The Ministry of Defence has officially confirmed that the UK’s Type 26 Global Combat Ship is among the final contenders for Norway’s Future Frigate programme, which aims to replace the Royal Norwegian Navy’s aging Fridtjof Nansen-class vessels.
This development, confirmed by Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, follows earlier indications of the Type 26’s strong positioning as part of a broader strategic effort to promote UK-designed frigates internationally.
Responding to a parliamentary question on the progress of exporting Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, Eagle stated: “The Ministry of Defence and the Department for Business and Trade are actively supporting the promotion of the Type-26 Global Combat Ship and Type 31 Arrowhead 140 designs to other navies around the world with similar requirements. The Type-26 has been down-selected as one of four options for the Norwegian Future Frigate competition.”
We reported previously that the Norwegian Ministry of Defence announced its intent to engage with the UK, US, France, and Germany in discussions on a strategic partnership for the Royal Norwegian Navy’s next-generation frigates.
These ships will replace the ageing Fridtjof Nansen-class and represent Norway’s largest planned military investment, aimed at bolstering national and NATO maritime security amidst growing geopolitical challenges.
“The new frigates represent the largest acquisition planned for the Norwegian Armed Forces in the coming years,” said Defence Minister Bjørn Arild Gram.
“Norway is an important maritime nation in NATO, and through this and other maritime investments we will be strengthening both national and allied security.”
Approved by the Norwegian Parliament in June 2024, the Long-Term Plan for the Armed Forces outlines the acquisition of at least five, optionally six, anti-submarine warfare frigates equipped with embarked helicopters.
In a departure from traditional procurement methods, these new frigates will not be standalone purchases but part of a strategic partnership with a close ally. This collaboration will encompass joint acquisition, operation, maintenance, and development throughout the ships’ service life.
Norway also seeks to accelerate delivery by joining an existing production line, avoiding interim upgrades to the current fleet. Gram noted, “Solid and predictable cooperation on both security and defence policy will be at the heart of the strategic partnership that we envision, which will include everything from force generation to operations and joint development of new capabilities.”
A decision on Norway’s strategic partner is expected by 2025, with the Government prioritising industrial collaboration. Gram emphasised the potential for domestic economic benefits, stating, “The Norwegian Government’s goal is that our planned maritime investments should help generate jobs and opportunities throughout the country. A key consideration will therefore be the ability for Norwegian technology and industry to contribute to the development and sustainment of both our own future frigates and those of our chosen strategic partner.”
The UK’s Type 26 frigate, already under construction for the Royal Navy and adopted by Australia and Canada, has now been confirmed for consideration, with many believing it was a strong contender. Designed for advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities and equipped with cutting-edge technology, the Type 26 benefits from an active production line—aligning closely with Norway’s requirements for expedited delivery.
Earlier reporting by the UK Defence Journal highlighted that BAE Systems, which builds the Type 26, recently hosted Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace at its Glasgow shipyard to explore potential collaboration. BAE Systems has also hosted senior Norwegian officials to view the Type 26 frigates under construction, further showcasing the platform’s capabilities.
So would we have to give them ships straight off the line ahead of our own? I would assume so
I’m assuming so too, but I think worth it.
The type 23s are falling apart what do you propose our navy uses instead.
Not a good idea. We’re desperate for the vessels in build and given the glacial pace of build, diverting one or possibly more to another country is not a realistic option. If Norway wants Tyoe 26 they would need to join the queue.
Then we won’t win the competition
Then BAE systems needs to speed up the build. I’d like to see the company going out on a limb and begin construction on a couple more. Ship builders used to do this at times of high demand knowing that the warship will find a customer before completion.
Except ships are extremely expensive these days, they’re not going to just hope for a customer
We can’t wait any longer to replace the 23s.
It would be an excuse for the government not to order replacements.
I really don’t see the logic in just saying no, as we need ours before exporting any, there’s a reason France / Italy get exports and pay lower costs for their ships than we do. If it was a country on the other side of the world I’d possibly agree with you, but it’s Norway who live in the same puddle as us, have the same aims as us and will probably be fighting alongside us.
Same ship, same enemy, same capability same outcome just a different country footing the bill and crewing them.
So zero overall downside !
In fact it has a very large upside, it increases the order book which reduces the cost per hull for follow up orders and as the purse strings are loosened speeds up the overall build cycle. BAe have been quite open about being able to build T26 much faster, it is not down to their ability it’s down to the way the contract is structured by HMG.
The payment schedule is dragged out over an artificially longer period due to the staged payment schedule, stupid thing is it’s less efficient and overall increases the total cost. Same goes for Ajax, Boxer, F35 etc etc etc !
So if Norway wanted to pay for 5 extra hulls provided we agree to letting them have some of ours then I’d snap their hands off.
Ultimately 13 T26 ASW Frigates in the same waters is better than just 8 !
That is true, but I think it would mean future issue for the T83.. 5 more T26 hulls would mean that yard will not be finished up with T26 until the late 2030s even with a faster build. Personally I think it’s why we may just need to change gear a bit as well as paradigm..run the T45s on until the later 40s and consider a more distributed AAW set up (as the French and Italians do) with far more “all purpose” surface combatants.
Max out the T26 production run until 2041/2, This would probably allow around 15 T26s to be built in the UK. The original 8 ASW, five for Norway and I would suggest do as the French have done and build 2 T26s as an all purpose ASW/AAW frigate ( if you can have FREMM ASW/AAW frigate you can bloody well build a T26 ASW/AAW frigate as it’s bigger) this would supplement the 6 T45s and give 8 AAW vessels as you move into assembly of the type 83 in around 2039 ( you will have free capacity as you do build that last couple of T26s and you can get Babcock to start steelwork from 2035..there is no need for any pause).
Then also run Babcock up to 10 T31s into the mid 2030s and then at say 2035 get them to start the steel work on the T83..
With that would give both escort yards 25 frigates to build between now and 2040 and a very good run up to start building the T83..which should be a joint effort between Babcock and BAE and be an affordable mid sized AAW destroyer that they can build 8 to 10 of
Giving them work until 2050..at which point they need to start building an ASW and GP frigate replacement against…
Agree totally!
Give them a couple of our slots
I would love to know if the new Govan build hall which fits 2 type 26’s and due for completion early next year will increase production to help delays with an order from our neighbours in the high north
Yep. What he said. British ship building hasn’t done a direct sale to a foreign ally in ..decades at least? Selling five hulls ? That snapping sound is me tearing their arm off.
ABC Rodney, I have to agree with you matey. Makes sense. 👍🕳️🙃Btth.
I’d hoped that if Norway buys 5 or better yet 6, with Canada and Australia and the RN as confirmed customers already the cost per hill will drop even further. Hopefully allowing the RN to eventually get more than 8.
How to tolerate some of our type 26s going to Norway? Simple, just order another batch of type 31s whilst speeding up the glacial type 31 and type 26 builds.
Or, optionly, start a line at Cammell Laird
Sorry you just do not make sense at all. The 26 is primarily a fleet escort for our carriers we need them now.
Remember where Norway patrols. They cover the North Sea, which is precisely what a RN Type 26 would be doing.
Do they? The North Sea?
Germany, the Dutch or Belgium I would say.
Given that more than 20% of Norway’s EEZ is in The North Sea, along with nearly 90% of their oil and gas assets, yes, they do cover the North Sea. There is always one Norwegian military vessel (usually a corvette) and always a coastguard vessel within their North Sea EEZ.
The potential order, with the benefits it will bring outweigh the negatives by a big margin – it is simply too good an opportunity to miss.
A Norwegian ship is basically helping the RN without global distractions – so in terms of home defence I’d be happy letting them jump the queue!
The Norwegian requirements sounds like it designed for the T26, not to mention Norway already manufactures the masts. I would be very disappointed if they went elsewhere.
While reading about this I noted the first of the German competitors had its keel laid down last year (as quoted by a representative of the builder) and yet they are expecting it to join the fleet n 2028. Our first T-26 was in the water a year ago yet I believe is expected to join the fleet in 2027. Ouch.
IOC is expected by 2008, completion is probably 2006, then there is post-completion capability insertion, sea trials, FOST etc.
2026 and 2028
Handover is expected in July 2028. If they name it and commission it in the same year, that’s their choice, those are mostly symbolic, but I can’t believe Niedersachsen will be operational in 2028 as well. Glasgow will be handed over in 2026 and it won’t be IOC for a couple of years.
Just bear in mind that Germany’s recent surface purchases have not gone very well. The F125 and K130 had serious issues and delays before entering service and the fact that the F126 class is being built by Damen rather than a German company says a lot.
would’nt they just be added to the end of the line? I expect our life expired frigates are worse than theirs. If they need them in service before 2032 they’ve left it too late to order
If we want to win the order we have to compromise, not them
cant see it happening. we would have to re-assign all but the first 2. by the time RN gets its 3rd T26, we will have about 7 frigates in service – assuming no delay to t31
We’re already at nearly 7 frigates in service, we’re clearly willing to sink that low
we may as well then just let RN sailors crew them as well. RN ships sailing under Norwegian command and joint crews. May sound like a jest but one way of keeping the manpower trained and occupied. Perhaps with commitments to also escort SSBNs, deploy on CSG etc
By the time the RN gets its first T26..we will probably be down to 6 T23s..the two that are longest out from lifex were actually due to go soon but they are going to try for another refit…it’s not worked for any of the others so I’m suspecting next year it will come out that Kent is to expensive to refit and she will be gone then Lancaster the year after…infact the 23s are simply not lasting beyond 6-7 years after the their lifex ( infact not one of them has lasted beyond 7 years after the lifex).
This means you can make a good assumption around the following numbers at the end of each year
2025 7 left
2026 6 left
2027 5 left
2028 4 left
2029 3 left
2030 1 left
2031 all gone.
The first three hulls are batch one and are more expensive so I doubt BAE would sell anything until hull four? Every other hull from hull four onwards would be doable?
Why assume that ? BAe have already said they can speed the build schedule up to negate most of the effects to the RN and not delay the T83. With a production run of 13 ships in pretty well the same timescale it’s all down to the money being provided, 5 exports does that nice
Y. So if RN got 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 12, 13, Norway 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. Just remember Norway has a very small navy with only 4 Frigates each with a complement of 120 so to crew 5 T26 they need to nearly double that number and maintain / support 5 much bigger ships and the Nansens aren’t old ships.
Agreed BAE have already announced they are cutting the build time for the T-26 from 96 months down to 60 months. I think their might be a political reason for the Norwegians to have ships 4,6,8,10 and 12. Delaying Belfast, whist not offer loan guarantees to H&W might push things a little too far. Also I thought the Norwegian requirement was for 5 with the option of a sixth.
I couldn’t agree more, hulls 4 6 8 10 & 12 would seem to be the best option and yes there was talk of a sixth optional hull. By having the 4th hull there MAY be the option for minor tweaks to suit the Norwegians???
Why wasnt the Netherlands ASW frigate part of the down selection? ASW focus and uses ESSM which they already use. FDI is just diesel without hull quieting – makes no sense to me. Constellation is a mess. F126 which I assume is the German option (?) I dont know anything about
Maybe because the Dutch project is only starting?
The inclusion of the Constellation class is laughable considering the issues reported with the program and extending build timelines, I’m not sure the design is even complete, would the Fremm it was based on not have been better option ?
The German offer seems odd if it is referring to the F126 over 10,000 tonnes for ASW and just 16 mk41 vls, seems so much for so little compared to competitors especially considering some criticism of the the Type 26 vls count which is considerably higher.
The VLS Count is not really a deal breaker – these Ships are required for ASW first and foremost,as long as it can Defend itself it will suffice.Don’t forget the Range of Weapons cleared for the MK41,and ESSM can be Quad Packed.
I can imagine the the Norse types will be working under their own air cover in their own front yard.
Deploying land attack missiles will not be a requirement.
They will have local air as top cover.
Being big at sea is probably useful in the sea states that they can expect.
Type 26 seems to fit the bill.
ie Agreed
Constellation probably win it, it is the most complete ship.
There is no way that T26 RN without modifications can win the competition. Compared to the other 3 projects already have legacy issues.
Specifically the radar is going backwards about what Norway already has. Norway has 360º fixed SPY planar radars in the frigates that will be replaced by this competition and there is no way Norway will accept going back to a rotary radar.
Plus i don’t think they will be happy with short range CAMM missile only.
Norway only uses ESSM on its current ships.
Yes, it does, but a new ship they probably want a new capability with Standard missiles.
Can’t see a reason why BAE UK can’t build the Norwegian T26’s to the Hunter Class radar design? They may have to reimburse the Aussie government a bit towards the development costs but the design was produced by them.
Hunter uses Australian indigenous radar. No dice. It make sense to be the Canadian project but it is much less advanced in project.
I don’t think BAE will care one way or the other. They are well versed in CEA radars & they are well aware that T26 radar is sub par. From their point of view it’s more that the only CMS CEA is directly integrated with is SAAB (currently). Hunter uses a SAAB interface to do that. Anzac uses SAAB directly. Norway currently uses a Konsberg interface to do a similar thing as Hunter for its current frigates (to interface anything not US). If Norway wants a CEA radar, then as long as they are prepared to pay the bill, BAE will (either with Konsberg or SAAB help) provide. Money talks & with Hunter, SAAB has already been paid to do the work. Konsberg already has deep connections with Australia (they are currently building a missile factory there & Australia is helping fund JSM). Interconnections every which way. Defence primes spend more time cooperating than they do competing.
In short, if Norway wants a CEA radar (& can fund it) on its new frigates, they will get it.
Constellation is the least likely to be picked. It’s a GP frigate, not a specialist ASW which is what the Norwegians want.
Finally, it’s turned into a car-crash project with the USN trying to shoehorn the capabilities of an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer into a FREMM frigate with the result it’s over-budget, behind schedule, and in danger of becoming another Zumwalt or LCS.
If they prioritise ASW they will buy T26….
Sadly the Capability of a chosen Platform is not the only factor that decides what equipment a Country buys for it’s Military,Politicians make some illogical decisions sometimes.A case in point was Norway’s recent renewal of it’s MBT Fleet – in trials the South Korean K2 was competing with the Leopard 2A7,the Norwegian Army wanted the K2,The Govt chose the 2A7.
The Army did not want the ridiculous SA80.
This is a good example if successful, why the UK should be building more T31’s and 26’s than at present. Like the Leander’s we should be marketing vessel across the western world and by building more we learn about upgrades and improvements to incorporate in our own later in their development. In fact increase defence spending, order more ships and maybe with exports we may built the economy rather than wasting Billions non-productive government policies. We may even encouraged manufacturing across the UK sector to improve and increase sales abroad so we can invest the benefits in our dilapidated infrastructure. As what we did 100 years ago!!!!!
I don’t disagree with you but as T31 is pretty low tech other countries want to build themselves (we still make lots of money and parts). The problem is a Leander on spec was 5 / 8 million not £850 million and HMT is stingy funding what is already order.
While a continuous Build of Frigates seems like a good idea ,you can’t just keep churning them out for the Fun of it.The market is very competitive ATM,you really need a Buyer to take them off your hands or you can find yourselves in a lot of trouble.
What if other T26 orders are received over the coming years? Where does this queue jumping stop?!
There won’t be any other orders at this point, Norway is the last conceivable customer in Europe.
It’s not queue jumping, it’s fulfilling the requirements of the customer
It’s quite a different proposition to Canada and the Australian Type 26s, which are essentially different ships on a common base. What the Norwegians are proposing is essentially a single class of ship with joint development with an ally. So in essence, we could have common crew training, a larger pool of spares, repair facilities and development with the cost now split with Norway. So you go from an 8 to a 14 ship fleet, albeit with different owners and crews.
Huge upside for the Royal Navy.
As they don’t leave home waters too often, will they need this much vaunted mission bay?
It’s a shame uk just gave H & W docks to a state sponsored spainish company . If uk govt had synced in with the T26 and T31 projects they should really have ordered at least 3 more T26 on the books and funded increased production speed. This Norway deal would be a real gem of a deal , not just for T26 , but the next designs afterwards . Speed is everything and if uk too slow , France or Germany will just come in and steal the show . An opportunity lost for potentially 20 yrs worth of good business with a reliable partner
H&W is not qualified to build warships like T26, not ordering enough to make a 2nd shipyard worth it.
If we let them have some early vessels, we can get to the better batch 2s earlier.
Those with no mission bay (it will be on later T31 or T32).
The few T26 we will have will be doing deep water fleet duties.
No mission bay required there.
For example, we did not let either of our top end Type 22s get anywhere near the littorals in 1982.
There’s no point in removing the mission bay, they’re not going to get more missiles.
There’s plenty of reason for mission bays on ‘deep water vessels’.
Suit UK govt down to the ground!!Let Norway have and pay for the 1st 5.Then the last 3 can be sold to someone else?Then make do with 5x31s while we save up for the Type 83(s)in 2045…
The issue the Norwegians have with the type 26 frigate is the many downtime and high mantaince cost. They have a very long cost line i think it the 2 longest in the world and they need there ships ready and not in dock. I think the french ships looks like the highest challenger.
I don’t believe there is any evidence anywhere that the T26 will require more refit time than a FREMM or would have increases maintaining costs, do you have references for these as I would like to read.
There is no evidence the T26 will have “many downtime and high mantaince cost”.
BTW Ivan, it’s “maintenance”, “their”, and “French”.
The problem I think the RN face with giving up one of the T26 slots is that in reality that assumptions around how long the T23s will last is questionable at best and not backed up by evidence. The simple fact is not a single T23 has survived more than 7 years after its lifex, when it comes time for the post lifex refit every single one has been beyond repair, so assuming Kent, Portland and St Albans will all somehow be materially different from the four previous ships that all got to there first post lifex refit and ended up being decommissioned..the likely really is the RN is not going to get any of the T23s beyond the piont they need a post lifex refit ( around 6-7 years after lifex).. this has pretty dire implications for the fleet
By the time the RN gets its first T26..we will probably be down to 5-6 T23s..the two that are longest out from lifex were actually due to go soon but they are going to try for another refit, as it’s not worked for any of the others I’m suspecting next year it will come out that Kent is to expensive to refit and she will be gone then Lancaster the year after…infact if I’m right the 23s are simply not lasting beyond 6-7 years after the their lifex
This means you can make a good assumption around the following numbers at the end of each year
2025 7 23s left
2026 6 23s left
2027 5 23s left IOC T31
2028 4 23s left IOC T26 2 T31s
2029 3 23s left 2 T26s 3 T31s
2030 1 23 left 3 T26s 4 T31s
2031 23s all gone. 4 T26s 5 T31s
In all likelihood the RN frigate fleet will fall to 6 in 2026-28 and even if they get the T31 out quickly and the first 2 T26s ICO by 2029 the RN is only likely to have 8 frigates for 29-30 and back to the pathetic 9 for 2031….diverting the second T26 risks leaves the RN with only 7 frigates in 29 and 2030 and 8 in 2031..give the 4th one away as well and the RN will still only have 7 frigates in 31 ( 2 ASW )… with a very high likelihood of a pacific war with china that’s a profound risk to run.
Sadly the delay in ordering the 26 in the Cameron years means that to take a really good industrial opportunity will mean the RN will have a gutted ASW fleet right at the time of maximum risk of an indo pacific war and unrestricted naval warfare…it bit of a quandary.
Had Cameron not delayed them they might have been part of the USN competition.
T23 was designed with an eighteen year lifespan. T26 was designed with a more standard 30 year lifespan. There should, in theory, be no T23 still in service. If you increase the lifespan of a T26 by 25% with remedial refits, you may get 38 years (& not every one would be capable of that). You do the same thing to a T23 & you get just short of 23 yrs. The youngest T23 was commissioned in 2002. The maths doesn’t look good.
Norway will certainly equip its frigates with NSM missiles (Navel strike missile).
I expect that NSM launchers can be easily installed on deck above the mission bay. But Norway will also equip its frigates with the “Super Sonic Strike Missile (3sm) Tyfring”. (Under development, – 2-3 mac and 800 -1000 km range). These should be able to be launched from the Mk41 launch platform. I expect that the Sea Ceptor VLS above the mission bay can be replaced by a Mk41 launcher? (Norway uses Sea Sparrow and has an arsenal of these that would probably like to be used on forward Mk41 launchers).
You can’t replace the sea ceptors above the hangar, it’s too short a space
Maybe build a box for them?
No. Aside from length, it’s also not a good space for hot launch missiles. Too much comms equipment there that may be affected (watch a hot launch missile trial on video – it’s not something you want to be standing next to). However ESSM can be launched from the front mk41 (quad packable) & if you ditch the CAMM specific launchers, you can fit 32 mk41 up front (as per Hunter). That’s 128 ESSM missiles, plus you can still use CAMM above the mission bay if you want.
Sell CAMM/CAMM-MR with it! Sweden and Poland have adopted it, why not Norway?
Surely the mission Bay is to provide future flexibility which can be added in days not months of rebuilding a vessel to do so.
Problem is it’s cheaper to use something like a modified A140 to do it than a T26. The mission bay sounds great till you realise they have stuck it on a dedicated ASW frigate. How does a specialist ASW frigate chasing submarines suddenly swap to MCM in the littoral if the submarine threat hasn’t gone away? Ideally, you want something like that on a GP frigate (& T31 is not one, but hopefully T32 might manage it).