Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Foreign Shipbuilders

Yet another data point for those who believe that foreign shipbuilders produce better, faster, and cheaper ships.
 
Belgium’s long-running plan to replace its ageing M-class frigates has entered a new and potentially consequential phase. Defence Minister Theo Francken has publicly stated that the joint Dutch-Belgian frigate programme is moving “completely in the wrong direction” on both delivery dates and price …[1]
 
… following a previous extension, recent signals point to further delays of two to three years.[1]

To be clear, this program is in the design phase, not actual construction but design is part of the build and the design costs and schedule delays are real.
 
 
 
________________________________
 
[1]Naval News website, “Belgium Eyes ASWF Alternatives as Damen Timeline and Costs Soar”, Tayfun Ozberk, 21-Jul-2026,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/07/belgium-aswf-frigate-alternatives-damen-delays/
Posted by at
Labels:

34 comments:

  1. SpikedpsychoSeptember 8, 2026 at 6:19 AM

    Yeah in Turkey.
    One is issue of Turkey growing domestic defense sector, eating up most manufacturing resources. Defense pacts which require it to commit significant resources.
    2nd: Turkey's ever growing schit list of internal social political problems, that stem from....
    3rd: Corruption, Ubiquitous in Turkey. Lack of female participation in the workforce slices it's potential capacity to hire engineers and potential workforce is heavily curtailed. Women can weld... sure did Rivet. Banking issues make it essentially impossible to secure loan guarantees for shipyards to put hulls on order. "Hand Shake" and honor businesses don't respond well to corrupt banks and corrupt businesses. Case in point, Who built Israel' Navy?
    - Saar 5: Hungington Ingalls Mississippi
    - Saar 6: Blohm and Voss/ Lurrssen.
    - Submarines; Kruyp.

    Bulk it's navy is outsourced, because their ship industry is essentially Crap and navy wouldn't trust domestic industry to do it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 8, 2026 at 8:06 AM

      I have no idea what point you're trying to make. You start by talking about Turkey then apparently switch to Israel with no obvious connection and finally an unspecified "navy". In addition, your comment borders on politics and sociology which are outside the scope of the blog. I'm considering removing the comment as too confusing. Please offer some clarification if you wish it to remain. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2026 at 10:20 AM

      The issue is Turkish Authorities have launched an investigation into 33 shipyard companies, 2 trade associations, and 1 consultancy firm. belgium turned to Turkey to consolidate those frigates. Damen eyed multiple nations for their production, new information casting these issues in doubt.
      https://www.turkiyetoday.com/region/belgium-turns-to-turkiye-4-eu-states-for-frigates-as-dutch-deal-sours-3224326

      Result, entire industry is in a tailspin 10% decline in orders, 25% reduction labor; to re-coop loss, amortize the finances by raising the price of the ship.

      This wasn't new news, it's maritime industry issues; have been in the news since 2014 and occurs top down.

      https://www.ft.com/content/c1544f0e-a3bd-11e3-88b0-00144feab7de?syn-25a6b1a6=1

      This issue is not so much the danger of outsourcing but focus more on the danger of sub-Contracting and role reliability in trusting a sub-Contractor. EU may/probbaly knew about the corruption but languished it anyway because Turkey so "essential" as NATO partner.

      In reversal of fortune; Israel knew about their own corruption to begin with, hired shipyards they knew would do it right.

      ---------------
      The new frigates means Netherlands/Belgian navies are 140 meters long, Belgium simply lacks suitable drydock capacity to construct vessels long in timely matter without competing economy vessels.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsSeptember 8, 2026 at 5:15 PM

      How is this relevant to the post?

      Delete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2026 at 9:03 AM

    Cost aside, but another data point would be Japan's Mogami class frigate, the first of which was commissioned in April 2022 with the 10th unit commissioned this past June. The 11th unit is due to be commissioned by the end of the year.

    South Korea's Incheon and Daegu class frigates are two other data points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 8, 2026 at 5:05 PM

      What about them? How does it pertain to the post?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2026 at 7:29 PM

      Just that Japan put 9 frigates into service in just over 4 years, which is the faster part.

      Each multi-mission Mogami stealth frigate is capable of 30+ knot speed and is equipped with a 5-in gun, 8 antiship missiles, 16 Mk 41 cells, SeaRAM, and VDS/TASS. All of that would be the better part.

      The Australian version will have 32 Mk 41 cells.

      I can't address cost as there are too many things to consider. But, I have to think the Japanese can do much better than a billion per hull, especially if they're building 20+ hulls.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2026 at 7:32 PM

      And, with the Japanese, there's a greater chance of getting them on time.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2026 at 9:18 AM

    Speaking of Foreign Shipbuilding & Frigates:
    https://news.usni.org/2026/09/01/japanese-south-korean-turkish-warships-under-consideration-for-new-u-s-frigate-competition

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2026 at 5:14 PM

    Issue with new frigates is they are labeled ASW yet what weapons do they yield? According vague specification they only have one underwater weapon, Mk 54 torpedo and torpedo countermeasures torpedo. The mk 54 with a range 9km, however better than depth charges/grenades. If sub is lurking or hiding anti-submarine grenades like Saab ASW 127/600 are acceptable weapon, but it doesn't beat VLASROC. With range 22-28 km. Thats a standoff distance 3x that Mk 54 but the frigate only accommodate 16 VLS cells leaving little to accommodate except arsenal entirely Sea Sparrows for air defense.

    Lockheed 3-cell ExLS launchers, there is space to incorporate them perhaps flush against areas near stack exhaust or against bulkhead outer hull in form geometric blisters or near fore section as it rises past forecastle near bridge tower

    The Visby class corvettes were born neutered, because their delays in construction much their armament was never incorporated during initial commissioning so it took years to arm them. And they were never armed air defense missiles, now they are being upgraded 9 ExLS to accommodate 36 CAMM. With 12 additional cells sufficient to install VLASROC, hypersonic weapons or possibility of ballistic missile defense using naval Patriot. In any case defense in depth, as ships will likely accommodate the upgrades somewhere along the line anyway. The Iran war revealed the Ballistic missile as h horrendous weapon to wield tight nautical confines and North Europe is nothing but tight nautical confines... English channel, Shoals of France, Baltic amd North Sea. Ukraine war revealed you don't need to even have sea naval assets to harass navies and shipping

    ReplyDelete
  5. G2milSeptember 8, 2026 at 6:30 PM

    Here's my unrelated post that may be good topic for a future discussion. What is the US Navy's future plan for the Persian Gulf and IO? I just posted a short video "US Navy Insanity in the Persian Gulf"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39gvquSf3o8

    ReplyDelete
  6. SpikedpsychoSeptember 8, 2026 at 7:53 PM

    Issue ship building is not one domestic or foreign but the concern of drydock capacity but ships even large ones don't need them to be built. Titanic was 50,000 tons and built without drydock but classic slip ways.

    2016 New York City built a new park from scratch sinking 132 piles into the East river for a structure of 2.4 acres, 320 by 320 feet at total cost 260 million and took only 24 months. For billion dollars one could build 10 acre facility with two slip ways and associated scaffolding warehouses for vertical construction and crane rated 300 tons. Largest modular assemblies for Burke under construction are between 400-500 tons, for frigate likely less.

    Drydocks are necessary for inspection & maintenance of large vessels but not really their construction so solutions of innovation to build navy ships without need to occupy drydock capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob NageleSeptember 8, 2026 at 11:04 PM

    "To be clear, this program is in the design phase, not actual construction but design is part of the build and the design costs and schedule delays are real."

    Well, at least they didn't start building them while the design is going on, so there's that ....

    ReplyDelete
  8. BA 1959September 9, 2026 at 9:25 AM

    Seems like it raises the question about why it seems like a number of countries can't design a navy ship with any schedule rigor. So the next question to answer is what countries can, and how do they behave that is different and allowing them to do so? We're in the first category, why can't we try and learn from the second category?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 9, 2026 at 2:09 PM

      Excpet, we used to be in the second category. We laid down and commissioned 55 Perry class frigates (4 of which were for Australia) in less than 15 years. Granted ships today have more sophisticated electronics, but we can and need to do better.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsSeptember 9, 2026 at 2:28 PM

      "why it seems like a number of countries can't design a navy ship with any schedule rigor."

      You ask a very good question. What factor(s) do failed shipbuilding programs have in common? Why do they fail across so many countries? While we lack the intimate knowledge of foreign programs, I'll attempt to offer one factor that I've observed repeatedly and that is, "too many cooks in the kitchen", meaning, too many countries, organizations, and influences attempt to modify the original intent/design. For instance, in the example from this post, the program was a joint Dutch-Belgian venture. It's inevitable that as the program evolves, the competing influences, each with their own agenda, will warp the program in myriad, conflicting directions and costs will skyrocket as designers attempt to incorporate and reconcile the conflicting requirements. When was the last multi-national ship or aircraft that was a success? I'm hard pressed to name even one example. No one seems willing to set forth an initial design and LEAVE IT ALONE! The US certainly can't and neither can most other countries, so it would seem.

      Again, while I have no actual data, it would seem that Japan, China and, perhaps, SKorea may be the best because they have the least outside influences (Europe seems to want every military program to be multi-national in a misguided belief that will magically decrease costs when, in reality, it does the opposite!). Alternatively, Japan, China, and SKorea may just be the best at suppressing negative information about their shipbuilding programs!

      Here in the US, when we start with an initial design and leave it alone, we are hugely successful. Unfortunately, it is only the commercial side of shipbuilding that does this but they are hugely successful doing so. As best I can tell, our merchant ship programs are affordable, on time, and on budget. There's a lesson there but the Navy doesn't want to hear it.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsSeptember 9, 2026 at 2:30 PM

      "we can and need to do better."

      You're stating the obvious. Now, give us something useful. Tell us how you would accomplish this.

      Anyone can describe the problem and the idealized goal but what specific actions would you suggest to achieve that goal? Give me an informative, quality comment!

      Delete
  9. AnonymousSeptember 9, 2026 at 8:20 PM

    Biggest issue contemporary warships rise electronics. Sure been around years, but modern radars and sensors namely phased array and high power bandwidth namely AEGIS and Sampson and sheer demand computing. A one Megawatt generator uses 55-70 gallons of fuel per hour the Flight III+ will use max 12 MW. No frigate can support that so it's gonna be lower power or larger frigate. Fuel alone is 10% ships total mass.
    While some gawk the idea return of nuclear propulsion, compacted modular generators could potentially accommodate their electrical needs.
    The Army project for reactors from competitive contractors.

    We built 71 Perry frigates but they were half weight contemporary "frigates" on the drawing board.

    But Perry success story stemmed from amortization which I spoke about. Build a lot, justifies steel makers who'll throw in extra steel for another ship. Congress puts its foot down, says we need 50 these you're gonna build them what we agree to pay you.

    Perry living success story, 40 missiles, bow sonar, 30 knot performance.
    Combat record for resilience. One took 2 anti-ship missiles and stayed afloat, other hit a mine staying afloat. Or design brought multiple yards bonus to whoever build them the quickest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 10, 2026 at 8:10 AM

      "No frigate can support that"

      You could equally say that no frigate can support a 16" gun or an aircraft carrier flight deck. The point is that those are not the job of a frigate. No frigate should be spec'ed for large, complex radar systems. That's the job of an area air defense ship not a frigate. A frigate only needs horizon (medium to local) range air defense and a radar like a TRS-3D/4D is sufficient. Thus, your point is inapplicable and irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2026 at 5:07 AM

      There is an argument that a multi face AESA radar is the cost of business in an era where we can expect multi axis attacks from ASBMs and ASCMs.

      On the other hand, frigates are suposed to be expendable...

      Delete
  10. AnonymousSeptember 10, 2026 at 2:46 AM

    "When was the last multi-national ship or aircraft that was a success?". I would suggest Harrier II would be a contender?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 10, 2026 at 7:40 AM

      The Harrier II was not a new acquisition program. It was the original Harrier with a new engine. Even so, that dates back to 1980 which proves the point!

      Delete
  11. AnonymousSeptember 10, 2026 at 7:46 AM

    Re: China, Japan and S. Korea, I think an obvious point is that they clearly have higher levels of motivation. How do you quantify "taking threats seriously"? Japan is an island nation whose neighbors have very long memories. China's power is an obvious threat. They need to take their navy seriously. South Korea has North Korea and China.

    And obviously China has ambitions on Taiwan which requires naval strength.

    All of this high level "seriousness" translates into well armed-ships that fill defined, necessary, and complementary roles.

    Not coincidentally, since the Japanese and South Korean roles and resulting ships are also geared toward facing China, they aren't completely dissimilar to the ships we need to build.

    Next, from a security perspective, Japan (especially) but also ROK generally take security quite seriously and are not on good terms with China. This makes the odds of widespread infiltration of shipyards or design bureaus perhaps lower than in other countries (I'd inflammatorily wager Japanese defense is more secure from Chinese espionage than the US defense sector).

    Finally, we already share more naval design and technology with Japan and South Korea than with anyone else. Their ships are already built to relatively similar standards, using many of the same sensors and weapon systems.

    Put it all together, and it seems pretty obvious to me that if foreign collaboration / construction is going to work, these are far and away the best candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 10, 2026 at 8:26 AM

      "they clearly have higher levels of motivation."

      Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel have the highest levels of motivation in the world. The US is actively engaged in a war and a global war on terror so it's hard to imagine a higher level of motivation. Japan and SKorea have obvious high levels of motivation, as you note. China is highly motivated for reasons other than direct threat. Europe has an irrational fear of Russia and each other and should be highly motivated. In short, most of the entire world is highly motivated! That alone does not guarantee successful acquisition programs but focus does. Now, if motivation helps sharpen focus then that's great but motivation alone does not guarantee focus.

      Even focus, alone, does not guarantee success. For example, during the height of the Cold War, the US was highly motivated and focused but we were focused on the wrong things. We abandoned armor, large caliber naval guns, a balanced mix of ship types, and pursued the badly compromised F-18 Hornet among other failings. Motivated, focused ... and wrong.

      All that said, I agree that Japan (first choice) and SKorea (distant second choice) would be candidates for foreign construction of warships. SKorea would be a great choice for non-combat logistic and support ships where security is not a concern.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 10, 2026 at 8:55 AM

      JP and SK have proven track records with their construction, but it's worth noting that their shipyards are subsidised by the government, and they're spreading out their construction over multiple yards. The Fincanteri shipyard in America right now is working on more tonnage in one yard than Japan's multiple navy shipyards are building.

      More to the point, designs are never going to progress fast becuase the Navy cannot leave well enough alone and will want to incorporate changes. For example, one of the delays in the Constellation construction is due to relocating of the electrical circuit breaker relays. In the Italian FREMM design, the electrical relays are separated in different compartments, the rationale being that a single catastrophic hit cannot take out the electrical system. The USN required that the electrical relays be relocated to the engine room, because their argument is that by concentrating the electricals, you minimise the vulnerable area of the ship where a hit can damage the electrical system. (An overreaction to South Dakota's crippling electrical hit vs Kirishima, in my opinion.)

      Delete
    3. BA 1959September 10, 2026 at 1:57 PM

      This all begs the question as to why all this can't be figured out quickly, designed in and then built without further changes? Make the change on the next boat if it's important The digital tools available now can be vastly more efficient in 3D compared to 2D drawing sheets from years ago..

      Delete
  12. AnonymousSeptember 11, 2026 at 7:48 AM

    Note that the Japan (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) can manufacture naval ships at speed as can South Korea, the original Mogami launched March '21 and the final, the 12th to the original 5,500 ton design Dec. '25, with commissioning expected Mar. '27 for less than $400 million before moving on to the new extended 6,200 ton Mogami class as also sold to Australia with the first two ships expected to launch in '27.

    NavalNews has a recent article suggesting that MHI might not want to build Mogami's for USN as too many problems in US shipyards and additionally presumably with NAVSEA after the disaster they caused with Constellation.
    https://www.navalnews.com/features/2026/09/japan-industry-pulling-back-us-navy-frigate-plan/
    Nick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 11, 2026 at 8:28 PM

      Yeah note in Japan average shipyard worker earns 1730 yen aka $11.60 an hour.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsSeptember 12, 2026 at 6:34 PM

      "Japan average shipyard worker earns 1730 yen aka $11.60 an hour."

      I have no idea whether that's true but, regardless, the question is what does the salary buy? In other words, what is the cost of living relative to salaries? If it only costs a penny to buy a loaf of bread then a dollar is a lot of money. Again, I have no idea.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2026 at 5:51 PM

      Japan is generally cheaper than the United States by about 30%, especially for rent, healthcare, dining out, mobile service, and public transportation.
      The gap depends heavily on the cities compared: Tokyo is expensive by Japanese standards but still much cheaper than eg New York.
      Rents are much lower but apartments are much smaller, so it’s hard to get an exact comparison.

      Delete
  13. AnonymousSeptember 12, 2026 at 3:03 AM

    What reason for delays, Damen also been contracted in short discussion for US Navy LST program. permitting the amphibious transport capacity the Marines actually need, of course neither marines even have the tanks/vehicles anymore to even project that power. Never less Damen seems more concerned the US will buy the LST than Belgium buying just 4 frigates. But if the deal is cancelled, Damen huge financial loss, hence why frigate program is recoup investment aspect.

    https://www.zona-militar.com/en/2025/12/13/the-u-s-navy-selected-damens-lst-100-design-as-the-basis-for-its-future-landing-ships/

    ReplyDelete
  14. SpikedpsychoSeptember 12, 2026 at 11:28 AM

    Connie failure wasn't issue of shipbuilder location, well sorta... but main issue is what the navy spun it's head. thinking about.

    We're in the speculation thread, so feel free to speculate.

    I'll make up a point value to each kind of weapon system to assess the relative complexity and cost of integration. A frigate can't have everything, so certain tradeoffs will need to be made.

    Guns
    0: no gun
    1: 35mm Millennium gun
    2: 57 mm
    3: 76mm gun
    4: 5" Mk 45
    5: 32 MJ railgun

    Air Defense
    1: Self defense (RAM/CIWS)
    2: Combat system for ESSM
    4: Area air defense with SPY6V3
    5: Upgrade to point BMD with SM-6 or PAC-3
    7: Burke type Aegis BMD capability with SPY-6V4 and SM-3
    8: Burke Flight III with SPY-6V1
    10: 69 RMA SPY-6

    Aviation:
    0: no facilities
    2: flight deck
    4: hangar for 1 helo
    5: hangars for 2 helos

    Surface Warfare:
    0: no AShMs/LACMs
    1: Harpoon/NSM quad launchers
    2: Extra VLS capacity for Tomahawk/SM-6
    8: CPS tubes

    Anti-Submarine Warfare:
    0: Nixie
    2: Hull mounted sonar + torps + VLA
    3: Towed array (TB-37 MFTA)
    4: Towed array + VDS (or something like CAPTAS-4)

    You could add scores for things like boat or multirole storage and shit; that add structural complexity or combat/EW/C2 systems that add cost.

    The Constellation class had a score of 14. A Burke Flight II has a score of 19. A Legend class has a score of 7. A BBG probably has a score of 28. They don't scale exactly with cost, so maybe every 16 Mk 41 cells should add a point.

    Essentially, I see space for two frigates, an FFX with a score around 10 and an FFGX with a score around 15.
    FFX
    - 57 mm gun
    - ESSMs
    - Hangar for 1 helo
    - Harpoon/NSM
    - HMS + torps
    - VL-ASROC, which only aspect matters for essential use against subs with better standoff distance.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)