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.

215
Leave a Reply

51 Comment threads
164 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
75 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Fedaykin

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.

John Fedup

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.

Geoffrey Roach

BRILLIANT…need I say more!

Nigel Collins

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?

Chris

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.

Ian

Can’t build em overnight Chis…

Bloke down the pub

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.

Steve Taylor

Go on let’s have Number 9 now!

And 10. And 11. And 12! 🙂

Let’s stop the T31 farce dead in the water.

Mr Bell

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.

Anthony D

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… Read more »

Steve Taylor

It’s about national pride not cost.

Anthony D

Steve. I’m proud of it, excited even but I was responding to Mr bell regarding reduction to the cost of the UK buy.

Callum

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

(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… Read more »

Chris

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

AV

Agree…think people should Google BA Systems and see how much they actually do. A true global defence giant.

Ron5

Chris, first time I have ever agreed with one of your posts 100%!

A+

AV

Bloody hell, even Rons on-board ??
Must be a good day.

MSR

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.

Callum

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… Read more »

Ron5

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?

Callum

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.

Stephen

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.

Steve Taylor

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.

Anthony D

Yep, radar and sensor suite need to be common for arrowhead to be viable.

Mr Bell

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?

Anthony D

T31 will have hull mounted sonar and Merlin capable.

Harry Bulpit

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.

Callum

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

(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 …

Ron5

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.

Callum

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… Read more »

Chris

(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 …

expat

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.

David

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!

David

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.

Callum

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.

Ron5

You don’t have to spend the R&D again to build additional T26 do you?

Gavin Gordon

Yes , credit to BAE Systems. They/UK must be doing something right.

AV

Top news!, this has massive positive implications.
Well done all involved.

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.

Lee H

? nothing more required!

AV

Spot on.

Anthony D

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.

Stephen

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… Read more »

Chris

(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… Read more »

Expat

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.

Julian1

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

Chris

(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).

Lee H

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….

Anthony D

Can’t see NZ replacing their two Anzac frigates with such an expensive asuw specialist. T31 maybe…

Fedaykin

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.

TwinTiger

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

(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 ….

Lee H

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….

Helions

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… Read more »

Callum

The USN actually held talks talks with all three T26 nations on developing a common frigate (https://news.usni.org/2018/07/12/navy-hopes-commonality-least-interoperability-frigates-australia-canada-u-k).

If the US is willing, the result would be a fleet of more than 50 T26 derivatives. US acceptance could also spur further licensing exports, although at present I can’t think of a country in need of a high-end ASW frigate that wouldn’t just develop their own.

Stephen

I also think N.Z. will go for the Type 31.

David E Flandry

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

Dave K

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.

Paul.P

Great news! Made my day.

Frank62

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?

Chris

Canada

John Shulver

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

BB85

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.

jim

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.

IronRing

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.

Anthony D

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.

Frank62

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.

Doug McLeod

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.… Read more »

Ian

nailed it Frank

Mr Bell

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… Read more »

Anthony D

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.

Elliott

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

(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… Read more »

Steve Taylor
Derek

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 ….

David

Agreed. Why we pay so much to other countries as foreign aid is beyond me.

Jonathan

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.

Christopher Fox

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!

Anthony D

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.

Sean

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.

Watcherzero

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.

Frank62

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.

Lee H

??

AV

Go on Mr Trump sir, you know you want some.

Jonny

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

Pacman27

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… Read more »

Anthony D

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?

Fedaykin

“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… Read more »

Chris

(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… Read more »

Fedaykin

“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… Read more »

Elliott

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… Read more »

DaSaint

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.

Pacman27

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… Read more »

Mr Bell

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… Read more »

Anthony D

Agree with that one Mr Bell

Fedaykin

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… Read more »

Lee H

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… Read more »

Steve Taylor

The only difference between a T23 GP and the other T23’s is that the latter has 2087.

Steve Taylor

And the complement for the BAE T31 ship is 120 while for T26 it 118.

John Stehmeier

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

Anthony D

Well said

Pacman27

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.

Mr Bell

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… Read more »

Pacman27

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

Paul T

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… Read more »

Lee H

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… Read more »

Lee H

Derisks – no derails

David E Flandry

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.

4thwatch

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.

Anthony D

Yes. Yes! Yes….

Too much?

Steve

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.

Steve

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.

AV

Nothing wrong with a bit of flag waving Steve.
It’s called Global Britain.
Massive confidence boost to industry.
This in return breeds market confidence.
Celebrate the moment, detail comes later.
Onwards and upwards! 🙂

Daniele Mandelli

Spot on AV.

Anthony D

There he is.

AV

Cheers Daniele,
As another second generation time served migrant can’t understand this lack of British flag waving.
Colonial liberal guilt me thinks.

Daniel John Powell

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… Read more »

antidote

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.

Pacman27

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

John Moore

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 ?

Anthony D

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

OOA

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.

AV

Welcome!…a great day

Ron5

And nobody mentioned Brexit?

Picks self up from floor.

AV

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.

Anthony D

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

AV

Shame they can’t afford to pay their fair share in defence then!?

Sean

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!!

Anthony D

I agree but now your talking about NATO. Make your mind up.

Steve Taylor

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

(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… Read more »

Anthony D

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

(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… Read more »

Mr Bell

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.

Anthony D

Oh I bet their crapping in their breeches.

Anthony D

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.

Stephen

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… Read more »

AV

Nah, think you’ll find they’re talking about an EU armed forces.
My mind is very much made up lol.

Anthony D

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.

AV

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.

No1_Dave

absolutely agree with you there AV especially about the last paragraph.

Anthony

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

(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… Read more »

Fedaykin

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… Read more »

Chris

(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’… Read more »

Fedaykin

“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?!

AV

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..?

Lusty

Nah, they’ll just spend time painting them to look pretty. They’re good at that.

AV

Very true ?

Dan Sherren

Did BMT get a mention for their part?

Lee H

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… Read more »

Pacman27

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.

Helions

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

Cheers!

Cheers!

AV

CMS 330 i’m pretty sure…don’t think the rest has been released.

Helions

Thank you AV!

Cheers

John Clark

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… Read more »

Evan Pryce

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.

No1_Dave

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!

Lusty

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.

Pacman27

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli

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.

Anthony D

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.

Stephen

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

Lusty

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.

Jock Patton

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

Jock Patton

Super Idea No.1
Happy Trafalgar Day Tars

Daniele Mandelli

Great idea.

Mr Bell

Good point or the Anglosphere global frigate?

John Clark

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

Commonwealth class has a beautiful ring to it!

No1_Dave

HMS Canberra & HMS Ottawa, sounds good.

John Fedup

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.

David Dunlop

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: HMCS CANADA-FFH 380-East; HMCS ONTARIO-FFH 381-East; HMCS QUEBEC-FFH 382-East; HMCS NOVA SCOTIA-FFH 383-East; HMCS NEW BRUNSWICK-FFH 384-East; HMCS PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-FFH 385-East; HMCS NEWFOUNDLAND-FFH 386-East; HMCS NUNAVUT-FFH 387-East Esquimalt B.C. Based: HMCS VIMY RIDGE-FFH 388-West; HMCS SASKATCHEWAN-FFH 389-West; HMCS… Read more »

Col watts

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… Read more »

Richard John Campbell

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: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2018/10/government-of-canada-delivers-on-its-commitment-to-the-navy-by-announcing-next-steps-in-fleet-procurement.html “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… Read more »

geoff

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… Read more »

Anthony King

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…

Paul bestwick

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… Read more »

Anthony King

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… Read more »

TwinTiger

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.… Read more »

Geoffrey Roach

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… Read more »

Anthony D

Commonwealth has 53 members mind and it may put non members off, especially America.

Geoffrey Roach

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

Chris

(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 ….

Lee H

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.

Geoffrey Roach

Lee…with you on this as well.

Julian

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… Read more »

Sean

NZ has Canadian LAVs though.

Captain P Wash

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 ? “.

Ron5

Pretty sure you would get the same answer as Oliver. They’re looking for cuts not reasons to spend more.

J

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

Steve Taylor

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.

John Fedup

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).

TwinTiger

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.

David Dunlop

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… Read more »

Stephen

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.

Col watts

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.… Read more »

Pacman27

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… Read more »

Elliott

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… Read more »

DaSaint

Don’t count out Type 26 Global Combat Ship for the US FFG(X) requirement. Wait until the new RFP is issued.

Ron

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli

I agree Ron.

RN should indeed form permanent groups.

Singleton deployments should be Rivers and T31 only.

antidote

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… Read more »

Callum

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… Read more »

Pacman27

@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… Read more »

DAVID DUNLOP

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… Read more »

John Fedup

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.

David Dunlop

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… Read more »

John Fedup

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.

David Dunlop

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!

DaSaint

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

Dean

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.

Jonathan

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 (… Read more »