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.

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.

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 !

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”?

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?

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

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.

“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!!!

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!

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. :-)