Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

[Pymes75]

This weekend we have learnt a Type 26 frigate costs between £800m and £1,200m.

We're not much better off than our previous guestimates.

IMHO, I don't believe the MODs claims that theis number includes previous costs. No any sence to include costs from say 2010 in this contract...

Politically there is. This government has repeatedly ensured that MOD spending is 'sexed up' - especially the ever quoted, "Backed by a rising defence budget and a £178bn Equipment Plan" which conveniently fails to explain what time period that £178bn will be spent over never mind which government actually signed the contracts that go to make up that number!

[abc123]

Even then, if we discount 1,7 billion pounds, that's still about 880 millions USD for half-armed ships. Too much.

Can't even think how much would she cost with torpedos, ASROC and LRASM? 2 billion per ship?

[Timmymagic]

Backed by a rising defence budget and a £178bn Equipment Plan

Which also adds no context to if we actually need to spend £200 bn to keep current....now if we had a decent opposition they may have pointed this out every time its trotted out..

[Pymes75]

Just seen the tweet from Geof Searle, Type 26 Programme Director that confirms the £3.7bnincludes the previous long-lead costs.

[abc123]

Also, for first Type 23, 4,5 years from laying to commissioning. Here, 7-8 years? With long lead items mostly allready produced or under work? A bloody disgrace...

[dmereifield]

Just seen the tweet from Geof Searle, Type 26 Programme Director that confirms the £3.7bnincludes the previous long-lead costs.

Ok, so it's not an additional £3.7b on top of the prior spends, but it's still £1.23b per boat! Do we think that the first batch if 3 will require all new kit since they will be under construction before the first 23 is due to decommission?

If so, there is at least some hope that costs for the next batch(es) might decrease significantly when recycled T23 kit is used and once the construction process is optimised.....

Some perspective for the T31 though, according to the rumours, we are looking to get 6 for the cost of 1.5 T26's......so how credible and capable can they be?????

[donald_of_tokyo]

Shareholders like big numbers, taxpayers like small ones. Unfortunately BAE's press release

Yeh. For example, I really hope to see TOBA cost and River B2 unit cost, separated. Does this appear within the NAO report?

Can't even think how much would she cost with torpedos, ASROC and LRASM? 2 billion per ship?

I guess, adding ASROC will cost 50M GBP or so per ship, and LRASM another 100M GBP. (LRASM is 4M GBP per shot? I forgot, but never near the 1M GBP per shot of TLAM...). Never mind how expensive the UK-Franco new missile will be... But, anyhow, will not reach 2B GBP for sure, if it is only these 2 to be added. Similarly, we could not build T23 with half price by just omitting 8 Harpoons and 2x2 torpedo tubes.

Ok, so it's not an additional £3.7b on top of the prior spends, but it's still £1.23b per boat!

Including the design cost, yes it is. As noted, including the design cost T45 is 1.1B GBP per unit, while the unit cost itself is 600-700M GBP. "made in Britain, designed in Britain" needs this cost. From purely "money per ship" point of view, importing A.Burk DDG or Horizon DDG or F100 FFG and FREMM FF is surely the cheapest solution.

Do we think that the first batch if 3 will require all new kit since they will be under construction before the first 23 is due to decommission? If so, there is at least some hope that costs for the next batch(es) might decrease significantly when recycled T23 kit is used and once the construction process is optimised.....

Interesting point! But we know the Artisan and CAMM itself only amounts to 100MGBP in total or so, CAPTAS4 about 30-50 M GBP, the difference will be in 100-150M GBP per unit level, I guess... It is the integration cost not the direct armament cost, which matters.

Some perspective for the T31 though, according to the rumours, we are looking to get 6 for the cost of 1.5 T26's......so how credible and capable can they be?????

If T31 is to be assigned 2B GBP for 6 (or 5) units,
(1) if it is total cost, then "getting 6 (5) T31 from 2/3.7 cost for 3 T26".
(2) If we assume the design cost to be 2-unit equivalent, then "T31 unit cost 250M (or 286M) GBP (=2000/(6+2)) compared to T26 unit cost 740M GBP (=3700/(2+3))"

I think the "2B GBP project cost" is still a big IF, but (2) is the actual unit cost we must think of, this means T31 unit cost 250M (or 286M) GBP is aimed at ~1/3 (33-39%) of that of T26.
For reference:
- French-FREMM unit cost (583M GBP) is 4/5 of T26
- FTI total cost is 3.3M GBP for 5 hull, 470M GBP unit cost (3.3/7), ~2/3 of T26 or 4/5 of FREMM.

[dmereifield]

"Including the design cost, yes it is"^^

Are we sure the £3.7b includes the design costs? I thought it included prior spends relating to the manufacturing phase, but did not see anywhere confirmation that it includes costs associated with the development phase....can anyone clarify this, please?

[abc123]

If this 1,23 billion pounds is really production cost (so no development cost there) IMHO it's the best option to cancel the whole project, ask the French for cost of FREMMs, and tell the BAE and Scots go **** yourselves...

And all that amount of money for an overgrown OPV.
:thousandfacepalms(

[CR4ZYHOR5E]

Easy to see how we meet the '2% of GDP on defense' pledge. There should be some sort of measure for what we get for our 2%. Is the 'made in the UK' jobs premium getting out of hand?

[shark bait]

• Engine not new
• Radar not new
• Sonar not new
• AAW not new
• VLS not new
• Gun not new
• Combat system not new
• Comms system not new
• Torpedo none
• ASM none

and some how these things cost around a billion pounds......

[abc123]

• Engine not new
• Radar not new
• Sonar not new
• AAW not new
• VLS not new
• Gun not new
• Combat system not new
• Comms system not new
• Torpedo none
• ASM none

and some how these things cost around a billion pounds......

• Engine not new
• Radar not new
• Sonar not new
• AAW not new
• VLS not new
• Gun not new
• Combat system not new
• Comms system not new
• Torpedo none
• ASM none

and some how these things cost around a billion pounds......

Agreed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

There should be some sort of measure for what we get for our 2%

There is a parallel from the past: Soviet car production was doing well because they measured the output (normally: units) with a proxy of inputs... so the output was measured in metric tons and all was well ( while customers received crappy and underpowered cars weighing abt 2 t).

Moral of the story? Most customers did not receive a car at all, because of the wasteful approach

[R686]

Now that you have firm build start, I wonder what that means for Sea 5000 could be another tick in the box.

Does also that mean when treasury do their number and if GCS gets up does the price reduce for the host nation now we will pay for licence build that offsets some of the R&D?

[Aethulwulf]

The Sea 5000 future frigate project has a reported budget of $35b aus (£20b) for 9 frigates.

The Canadian Surface Combatant project has a reported budget of $60b can (£35b) for 15 ships.

In both cases, in crude numbers, that is more than £2b per ship.

The signing of the deal to start construction of the first 3 T26 ships should boost the credibility of the design in both the Australian and Canadian projects.

[inch]

There is no way that Australia or Canada are going to touch the type26, even if we started production .they will look and put on shortlist becouse its the most up-to-date design but cost will scupper it ,like I said fremm Canada and Spanish route for Australia ,anything else wouldn't make sense for then and unfortunately for us .very sad tho

[Aethulwulf]

The Australian and Canadian governments are willing to pay higher costs in order to support and retain a national warship building capability. The T26 design is not in itself massively expensive in comparison to others. If the T26 was built in S Korea or Japan it would be much cheaper. The UK is paying over the odds because BAE shipyards are not nearly as efficient as S Korean shipyards (or Italian, or Japanese, etc). But like Australia and Canada, the UK wants to retain a national warship construction capability.

So just because the T26 construction cost in the UK are higher than 'average', does not mean that the design is going to be ruled out in Australia or Canada.

[abc123]

The Australian and Canadian governments are willing to pay higher costs in order to support and retain a national warship building capability. The T26 design is not in itself massively expensive in comparison to others. If the T26 was built in S Korea or Japan it would be much cheaper. The UK is paying over the odds because BAE shipyards are not nearly as efficient as S Korean shipyards (or Italian, or Japanese, etc). But like Australia and Canada, the UK wants to retain a national warship construction capability.

So just because the T26 construction cost in the UK are higher than 'average', does not mean that the design is going to be ruled out in Australia or Canada.

Yes, so they will fill the pockets of the BAE Systems instead spending smaller amount for same/better bang and same domestic production at Navantia or DCNS, and spend the rest of the money somewhere else.

BTW
I still haven't seen a class of Japanese or Korean or Spanish or Italian or French frigates/destroyers without torpedos or without anti-ship missiles?

So, no, not only that Type 26 isn't any cheaper or even slightly more expensive than competition, it's actually: way more expensive considering it's weaponry and inferior product ( at least until properly equipped- and judging by the MoDs practice, that will happen never and not even then ).

[abc123]

There is no way that Australia or Canada are going to touch the type26, even if we started production .they will look and put on shortlist becouse its the most up-to-date design but cost will scupper it ,like I said fremm Canada and Spanish route for Australia ,anything else wouldn't make sense for then and unfortunately for us .very sad tho

Fully agreed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

• Engine not new
• Radar not new
• Sonar not new
• AAW not new
• VLS not new
• Gun not new
• Combat system not new
• Comms system not new
• Torpedo none
• ASM none

and some how these things cost around a billion pounds......

That is exactly the same for FREMM, and it costs 583M GBP per hull excluding design costs, and 740M GBP including the design cost. Not to mention French ship building industry is more well trained than those in UK. I do not think T26 is too expensive for their price (excluding the ~15% (guess) in-efficiency of industry. Note, 15% is just a guess, I admit).

T26 is paying a lot for the automation, good example is the deadly expensive automated 127mm arsenal. 6900t FL with 157 crew T26 is "more" automated than 6000t FL with 147 crew French FREMM. Because you said automation is good, you shall pay for it. You have 24 VLS not 16. You have mission bay while FREMM does not. You have a 127mm gun while French FREMM has a 76 mm. Not to mention the "super quit hull" RN always claim.

Can this difference explain 740/583 = 1.27 times cost?. Maybe or may not be. But if scaled with "15% in-efficiency of industry", it comes to 740/583/1.15 = 1.10. Effectively, 10% higher. Good enough, I think.

You get for what you pay.

I am very surprised with many negative comments arose. The cost was exactly on the line of "8B GBP for 8 hulls", which was announced a year ago. No surprise at all.

[abc123]

I am very surprised with many negative comments arose. The cost was exactly on the line of "8B GBP for 8 hulls", which was announced a year ago. No surprise at all.

Because Type 45 ( with it's 80% new equipment, 20% legacy ) now looks as extremely well run project with extremely good bang for buck ratio- compared with Type 26 ( 10% new, 20% re-used, 70% legacy systems ) ...

[donald_of_tokyo]

Partly because many (for me, sometimes unnecessary) requirements were put into T26. T45 does not have mission bay nor automated arsenal for mid-calibre gun. In T45 case, the SeaViper development cost has deadly inflated, while the ship building itself was "so so" (excluding the propulsion issue, on which now RN is paying for).

And again, I DO think RN put too much requirement on the ship (on which I was arguing against many times in these threads), but T26 cost just simply reflects those requirements. They simply amount for what they payed. Note FREMM also do not have anything new onboard (on their armaments).

[seaspear]

I don,t believe you can surmise the costs of the tendered version of the type 26, Fremm or Navantia as the redesign costs to meet those needs have not been publicised anywhere .

[Aethulwulf]

Cost is not likely to be an overriding factor in the Australian or Canadian decisions. All the ships will have been adapted to meet the same national requirements, which means that all the ships will be very similar in size and capabilities. And all the ships will be built in same yards with the same workforce (Australian or Canadian). The costs are going to be very similar.

The T26 might cost slightly more than other designs, due to some areas of greater capability (e.g. multi mission bay and it's impact on ship air con needs, full automation of main gun, etc). But the overall, costs are not going to be radically different.

Given the similar costs and capabilities, the main drivers to the decision are likely to be other factors such as percentage of local involvement in the manufacture and supply chain, IPP rights, etc.

Australian and Canadian military procurement can be just as complicated and subject to political interests as in the UK, if not more so. I would not like to predict the outcome of either competition.

[SKB]

T26 news only please. Discussion & criticisms should go to the Future Escorts thread.
https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=701