In 2023, Norway concluded a thorough defence review and is restructuring its armed forces with increasing spending, spurred by the rising threat from their Russian neighbours. As part of this programme, in April 2024 it was announced they are seeking to procure at least 5 new frigates with help from allied nations. Here we consider the possible contenders.
Defence investment
The Royal Norwegian Navy / Sjøforsvaret (RNoN) needs to replace its four remaining Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates and says the primary focus of the new ships will be anti-submarine warfare. The Minister of Defence has stated that they wish to order at least five frigates from a “close ally” and build on an existing production line with minimal modifications. They will also look to work with the chosen partner on through-life support and future upgrades for the ships.
Norway is one of the few nations sensible enough to establish a sovereign wealth fund using revenues from its hydrocarbon exports. This will provide for a substantial increase in defence spending, and the effectiveness and suitability of the chosen frigate platform is likely to be a bigger priority than cost.
The RNoN has around 4,000 personnel serving full-time although there is a good depth of reserves and hopes that regular numbers can be increased. The 4 Nansen-class ships have a ship’s company of around 120 so lean crewing will be a priority. The RNoN wants to take delivery by 2029 which is a tight timescale and has considerable implications for all the contenders. With just 5 years to build the first ship, this will almost certainly determine that the solution must come from a class of ships already well into its construction programme.
The contenders
The British Type 26, French FTI, German F126 and Dutch ASWF are seen as the warship designs most likely to meet the requirement. In September 2024, Norwegian shipbuilders VARD proposed another solution based on the US Constellation-class to be constructed in Norway. The Spanish F110 is unlikely to be in the running as there is a view (mostly unfair) that poor design was a contributing factor to the loss of the Spanish-designed and built Helge Ingstad after colliding with a tanker in 2018.
The F126 is a large (10,550 tonnes) multi-purpose combatant with some swappable mission modules. It is highly automated and has a very small crew for such a large vessel. Designed by Damen in the Netherlands, the first of a planned six-ship class has begun construction in Germany. With cooperation between Norway and Germany on their submarine programme and other military projects, the F126 is an outside contender for the RNoN requirements perhaps being rather larger than required and not ASW-focussed.
The ASWF are 6,400 tonne vessels designed as ASW specialists and feature hybrid diesel-electric propulsion for ultra-quiet operation. Fitted with two eight-cell MK 41 strike-length VLS, each cell be quad-packed with ESSM Block 2 for a maximum of 64 missiles The ASWF is a six-ship programme with four ships being built for the RNLN and two for Belgium by Damen in Romania and then fitted out in the Netherlands. Construction of the lead ship will start in 2025 with the first ship due for delivery in 2029. On paper, at least this is a very credible option for Norway.
First of the FTI ships, FS Admiral Ronarc’h, is currently being fitted out in Lorient by Naval Group and is due to enter service in 2025. The Marine Nationale has ordered 5 of these vessels as a more affordable alternative to the ASW FREMM variants. This is not quite a parallel of the RN Type 26/Type 31 situation as FTI is considerably more expensive than T31. Greece has ordered three upgraded FTI and hulls originally destined for the MN have been re-allocated to the Hellenic Navy.
The FTI has a well-balanced armament, including either 16 or 32 Sylver VLS cells for Aster 15 or 30 missiles. This is the only option not fitted with Mk 41 VLS and the predominantly French combat systems may count against FTI for Norway. The ship has all-diesel propulsion (CODAD) which produces an acoustic signature inferior to the diesel-electric alternatives. In its favour, of all the construction programmes that are contenders, FTI is closest to delivering operational ships.
The proposal from VARD to build a Norwegian version of the Constellation with support from Fincantieri has the obvious allure of greater Norwegian industrial participation. VARD would likely build the hulls in Romania and then do the fitting out at their yard at Langsten in Norway. The company has a good track record of building civilian ships and Coast Guard vessels but has never built a complex warship which is a very different proposition. The other main positive for this proposal is that Constellation is built around the AEGIS system, of which an older variant is already in service with the Nansen-class.
Also counting against the proposal are the major problems with the project in the US as we recently reported. The original parent FREMM design has been almost completely reworked for USN requirements so that it bears little resemblance to the original. Although the lead ship, USS Constellation, has been laid down, the detailed design is still incomplete and suffering from delays, and cost increases. Of all the options, this looks least likely to proceed smoothly and deliver an operational ship to Norway by 2029 but the political attraction of a ‘domestic solution’ should never be underestimated.
Type 26 – the leading contender?
Type 26 meets the 3 key initial requirements issued by Norway for an ASW frigate, developed by an allied nation that could be delivered by 2029. The UK and Norway have a long history of close defence cooperation dating back to the Second World War. The growing threat has energised this relationship, operating together in the JEF nations construct in addition to the bedrock NATO alliance. Royal Marines train every year in the Arctic and Norway can count on direct UK support in the event of a Russian attack.
There is also a growing synergy with both nations operating P-8A Poseidon and Norway is a long-standing user of the Sting Ray torpedo while the RN has recently become a customer for the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile. Auxiliary ship HNoMS Maud was designed in Britain and, along with a Nansen-class frigate, will participate in the CSG25 deployment. Norwegian warships also regularly come to Plymouth to undergo operational sea training with the RN’s FOST organisation.
Using open sources alone it is difficult to precisely compare the detailed and nuanced aspects of ASW performance between the contenders. In broad terms, analysts would see Type 26 as the best overall submarine hunter, especially in terms of minimised acoustic signature. Its radar and air defence capabilities are exceeded by other designs but that is not the prime requirement.
Delivery conundrums
With the new covered shipbuilding hall at Govan opening shortly, BAES has said they will be in a position to expand manufacturing capacity on the Clyde to meet demand for additional Type 26s. Further fabrication work could be subcontracted to Cammell Laird and Ferguson shipyards but scaling up the fitting-out capacity at Scotstoun would be more challenging.
If Norway wants Type 26 this would inevitably have some impact on deliveries of ships to the RN. If the RNoN is to get its first new frigate in 2029, either ship 3 (HMS Belfast) or ship 4 (HMS Birmingham) would have to be diverted to them. The timetable for later ships in the programme for both nations also be subject to negotiation and BAES’s ability to accelerate production. It is no secret that the RN is desperately short of frigates and the decision to tolerate further delays to the arrival of new ships into the 2030s would involve balancing risks against the benefits. Perhaps at least one additional Type 31 could be ordered to mitigate the delays slightly as they can be built faster.
This would incidentally also be the perfect opportunity to correct Gavin Williamson’s ridiculous decision to name ship 3 HMS Belfast. There is already an iconic museum ship of that name with a storied history moored in a high-profile location on the Thames. In an attempt to avoid the inevitable confusion, the museum ship is now supposed be called “HMS Belfast (1938)”.
Should Norway order Type 26 from BAES, this would be another huge success for naval exports and another major win for British industry following the AUKUS submarine investments. Although the Type 26 and Type 31 designs have already been exported successfully, a major combatant for a foreign navy has not been built in the UK for many years. (3 corvettes were built for Oman (2011) and 3 light frigates for Brunei (2002)). It would also be good news for the RN, RAN and RCN, driving further economies of scale in both upfront and support costs.
If the RN decides to divert Type 26s to Norway, it would be far from a zero-sum game in operational terms. The RNoN is primarily focused on dealing with the Russian threat in the High North and Atlantic – performing similar tasks that RN Type 26s would be doing much of the time anyway. From both the Norwegian and UK perspective the case for building Type 26 for the RNoN is compelling.
“…a major combatant for a foreign navy has not been built in the UK for many years”
We’ve had neither escorts nor amphibious attack ships built in the UK for the Royal Navy for over a decade either, with Duncan being commissioned in 2013. With the Royal Navy not in the corvette business, the majority of potential export work should have been frigates, but it’s been over twenty years since the last RN frigate was commissioned and another couple of years before HMS Glasgow will be. That nearly quarter-of-a-century gap in RN frigate builds meant the shipyards were not prepared to build them for anyone else. The small first batch of the Type 26s were built deliberately slowly and overpriced. It hasn’t done UK shipbuilding any more favours than it has the Navy.
The Norwegian sale is a great opportunity with solid long-term value, and it would have been nice to have had a supportive UK government who understood the long-term needs of shipbuilding and weren’t just hoping for a quick buck. Notwithstanding Ben Wallace’s attempts to kickstart H&W, it’s been even longer than a quarter-of-a-century gap since we had one of those too.
I know there are a lot of people who think that giving up a place in the shipbuilding queue for ship three or four is something the Royal Navy can’t afford to do. I don’t think onboarding the first three Type 26s and the five Type 31s all coming together with increased destroyer availability in the second half of the decade will be constrained by lack of hulls. If we can barely crew the few frigates we have right now, giving ship three or four to a Norwegian order might be a relief to those in the Royal Navy juggling manpower. It’s not like the Norwegians won’t be using it to our benefit.
The thorny bit is more around making sure that the hulls are replaced for the RN so it doesn’t end up as a cut to RN T26 hull numbers.
Then the negotiations will be around the costs of #3 as Norway will want to pay Batch2 costs not Batch1 costs – they are very different numbers.
If there’s a new 5-ship contract for Norway it won’t be fulfilled by the RN or MOD. Ships will be provided by BAE. BAE will still be contracted to give 8 ships to the RN. It’s just that ships which we had previously thought would be used to fulfil the two contracts won’t be. So ship 3 for BAE could be ship 1 for the Royal Norwegian Navy’s contract, and ship 4 for BAE would then be ship 3 for the Royal Navy, completing the first contract. There would be no loss of ships for the RN. Nor will the cost of build play a part as the two contracts already signed for the RN will have detailed the costs. How the money was spent toward building which ship will be an internal matter for BAE.
Giving hull 3 and / or 4 won’t be a relief to maning headaches for the simple reason the type 26 requires less crew than the type 23 it’s replacing. So as type 26’s enter service it will free up crewmembers for other posts, Rather than requiring extra..
Eventually, when the music stops, you are right and there would be fewer needed for a one-for-one replacement. T26s needs about 25 to 30 fewer, T31s about 70 fewer. Two issues with that.
First there’s overlap during onboarding. There’s already a small crew on Glasgow, and probably on Cardiff and Venturer as well. Increasing crew numbers will be needed for the new frigates for years before they become operational and corresponding T23s can be retired. The faster the take up of hulls, the higher the overlap needs.
Second problem is that we are having crewing problems now, when there are only 9 frigates, some of which are in refit and aren’t crewed. Half the destroyers are in long term refit for power improvement and weapons upgrades. I doubt they will be crewed. As we move back up to 19 escorts with higher availability, it’s not a one-for-one replacement and escort crew requirements will fluctuate, at least for a few years. I’d hope these all balance out in the longer run.
Agreed. The fact of the matter is that the RN needs to sort out its recruitment and retention problems first, and then concern itself with getting more hulls to sea.
There are numerous advantages to selling ship 3/4 to the Nords, several of which have already been said, but also including:
So more ships to scare the bear, more orders for UK yards, better ships that will (if the manpower crisis actually gets resolved) spend less time sat in port doing diddly squat.
The US isnt going to drop the Constellations, they are late and over budget thats all. If anything they WILL second source the design to another US shipyard for a faster build/more orders
Knock those stars out of your eyes!
Do I think it’s likely? No, but there’s also a lot more going wrong than being late and over budget, and the USN has already cancelled it’s previous three classes of surface combatants mid-production.
3+ years behind schedule so far, the design still isn’t finished, and construction has ground to a halt. Having said that, the USN has actually increased the order up to 6 vessels, with an intention for at least 10, but whether order the full 20 is questionable.
https://www.naval-technology.com/features/could-us-navys-constellation-class-frigates-share-littoral-combat-ship-fate/?cf-view&cf-closed
They were special sort of hell along with concurrency and where they designed from scratch.
Constellation isnt but its still seems ‘concurrency lite’ is still around
Yes, but I suspect that the USN is so firmly wedded to having its ships built to its precise requirements that it wouldn’t be able to resist having it redesigned, & would create the same mess with the T26.
Or to put it more bluntly, if the Norwegians, having twice our GDP per capita and a massive sovereign wealth fund, can afford to crew their ships and the RN cannot, then frankly they should get the first 5 and the RN should be told to wait until they’ve sorted out their personnel issues. Ships tied up alongside for lack of crew are not going to scare Putin.
IMHO
That’s perhaps a little beyond the pale. It’s not like the RN has absolutely no manpower, and the T23s most definitely need to start being replaced earlier than the 2030s.
The most likely good scenario is that Norwegian orders and investment allows for a small improvement in efficiency and production rate, and they get every third ship plus the last of what would now be a run of 13 (e.g. hulls 3, 6, 9, 12, 13).
You’d get a steady delivery rate for the RN that allows breathing room for growing the crew pool, and if the delay in frigates actually bothers HMG, they can quite easily order T32 or another batch of perhaps 3 T31s
I terms of crewing, I’d sell three of the five Batch 2 River’s. Crewing frigates is a higher priority than crewing very limited capability patrol boats. I’d also use the money raised from the sale to put sonars on the T31 which significantly increases their usefulness.
Yet every ship that goes to sea is packed to the “gunnels” with supernumerary crew desperate for sea time.
Cutting some of the most efficient units in the RN, ideal for training crew hardly seems like the best thing to do
Are they “Packed to the gunnels” in all departments and at all experience/seniority levels? I suspect the issue is the current personnel mix is out of balance.
Is having gunwales but only one gun another of those FFBNW things?
After binning off the minesweepers, without them training and command options would be very very limited.
One huge plus for a T26 export build is it will help fill the gap between the current end of T26 build and the likely date HMT will authorise start of T45 replacement build. With the T45’s getting improved power systems, Sea Ceptor and radar improvements it’s unlikely the RN can make a case to replace them untill they are at least 30 years old.
Daring will hit the 30 year mark in 2039 and T26 is currently scheduled to wind up in 2036. Even if the T45’s run on a little longer it probably won’t be as huge a gap as some think.
Remember the start of the last T26 metal fabrication is probably about 4/5 years before the delivery of the last planned ship. That leaves a big hole which a Norwegian order would very nicely fill.
True. Depends how long they are willing to wait. If they want the 1st by 2029 then presumably the next 4 would need to be built in parallel to our last ones for delivery 2030-2035.
Thanks for that . Makes sense and allows the Norse to make some minor changes
An added variable is that Norway may choose to follow the Netherlands in buying sidekick lean crewed vessels based on Damen offshore crew transport vessels, the bigger version of the XV Patrick Blackett. With a substantial fleet of similar vessels in its merchant navy, supporting oil, gas and windfarms, there would also be scope for rapid expansion in time of war.(1) Gijs Tuinman on X: “Varende gereedschapskisten. Zo kun je de 2 nieuwe multifunctionele ondersteuningsvaartuigen voor de @kon_marine ook wel noemen. Het zijn licht bemande schepen met moderne wapensystemen en apparatuur die een hoofdschip assisteren. Wat voegen ze toe aan onze vloot? https://t.co/0uB7rOjTGI” / X
Certainly a competition to watch.
The big problem is whether the RN would be prepared to give up a current slot to Norway and then likely alternate T26 completions between the RN and Norway.
I note the salesmen at BAe are talking about ‘increasing ‘construction’ and possible subcontracting of hull blocks. It is always easier said than done.
I somehow suspect the biggest crunch is not in steelwork but in the specialist items like the gear boxes and electric drive motors, where the task of just meeting RN, Canadian and RAN requirements are already immensely challenging.
It is amazing of how many politicians suddenly want high standard frigates in a hurry, the UK, the US, Australia………..now Norway!
I suspect the decision will be taken way about the 1st Sea Lords level and the RN will have to make the best of what is decided.
How difficult would it be to subcontract hull blocks? Weren’t the T45’s built that way?
They were I think subcontracted to warship yards. There aren’t any of those with capacity to do complex work. Subcontracting also doesn’t help if the bottleneck is at the fitting out and testing phase.
I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. If having to give up ship 3 or 4 to win the contract then we should absolutely do it. As the article says Norway will be using the ships for much the same purposes. It might even help win new orders in the future from other countries.
If this goes ahead, the government helps Harland & Wolff to stay afloat and build the support vessels it was supposed to.
This would lead to a scaling up within the UK supply chain, in the long run making all vessels going forward both cheaper to build and also to maintain.
Unfortunately Labour seems to have no desire to invest in UK production of any kind.
If that happens, I’m a happy chap….. alas I fear that H&W are history now.
Not so , as NL pointed out
“Although the H&W Group Plc is being wound up, the 4 yards it owns (Belfast, Appledore, Methil and Arnish) are separate commercial entities.
He also said the yard don’t have the cash to pay wages beyond this month.
Cash flow issue not a ‘wound up’ situation for the parent company.
Phoenixing is a thing in corporate restructures.
BAE has bought troubled shipyard assets before to buy the build subcontract
Don’t believe so. The administration is going to be a very quick turnaround, 20 firms have expressed an interest, with Navantia and Babcock at the top of the list.
1 month’s wages for 1000 people – call it 5 million. Plus other running costs of a couple of million. Administrators secure a guarantee from the lenders who appoint them to cover these costs for a defined period, usually 4 to 8 weeks. To me this has a going concern sale written all over it.
Building low numbers of warships over artificially long periods makes it very difficult to slot export orders in between delivery of what the RN desperately needs.
With a continuous ‘hot’ production line and younger fleet the French can divert earlier vessels to Greece or various other customers without massively affecting their naval planning assumptions.
Having said that i definitely think it’s worth diverting Belfast or Birmingham to Norway to secure the order! Whilst complex it doesn’t sound impossible to upscale production at Govan and as the article points out Norway is a key ally up-threat of the Russian menace.
With T32 likely kicked into the long grass if not cancelled completely 1 more T31 alongside another T26 tagged on the end would be a decent outcome!
Agreed on the above points, but T32 as T31 Batch 2 seems a far more likely proposition than another T26; you could reasonably expect to get 3 repeats or slight modifications of the T31 for the price of a batch 2 T26 (roughly £800m based on the 2022 contract), which would effectively function as a complete like-for-like replacement of the 16 original T23s (although granted, with only half as many ASW-focused ships)
Any news on Chile Navy? T26 Might be a bit too expensive. But buying 3 if they pre-planed years ago.
Locally built Arrowhead 140 is in the running, but the competition isn’t likely to take place for a couple of years.
I wrote an answer to this which went into awaiting approval. I have no idea why and I’ll try again. Chile have decided to build three frigates locally. The Type 31 is definitely a design in the running, but we’ll have to wait a couple of years before they start the process.
Certainly seems worthwhile to divert No. 3 or 4 to Norway to me. Personally, I think no. 3 should go- we’ll be working out the kinks and getting familiar with 1 and 2 for long enough that I doubt the RN will see much real difference in jumping straight to hull 4.
Yes, we are lean on escorts- but we’re even leaner on crews. For all the talk of “lean crewing”, T26 is intended (remember, the aircraft carriers were intended to sail with ~700 core crew not including the flight group, they apparently require more than that) to require 157, with berths for more; a T23 is 185 on paper. We’d need to have decommissioned 6 T23 before we free up a whole additional crew for T26, and that’s before we get into the complexities of specialisations.
As far as cost goes, Norway would of course prefer to pay Batch 2 prices, but they also want to jump the queue- and that comes with a premium attached. And even if we did agree to Batch 2 prices for hull No. 3 or 4, BAE is getting an entire extra 5 hulls to build down to the RN’s good will in being time-flexible; I’m sure they can give HMT some kind of rebate somewhere.
I’m honestly not seeing much of a downside- as long as Norway don’t try and change spec…
Makes no sense the T26 RN version for Norway.
For a theatre where AAW is crucial it is the weaker ship on the list.
It needs a proper radar and long range missiles.
The missile can easily come from one of the longer range Sea Ceptor family. I suspect the RN will go this way as one of the options to fill the T26 VLS. Radar is more of an issue in the short term. My guess is that an improvement in that area is on the RN plan for the T26 mid life upgrade.
The T26 has 3 subclasses. The British one is equipped primarily for ASW work, with point defence Sea Ceptor missiles.
But both the Aussies and the Canucks have their own versions – and I think the Aussies version is closer to what they want (it’s broadly similar to a Constellation class)
Unfortunately neither of those sub classes are anywhere near service entry.
Switching the radar out wouldn’t be particularly hard. Artisan is a good set though.
CAMM-ER is a thing…and CAMM-MR should be arriving a little after 2030, just when the RNoN is accepting delivery. That would give ESSM+ and SM2+ performance.
The Norwegians are saying they want ASW primarily .
Sea ceptor has very good area defence out to 25km +
They cant have lean crew , AAW on top of ASW and better radars as well
Can you give me a source of what are their request? because for me it do not make sense, they lost an AAW frigate already due to accident, so they have only 3.
Ok, Mark Tucker below (thanks!) says this is the request from Norway:
So there is no request for an ASW ship. They want a multirole ship which the T26 RN is not.
Incorrect interpretation
‘Norway, the most important point is that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability is good,” said Rear Adm Berdal’
They have 4, originally 5. They’re relatively new ships, the first was commissioned in 2006, the last in 2011.
Indeed 4. Thanks for correction.
They don’t have a Navy for specialist ship so this a replacement like for like , 5 for 5.
“for Norway, the most important point is that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability is good,” said Rear Adm Berdal. Here, he explained, the increase in threat in the RNoN’s areas of operation means the navy needs more ASW capability now than it has had at any point over the last 30 years.”
Okam had found it
Most important point, does not mean they don’t want area AAW, by the full spectrum above.
Admiral says ASW is most important. Their existing frigates despite the ‘look’ only have Sea Sparrow ESSM missiles as ‘self air defence’ effectively
Presumably you are more of an expert on the needs of the Norwegian navy than the Rear Admiral who I quoted!
Having a a read of the the Norwegian Defense Pledge, Their long term plan defense plan for 2025 to 2036:
Some interesting statements:
“A minimum of five blue water frigates capable of contributing in the full spectrum of maritime operations will be procured”
“Maritime helicopters with anti-submarine warfare capability will be procured to operate as part of the frigate system”
I do not read this as a requirement for a ASW specialist, but something more multirole. That would make sense they don’t operate or have a plan to acquire a separate air warfare specialist.
Reading it that way then promotes the very flexible Arrowhead 140 well up the list. Cheap, low crew requirements, more than enough room to grow and easily enough configured to host SM-3 and SM-6 in the VLS farms.
But very poor for ASW.
Budget is less of a problem for the Norwegians than for most.
I suspect the biggest competition the T26 faces comes from the French FTI.
But very poor for ASW.
Somebody had better tell the Danes then……
Oh theirs are a different variant aren’t they? What if the Norwegians bought the ships with rafted diesels?
Good grief some of them sweeping statements here……..
The Nansens have been optimised for ASW although they do keep AAW and ASuW capabilities using ESSM and NSM. I imagine the new frigate requirement will reflect similar priorities, especially as they will be hosting maritime ASW helicopters.
I agree that will want a design that is capable in ASW, but will want it to be equally capable in other roles. I am expecting them to want both AEGIS and SPY radar.
My expectation has always been that the Norwegian requirement looks very similar to the RAN requirement which gave us the Hunter program. The wording appears to support that line of thinking. The proposed budget just does not seem big enough for that. The question is can they afford what they really want?
It will be interesting to see just how this plays out.
They also want a ships with common systems to the build nations navy. This they hope will help with in service support and upgrade.
Too early to tell if that helps or hinders BAE secure the deal. That could go either way.
Norway and can they afford are not mutually compatible, they can afford it.
I believe you are in error and the article is correct;
“ We have to get the balance right …. My interest is in the effect and total output,” said Rear Adm Berdal. “Whatever model suggests the best possible way is what I will be championing.”
In operational terms, while the RNoN’s overall requirement is for a multidomain frigate covering anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare, and land-attack roles, “for Norway, the most important point is that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability is good,” said Rear Adm Berdal. Here, he explained, the increase in threat in the RNoN’s areas of operation means the navy needs more ASW capability now than it has had at any point over the last 30 years.”
You do get that I am quoting a document published by the Norwegian government right? I agree with the Admiral, the ASW threat is back, but the air threat is also back in a big way.
We are yet to see am real detail on their requirements. As everybody is saying they can afford a capable boat. I disagree that their budget is bottomless, but it appears enough to procure a very capable ship.
We do not know if AEGIS is required or preferred.
We don’t know if SPY-1 radar or equivalent is required or not.
We do know their choice of helicopter is the SH-60, changes are required but not massive.
We do know their choice of anti ship missile will be the NSM.
It is highly likely their choice of surface to air missile will continue to be ESSM. That should be ok. The RN missile farms could be replaced by the RAN fit out of a MK41 VLS with 32 strike length cells. The ground work has been done, BAE would not be starting from scratch. Even SM-2/6 could be accommodated if required.
The Type 26 in Royal navy spec has advantages, if they can leverage work done already on both the Canadian and Australian programs they should be able to offer a very compelling option. That said they also have some challenges to overcome. This will not be an easy sell.
You do realise that I am quoting from a Rear Admiral who is perhaps closer to the source than you are! And all this expensive fantasy American kit, is just that, a fantasy.
I don’t disagree with anything the admiral said.
That said No Navy has left the AEGIS club, it is very unlikely Norway will to be the first.
I dont think you understand what Aegis is, its not a flat plate radar Anyway their current ship vertical launch missiles are ESSM!
If these “at least 5” ships were to be built in the UK and ready for service in 5 years time, I’d be majorly concerned as to the impact on the RN’s own current desperate situation given the dire state of numbers and actual availability of Frigates. 13 down to 8 at this time with only 3-4 actually able to get out there. We need to build up our own numbers before building for others.
They want the first unit in 5 years and the rest over the next few years.
When you look at the overall picture, just think of the benefits of having 13 Type 26 ASW Frigates in service with both the UK and Norwegian Navies. It would greatly increase the deterrent effect against Russia, and greatly increase availability of the type being able to stay on station 24/7 all year round patrolling those contested areas of the high North, GIUK gap, Baltic, North Sea etc, which is vitally important to our National security. The UK and Norway are key allies and friends, and both Navies work very closely together. So I see this as a no brainer. Great for UK shipbuilding industry and UK industry as a whole.
On paper, Yes but realistically unachievable in the 5 years mentioned in the article.
Will take more than five years to have all 13 in service..
This is cobblers. I would be very pleased if they bought British, but after the farce with our aircraft carriers. would you ?
no
Norway buying Type 26 frigates built in Britain? fantasy wishful thinking
The French aircraft carrier also had a “difficult” entry into service. The last class of German escorts were so bad the government rejected delivery till they were sorted.
Warships are difficult and often have problems early in their lives.
So what? The Africans cannot build any war shops, will that make you feel better and UK ship industries look better?
Well, Australia and Canada seem to have faith in the design.
How were the carriers a farce exactly?
They cost more then planned purely due to slow down of build and the review Cameron did about whether to go to cats and traps.
£6bn (would of been £4bn if it wasn’t for the above) for two world class carriers…. absolute bargain.
I was thinking about the teething troubles of the UK aircraft carriers, and I wondered who has done better? CdG was a right old mess on delivery. The USS Ford, commissioned the same year as QNLZ took two more years to deploy and still has zero 5th gen fighters aboard. The second in class, USS Kennedy, won’t even be handed over to the USN until after HMS PWLS is well into its maiden deployment. The two first Chinese carriers are pretty good for what they started as, but they have no good planes. The Turkish Anadolu has no manned planes at all, sacrificed for the S-400s. The Vikrant took ten years from launch to commissioning, and the Russians, well…it’s better not to speak of the unlucky Admiral Kuznetsov and her even less fortunate crew.
Possibly the Fujian, currently in sea trials, will prove the best introduced of the lot, or perhaps we can count the only slightly delayed LHD Trieste, which is really more of an amphib. However, the UK has nothing to be ashamed of.
Trieste also had problems with MT30 shafts but did not at least saw a propeller going to the bottom.
What farce is that exactly?
First of class problems are a reality of shipbuilding whether it’s the Constellation Class, CdeG, F125 in Germany or the Hobart class in Australia.
It’s a no brainer to give Norway our first or second t26b, and get bae to to sort itself out and improve woeful production times . 5yrs is a joke
I suspect they have been told not to build faster. It’s not in BAe or the RN’s interest for there to be a gap between the end of T26 and the start of T45 replacement. There is already potentially 3/5 years to cover. Accelerating T26 without additional orders would only make things worse.
I hope that the powers that be work hard to get the RNoN to buy T26. Can we afford to lose a ship: well there has been a question as to whether Northumberland should be LIFEX’ed, because of the cost. If that work was done – and the high cost would be offset by this order – and Iron Duke which just completed LIFEX’ed extended in service, that would cover any gap.
The opportunity extends beyond the ships in scope: the Norwegian Air Force operate the latest ‘SAR Queen’ variant of the Merlin: these new ships will need helicopters (and we could use a few more too) And if the speed of build is increased in Govan, a few more could be ordered to the RNs order for a relatively low price.
Between T26, AUKUS and potentially Norway , there is actually an incredible opportunity for the UK military and defence industry. Committing to GCAP with Japan and Italy would be the icing on the cake….
Mate….Northumberland is scrap now, just like the 4 others…. we are down to just 8 and realistically just 3-4 in reality. If we even get these 8 T26’s and 5 T31’s, we will still be at a rather low point in the whole history of RN numbers. Starmer’s Wardrobe is way more important it seems.
I hear that it would be essentially be building the thing from new…. but in lieu of other options especially as there is space to do it….why not. Even if it cost a £1bn to help us get £5bn of money flowing into the economy from abroad… or is it completely looney.
Any point posting on here ?
They say the main requirement will be for ASW, I feel rather they just want a cheap vessel. If that were indeed the case, I feel the leading contender would then be the FTI. Compared to the Type 26, the FTI sacrifices expensive ASW performance for a much cheaper vessel that is more capable at AAW.
The Nansen replacement would surely aim to supplant the SPY-1F radars aboard the Nansens with a BMD-capable radar, a nigh impossibility for their budget when mated to the Type 26 design. If they’ve become utterly concerned regarding survivability, perhaps they’ll choose the FREMM-EVO or F-126.
The article says that for the Norwegians, money is no object. What indication is there that they want a cheap offer?
You say cheap, then want BMD? Sorry?
T26 can have most radars any of the others could carry, even if it took a refit. The Norwegians build the mast, after all, and NS100 or similar won’t weigh any more than Artisan.
Given this is their complete surface ship replacement, it doesn’t matter much if they move between combat systems.
The chief indicator is their current defence budget. BMD is a sort of scalable capability as I understand it, though overall you want fixed arrays for their dwell time and combined scan rate. The Seafire radar of the FTI should prove as proficient at BMD as the SPY-6(V)3 equipping the Constellations, granted it is provided the software.
Before the Type 26, I’ve my eyes on the FTI, then the ASWF and FREMM-EVO.
BMD is like any other capability when it comes to radar; you get what you pay for.
There aren’t any shortcuts and you can’t do it on the cheap.
I don’t think it is a priority for the Norwegians anyway; they tend not to form large battle groups, mostly a frigate and an amphib/ auxiliary (at present they have no large ships at all) and so there isn’t really a viable ballistic missile target for them to defend.
Even the most modern hypersonic missiles won’t directly hit a target the size of a frigate. Every indication is that the thing the Norwegians are most worried about is the presence of Russian SSNs, SSGNs and SSKs off the North Cape and in the GIUK gap (remember how much closer to Murmansk and the Arctic SSBN bastions they are than Britain) and so they want a top-notch ASW vessel to do the job properly, favouring T26.
Artisan is perfectly capable of dealing with your average anti ship missiles, especially given how high up it is mounted.
This project will take up significantly more of their defence budget than any of our surface ships. They only want 5 ships but they want good ones, and T26 is in my opinion the best one for the job given the political issues with buying from Damen again with the ASWF.
Most warships are BMD-capable to some extent, most can intercept even hypersonic missiles so long as they’re on course to cross the launch vessels air defence bubble. BMD-capability instead describes the capability of a vessel to detect, cue and track, and/or to intercept ballistic targets at standoff ranges, thus protecting a larger region or theatre from strike.
That capability was chiefly expressed in recent operations in the Red Sea. Though most vessels were capable of intercepting ballistic missiles headed for them and local units, the BMD-capable vessels provided greater intercept radius – better protecting targeted shipping and even targets in Israel. A small flotilla of BMD-capable warships could similarly cue land-based missile launch platforms to intercept any potential targets headed for Norway, around the clock.
Compared to the Type 26, the F-126 provides less ASW capability though better AAW capability. The ASWF and FREMM-EVO manage similarly, at cheaper costs. If they really want ASW, then Type 26 is definitely top trumps… Still she remains the expensive option. With an NS200 she may match the capability of the Nansen’s radar for BMD by way of being more modern, though compared to other competitor designs, it lesser augments NASAMS and Norwegian Air Defence and Early Warning capabilities.
I don’t buy the “use frigates to protect Norway itself” argument.
Any missile heading towards Norway from Russia would come over Sweden and the Baltic, not over the North Sea, which would be the main operating environment of these frigates.
Out there, there is not much threat from missiles (Russian Tu95s can’t get around the range rings of F35s based in northern Norway without an unfeasibly circuitous route), and so the main enemy is submarines.
In theory anything close to their operating area will already have been spotted, either by jets on CAP or early warning radars on a hill on the North Cape. Contributing to air picture matters less in that case, it’s more a matter of defeating an AShM threat to the frigate itself , which Artisan and CAMM are very well matched for.
As previously stated, Norway aren’t looking for the cheap option. They want the best ship for their requirements and it looks like the T26 is just that.
So who do you think I am?
Which other name do you think I use?
I can’t think of anyone else with a similar writing style to me or who talks about the same stuff.
Norway doesn’t need warships with BMD to defend their country, they’re part of the European Sky Shield project (as is the UK.)
Don’t see BMD mentioned anywhere in requirements or by Admiral, so why are people banging on about this! Is this a fantasy fleet article?
I think the assumption that everything needs BMD is a result of the Constellation class, which are intended to be carrier escorts. Carriers are the only warships really under a BM threat, but because the Americans have BMD on their frigate, some commenters assume that means every frigate needs BMD because the USN knows best, ignoring the separate requirements.
We all want the T26 to have better capability but at the moment it is better than average globally simply due to the volume of CAMM available for shooting down the arrow. Yes, we don’t have a longer ranged option except CAMM-MR is in the pipeline and any anti ship jet pilot with his salt is going to stay below the horizon, and most modern AShMs outrange even Aster 30.
Incorrect, NATO naval exercises Formidable Shield have been for more than 5 years dealing with BMD.
Everyone needs BMD, for example Italy will have by 2030 more than a dozen ships BMD capable.
Note: BMD has a big span goes from a 300km SCUD type to ICBM.
I am not talking about ICBM’s. but in 300-1000km or so.
I meant proper BMD, Mach 5 impact type stuff.
There is no difference between a SRBM and a high diving cruise missile in interception difficulty, and even CAMM ought to be reasonably capable against those.
Then there is the MRBM/YJ21 category, with low hypersonic impact. Those really need a destroyer’s budget to deal with and it’s what I think is being overstated as a requirement for a frigate.
Here the main party trick is whether it can maneuver, but that class of missile isn’t really proven yet.
ICBMs and that sort are way beyond what the RN ought to be thinking about.
Yes. Hitting warships at sea isnt what their job is .
Footage on X of the recent Iranian missile barrage coming into Nevatim AB shows the sort of larger ground target thats ideal
Even then there was a mix of ‘slower’ BM mixed with some much faster BM which would have reached a higher altitude before plunging onto target
https://x.com/eTheurgy/status/1841475514499735798
How much do you think the terminal speed of a Scud missile? It is Mach 5.
A frigate can be “proper” anti ballistic against 5M missiles, if it has appropriate radar and missile like Aster 30.
An Aster 30 is said to have 4.5M max speed. and CAMM is said to be 3.0M and it is only a 99kg missile, it is not appropriate against SCUD’s.
From Mark Tucker above: (bold mine)
“Contributing”…. it doesnt say a stand alone capability
Okam quoted the norwegian Admiral expanding on the ‘needs’
“for Norway, the most important point is that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability is good,” said Rear Adm Berdal. Here, he explained, the increase in threat in the RNoN’s areas of operation means the navy needs more ASW capability now than it has had at any point over the last 30 years.”
So? For me it read if the ASW is good – and there are several competitors with that – it should be part of short list.
Cheap vessel? They just had one of those sunk LOL
Norway have a trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund a very long coastline and critical offshore facilities to defend. 5% here or there on the build is nothing to them.
Hopefully if we can squeeze in the Norwegian order maybe look at modifying the batch two frigates to be leaner manned using ideas used on type 31’s to aid the crew crisis.
No more mods, please. The good ideas club always adds considerably to both cost and delays. We need speed.
“The other main positive for this proposal is that Constellation is built around the AEGIS system, of which an older variant is already in service with the Nansen-class.”
The lastest version SPY-6 isnt available for export even for Nato. Its has world leading technology in its radar modules which combine S and X band in the single unit.
The competing LM SPY-7 cant do that and like all others have separate radars for S and X
By US only they restrict the opportunities for industrial espionage and even competition from friendly countries
I believe the dual-band capability of the SPY-6 is just a market slogan over anything else. To my understanding, the SPY-6 is simply an S-band GaN AESA radar. Skipping GaAs AESA, it matches the more modern European sets and is two steps up from the PESA SPY-1.
Its ‘dual-band’ capability is provided when it is paired with the SPQ-9B X-band radar. Many similar warships in Europe have realized such a capability already.
Thats incorrect. You are describing the SPY-7 from LM which has separate ‘faces’ for each band or the Australian SeeFar system
Whether its fully operational in its capabilities currently , DOT&E says a way to go yet.
So DDGs being built may have ‘complementary’ radars till then
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/07.naval/karte066.en.html
‘The radar system part operating in S band will provide wide-area volume search, target tracking, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) discrimination, and missile tracking. Operating in X-band the radar will provide horizon search, precision tracing, missile communications, and final illumination guidance to targets. It will be available in AMDR sets 13 onward.
Does that mean each RMA can swap between S and X band on operation? That would be quite the achievement.
Otherwise, if an RMA were designed only to operate in either X-band or S-band, then that would make it little different to the SPY-7 and CeaFar.
The American Constellation class does not have a hull sonar. They have redesigned the hull to be able to go faster. These ships need to able to keep up with the nucleair carriers. It is not so easy to add the hull sonar again. It is therefore not extremely likely that the Norwegians will buy the Constellation class.
The German / Dutch F126 is way to big for the Norwegian navy. These ships are designed to travel the world. The Norwegians never leave the Atlantic Ocean.
The French FDI frigates are too small. The Norwegians use American weapons and it is almost impossible to fit American SAM missiles and American radarsystems onto a French ship. It is not very likely that Norway will choose this ship.
The Dutch ASWF frigate however tix almost every box. This ship is a true ASW frigate, it is silent and has 16 Mk.41 VLS cells, with the option of adding another 16. It also carries the Norwegian NSM anti-ship missile.
The Type 26 holds the best cards. The UK is a close allie. The Type 26 is a modern ship, silent and big enough. The only thing letting it down is its radarsystem. But that can be easily fixed.
If I was a betting man, I would put my money on the Type 26 and the ASWF as a runner up.
Thanks for that . Your comment should lead not be at the bottom
Thank you for your positive feedback!
Agree, excellent summary
The Netherlands/Belgium are close allies as well. The ASWF is modern (even more than the T26) and is a low crew design. With an order of five, Norway will be their main client and treated accordingly, something that remains to be seen as ‘smallest’ potential user.
That’s right, the Netherlands is also an ally of Norway. However, Norway, also a non-affiliated country, has always been a closer ally of the UK than the Netherlands.
The other advantage is that the Type 26 will reach IOC (Initial Operating Capability) in 2028. The first ASWF frigate will not be delivered until 2029 and will not reach IOC before the early 2030s. In principle, the Netherlands could give the first frigate to Norway, but that means that Norway will become the launching customer of this frigate. I expect that this will certainly not be their preference.
What could be a disadvantage for the Type 26 is if they demand an American radar and CMS (Aegis). The same system as the Canadian River class. That does mean that it will very likely cause delays. This also applies to the ASWF frigates that use the AWWS (Above Water Warfare System) and radar systems from Thales. The ASWF frigate has the advantage that it has a better radar system than the Type 26, so they can choose not to replace this system with Aegis. The advantage is that Germany also going to this system on its F126 frigates. However the Germans are also going to use the American Aegis and SPY-6 radarsystem, this will be installed on their new air defence frigates, the F127.
Another advantage of the ASWF frigate is that it can operate with fewer personnel on board, namely 117 compared to 157 for the Type 26.
The speed of delivery and the long-term alliance will most likely be the deciding factor for the Type 26, which I expect will be more expensive, but that will probably not be a decisive factor for the very wealthy Norwegians.
First delivery date will entirely depend on where hulls will be made. Damen can choose between Romania, Vlissingen or even a Norwegian
shipyard. Non-affiliated doesn’t exactly show in numbers of UK defence exports to Norway.
The ASWF was not designed by Damen. It was designed by the Dutch MOD (commit). They own the design, Damen is only the builder. They do have the option to build this ship in Romania. However Damen used to own two shipyards in Romania, one just went bankrupt. That reduces their capacity. Damen also stated they do not have the capacity at the moment to build these ships in The Netherlands.
The other thing is that the radarsystems (and CMS) probably won’t be ready before 2028 /2029 as well. All these factors will probably prevent them to deliver these ships before 2029. It will most likely be later.
Norway already uses its own Kongsberg developed CMS
My answer !
So how many submarines has the FN sunk? Where does this World wide recognition for ASW warfare come from? Thales TAS capability was bought from Templecombe.
https://www.opex360.com/2021/12/16/les-capacites-de-lutte-anti-sous-marine-des-fregates-francaises-a-nouveau-distinguees-par-lus-navy/
Vous avez Parfaitement Raison
The FDI frigates are just too small. It does not have diesel electric propulsion. The inverted bow might also pose a threat to the stability of the ship. It might work in the Mediterranean but in the dangerous Atlantic Ocean not so much. There is a reason why they stopped using them in the 1920s. It also does not have any growth potential because of its small size. It is not possible to integrate American weapons into the French CMS (Setis). The problem with buying French Sylver VLS systems is that you have to buy French missiles as well. The Norwegian NSM missile is not integrated into the Setis CMS either. I very much doubt that the Norwegians want to switch to French missiles and drop their own missile. That is not going to happen.
Thank you for your article on the RNoN frigate acquisition program. I have a couple of questions:
What are the advantages of the Sea Ceptor 24-cell VLS compared to the Mk-41 VLS, considering that Sea Ceptor missiles can already be quad-packed into Mk-41 cells? Additionally, it seems there is space for another row of strike-length Mk-41s at the front, allowing for 48 strike-length Mk-41 cells, along with two eight-cell tactical-length Mk-41s behind the funnel. This would leave 64 VLS cells, potentially with a total of 256 quad packed Sea Ceptors if you configure it that way.
How difficult would it be to integrate a different radar system, such as an American SPY variant or a Thales AESA system?
The point of the stand alone soft launch cells is that they can be deployed at the same time the Mk41 VLS. So the weight of fire is increased.
I suspect the stand alone soft launchers might be easier to reload. With a quad pack all four missiles are in a canister that is then inserted into the Mk41 VLS. The single soft launch missiles are in single canisters.
I don’t know if there is the space for extra rows of strike or tactical length Mk41. Bear in mind that the bottom of the VLS is well separated from the outer hull to protect from shock or impact damage.
Don’t forget you can also have deck canister launched AShM like NSM.
Changing the radar depends on whether the radar is easy to integrate with the CMS and also the top weight margins. This is where AUS got into a lot of bother trying to equip and ASW asset as a cruiser and finding that if you do that you end up with a ship that costs cruiser money. Changing to NS100/200 shouldn’t be the end of the world but you would probably end up with Thales TACTICOS as being the easiest CMS as it is integrated with all the bits already for T31.
But then that moves away from the reference design. Norway, sensibly, doesn’t want to own the upgrade costs of a class but wants to share them with others. This is an important point when people start waffling on about taking a design and changing it this cost £££££ of R&D and time and risk as opposed to saying I want more T26 please here is a cheque for £850m x 5 – sign here. OK that is a gross over simplification but I am sure you get the drift.
I’d agree with other posters that T26 is already a well rounded frigate that is superb value for the £850m as well as probably the best ASW frigate out there. There is a reason that AUS and CAN want T26 variants in their fleet.
I have no idea why everyone is so down on ARTISAN as it is really a very good system and as it is mounted high it gives excellent range. If you want a better upwards looking radar that doesn’t need to on a high mast and that could go low down as it is on T45 which gets around the top weight issue and the integration issue as that family of volume search radars is already on the BAe CMS.
Couldn’t agree more on this post. Artisan is good enough for spotting sea skimming cruise missiles and targetting swarms. A volume radar low enough down not to require a fundamental review of top weight might be a nice-to-have addition if the Norwegians want to increase range for ballistic missile detection, but I doubt it’s worth it if they are planning on sticking with ESSM as their primary SAM.
I’ll add, the other advantage of having specialist silos for CAMM is cost.
There are quite a few good reasons for keeping the basic CAMM out of the VLS.
As you say cost is one of them as well as it being a 100% sovereign system.
But RN might want to put the ER or MR variants in Mk41 VLS to give an area defence capability.
Thank you for your replies, makes a lot of sense!
Agree completely, commentators, who have no actual naval experience seem to assume all US kit is the best. A quick read of a couple of Congressional Research Reports, would quickly disabuse them of this. As noted by others more knowledgeable than myself SPY7 is VERY expensive and has a number of teething problems and when it is fully functional, it will probably be at parity with T45! Why is that? Because the laws of physics take into account the curvature of the earth! There is Trade-off between height/weight/power/stabilty, which the Australian/Canadians are encountering in their bespoke alterations to T26 designs.
There is also a reason why the US choose a European design (Constellation class) for their new ships because of the complete clusterf@Владимир Темников@k that was LCS, but they seem to be repeating this even with a proven design!
Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Makes you wonder!
If you do a little research into the semi conductor plant that MoD has just bought – one has to suspect that T45 SAMPSON upgrades and the new Radar2 components are being made there!
The US problems that you point to are very much to do with always being at the bleeding edge of making tech into weapons and systems. There is a an eye watering cost to being an outlier on the cost-performance curve!
SAMPSON was the product of many many decades of research and upgrade plans that were made for T42 and its various replacements. So it was actually a very mature concept as was the modelling and some of the code.
SB, whilst I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said and did note the MOD semi plant acquisition, which seems sensible, my comments, as a bit of a tech geek, had a broader point. A case in point would be the current craze for all things AI. If you asked the average commenter on this and other military/tech blogs where the epicentre of cutting edge AI was, 95% would say the US and 5% would say China. However, they would all be wrong! As the U.K. (DeepMind) is arguably the most advanced AI center globally (not just in GenerativeAI).
Having worked on the software side in risk management for a couple of globally known US Co.s (albeit not in the defence sector) the US has good and bad (see LMs well covered travails on the F35 software stack, yawn). So the European defence sector UK/France, in my opinion can certainly look the US straight in the eye on “cutting edge” defence tech and normally for half the price, contrary to perceived wisdom.
Europe can certainly match the USA technology wise, the big difference is the huge orders that come from the US military for their home grown products.
Interesting.
https://www.computing.co.uk/news/uk-acquires-semiconductor-factory-secure-military
Why makes you wonder? T26 also have been full of problems – HMS Glasgow will take 10 years to be in service.
Constellation will have until 2034 to reach that level of delay and it is a more complex ship. Australia reduced their order to 6 form 9. I also suspect that Canada at speed things are going will not get their 15.
T26 has not “been full of problems”.
BTW Alexi, you’re forgetting the first in class frigate Admiral Gorshkov took even longer, 12 years from being laid down to being commissioned.
If you want a different Radar for Norwegian T26s, from Hunter and River experience, expect schedule delays. Change costs in both money and time. The Norwegians want prompt delivery.
Watch will be the time difference between Glasgow leaving the hard standing and being floated off and the start of Cardiff on the hard standing compered to Cardiff leaving the hard standing and the start of Belfast’s blocks being put together in the new build hall?
Check out the NL timeline for T26 progress and report back to us on whats changed
https://www.navylookout.com/type-26-frigate-construction-and-shipyard-investment-progress-update/
Yeah I remember reading this article. I suppose what I’m thinking is how long before the new build hall will be ready to except the main blocks from the older smaller build work shops and has the build of HMS Belfast been slowed down to accommodate the new build hall time line?
I do hope the Skywegians buy T26.
If they do though out of the eventual global class of what 34 hulls our 8 will be the outliers due to us not adopting AEGIS.
Too late now. But T26 might have been the point we fell in line with our main allies and adopted AEGIS.
I wonder if they will want their new frigates to continue to carry depth charges?
Old skool…
Our European peers dont use AEGIS either, as Europe has its own capabilities in software libraries, radars and missiles
SPY-6 isnt for export , even for nato !
Norways Nansen class uses Raytheon SPY-1F radar but not AEGIS ‘combat system’
Instead its Kongsberg MSI 2005F CMS
https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/what-we-do/defence-and-security/naval-systems/surface-ships/
What a really stupid thing to say. Really stupid. There are over 110 AEGIS ships world wide with others in build. More than the entire European escort fleet. But Europe doesn’t use it so we shouldn’t? Where is the logic with that? Bore off.
I wish you would stop propagating this idea that SPY-6 is not available for export. Please provide us with some evidence of this, as we know that Germany (a NATO country!) and Japan are both planning ships with that system.
Germany has not announced anything of the kind. What you have seen is builders model for F126
Japan who works with LM on radar modules is using their system SPY-7
F126 graphics , does this look like SPY-6, not that its definitive, but you seem to think that way.
Thales has said they are working on the F126, not a word from Raytheon !
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/04/thales-opens-a-new-system-testing-centre-for-german-f126-project/
This is the much later F127 type
.webp
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/german-f127-aaw-frigate-takes-shape/
Image shows twin flat plate radars , which is how SPY-7 works
AEGIS has been integrated with LM SPY-7 as its their CMS
Japan has already said its going with LM SPY-7 with AEGis
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2024-04-04-SPY-7-Radar-on-Japans-Aegis-System-Equipped-Vessel-Achieves-First-Track-of-Objects-in-Space
Its fair enough to disagree with my claim. But the evidence doesnt back your claims about other countries
Again, please provide evidence that SPY-6 is not available to any country outside the US. Just one bit of evidence is all we ask.
This article strongly suggests that SPY 6 was and is on offer to Japan.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/10/13/japans-new-missile-defense-ships-are-getting-weird/
That was 2021 ,. decision made by 2024 -my link.
Seriously you post out of date information and rely on that ?
Please provide your evidence that SPY-6 is not available outside the US. Or, admit you are incorrect. I’ve provided plenty of links to show it is available to other countries (another below), the least you can do is provide some evidence to back your contention it is not.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/naval-warfare/farnborough-2022-germany-japan-and-australia-interested-in-raytheons-anspy-6-radars/
Another bit of evidence. Clearly states it is available to US and allies (see FACT 5 at the end of the article). The date of the article is immaterial.
https://www.defenseone.com/sponsors/2020/01/five-fast-facts-about-spy-6/162290/
2020 my friend ., your claims are getting older …and older .
All of the facts are taken from wikipedia
See news last month of this year !
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/10/japan-mod-signs-contracts-to-build-two-asevs-with-mhi-and-jmu/
Aegis system equipped vessels
There appear to have been three main aims:
To appeal the smooth progress of the ASEV program with the SPY-7 radarTo promote the adoption of the SPY-7 radar on the successor vessels to the aging Kongo-class Aegis vessels, whose retirement is approaching
Speculation for future projects which is also out of date (2022)
.webp
Easily refuted in Australias case as they are going for their own home grown technology with more flat plates than a dinner party but controlled by Aegis CMS.
Japan is also tied in with the LM Spy-7 , which is Canadas too ( who arent tied in with production)
Pic of a Hunter class
Spain F110 has too has gone for ….SPY-7 from LM
https://www.navaltoday.com/2024/07/24/lockheed-martin-inks-deals-for-spy-7-radar-manufacturing/
As I explain every US ally building a warship with us radar has gone for Spy-7
Canada
Australia
Japan
Spain
and Germany F126 has Hensoldt and Thales and could be front runners for future F127 type , but that doesnt even have a design concept
Below F110
Australia has NOT selected SPY-7 – they are using CEAFAR. As to the rest, you ever think they selected SPY-7 because it is superior to SPY-6? There is absolutely no evidence that SPY-6 is not exportable.
There are a number of benefits of being in AEGIS for sure, but equally – as we have seen with the slow integration of British made munitions for the F35 – there are undoubtedly benefits from having sovereign capability.
Britain invented radar, and it’s one of capabilities which I believe we have to remain at the forefront of to retain our qualitative advantage over peers.
Of course there are advantages to a sovereign capability. But there are also advantages to sharing a technology. There would be enough for the UK integrating our sensors into AEGIS.
Not going to happen is it. Fantasy Combat system time in lead up to halloween
When is your favourite the MM going to use it , Luigi wants to know
Well the Italians get most things right they are allowed the occasional detour from the path of righteousness. My other favourite naval services use it. The Japanese. The South Koreans. The Ozzietralians. So three out of four isn’t bad going.
Why post a comment just to have a go? What is it with you lot?
It’s not just Britain waiting for munitions to be integrated into the F35. Virtually every country that’s bought it is waiting for Block IV and new weapons integration, and that includes the Americans!
Alas, not well researched & factually incorrect: The German contender is F127 AD frigate NOT F126.
Poor article
Naval News earlier this year also had it as the F126. F126 has CODLAG propulsion and ASW options. Why would the F127 be a better candidate?
Your claims dont match the facts . Norway wants an in production vessel
Neither F127 are in production, with F126 just started
If early T26s builds are redirected to Norway it will undoubtedly on the understanding that Norway assists in filling any tasking gaps consequentially caused by this. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see them in CSGs etc.
No let’s build ships for ourselves AND other countries, thus reducing the unit costs for ourselves, ensuring high compatibility with our allies, and keeping our shipyards constantly busy and avoiding the feast and famine situation which has previously undermined our shipbuilding industry.
But you prefer making snarky comments to making a positive contribution to the discussion…
You’ll be seeing Norwegian ships in our CSGs very soon.
Just read that the USN is considering canceling the Constellation class and ordering T26, wow.
Where? Although it would be the logical thing to do, seems unlikely.
Okams Razor
The fact that it would be the very logical thing to do makes it – as you well know – very very unlikely to ever happen…
So, now it is my turn to put forward another very logical proposal…..one that is so logical and so long overdue and also so eminently sensible that it is almost certain never to happen….
—————-
This next comment, by the editor, was written directly beneath his team’s truely excellent picture of a brand-new RN warship that was out on the seawater for the very first time..:
“Construction time for the first batch of ships has been painfully slow”
Unfortunately………….. our very expensive new warship was not actually floating in the water at the time this photo was taken………..
It required AEA (Absolutely Essential Assistance) from the IMN (Italian Merchant Navy).
——-
Whether (or not) the Viking Navy does, or does not, soon buy itself a small fleet of new T26 ships – presumably ones fitted with bespoke twin-horned curved radio attenna – will probably (ultimately) all come down to the sucess, or otherwise, of just one key visit.
Viking Naval High Command will, with their chequebook ready, visit GRIME
(Note 1)
At that point, they will take just one look = then fall about laughing……..
……and thus, very soon afterwards, be taking their big order elsewhere…
—————–
Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, as it used to be known in 1974, was frankly both a national embarrassment – and also a very-technically obsolete ship yard – when it was renamed half a centrury ago
Despite some investment, at vast expense to us taxpayers, frankly it has not really improved much since I was in junior school.
Probably because it is stuffed full of SNP voters (Not the term “worker”)
———————
Accordingly, with a very rare chance of a “long and hot production run” of new RN frigates, is now not the right time to “bite the bullet” and build a proper new shipyard for warships down on the Lower Clyde?
A new yard needs to be built in a geographical location where any completed new RN warship can actually float out = without needing substantial help from our NATO allies……,
A new yard needs to be built somewhere that can be laid out with lots and lots of decent manouvering space for modern plant – the really productive big yellow stuff powered by new-fangled electricity and even internal combustion engines – such as “big modern cranes”
Investing now in a proper modern warship yard, one properly connected to the network of good local transport infrastructure, would not only dramatically reduce build times “per frigate” :however it would also significantly reduce the overall cost of each new ship.
It might even help win us an order or (two) from the Viking and/or colonial Navy(s)
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
(TLA translator: GRIME = Glasgows Run-down Inner-city Manufacturing Environment)
Stopped reading after first para. What are you smoking?! I know it’s fashionable/trendy/easy to run down all things U.K. but if you’re posts are not just attempts at comedy, could give some context i.e. “GRIME” compared to what? All the other state owned/subsidized ship builders?
Yes. Has he seen the production sites in Spain or Italy ?
Riva is on enclosed Gulf but its hardly that calm with waves often breaking onto the yard. Oh and the naval yard was founded in 1897.
Which is what makes it even more remarkable that we have two sheds for building full fat frigates in the UK.
Most other European naval ship yards are exceptionally unexciting when you tour them. Bear in mind they are still in the grip of unions who aren’t that interested in modernisation and reform. The French, in particular, are quite good at strikes.
One of the few advantages of the dip in UK naval ship building is that the workforce isn’t trying to maintain seriously old restrictive practices. Which largely killed the industry in the 70/80’s. If you ignore the skills fade issues. There is an acceptance that investment and modernisation are a necessary thing.
Another part of the advantage of a fully indoors build is that the hull isn’t exposed to the marine dockside environment until it is fully coated. So the clock doesn’t start ticking on hull coatings [and I think inspections] until she is in the water. This may seem trivial but is actually a big cost interval driver.
A point I was making years ago is that humans work a lot better when they are in a consistent working environment in terms of temperature and rain, or lack of it. Cold and wet humans are not as productive as warm dry ones. I found it odd how much scorn was poured on them…
External build on the hard in Spain and Italy is also an issue because it gets so hot. You can’t work efficiently in those temperatures or apply coatings etc.
Your endurance here is to be recommended mate. Most who comment here have been reported and deleted by a few (sad and rather mentally messed up members). I admire your longevity and immunity to remain so long.
There is a huge area, the other side of the frigate shed with nothing built on it. That could be used to generate fresh fabrication facilities etc.
I do find it perplexing that there is no easy way of getting mega blocks into the new frigate shed from the existing build hall which would be an idea place to fabricate them.
Externally there isn’t a great deal of change other than the new frigate shed. Internally it is a different story.
Maybe you confused this RFA for the Constellation class, with news about the Constellation class;
NAVSEA – The Navy has released a sources sought solicitation to identify viable alternate Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) candidate systems for the CONSTELLATION-class Frigate program. The Frigate program design currently utilizes the government-directed, contractor furnished, Raytheon Dual-mode Array Transmitter (DART) VDS which is under development for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. Ongoing testing of DART has identified challenges in hydrodynamic stability and transducer reliability and performance, which in turn have delayed testing and production of the system. While efforts remain underway by Raytheon to resolve the issues with DART, the system’s developmental delay has increased risk for the CONSTELLATION-class Frigate, which is of concern to both the Navy and the Frigate’s shipbuilder Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM). Consequently the Navy will evaluate the schedule and technical risk associated with other mature VDS alternatives identified by vendor responses to this solicitation. This assessment will inform a subsequent decision on the Frigate VDS configuration.
It was a comment referring to the new Frigate’s delays and issues with specifications that I read on the News Now site. I only mentioned it here as i thought it was interesting. Can’t see it being cancelled personally and T26 might just be a better option but all the decisions were made years back now.
That is outdated by more than a year. DART is dead and the Constellations will have CAPTASS after Fincantieri informed the navy that could not be more delays in sonar decision.
Ooh, how exciting a chance to play Fantasy Fleets for someone else’s Navy. The last time I did this it was to get all excited about the Canadians buying a flotilla of Trafalgars.
T26 (obviously, national bias aside the Norgies prioritise ASW)
Hull no.s 3,4,7,8 and 11
The RN is going to be busy enough with 1-5 of the T31s and 1,2,5,6,9 and 10 to need the breathing space and this would suit both nations and both navies.
What changes?
*IFF Artisan really is subpar then NS200 (the Norgies make the damn mast and can do physical integration BAe and Thales can be lent upon to realise it’s in their interests to work together and make the electrical and software integration cheap and smooth).
*Torpedo tubes seem a glaring omission (our Commonwealth chums certainly think so), I’d favour proper Heavyweights but Norway uses Stingray and I have seen no indications that any work has been done preparing Spearfish for surface launch. And some of the work putting lightweight tubes on the T26 has already been done for/by the Commonwealth.
*I’d favour 32 Mk41 cells for’d but have no idea whether the Aussies have managed this because of the physical growth of their T26 subclass or whether it would just slot in to the British parent class. If it requires expensive redesign then stick with 24. Bite the bullet and buy Japanese T07, it seems so superior to US ASROC that unless one has the existing massive logistics chain that the USN has I can’t see any reason not to favour the Japanese solution. If Caam-ER can be quadpacked in Mk41 I’d take that. If not then quadpack Caam in Mk41 and deploy Caam-ER from the midships silo
*At least 8 NSM cannisters amidships, ideally 16.
*Will 57 Mk3 fit where Phalanx sits without major design changes? If not will 40 Mk4?
*Will 40 Mk4 fit where DS30 sits?
Maybe some/all of those changes could even find their way to RN Batch III?
Very well said , if a touch on the over speced side
Remember what their existing Nansens are carrying
now and they are focused on the ASW side for the net ship, not your stuff.
1x 8 cell ESSM launcher- which can be quad packed
8x NSM
1 76mm Super rapid
2x 12 in torpedo Stingray ( cant think of anyone using the 23 in for surface ships since the 1950s)
3x KDS 12.7mm RWS
[It seems they were designed for but not built with 1 extra 8 cell VLS, 1 CIWS]
Kongsberg MSI 2005F ASW combat system
MRS 2000 hull mounted sonar
Captas MK II V1 active/passive towed array sonar
Lockheed Martin AN/SPY-1F 3-D multifunction radar
Reutech RSR 210N air/sea surveillance radar
Italian Maestrales frigates that now are being retired had 1 tube launcher of A-184 at stern in each side of VDS fish, so 2 total. before that their Ardito class destroyers had 4 – but no VDS fish.
This besides the usual for the time triple launcher for the 324mm in each side.
Thanks for that . It seems there were some others with interesting locations as well as the Maestrales you mentioned . Some Russian Neustrashimy ships and Saudi Al Riyadh are more recent
https://www.navalanalyses.com/2016/11/facts-trivia-1-torpedo-launchers-uss.html
Hamburg class
Yes the Soviets had heavy torpedo tubes in surface combatants, some even fire missiles. Their torpedo tube battery had a old fashioned look, see for example Krivak.
I found that the armament lacks ambition like the RN.
I am sure that you’re correct. As I say fantasy.
Caam and/or Caam-ER I can justify as bringing something which adds value. And without having to spend on adding CWI to allow use of existing ESSM.
Type 07 seems so much better to a skimmer-lay-person but I’m so fr out of the loop that there may be pitfalls that I’m entirely unaware of.
As to smaller(er) guns if Norway don’t already have Phalanx, DS30 40 Mk4 or 57 Mk3 and are starting from scratch; I’d opt or the latter. KDS 12.7 AWR instead seems a bit weedy but maybe more fiscally sensible.
Was rather hoping to see more great articles on here after the announcement that NL will be working with Shepherds Media. One a week here is rather less than the UKDJ put out. Whilst I like reading all the stuff over there, I find this site to have much more information and detail. Also I find that fewer comments are deleted/reported on here even though it happens quite often, It’s rather annoying when you follow all the comments and opinions being expressed only to find that most are gone in the morning. On one article over there, some 70 comments were deleted out of a total of 103 which is rather disappointing from a followers point of view.
Its obvious isn’t it? Build the Norwegian T26’s at Babcocks under license when the T31’s are finished.
Why would BAE do that and put their shipyard out of work and profits.