As we thought might happen, yet more MoD contracts have been placed.
In addition to a concrete order for the fifth Astute class and long lead time items for the sixth the MoD has placed a £126 million order with BAe Surface Ships for the 4 year design and assessment phase for the proposed Type 26 Frigate.
The single type will replace both the Type 23′s and Type 22′s in service.
First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, said:
These programme announcements are welcome news for the Royal Navy. You simply cannot have an effective Navy without capable frigates, and the Type 26 combat ship will form the future backbone of the Royal Navy’s surface combatant force, alongside the new Type 45 destroyers.
These ships will be highly versatile, able to operate across the full spectrum of operations, from war-fighting to disaster relief.
The Astute Class submarine gives us a real edge, exploiting stealth and covert presence to offer enormous utility across a wide range of military tasks, everything from anti-submarine warfare, through intelligence-gathering, to striking targets far inland.
The key design aims for the Type 26 are for a ship that is:
- Versatile – able to undertake a number of roles
- Flexible – to adapt to the changing needs of defence
- Affordable – both in build and support through its service life
- Exportable – designed with the international market in mind
So it looks like the Future Surface Combatant vision with two classes of vessel, the C1 and C2 has been consigned to the round filing cabinet.
Interestingly, one of the key design aims is exportability, is this a straight lift from the programme ‘tests’ as described by Liam Fox and the Conservative Defence and Security Policy?
A quick look at the artists impressions shows 3 Phalanx, a 155mm main gun, Harpoon, large hangar and flight deck with a vertical launch cell installation afte of the main gun.
In other ‘splash the cash’ news, Babcock has been awarded a £1.2 billion order for submarine support, maintenance and decommissioning.
First thoughts… pile of SH1T yet again just one set of vertical launchers, loosk very similar to the type 23. Why they need 4 years to design this pile of crap is beyond me. The have the F5 all ready to go…
could build a version of Absalon now, bith would seem to be far more capable then this Turkey…
load of bollox…. breath breath…
Erm, arent Frigates ASW craft?
Isnt it missing ASW equipment?
Ita hardly brilliant, but if its launched with long range cruise missiles, harpoon missiles, short range air capability and ASW capability, it’ll be a step chsnge over the T23
I disagree with your point on C2. It is supposed to come later (always the plan). The BBC article specifically states that the T26 GP (C2) is still in the planning stages.
Odd to see 3 CIWS systems though, suppose it will give better all round protection. The articles i’ve read all seem to suggest more emphasis on land attack than before, with one even putting it ahead of ASW functions (it is more important than ASW at present) so i’d be surprised if we didn’t see Tomahawk or SCALP-N aboard. The VLS won’t have to be that big to hold a decent content of LACMs and CAAM (quad packed).
The space and size seems to lend itself to upgrades and additional weapons and with those options available, more export prospects.
@Phil: Would you care to point out why you have condemned the ship so thoroughly?
@Dominic: The TAS and bow sonar (and helo) that are the major ASW equipment would not be visible in these images, but it looks like a rear door is present for TAS. Not sure if/where torpedoes have been included though.
One final interesting point: They have still (stupidly IMHO) included a mini hangar for a VTOL UAV. They really should have just expanded the main hangar to allow for 2 helos (Merlin and Wildcat methinks or a VTOL UAV if necessary) to allow greatest flexibility. It does however confer that the RN intends to buy a VTOL UAV in the not to distant future…I wonder when/what will happen with that.
Grim – are you saying this is the C1 and there is still a planned C1 / C2 mix – even if based on same hull ? As I am not in UK I have not seen the BBC report.
DominicJ – how on earth is this a step change over the Type 23 ? Only difference in the spec appears to be land attack missiles (which you mention, but I dont see anywhere in the artists impressions) – otherwise its the same, but more modern:
* towed array,
* 1 x Merlin,
* 1 x medium gun,
* VL short range AD missile (swap SeaWolf for CAAM)
So as it appears to use the same radar as being applied to T23 upgrade (ARTEMIS) and will probably use the state of the art towed array (T2087) taken from the T23, this is not ‘step change’ over anything
Grim I dont think there are 3 x Phalanx – it just that the after mount is on the stbd after corner of the hanger. The VLS would not have to be that big, but I thought CAAM was being designed for SLYVER launchers and the TACTOM requires a ‘strike length’ MK41 VLS – so we either need multiple types of launcher, or a move to the SCALP-N. I don’t see a need for either, that’s where stealthy subs come in. It would be nice to have a decent battery of 16 x NSM3 instead of 8 x old Harpoons though…..
If we could get 16 of these to replace 4 x T22 BIII and 13 x T23 then that would be great (with 6 x T45 that would still give a massively reduced force from the 32 we were supposed to have according to last SDR) – but if we hold our breaths over the next 4 years, don’t buy any more sub-prime debt etc, we might get 8 of these…..
Actually there is clearly only 2 Phalanx ciws. These will be the new upgraded version. BAE or BVT exhibited a C1 design at DSE&I (shown on Jane’s) last year which had a transparent stern showing a mission deck with a large rear stern access with two doors and no ramp visible. Beside this was a higher small access opening with again the two vertically hinged doors. The design rendered in these 2 recent type 26 “concept” pics will have a complete exterior designed in cgi. I’m sure the design has a rear stern access as is considered important in new multi-mission frigate designs (the LCS’s1 and 2, absalon and I have seen a few other individual program designs as well that I can’t remember). Defensenews.com (a top news website) gives it’s own knowledge on the project in it’s report on this development and not just a press release. It reliably states in it’s report on this (25/3/10) “Part of the Future Surface Combatant program, the Type 26s will be used primarily to ward off submarines and support land warfare. Expected to displace around 6,000 tons, the warship may carry vertically launched precision strike and anti-air missiles, and include a mission bay on the stern to launch small boats, unmanned vehicles and special forces.
A second element of the FSC program, a general-purpose warship, is in the concept planning stage.
Last month, an MoD official said the ministry was holding talks with Australia and New Zealand about cooperating on the FSC program.”
The frigate appears to have aperture arrays like aegis etc… on it’s main mast which have been in development I believe at least from last year. The new main gun design is new in the media and must be BAE’s preliminary design for a 155mm gun, which will use extended range munitions and probably even more advanced munitions. The MOD say on 25/3/10 “The ship will provide support for land operations as well as undertaking other key tasks such as anti-submarine warfare…to have cutting-edge capability but also sustain the industry that supports them.” First Sea Sord Adm. Stanhope also says “These ships will be highly versatile, able to operate across the full spectrum of operations, from war-fighting to disaster relief…the future backbone (of the navy)”
BBC says “the Ministry of Defence refers to it as a “combat ship” because it will be expected to be more flexible than its predecessors…new ‘naval workhorse’…In addition to being used in anti-submarine warfare, the Type 26 will be expected to provide support for land operations, carry out surveillance, intelligence, counter-terrorism and piracy operations and help with disaster relief and humanitarian aid projects.” BAE says “Type 26 is the first of two classes of ships to be built under the Future Surface Combatant programme, delivering enhanced anti-submarine warfare capability and enabling a more agile response to a wide range of threats and emergency situations. Both variants will be developed with their potential for export factored into the design from the outset, with the aim of securing overseas orders to spread non-recurring costs and reduce the cost per ship to deliver better value for the MOD and UK taxpayers. This approach will also provide a platform to showcase the capability within the UK maritime supply chain, helping to secure the UK’s long-term future at the forefront of the global maritime industry.” So I believe it will be an excellent design and nobady can criticise them at all at this point. There are advantages and disadvantages to every design element and you can’t really criticise unless you are a naval architect or work for the MOD, DOD etc… Everything stated by the MOD and BAE is trustworthy on this project. The Harpoon system is currently being upgraded, as is the phalanx, the thales sonar on rn frigates. The fire (sea)scout uav that is proposed for the t26 I think has just been deployed operationally. It is very important we export some major defence equipment, especially like the t26. Please can you all research subjects before posting strong comments as everyone on defence blogs does. My sources Janes, BAE, MOD, Defense-news.com, BBC. The mod press release can be found as a report on many websites.
Jed I agree chances are we will only be getting about 8 of these to replace the 13 Type 23’s and 4 Type 22 Block 3’s depending on what the plans for C2 are. I think 16 of them would be about ideal backed up by a dozen C2 vessels add to that the 6 Type 45’s for a grand total of 34 hulls which would be decent. However with the MoD etc saying this ship will be the backbone of the future navy, calling it a combat ship and saying it will be more flexible that gives me a sneaking suspicion that the C2 has been dropped. Essentially sticking to a single destroyer and frigate type as we have now and at the end of the day who is really going to notice or question them if the C2 disappears nobody that really matters that’s who. Only problem I can see with a future fleet is the weak area AAW cover with only 6 Type 45’s and essentially half baked carriers with questionable, in the medium term at least, air groups. Looks like we would either need to get the majority of the T45’s together somehow to provide adequate AAW cover for anything big. Either that or rely on Uncle Sam or some friendly European ally to help cover our backsides which would be ok sometimes during multinational op’s but then the US could provide a carrier.
At the end of the day however this is only the beginning of the design phase and its small change compared to what the MoD spends on things and compared to the sub support contract signed with Babcock. I wonder how much of a good deal that was and what the next government if they are Tories will think of it when they are trying to deal with the mess of contracts and commitments. Anyhow nice one Labour nicking Tory policy and ideas across the board just before an election and trying to deny it when questioned well sorry we are not all stupid you know
More for those not read-up on naval news. It will probably have aster missles maybe mostly aster 15 the shorter range missile. Tomahawk sized and ready missile silo tubes like the t45 does actually have. Towed sonay array, bow sonar, side hull mounted sonar arrays. Type 45 like fully integrated electric propulsion and power generation. Probably 2 gas turbine connected to 2 electric motors/generators like the innovative advanced t45 design (look it up). Maybe the same advanced gas turbines on the t45. 2 diesel generators. Two shafts, or potentially more advanced(i think)systems like a counter rotating propeller system, or water jet hybrid system, or electric (not mechanical) podded propulsor/s. RN ships haven’t had bow thrusters (Bay class have some manoeuvring system) or auxiliary retractable propellers systems, so it’s likely the t26 won’t. I think the rn mostly uses tugs and technique. There’s not side hull engine exhaust near or below the waterline like the lcs1 and 2, and the new south african german meko frigates and others. These systems reduce infra red emissions, and increase room on the top deck. It doesn’t look like the rn want one of the new small-ish automated weapon systems for assymetric surface threats and will rely on the phalanax with it’s new upgrade designed for this. Maybe a better 20mm/30mm gun than the two mounted on the t45 is envisaged. I believe the t26 from pics, rn and naval development will be able to launch a (bigger than rib) insertion/fast interceptor boat. I don’t think the rn has an unmanned surface system envisaged for early 2020s, I’ve heard nothing. The t45 can operate chinooks and the t45 hull based derivative, the t26, with it’s “large flightdeck” will as well. The chinooks will be likely be used at sea during some ops in the future. On a side note what happened to naval apache ops, just the hms ocean exercise has happened so far that I know of. I hope the t26 carries 2 uavs for ops like those off somalia at the moment. One fixed wing and the rotary sea scout. When will the QE class aircraft carriers use uavs, we haven’t heard anything significant on this. I think i’ve seen a video with a small fixed wing uav launched via the ski-ramp, a recovery net will proabaly be used for fixed wing uavs as the us navy is doing. The QE class should definitely be samller probably 45,000 tons would have been ideal, with perhaps a third one commissioned in the 2020s to replace HMS Ocean, with it’s landing craft capacity. Or maybe there will be no direct ocean, but if there is, my plan stated above would be ideal. A smaller QE that was the basis for a new french cv, would have made the french more likely to proceed with their carrier, and one of the two or a derivative could be exported. The QEs are one of the major mod mistakes of recent.
On the t45: it has a huge number of showers, sinks and toilets. It’s hanger is probably too small for good future uav ops. No exportability has been created from it’s project for the uk shipbuilding and defence industry. It’s probably slightly too big. The paams has to be sorted out asap for it’s future potential exports and for the t45 to have it’s main weapon system. As we know the t45 has very little capability at the moment without it. Perhaps if the mod went with smaller QEs, it could purchase some of the non-jump jet f35a fighters(more range and payload)solely for the raf which could be purchased in the future, as we don’t need loads of f35 this decade. For the anti-piracy ops we need uavs, air assets, more suitable surfce vessels. Hundrends of millions going on infantry equipment, more sharpshooter rifles, unmanned systems, better and advanced tech etc.. there are so many things we could buy now and develop for land ops, to save our lives, the locals, money etc… Those carriers seem to be the main over-expense to me, but the admirals and the government believe that their international political influence is very important. Some people at the top think they’re vital, but many many people do not follow that. Procurement should have been focused on Afghanistan and helping the uk industries, reducing job losses, increasing manned strength numbers, not opening more recritment offices. You all have heard of the personnel leaving the mod, many of them should retrain, our serviceman are adaptable, servicemen move through loads of different job areas. Basically the army should get much more money, the royal navy much less, more helicopters, no challenger replacement- maybe minor updates, improve personel health- food enormously. Less labour style management departmental change that has been reported to have had no discernibel benefit to the country. Extend the astute subs build time to preserve jobs and the industry. More surface ships and less subs. High sea state capable OPV corvette for anti-piracy. Reduce the salary divide. Reduce personnel leaving the mod due to low morale etc…
I stand corrected.
I didnt realise the T22/3 had harpoon launchers.
So, yeah, it does just look like an upgrade to the T23.
Is that such a bad thing?
Obviously it could be better, but a ship with a very good ASW system, reasonable anti shipping capability, ok AAW capability isnt that bad.
I’d prefer its naval gunfire support role was met with, or at least support by, a long range missile system, but since the first ships are a decade away from starting construction, let alone in service…
Anyway, theres some good news, the 5th Astute was ordered.
Grim, those were my first thoughts. I hope I am wrong and when the details emerges it will have a whole plethora of weapons. However I doubt it…
To me it looks very similar to the T23, with a T45 type make-over (angling of surfaces). Phalanx is really not up to the job. There is no real littoral protection and as I said it seems to have (just like the T45) all its weapon eggs in one basket). Its utter folly to only have one VL system. One direct hit ans you have lost all your capability. It does not appear to have the Samson radar (its not clear if it will have a lower cost equivalent, which think migh be called Zephyr or something).
JWaller, you say that the T45 silo’s can take Tomahawk!! How, the T45 has the base standard Sylver A50 launcher, which will NoT take tomahawk. Are you saying that have fitted A70 or the Mk41?
Part of my anger was the supposition from Admin that this was it (i.e. C1/C2 and C3) in which case this ship needed to be the Dogs’ and it clearly isn’t.
As I say I hope I am wrong , but the signs are not good. Also why the fcuk (apart from delaying tactics) do we need 4 years to design???
Not being a Naval expert I’m not going to comment on the technical aspects of the Type-26 but I will say this..
If the RN wants sufficient surface platforms to remain an effective force (and I believe they must get as close to thirty as possible) Then the Type-26 is going to have to be as cheap as hell to start with. All but basic functionality must be sacrificed in order to get as many hulls as the MOD can afford into the water and the design must be such that MOD can retrofit what is actually needed into them quickly and easily later
An exquisite solution must not be option
c you don’t have to be a Navy expert to see that a given ship is not carrying enough weapons. This has always been a problem with British ships. They seem to spend a fortune on the hulls and the accomodation (for cocktail paties and the like) but carry bugger all in the way of weapons. Christ there are some very small Russion fast attack craft that pack more of a punch than our Frigates and Destroyers.
The T42 had a 4.5″ guns and a twin SeaDart launcher, plus a couple of WW2 20mm cannons. No medium range missile, no short-range missile and no CIWS. It was utter crap.
The T23 (built to include the lesson (re-learnt) from the Falklands, had no long range or medium range missiles. It has 32 Sea Wolf (range about 5km!!!) no inner-layer missile defence, no CIWS. The pratice of having ships that only carry one type of missile is IMHO mad.
What that means is that you are always reliant on other ships to defend you. Now I know the principle of a layered defence but deliberately leaving ships devoid of key capabilities just does not make sense. The US have the best layered defence of any Navy, but they still equip their ships with a range of weapons systems.
The T26 should have a long range air defence weapon (Aster 15 or CAMM i.e. range circa 20km) and inner-layer missile system (aka SeaRAM range 7/8km plus a CIWS for last ditch defence (personally I think 20mm is too small) and would like to see the RN adopt one of the newer and more capable CIWS, maybe even developing the CTA40mm weapon. You also need a system for defending the ship in the Littoral environment, the SeaRam and CIWS CAN do this but its not good priactice to combine the two as they cannot do two things at once and you could find that you don’t have the use of the weapon for a particular role as its already being deployed in another.
The ship should also have (dependinf on its role) either an anti-ship and/or land attack capability. The Konsberg NSM being an excellent weapon that can do both I believe. I would like to see a couple of triple torpedo launchers. Other optional kit would include large gun for shore bombardment, and long range air defence (ASter 30) if needed for role. It will of course need good tracking and targeting systems, EW kit, on-boared and off-board jammers and decoys and of course a large hanger for 2 Merlin size helecopters/UAVs etc.
From what I see the T26 will be devoid of most of that, but it will have very nice accomodation with Plasma screens Ipod docks and Internet. The Officers accomdation will have lots of wood venner and enough storage for Gin & Tonic and Pimms!!!
being n ex pongo i’m out of my depth here, however in relation to phils point on the ammount of weaponary i’m sure that one of the key points that has come back from sea trials of the US LCS1 is although it’s faster than greased weasel poo and can turn on a sixpence (it outran a cocaine smugglers speeboat!!!) it has not got enough in it’s arsenal. still looks an awesome ship (he says waiting to be proved wrong,hey i’m a pongo) why can’t we save money and borrow heavily on the design?
One word: ridiculous.
- where is the VLS on this baby. Is that the small bog on the forecastle?
- why 6,000 ts? It’s in no way better equipped than a Type 23, when eqipped with Artisan and CAMM; so why the hell has the Type 23-line been closed? Did BAe Systems and predecessors ever try to find a market for new, uparmed Type 23s?
- the +2,000 ts compared to Type 23 will surely lead to a price tag of around £500 million; the Type 23 costs where £170 million per unit.
- Still no modularity. The Danes fit their ESSMs and Harpoons in STANFLEX-containers, Type 26 will have a fixed mounting for Harpoon and a converted toilet for CAMM.
- what about this huge wasted space between hangar and funnel?
- still just a 25-year lifespan. Means: at 1 ship per year the escort fleet will never exceed 25 ships.
- who on earth should buy this ship apart from the RN?
I bet all my money, to “save cash” the Tories will most likely cancel the small programs, which are making the most sense, since Labour has left them no choice. Under that category falls CAMM…
The t26 will be far superior to the t23 and t22.
You guys can’t be so critical, at least come up with specific systems or design elements that would improve the what we know of the t26 being envisaged.
A new advanced anti-surface/ship missile for helos was signed into development last september betweeen us and the french. This is going to meet the UK’s Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) requirement and will be fitted to the NH90 and the Lynx Wildcat.
I know don’t whether the merlin will ever be fitted with it.
Current naval systems are being upgraded ie. the harpoon, phalanx, bow sonar and I’m sure there’s some more.
Ship ground attack/shore support will probably only initialy be met by the new advanced main gun. The NLOS (non-line of sight) missile system being developed by the US for littoral (LCSs) and ground ops is not doing at all well at the moment.
I think the NLOS is the type of missile ground support system that will be suitable for naval ships.
The harpoon and aster can be used for ground attack.
So I’m guessing that some of you think we need to develop a smaller than tomahawk ground attack missile.
Ideally if the t45s were operational and fully equipped and more were being built then the frigate/destroyer would’nt need a new class before 2020, the four year of design for the t26 would be fine.
The large size is really good: big range to get to the falklands and further, ship equipment growth, better for maintenance, better survivability really, better comfort, better sea-keeping, better for littoral ops, disaster relief, humanitarian ops etc… tonnage for unmanned system ops.
The t26 will be a good ship, let’s hope BAE can export it and get an upper hand on the Germans, French, Italians and less so, other emerging naval shipbuilders with potential for export.
Using the t45 hull base with will mean the ship won’t ever have top weight problems and have good stealth. Maybe more than one uav, an unmanned surace system, something other than just shaft-driven props and below or near the waterline engine exhausts could be good. We do have a habit of trying to give BAE and our defence industry loads of money with new advanced original designs to produce, but this is money going mostly into the UK (most being taxable by the government).
The top brass have cocked enormously with procurement, this enormous legacy cripples our country today. The t26′s value depends on the t45, whether the t45 will get tomahawks, harpoons, phalanx, unmanned sytems, a new main gun in the future and other potential equipment.
If the t26 (FSC C1) is going to have the above systems, then what will the supposedly better armed C2 be like.
And will these two do any mine, survey, amphibious assault ops and carry mechanised ground hardware. What will be the marine, soldier element for shore offensive ops. Will there be a kind of core crew like the LCSs have. Can they take modular medical and humanitarian facilities.
The 30mm goalkeeper ciws is going to be upgraded by the dutch, so maybe it could be a potential item.
No 3D air search radar, like the new uncommissioned danish absalon frigate derivative, and the unbuilt German big F125 frigate will have. I think the new QE aircraft carriers compromise our military budget so much, I really dislike their size. So if the t26 had a 3D air search radar it will probably be the best “combat” frigate in the world if commissioned in 2020/1. Better than it’s capability rival the F125, which will probably be commissioned in 2018/9. The Arleigh Burke US aegis destroyer is an excellent well armed vessel, which will continue to be built into the middle of this decade. It’s tonnage is not much more than the t45, it’s a much better ship.
Let’s mostly blame the labour government for our country’s current mess, then our politicians , then other top influential people and less so all the way down to ourselves. we’re in such a mess.
J Waller you post some nice long comments containing some fair points but there are lots of holes in your arguments and other point that I simply cannot agree with and the odd point is just plain wrong. I would also add you comment structure either contains no paragraphs and spaces up to a bit too many such as this last comment anyhow Welcome to the Blog sorry to be a grumpy sod.
The T26 will be superior to the T22/T23 yes of course it will new ships are always generally better than their predecessors but the T26 will mostly comparable to an updated T23 so not really that much better. The T23 at the end of its life with all the currently scheduled updates will be I would guess 90% as capable as this new vessel of course scheduled updates are more than likely going to be cancelled or changed. We would actually at this point be better simply taking the existing T23 design and updating it with the equipment already destined to be retrofitted to the original T23 which should be easy enough. The harder part would be changing propulsion equipment as that could involve structural redesign which is where risk would really be new however the current CODLAG is proven so could be updated. Other changes would mostly be cosmetic for instance adding additional stealth features to the superstructure or updating accommodation which might be done on T23 updates. Most of the risk of an updated Type 23 will be mitigated as the original Type 23’s are updated and given all the latest technology and modifications that are needed for them to remain in service. The last Type 23 HMS St Albans was launched in 2000 and commissioned in 2002 so it’s been 10 years so far so there should still be people around from when she was built and the design will be computerised. Add to this the experience of updating, maintaining and operating the Type 23 fleet it should easily be possible to start building new Type 23’s with lessons learned from the original and without a huge learning curve. I would also add that HMS St Albans supposedly cost around £107 Million so I don’t think it would be unreasonable for BAE to be able to build them for under £250 Million at today’s prices.
I agree with the comments detracting from the design in the images from the MoD we may be extremely critical but our points are real not imaginary so they cannot be so easily dismissed. However I do accept that this is just a roughish design that BAE etc have been working on similar to what was shown at DSEi 2009 and that the serious design work is only really going to begin now that a formal contract has been signed. What I have seen so far isn’t really filling me with hope that we will have a ‘world beating’* well armed high end capable frigate for the likely challenges that we are likely to see. The whole exportable frigate design point I think is pretty much bullshit, I’m sorry but I think our chances on the export market are extremely narrow, I may be wrong but I didn’t say it’s impossible. We are likely to end up with another Type 45 mess a ship that when compared to its peer’s leaves much to be desired but of course miracles can happen but they are bloody unlikely at least for a while.
Anyhow I’ve said enough and possibly annoyed our new commenter so I’ll shut up for now.
*‘World Beating’ well that sounds like a phrase from Bullshit bingo as admin put it.
JWaller
**Waves**
Hello
“So I’m guessing that some of you think we need to develop a smaller than tomahawk ground attack missile.”
I actually want a couple of T45 hulls stripped down to carry nothing but Tomahawks.
I just don’t believe a Carrier Battle Group could possibly protect itself from 400 incoming long range cruise missiles, which could easily be fired by ships costing less than the carrier and airgroup, never mind escorts.
Thank you Euan and others for your criticism, I appreciate it. I apologise for my shoddy posts, I was really rushing when I typed and posted them.
I think that perhaps you haven’t read all the media reports on the fsc development or maybe you have. BAE’s or BVT’s (sorry I forget when BVT dissolved) C1 design from last september’s DSE&I shows the frigate with a mission deck below the flight deck and a medium sized access and a small access. It appears to be have some permanent equipment taking up goog space and is probably small compared to the LCS’s and absalon mission decks, but still this is an important feature that gives the t26 far more capability than the t23s could have with a big upgrade. The mission deck could well be designed to be capable of operating the new 100mph interceptor boat, or new armoured rib and other modular equipment, I don’t think ISO sized shipping containers though. It will from the MOD descriptions past and recent, and they’re intepretations, be used for insertion craft or boats other than the standard ribs.
The hull will be more advanced and capable than any major t23 update/refit could be. It will very likely have good hull armour/protection in that I mean more so than an updated t23. It will have better sub-systems and internal capability than an updated t23 could have.
Okay, yes I agree with you all, that it needs to carry a good complement of missiles, more than this t26 concept appears capable of. Do you think there should be a bigger VLS silo and/or more VLS groups and deck missile system placements? And also other automated gun and weapon systems, a 3D air search radar, different propulsion, more radars, a hanger capable of operating 2 lynxes, and a high speed hull? Can (any of you) you tell me if you could only pick a couple of the afore-mentioned features what would you choose. What extra missile system that could be developed or taken off the shelf for the t26?
We can’t discontinue with the C1 design development and deceide to produce a european frigate derivative. If we did then a lot of money would go to european countries, they may be involved in manufacture, our shipyards and factories may need some adaption and money spent on them more so than would be required for a BAE t26. Many other things would have to happen. Everyone at the top really realises now that this should be a design with good export potential. Read what they’re all saying and all the recent developments. There will be much much more focus on the t26 having good export potential than there has been for any rn class for many years. If we were better in the past we could’ve have exported some frigates to countries instead of them receiving german meko shipsand others less so, a joint Aus/N.Z. frigate would’ve been great for them and us.
I’m so very frustrated with the oversized QEs and Afghanistan funding more than other things in defence spending. Obviously Afghansitan is the main effort at the moment, so if i criticise that then I criticise everything.
The t45 is a very advanced ship, but is much less capable than but relatively the same cost to produce as the US Arleigh Burkes. So the technology created for the t45 ie. the advanced new gas turbines, advanced propulsion system, and there are many others that the rn hasn’t disclosed, will create a great ship in the t26. I know you will have read a little on the proposed new 155mm guns for the rn and US navy, but I think you don’t appreciate what a great leap in capability they will provide over the current main guns. They will be an excellent weapon system. Also the t45 can be easily converted to take tomahawks, the rn states it everywhere.
For all those who keep suggesting that “updating” or “upgrading” the T23′s would be a good idea – they have a finite design life !
Yes they could go beyond, it and they likely will seeing as we might not have a T26 design to build for another 4 years, never mind actually start building and launching them……
I have been to sea on a Leander class frigate that was ripped apart and rebuilt around the (then) new Sea Wolf missile system, plus 4 Exocets, and the type 2016 hull mounted sonar. A re-build that did absolutely nothing for her sea keeping abilities and did nothing to address the fabric or structure of the ship itself.
Also we are not just talking about T23′s – we need to replace the Navy’s four most formidable general purpose ships, the T22 Batch III’s. These vessels are also relatively old, and they have a large crew – and this is the real economics of it. The Absalon is larger than a T22BIII but has half the crew – new technologies and automation allow you to reduce crew size, bigger ships allow you to improve accommodation for the smaller crew – and it all helps the wages bill and the retention of talent.
Dominic – not that I entirely disagree with you, but what threat country / state / non-state organization do you think currently exists that could launch 400 anti-ship missiles at a single UK carrier task group ? I am not sure the Russians could conjure up that many launch platforms, or the Chinese for that matter !
Mr J Waller – you seem to contradict yourself ref NLOS – pointing out the recent failures, but saying it would be suitable for naval ships ?
Harpoon is not a land attack missile – latest versions apparently have upgraded software to provide a ‘littoral’ mode, and possibly GPS to facilitate land attack – but I don’t think RN variant Harpoon missiles have any of this. I can not see anyway Aster with a radar totally optimized for air-to-air engagement could possibly be used in a ground attack mode.
McZ – why 6000 tonnes – because big is beautiful baby ! Actually because hull steel is cheap, and fresh air to fill it even cheaper. Big is good for adding new capabilities in the future and for damage tolerance. The ‘systems’ fitted effect the price much more !
Finally, lets face, what the final design looks like in 4 years time may reflect nothing at all we seen in this, which is just the latest “artists impression”
Yes DominicJ, many people believe that naval task groups are very vulnerable. But the t45 world beating paams is desgined to counter the supersonic missile swarm strike. And a rn carrier strike group would have 2 t45s and battlespace superiority in most situations with the f35s. The aew and electronic warfare aircraft capability will be much less than the US’s though. Blue water navy strategy is based on anit-air warfare destroyes protecting battle fleets. You advocate missile cruisers/destroyers like those the russians produced in the cold war, these are only good for major strike situations, not the majority of blue water navy ops.
Sorry Jed, I didn’t see your last post.
Sorry all, the nlos is still being pursued by the US military despite it’s recent test failures, and certain elements withdrawing their support. It is proposed as a major weapon system for the LCSs. I completely agree with your post Jed. Using a fair bit of steel in designs is commonplace. I read that the aster and harpoon missiles could be used in land-attack, I should have been more clear.
Can you guys specifically answer:
“Do you think there should be a bigger VLS silo and/or more VLS groups and deck missile system placements?
And also other automated gun and weapon systems, a 3D air search radar, different propulsion, more radars, a hanger capable of operating 2 lynxes, and a high speed hull?
Can (any of you) you tell me if you could only pick a couple of the afore-mentioned features what would you choose.
What extra missile system that could be developed or taken off the shelf for the t26?”
Jed re Harpoon not being a land attack missile Google SLAM.
Thanks “X”. The Absalons carry 16 harpoons so…
Hey,
The Multimission deck capability is not something I think the C1 design should be overly concerned with first and foremost it should be a capable ASW and general purpose frigate over and above other capabilities. In other words a traditional ASW frigate but with the highly capable AAW suites associated with modern European frigates with standardised large calibre and small calibre weapons. As an ASW frigate the stern space will be in demand for a dual line TAS system such as the 2087 sonar set which is not by any means small so it does take up much of the available space and frankly so it should. Things like a stern boat ramp are not essential as dual davit launched RHIBS are fine for the majority of VBSS work and the boat ramp does take up a large amount of space at the stern. If the boat ramp and area for RHIBS such as on the BAE C1 design from DSEi 2009 can be included without compromising the ASW mission then it should indeed be included to add to flexibility. The inclusion of this modified stern area will indeed make it a more flexible ship design than the current Type 23 which is not a bad thing however does it really offer anything ‘new’? I think you are confusing the C1’s intended role by comparing it to the Absalon and LCS it is not intended to be anything like either of those designs as that is the primary role and purpose.
Whereas the C1 frigate should be a higher end ASW, AAW focused asset the C2 should not if it ever appears should have a design that favours a broader spectrum of operations. As is fitting for its role description of a stabilisation frigate that is why I stand firmly behind the Absalon as an ideal flexible design. However if you really want a purpose designed stabilisation frigate then you have to look toward the German F125 design, the C2 and F125 are analogous rather than the C1 and F125. The C2 is the hull that should have the multi-mission flexibility, modular decks and modular weapons fits to concentrate on general purpose and stabilisation roles. However the C2 should also be flexible enough to be capable of operating in higher threat environments with some modification from a base standard without being a liability.
My problem with the design shown in the images does primarily stem from the fact that it is similar to and upgraded Type 23 but is pushed as a new design opening the door for the MoD and BAE to screw the taxpayer. An updated Type 23 would of course be slightly deficient in certain areas vs. a clean sheet design but it would have lessons learned incorporated into a proven design similar to what a clean sheet design would do. The subsystems you note would be either based on updated versions as currently in use or substituted with modern equivalent equipment so that point is moot in my mind. Hull armour and protection is not really something we can discuss as not much information is given out about these details and frankly it would be a bit daft to discuss details in an open forum. Naturally I would want a brand new clean sheet design but based on what I can deduce from these images a new Type 23 would not be that bad at all and btw Jed I’m meaning new build apologies if I didn’t make it clear. However your points are still very much valid regarding accommodation standards which would be below the other new vessels entering service or in service such as the T45’s.
For anyone that has been here for a while and has read the other comments I have left on other posts they no doubt have an idea of what I think the FSC program should deliver. Anyhow as Jed said the final design might not look anything like this and I hope it does indeed look different but it’s nice to discuss this anyhow. Admin I think if you want comments all ye have to do is post something naval related it seems to get us all fired up commenting away and nitpicking or at least it does for me
Last minute additions: SLAM is an Air launched weapon therefore is taking the point that Jed made out of context as it cannot be launched from a ship. I have not seen or heard anything about Aster being capable of anything other than AAW if you have a credible source please post away as I would be interested to know. The Type 45 currently has no real AAW capability as of this date PAAMS is currently not working and MBDA are working away to fix it thankfully at their own cost and I would hardly argue PAMMS is world beating. It may however have areas where it is more capable vs. the US Aegis and standard missile series used by so many of the Thales APAR and Standard missile series combination. The Artisan Radar being developed for the Type 23 update and for use on the future frigates is a 3D air and surface search radar albeit most likely a basic 3D set rather than the higher end Sampson. Propulsion for a ASW optimised frigate should in my opinion stay conventional twin shaft IFEP CODLAG setup more exotic propulsion options may have advantages but infer higher risk therefore cost. Hangar capable of handling dual AW-101 Merlin helicopters or a mixture/variation of smaller types including larger UAV’s or possible use as a flexible space I’m not the only one who thinks this. Hull designed for speed depends what you define as speed?, I see little reason for a hull designed for anything over (sustained for short periods)30 knots. Need to go faster deploy aviation assets or faster interceptor craft rather than following the LCS speed concept which many more knowledgeable than myself dislike. The VLS numbers game and radar is a much larger discussion depending upon what the design is for and the make-up of the fleet as is the discussion over Type 45 numbers etc.
There is more i could add but i think enough is enough…for now.
Thank you very much Euan for your excellent post. To be clear on something anyone has to post long detailed posts, which you have done well.
I agree with most of what Euan has said, and I apologise for him correcting all my mistakes in the details you have stated. I am not involved in the defence world in any way, websites whatever, and am 21yrs old. I read a lot defence news and web material, and know that I have read about all the things you have corrected me on. I’m sorry for my mistakes in my posts, that i could’ve tried harder not to do, I’ve read about all the aspects and details at least briefly pretty much on the fsc.
My emphasis on the mission deck was wrong and Euan has corrected me on that. I apologise for having only briefly read about the FSC programme.
What I disagree with Euan on is that his emphasis on the similarity of the t26 with an upgraded t23 is wrong. Visually they share a little naval architectural similarities, which is not a bad thing. The top deck appears very different really to a t23. The t26 is going to weigh nearly twice as much as a t23. It’s going to use technology from the t45, much of which we haven’t been told about. I guess from the pics that a new 155mm main gun is still being proposed, and this will be a huge improvement on the 114mm gun, and a very good weapon system. It will be better by a sufficient degree than any theoretical upgraded t23 or equivalent could be.
A two merlin hanger would be on the big side, maybe a lynx/wildcat merlin combo would be more appropiate.
A u(c)av like the rotary MQ-8B Fire Scout (naval dervitive – Sea Scout) which was first deployed on a US frigate in Sep’ 09, would complement a helo and a smaller uav sufficiently. The Sea Scout is the only uav that has been and seems to be suggested for the t26. The info on wikipedia states that it has payloads up to 320kg for short missions, and stub wings to carry weapon payloads.
I do not suggest the t26 has more than 8 harpoons at the moment. The VLS group does look small. In one news article on this new t26 concept, it was specifically stated and emphasised to have main asw frigate capability, more than the “combat/multi-role” capability.
I do not know of the strengths and weaknesses of codlag over integrated electric propulsion as on the t45. I assumed the t26 will have electric propulsion because of the emphasis placed on how good it was by the MOD. Also because the new US San Antonio LPDs have electric propulsion, and from the development of electric propulsion in the marine world. I assume it will be attractive to any navy. The t45s performance will help guide the designers over their choice.
So Euan, you definitely say that the t26 concept should have better aviation facilities. Does anyone know much about the suitalbility of different propulsion systems for an asw frigate? Will the main mast aperture radar arrays be good and what band will they be?
Do any of you support any other features that could be used in the t26, ie. near or below the waterline engine exhausts that increase top deck space, unmanned surface systems etc…
The strong criticism given to the “world beating” MOD phrase I stated for the paams, is not supported by what I understand but I will read into it. Thanks for the support though. I apologise for my sloppy English. Also there are many things you guys have stated that I don’t immediately know how to reply and comment on now. Can we have long detailed conversations on this site? It seems to be the most suitable website for in-depth discussion on UK defence that I’ve come across.
Also, thanks Think Defence!
Jed, and Much applies to J Waller
“Dominic – not that I entirely disagree with you, but what threat country / state / non-state organization do you think currently exists that could launch 400 anti-ship missiles at a single UK carrier task group ? I am not sure the Russians could conjure up that many launch platforms, or the Chinese for that matter !”
I wasnt so much saying anyone else can as we should be able to.
I may of course be wrong, but its my strong belief that we could build a few T45 sized ships, carrying nowt of interest but very long ranged missiles, capable of overwhelming defences by sheer volume of missiles.
A phalanx can fire 3 times before its out of bullets cant it?
3 very good missiles might get through, but they might not.
4 crap missiles, well, the first three will be shot down, but the fourth cant be stopped.
How many missiles does a T45 have ready to fire at any one time?
And how long does it take to reload them?
I am basically suggesting what could be termed “human” wave attacks.
As I usually hasten to add, I may be wrong, The Aster launcher might reload within seconds and so be more than capable of destroying a thousand incoming sub sonic missiles, in which case I am clearly wrong, but everything I’ve read leads me to believe its designed to engage a small number of high capability threats.
“I am not involved in the defence world in any way, websites whatever, and am 21yrs old. ”
Woohoo, I’m no longer the baby!!!
Warning this is a long one:| anyhow on we go. Woops Pt.1 then.
J Waller there is nothing to apologise for we are all I presume here to learn from others and expand our knowledge as well as find the truth in things that the MoD and media like to say. When commenting it’s easy to make mistakes or miss things out I know I do as nobody can remember every little detail. The thing I like about the internet is that people can learn and don’t have to take what they read from a single source as the truth as the truth is hidden amongst the lines and scattered between sources. People draw their own conclusions from information and usually I can be a bit pig-headed and nitpicking at times when discussing things with others it’s one of those human flaws.
About me and my twaddling on about an upgraded modernised Type 23 of course it’s not going to be as technologically advanced or as capable but it will be acceptably close in some important aspects. I’m not saying that it will be as good but on a cost risk analysis basis then yeah part of me would like to see it seriously looked at even if only for curiosity and for informing the design choices for a new design. Of course I still want a new frigate but not at any cost like the F-35 or Type 45, we still need a decent number of hulls at an acceptable cost point. This is my lack of faith in the MoD, Politicians, Big And Expensive and even partly the RN to come up with and stick to a design weighing down on my thoughts. I’m also basing my thoughts on the projected end of life Type 23 which will be a more capable frigate than the current one we have today.
The larger 155mm gun would certainly be nice to have as it does offer major advantages but it does have its disadvantages and they have been discussed in other comments I would like to see it work. However I would be quite happy if the RN and MoD done the sensible thing and switched to the NATO standard 5” gun which offers various advantages over the 6” gun in some aspects. Anyhow yup a hangar suited for two Merlin sized helicopters is rather large but on a hull of 6000 tons it should be possible but it would occupy the full beam of the ship much like it does on various ships. Naturally it would rarely be carrying two Merlin however the additional space would make life easier for the maintainers when only one is aboard or allow room for other things e.g. other aviation assets. I myself am not a sailor however I’ve always had a feeling that onboard a naval ship empty space is nice to have as it will usually get used in some way for example additional gym or exercise space. UCAV’s and UAV’s are possibly a bit further down the line for the RN but the MQ-B would not be a bad choice at all however it would be wise to wait to see what others get up to namely the USN. Unless of course we wish to go it alone not something that we could probably afford at the current time and not something that is a priority but something like Scan Eagle would be something to go for now.
I don’t see you suggesting the C1 design as shown has more than 8 harpoons or 2 quad launchers and I don’t see anyone suggesting that you said it. However I fully agree with Jed I would like to see 4 quad launchers for a total of 16 missiles if they are dual role AShM with additional land attack capabilities. Best choices that I can see are either the Naval Strike Missile from Kongsberg in Norway which would allow commonality if we bought the Joint Strike Missile which can be carried internally on the F-35. Although I don’t know if internal carriage is possible on the B model F-35 but I’ll have a look into that at some point either way it can still be carried externally and could be integrated on Eurofighter. The other choice I like would be the RBS-15 Mk. IV from Saab which is still in development but offers longer range and dual seekers as well as the possibility to have input into the design. Of course we could just stick to upgraded Harpoon but we will have to spend money either way so a change of missile would become an option if it offered enhanced capabilities or other benefits. As for the actual VLS system in the bow if more T45’s are bought all it really needs to accommodate in my mind is CAMM but with the space for additional growth modules up to the A70 launcher to be added. At a basic level I would say 16 cells for a possible total of 64 CAMM if Quad packable in the Sylver launch cells or to allow for a mixture of payloads in the near to medium term future. Such as a possible Extensible Launching System (1) similar to the Lockheed Martin idea for an insert to allow decoys and other options to be fitted into the standard vertical launcher. If no additional Type 45’s are procured then I would argue fitting Sampson and Aster are a requirement to fill the AAW gap much like what the French are doing with the FREDA FREMM variant.
Integrated full electric propulsion will no doubt be used on the C1 which as you note what the T45 uses, I said IFEP CODLAG which yup is actually incorrect or inaccurate to be honest. I wanted to differentiate between the Type 45’s gas turbine IFEP and the probable Diesel gas turbine arrangement for the C1. On the propulsion side of things it will most certainly use the under development Converteam 15MW electric motor (2) in a conventional twin shaft arrangement as the main propulsion. This motor is basically developed for the job so is smaller and quieter than previous motors and much quieter than conventional options. I would imagine a pair of large commercial diesel alternator sets possibly the same 12 or 16 cylinder Wärtsilä 38 (3) to be used on the CVF for commonality reasons. These would probably be the main prime movers as they are more efficient and easier to maintain than Gas Turbines. Which of course means cheaper to use, also spares and commonality should not be an issue as the engine would already be supported keeping costs lower. I would also at a guess say there will be at least a single gas turbine to provide additional power when needed such as sprinting at higher speeds or when a diesel goes down. Choices are likely either the Rolls Royce MT-30 also used on the CVF or the more fuel efficient WR-21 used on the Type 45 depending on power requirements. However the twin main diesels plus smaller secondary alternator sets should provide enough power for cruising along at the lower end of the speed spectrum which is where a ship spends most of its time.
Pt.2
One point I’m a bit lost on is the flat square things on the mast as from what I am aware the Type 26 is only really going to have a single main radar being the BAE Artisan radar which operates in S-Band. There will naturally be other radars but these will be smaller essentially commercial radars such as an X-band navigation and surface search radar amongst others. I would imagine that the flat squares are either some sort of antenna for communications or Identification friend or foe equipment although they could be radars. They could also simply be access panels for allowing equipment to be added, removed or upgraded from the mast as the mast is built before equipment is installed if anyone knows for sure feel free to let us know. Btw Jed I don’t suppose you know what the horns around the top of the mast are, AFAIK they are either IFF or radio direction finding equipment both of which would need the 360 degrees coverage.
Other stuff I would like to see well a decent set of stabilisers below the surface to increase the safety and sea state range of helicopter operations not to mention keep the crew happier. Waterline exhausts I can see problems with, the primary concern would be a possible increase in underwater noise. If the T26 has a rear boat ramp similar to the BAE C1 design from 2009 I wouldn’t mind seeing some unmanned surface or underwater systems carried. For example something like the Protector USV (4) for self protection in ports and restricted waters or aiding in VBSS duties to cover boarding teams or have a first look before the boarding team. Some sort of UUV such as the BAE Talisman (5) for various roles such as finding and destroying mines a good idea since we might not have dedicated MCM vessels so something onboard is an option. However as I said before C1 should be a ASW frigate first and foremost so nice to have but not to the detriment of the primary mission capability well at least I think so.
Dominic is it a bad being the youngest? What age is everyone anyhow? Just being nosey
I would rather people were judged on what they say and know rather than their age or who they are. Admin might agree as I think he/she/they would rather be judged on the content of the blog and the opinions they express rather than who they are. I say that because of the Admins relative anonymity and the sense that they want to stay anonymous I could be wrong? Anyhow I think I’ve said enough as this is a bloody long post/comment so apologies to those who like short and sweet.
Links: remove the spaces near the start and i hope they work.
1. http: //tinyurl.com/yg8pvph
2. http: //tinyurl.com/yl9c8zm
3. http: //tinyurl.com/yzyr9zh
4. http: //tinyurl.com/ydp84eq
5. http: //tinyurl.com/yb5n4rk
This is now because of you guys, one of the best information sources and discussions on the current t26 concept in the public domain. A must-read for anyone who wants to know about the t26. Well done and I hope that your efforts are really valuable and you find them worthwhile.
Euan, I have no current criticisms of your very (and more so relative to me) well-informed posts. And I appreciate what your saying DominicJ. I just haven’t seen much of the same concern regarding naval air defence. I also haven’t really seen much or any real contemporary emphasis on the significance of a purely missile armed anti-surface/ship and ground attack ship.
Now aside from the t26 and I apologise if the length annoys, but we’re in a very big crisis at the moment, as you maybe aware from the dozens of news reports last week. I know that so much has been happened and been said etc… that many of us will have missed at least some of it.
I will repost this in a more suitable news post comment section, but please glance. Today the Daily Telegraph reports “Britain’s £35bn defence industry could shrink by up to 70pc if the next Government continues to cut research and equipment spending and fails to back defence exports… Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph ahead of the launch of the defence industry’s manifesto for the upcoming election, Ian Godden, chairman of industry body ADS, Ian Godden, chairman of industry body ADS, warned the UK’s 10pc share of the global defence market could slip by two-thirds to around 3pc, the same share the country has in the world’s car industry and the chemicals sector. The manifesto has the backing of the UK’s biggest defence companies, including BAE Systems, Qinetiq and Cobham.”
Another very recent telegraph report “Defence spend should rise despite squeeze on finances says minister (Quentin Davies)…To halve the deficit over four years, Labour has promised to cut spending by £39 billion by 2013/14…Labour has promised not to cut spending on health, schools and international aid, but given no such pledges for other departments, including the Ministry of Defence. Those departments will therefore face deep cuts. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, those cuts could be as large as 25 per cent.”
After this Friday’s death, a total of 277 British troops have now died in the Afghan conflict since operations began in 2001. RIP. Darling budget: “more than £4bn was being allocated from next year’s Treasury Reserve to pay for the bloody campaign in Afghanistan.” £700 million agreed upon MOD budget efficiency savings in the financial year 2012-13.
The following is from last week on defense-aerospace.com which has and reports on nearly every defense press release with nearly a dozen or more a day. It also has a breaking AFP (Agence France-Presse) defence news feed that u have to pay for, but you can just google the news titles for the story. It posts more material than any other defence news website by a fair bit.
“On defence Mr Godden continued: “The defence budget is in urgent need of attention, not withstanding the additional and separate £4 billion from the Treasury reserve for operations in Afghanistan for next year. It was disappointing that nothing specific was announced to address this funding gap…On proposals for a £2 billion ‘green’ investment bank Mr Godden said: “We look forward to aerospace projects being able to access this fund. An aircraft today produces 70 per cent less CO2 than its equivalent did 50 years ago…”
“The Major Projects Report 2009 is the latest in a long running series of reports examining the record of the Ministry of Defence (the Department) in meeting cost, time and performance targets for its top military equipment projects which are expected to cost more than £60 billion. Our hearing identified the serious consequences of failings in the Department’s governance and budgetary processes. Even using the Department’s own, over-optimistic estimates the defence budget is unaffordable by some £6 billion. The exact size of the gap is dependent on the assumptions one makes about future funding, but the gap could easily be £36 billion and potentially even more.”
It seems to me that the amount of MOD procurement projects now is much or much, much higher now, than there’s ever been post war, in relationship to its budget.
I really dislike our Labour government of the last 13 years, and I guess John Major’s Tories as well, for producing our currently very poor governance/ment/ning. New Labour is definitely the government that changes loads of (not big) things with no real benefit, and it makes huge mistakes. On the current UK defence situation, I have much more frustration towards them and slightly less so with the top-brass in the MOD, than any other group of people in the UK. I should say I’m not fond of the Tories either as well really.
So some procurement projects will have to be cut and severely affected soon. What do you (I mean newcomers to this post commenting as well by “you”) all think about that?
Oh, and I appreciate your off topic comments, everyone. I hope I haven’t been, what can I say, really mis/uninformed (talking stupid crap) and none of you guys (I mean girls as well with “guys”). What are the servicewomen numbers?
“…and none of you guys (I mean girls as well with “guys”)have?” I meant. And i’m not sexist one bit, and see that women throughout time have been and are far more productive/do more work than men. We do have really quite different brains. One of us has high grey matter and low white matter content and the other vice versa, I forget which way. I just sparked a line of interest I will follow from my thought:that question, whatever.
Rrrr! I meant that we have really different brains/minds, and not that men have superior brains.
“McZ – why 6000 tonnes – because big is beautiful baby ! Actually because hull steel is cheap, and fresh air to fill it even cheaper. Big is good for adding new capabilities in the future and for damage tolerance. The ’systems’ fitted effect the price much more !”
1.) Beautiy is not one of the design-goals, Stealth is
2.) FREMM, FM400s and the Al Bayunah’s are stealthy, this baby rather not.
Adding new capabilities? What is the RNs praxis on this? Adding or replacing? Damage tolerance? A single little hit into the smallish VLS, and this “baby” has to flee.
Steel is cheap only, if the pound recovers. With a £ 176 billion hole in the public finances this will not happen soon.
6k ts make them simply costlier to operate, costlier to build, and nearly impossible to market. Commonwealth-wide cooperation will not change much. New Zealand will never buy a ship that large, Canada and Australia need numbers. And don’t you think, this VLS is a joke for a surface combatant that large?
The question remains: who should buy this ship on the “export-market”?
Hi McZ, I cannot agree with your belief that it being big makes it a worse proposition than something smaller. Sorry I will try to say why in another post. Can you please say more about why u think that?
Again on “Splash the Cash”, MOD procurement, “New Statesman, 30 June 2009. Government should consider scrapping £24bn of weapons programmes including Trident, says IPPR. The UK cannot sustain current defence spending and should consider abandoning plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, a think-tank report has warned.The report by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that at least £24bn of weapons programmes should be reviewed “with a view to making cuts”. “Fundamental choices are necessary. The attempt to maintain the full spectrum of conventional combat capabilities at the current scale has produced acute strains on resources and, increasingly, on operational effectiveness,” it said.”
From BBC this month “The committee also said it did not believe the MoD’s claim that it had reduced the number of Type 45 destroyers from 12 to six due to a “better understanding of the capabilities of the ship”.
McZ – big is beautiful was a phrase to make a point, I am not suggesting the RN has an operational requirement for good looking ships
Big is better, unless you support the ‘global corvette / patrol combatant’ theories spouted by Mike Burleson at New Wars. Big convoys flexibility – the Danish Absalon’s are relatively big and extremely flexible and NOT very expensive. I have written an article on this site on now we might base a C2 ‘stabilization frigate’ on this design. see: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/fdr-maritime-futures-part-2-another-view-on-c2/
Euan – ref the lumps and bumps at the top of the mast – they are for the antenna’s of the Electronic Surveillance Measures (ESM) outfit – so yes they are direction finding of a sort – they pick up ‘radar emissions’ that ‘paint’ the ship, and with the computer wizadry attached down below, help the operators classify what radars are ‘seeing’ the ship and on what bearing. This gear is often what provides the first indication of attack from a sea skimming radar guided anti-ship missile, if you don’t pick up the launch platform on your own radar.
As a tactical radio operator I used to sit next to the Golly’s (EW operators) in the ops room, and learned from them how to use the UAA1 version of this type of kit on my first ship (anything to help make the middle watch pass faster).
x – I think someone stepped to my defence already ref Harpoon and SLAM. SLAM is a stretched derivative of the standard Harpoon, with longer pop out wings, different guidance avionics and a different warhead and a ‘man-in-the-loop’ guidance datalink, it is air launched, and as far as I am aware a tube launcher or MK41 VLS launched variant has never been developed, but if you Googled it, you probably know all this already
J Waller – rather than NLOS, I would suggest the LockMart P44 private venture might be a better idea – it has worked well in tests so far, has a 70KM plus range, a 4 mode seeker head, but is not VL (at this time) requiring a HIMARS / MLRS type launcher.
Finally – not sure who ever mentioned it – but Phalanx is in my opinion no longer capable of dealing with the threat – its 20mm round not having the range or the kinetic energy. I would go for RAM in the Phalanx based SeaRAM configuration !
ooop sorry – “big convoys flexibility” does not make much sense !
Should have said big provides flexibility – and yes McZ steel is cheap, relative to the electronics, communications, sensor and weapons systems, hull steel is very cheap in comparison to such other elements of a modern warship.
@jed and @j Waller
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe it to be worse because it’s 6k ts. I believe it to be no better than a refitted Type 23 at 4k ts, despite being 2k ts larger.
@j Waller
“…I cannot agree with your belief that it being big makes it a worse proposition than something smaller. Sorry I will try to say why in another post. Can you please say more about why u think that?”
Re-read the part “key design aims” and tell me, how any of these goals will be met. This is my point of criticism, size being only a matter in case of affordability.
- Versatility without a 48-cell VLS seems ridiculous. And if it is not fitted by design, it never gets aboard.
- Flexibility in MoD-terms means: “fitted-for, but not with”. The use of this term should make you shudder.
- Affordability is questioned even if this baby comes in at £400 million, which I see as the best possible price for a ship of this size. I’ve calculated it to be £560 million per unit minimum including all inherent design risk. Means: nearly impossible to build one per year, if the SSBN-replacement must be funded in parallel.
- Exportability is extremely questioned, as there is no thinking in ship-families (like DCN / FREMM and FM400, or TKMS / MEKO), which is absolutely crucial in the export business.
@jed
“Big is better, unless you support the ‘global corvette / patrol combatant’ theories spouted by Mike Burleson at New Wars. Big convoys flexibility – the Danish Absalon’s are relatively big and extremely flexible and NOT very expensive. I have written an article on this site on now we might base a C2 ’stabilization frigate’ on this design”
I deem the truth to be lying in the middle. I highly agree with Mike Burleson on the western Navies tendency to over-sophisticate equipment. I disagree on his belief, the corvette or a mix of small combatants in itself would be an easy way out.
The Danes seem to have solved the problem, in fact I highly admire their accomplishment. The question is: how did they do this? Basically, they are requesting very unsophisticated ships, taking only certain handling gear for helos and boats, both very low-tech. Sophistication is out-sourced to STANFLEX-modules, including ESSMs and Harpoons. So their ships are jack-of-all-trades BY DESIGN. It is further out-sourced by buying off-the-shelf electronics.
the Flyvefisken-PCs, Knut Rasmussen-OPVs and Absalon-class command-ships are having full STANFLEX-compatibility. Now they add a certain degree of sophistication with the IVAR HUITVELDT-class. This I would call a very intelligent strategy to reduce risk.
As a further advantage, Odense Steel Shipyard is a highly efficient commercial yard as well, being in steady supply of contracts via Maersk. So, you cannot be serious to expect BAe to be nearly as cheap producing an ABSALON-derivate. It’s like comparing Toyota with Lotus Cars or Aston Martin.
Here, you can identify the “shipbuilding chain of death”: No shipowners (or shipowners buying overseas) –> no commercial shipbuilding –> inefficient yards –> expensive naval shipbuilding.
I agree with many points Euan is making here (especially taking a 127mm gun instead of a 155mm). The possibility to convert a few of this ships (C2s?) to AAW-frigates (C2s?) may be worth the extra weight. If – and only if one ship per year can be built. Wouldn’t 18 ships be fine: 2 as additional Sampson-ships, 8 ASW, 8 GP.