a middle page spread in any newspaper.

  39. Does HMG own any of the IP on the T26, I’m assuming it must as it payed for the R and R. Therefore any money earned could go back into the escort budget, but if there is any it will go into general taxation.

    We really do need to stop and re look at the whole idea of constabulary frigates and do we really want five rare and precious ships companies that could be manning high end war fighting ships instead stuck in under armed policing vessels just waiting for a desperate politician to send them into harms way ( that the ship is not equipped for) because that’s all we had in the area and it’s a warship you know.

    We need to make sure we have a clear line between constabulary ships, cheap as chips, 30ish crew, with a 30mm, ribs ect and our warfighting escorts with crews of 120+ and the systems to complete their mission without courting a disaster for the nation and tragedy for the crew and family’s.

    The Type 31 is a need created by individuals who follow a political dogma that means they refuse to spend the required money on the warships the nation needs for its defence and are willing (for the sake of 3-4 billion over a decade , that’s 3-4 hundred million a year, which is nothing against the budge and resources of the fifth wealthiest nation on earth) to risk the national security, repututation and lives of its service men and women to uphold that dogma.

    We learnt a hard lesson 36 years ago, which now seen to be willing to forget for a few billion quid in reduced capital cost, sorry it’s just nuts.

    Yes we can afford 5 frigates, we just don’t want to pay for them.

  40. Since the Type 26 design is gaining export success, it should be renamed Type 26e and a further five ordered for the Royal Navy. The ‘e’ is much more credible against a warship that is in build rather than the Type 31e which is only a restarted paper project, whose target cost per unit is out of touch with reality.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here