Defence Cooperation with Australia and the Type 26 Global Combat Ship

It would be great news, and just… nice, for once. I guess it depends on how ‘modular, open architecture, plug ‘n’ play, yadda, yadda’ the Type 26 design actually turns out to be.

Nice, economical, long-legged Frigate hull (unlike the Spanish one), with the US bits and bobs that they’re already familiar with, and their domestic (with US involvement) new fixed plate radar – cool.

Plus they get to crow that *their* version is much better and higher spec than the Poms’ own version: what’s not to like? :)

Think the RAN is going to be busy intergrating the Horbarts to actually shop around in the near future, it’s going to be a while before anything gets finalised for the future frigate.

“Australia has a well developed naval design, development, manufacturing and support infrastructure, a growing economy but several defence and defence funding challenges.”

No. It doesn’t. Really.

Several challenges, yes. Manufacturing and support infrastructure, yes.

Design and development? Absolutely not. There is a reason the Aussies have historically bought versions of other people’s designs and that is because (with the exception of some smaller patrol craft) they have never designed warships themselves and more importantly, nor have their shipyards. Starting that from scratch is an impossibility for a country with the industrial base they have, unfortunately. ASC and Deep Blue tech are the nearest thing they’ve got and they are busily waving dollars at anyone who will listen in the UK submarine building industry at the minute – which as you can imagine is going down very well in MoD, BAES and elsewhere, as Successor ramps up.

I agree with X that the Aussies are more likely to go US in their kit requirements, which tends to count against T26, as BAES are loath to put any CS items that they don’t own or have a stake in, in their ships (one of the reasons export has been so poor). However, the interesting thing is the absence of a long-legged DD/FF hull in the US programme. The Aussies might still get tempted by the LCS, because actually it might work in the archipelagos north of them, but they’d need more hulls which they probably can’t afford. If they don’t then T26 has a slim chance.

However, I’d personally keep an eye on South Korea. Japan makes superlative DD/FF, but are still potentially unacceptable politically for Australia. They may also have a constitutional ban on military exports. SK build ships that are approaching Japanese capability and have been entering a lot of export competitions recently. The writing was on the wall for the Europeans when the SKs entered the Omani competition that resulted in the Khareefs. Last time I looked, MEKO hasn’t done anything since the South African A200 ships, although they might be able to offer A200 for this.

One thing I can say for sure is that the new frigate will not have as strong an emphasis on anti-air as they already have the air defence destroyers for that. I think what they might be aiming for would be a GP frigate with a slight leaning towards anti-sub warfare, so any designs targeting that competition would do well to put in a bit more effort into sonar and towed arrays.

I’d say NaB is probably right in that Korea would be a strong contender. Other possibles would be Spain as they already have an “in” with the new destroyers being Spanish and the French/Italian FREMM with massive equipment overhaul. It also depends on how much tech transfer is Australia looking for. If they insist on building a large chunk of the fleet in Australia, which is very likely, SK might balk as their ships tend to be shipped complete from their own yards, not assembled in someone else’s.

Edit:
“For Australia frigates are about the India Ocean.”

Not bloody likely mate. Australia has absolutely zero interest beyond Indonesia. Their biggest headache right now would be the South China Seas for 2 reasons. 1) China is flexing muscle pretty hard. and 2) Their SLOC trade links with China.

If the UK and Australia agree, that economies of scale are worth the cooperation, then T26 has good chances.

HMAS Hobart is currently built by BAE Systems Australia, formerly Tenix. So much to relationships. What I could see as another result is a lot of cooperation in the field of submarines.

The F-110 is actually a lot riskier than the T-26, as it is with current economic trends entirely unfeasible for the Spanish Navy. The basic layout seems uncertain, and if it turns trimaran, it will never achieve lower prices. But even if both problems vanish, T26 will still have a larger number of vessels built.

Regardless what Oz chooses, i think NZ will follow suit with two units. The idea to comply to numerous local treaties with Otagos or even Otago+ is not managable. They will have to revisit the frigate-game sooner or later.

And, MikeW, Canada will buy what Canada can afford. Their shipbuilding is devastated and needs investment, I really don’t know how they will re-invest in complex warship-building for little money. As they definitely have commonalities in requirements and operational doctrine, I wouldn’t write the T26 off too early.

Amd then there are emerging Tiger-states without a Navy at al, but with mighty neighbours threatening their EEZ. Sri Lanka, Burma, Indonesia. (Damn, we need to widen the FPDA)

But I also agree with NaB, as an outside contender to any frigate-contract in the next years, keep an eye on the FFX from Hyundai.

If they go for type 26 it will be produced at bae’s yard in australia.
Only the itams that cannot be built the will be made in europe so that is why they have gone for it. That was why they have gone for the type 26. The spanish would what to produce it on licence.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html_dec10/sea/Sea5000.html

How adaptable is the basic T26 hull?

If the Aussie’s want the ship would it suit the fitting of Mark 41 silo’s, Sea Sparrow, Sea Ram or whatever it is they prefer?

The fact that they would almost certainly want American kit over British makes me think that although selling the basic hull design is very possible the idea of it being British built isn’t a likely outcome.

It’s never going to be British built! Have you SEEN Williamstown? The only reason Canberra was built in Spain was size constraint.

Last time I looked at T26, there were Mk 41 Strike length launchers in it. Shoulnd’t be a drama putting Mk 48s in if they want and Mk49 RAM is an add-on.

However – whether the CSH, power distribution system, accommodation are set up to suit the Aussies is another question. T26 is the best part of 8000te full load displ at end of life. That’s plenty big enough to fit most things – if you have the money.

@NaB

Nope never seen Williamstown, I take it from you’re response that it’s a big facility!

I’m assuming when they say that T26 can/will be fitted with large VLS that it could easily be either MK 41 or A70 depending on the customer’s requirements.

You make a good point about the size of the ship giving it a high degree of future proofing. I wasn’t so much questioning whether a buyer like Australia could give the basic hull it’s own weapon/sensor fit, more suggesting that the mere fact a lot of countries don’t want British systems makes building them here far more illogical and costly than if they simply wanted a direct copy of our version.

It’s not that big (hence Canberras built in Spain) it’s just plenty big enough to build their own DD/FF, rather than build in UK.

@x

http://pipeliner.com.au/shop/pipeline_map_of_australia1/075744/

The green lines are oil pipelines. Notice something strange about their placement? Wonder why would they put their oil pipes on the opposite side of the country to their supply route? You would be right in the statement that the Indian Ocean would be Australia’s main oil supply route if oil came “ready to use”, but it doesn’t. Most of the cracking centers are in countries north of Australia, not West, hence the strange distribution.

The Indian Ocean is a huge playground for the RAN, but it is NOT an area of concern. There is absolutely no threat value there, no African countries out to cross the huge empty ocean to invade Australia, no African refugees crossing the Indian Ocean to sneak into Aussieland and most shipping go through the East of Australia not West. Same thing like the oil, the middlemen distribution centers are to the North. The defence worries of Australia are to the North, the Pacific Ocean and the Phillipine Sea, where there are lots of other countries to stir the pot, not the huge no-man’s land of the Indian Ocean.

Speaking from an Australian perspective, the RAN will only acquire the Type 26 if it first meets some basic criteria:

1. It meets the RAN’s operational requirements in term of weapons, sensors, survivability, range and crew endurance in tropical environments.

2. It is seamlessly inter-operable with the US Pacific Fleet.

3. It is the best value for money when compared with other options. (The Australian Department of Defence has been rightly criticised in recent times for several projects that have run badly over budget and behind schedule).

4. All the RAN’s ships are built in Australia.

Nostalgia for the Commonwealth is nice, but it will count for little when billions of dollars are stake.

In terms of geo-politics, Australian planners now refer to the “Indo-Pacific” (rather than “Asia Pacific”). This term encompasses:

* Both the the Indian and Pacific Oceans – Australia straddles both.

* Australia’s SLOC’s from our mineral and energy export ports on the Indian Ocean coast of Western Australia, though the straits (choke points) in Indonesian archipelago, and on through the South China Sea to our major export markets in China, Japan, South Korea and South East Asia.

* Australia’s Pacific SLOC’s from the East/Pacific coast, past our Pacific Island neighbours (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia and Vanuatu)and on to the markets mentioned above.

* International SLOC’s carrying oil from the Middle East across the Indian Ocean, through the Malacca Strait to China, Japan, South Korea and South East Asia.

On top of this it should be noted that Australia lives in a neighborhood that has been relatively unstable over the last 15 years. In may not be well known in the UK that Australia has had to lead military interventions in East Timor, Bougainville (in PNG) and Solomon Islands. Dozens of Australians have been killed in Islamist terrorist attacks in Indonesia. In addition, there have been major law and order problems in PNG, a series of military coups in Fiji, and separatist/Islamist insurgencies in parts of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand – to name a few.

Meanwhile, as most Asian countries are growing economically, they are spending more on defence and developing increasing sophisticated capabilities. This is steadily eroding the technological edge that Australia has enjoyed in the region since 1945. (At the same time the current Australian government has cut defence expenditure – that is a major debate in itself.)

Thus, the defence equipment purchases that Australia makes in coming years will have to meet the needs of a demanding strategic environment. It will be interesting to see if the Type 26 measures up.

Of course I should also mention the gorilla in the room when discussing Australia’s strategic environment – the rise of China as an economic and military power.

On the one hand, China has become Australia’s largest export market and a major source of investment.

On the other, China is an authoritarian one-party state that is rapidly developing it military and engaged in territorial disputes in the East China and South China Seas with several of its neighbours – Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. Not to mention Beijing’s ongoing claim to Taiwan and its support of North Korea.

The old Chinese curse applies – “may you live in interesting times”.

Got a bit of bad news for you NGF, those points you brought up can almost be said to be the objectives of almost every shipbuilding project since 1970.

How many actually succeeded is open to debate.

As for Austalia’s problems, rest assured we do remember INTERFET and the Bali bombings.

Fella’s,

First, the first ANZAC will reach 25 in 2021 so a project to replace them will start in the second half of this decade, so the T26 is well placed assuming you can keep your schedule and the cost doesn’t blow out.

Second no one in the RAN wants a bar of the LCS project. The requirement is for an ASW frigate to partner the Hobart Class AWD. So again the job is for the T26 to lose. There is some possibility that the next white paper due out by mid this year will authorise a 4th AWD largely because Canberra has learned the lession that peaks`and troughs in workload destroy skills and will likely leave politicians with red faces, as has been the case with the AWD build. Incidently, the prime contractor for the AWD is not BAe but ASC a government operation on South Australia.

Thirdly, our Kiwi cousins, the OPV’s that they keep wingeing about were lowest tender, as was their new logistics ship (Canterbury). They bought cheap because their budget was limited and that is what they got, the lowest çompliant’offer. It is most unlikely that NZ will be able to replace their 2 ANZAC’s with T26’s or anything similar. Most Likely they will end up going for large OPV’s (something like a Thetis class). That is about as far as their budget is likly to last bercause in the same timescale they also have to replace both the RNZAF Orions and C130’s.

My guess is that the New Zealanders will end up with something similar to a police interceptor than a warship, it would fit their budget and threat assessment. I really don’t envy their coming problems.

The Franco/Italian FREMM does have a chance though, DSCN already has experience with a tech transfer program in the RSN Formidables, so they won’t have any qualms about building overseas, and they would have a “reference customer” with close RAN ties for a showroom ship.

Rough guessimate, I’d say it might come down to France/Italy, Germany and Spain. BAe… the sections of Horbart made by them were incompatible with the other sections from other companies IIRC. Tough luck.

It seems very likely that any deal with the Australian over T26 would result in the ships being built by them rather than in the UK and with quite a specific Aussie weapon/sensor fit. So all we would really be doing is selling the design, how much is that actually worth?

Can the T26 have a successful export programme simply by selling the design for others to build?

Another key point is that the T-26 is essentially still a powerpoint presentation while FREMM has in service hardware. Though how much of an edge it has is questionable when you have to gut the entire system and “Americanize” it. The torps would have commonality with the Eurotorp though. But if they want to use RUM ASROCs on a VLS, having all Mk 51s would be better logistically. Guess they could go either way, ASROC or no ASROC.

APATS, fair point, only one section. Won’t mention which :) Guess this was probably a one off screwup, though a fairly serious one.

“Can the T26 have a successful export programme simply by selling the design for others to build?”

Yes – many of the T12/Leander hulls in service with Commonwealth were actually built abroad. What it doesn’t do is “save the UK shipbuilding industry”, but it should provide some knock-on sustainment work (ie design authority, logs support etc).

The design itself would probably be worth a few tens of million in licence fees. Remember the French paid £100M for access to the QEC design, although my information is that they were apopletic when they found how little had been done at the time!

Know which section was distorted APATS, just didn’t want to point it out.

Good point on the design from start part. Guess either way, there is still risk, a new design or an old design that might not be compatible with the new parts. Luck to them Aussies.

@NaB

So the more design licence fees we sell and the more ‘knock-on’ sustainment those deals provide the more viable and economical it makes our own part of the programme?

Id totally forgotten that the French paid for the QEC design a few years ago, not exactly money well spent!

@X

Putting aside the comparative costs and ship trends exactly why wouldn’t the Australians want FREMM?

No. Our programme will have to stand on it’s own two feet. It cannot be dependent on exports or co-production. That way lies Typhoon/A400 madness and delay.

However, what licence fees and sustainment work would do is help fund the basic UK overhead in design of complex warships.

@NaB

I guess you’re right, exports aren’t a sure thing.

The FREMM is not really an ASW platform and the RAN is suddenly interested in ASW again given the number of subs that are coming into service in the region.
That also explains the use of the Ultra bow and towed array sonars on the Hobart AWD’s at the cost of a new bow design. The RAN has previously used Thales Sonars pretty exclusively (the ANZAC’s use Thales Sperion which were also retrofitted to the 4 upgraded FFG’s).

The early fabrication problem on the Hobart class were nothing out of the ordinary. The block that buckled was the keel section of the fwd aux machinery room which suffered from weld shrinkage. It was a straight forward fix. The real problem was the DMO made a hash out of the sub contracts for block manufacture. The LHD project and The AWD project didn’t coordinate so BAe ended up with 13 modules for each of the AWD’s (of 31) plus 7 modules for each of the LHD’s. Presumably BAe said they could do it but they couldn’t hire enough labour fast enough. None of which excuses DMO because they should have seen thay were creating a huge risk at BAe and they didn’t need too because they were other fabricators looking for the work. Sorry, hobby horse, I hate DMO.

Odd, thought the FREMM was either the general purpose or the ASW variant (Italian), you might be thinking of the FREDA which is air defence configured. And speaking of Thales, that might be an even better draw for Australia, both sonar and radar are already Thales products, so they can actually keep it in country as opposed to buying from the US again.

From what I can find, the IR tracker, Herakles radar and sonar are all Thales, so it has Thales Australia products intergrated since the onset and the Eurotorp is already in use in Australia. That is going to cut development costs by a fair bit and already has parts commonality. That leaves the intergration of the Mk41 as the biggest question mark.

Martin, the Ultra Sonars purchased for the Hobart class have never been named but comprise a bow dome mounted Sonar big enough for the Spanish to have to redesign the bow module of the ships, plus a towed array which seems to be both active and passive.
Ultra’s web site doesn’t contain much information on its range but in selecting the Ultra units the RAN passed over Thales which raised a bit of a stink as they were binning something like 30 years of past investment in the Sonar business of Thales Aust.
Conclusion, what ever we bought from Ultra, it must be considered pretty good.
Thales Aust hasn’t had a great run lately, both the RAAF and the RAN selected the Eurotorp MU90 to replace the Mk 46 but the MU90 is a real pain to integrate into US systems so we are in the less than wonderful position of having the MU90 in the Mk 32 launchers on the RAN FFG’s and ANZAC’s and RAAF Orions and RAN Seahawks using US torps (Mk56). Another DMO mess, but to be fair it is really about the US declining to release technical data to the French, particularly software. Which is another mark against the FREMM when you consider Aust’s preference for US stuff.

Point wrt the age of the design. If that is the case, the T-26 should have ships off the drawing board to compare to by that time as well, so hardware to hardware comparison should be possible then.

I’ll die laughing if they called it the Global Wombat Ship.

Now for tech specifications.

I’d say other than the standard radar/sonar/towed array they’d probably have a 24-32 VLS system Mk 57, a 5-inch main gun, a pair of 25-30mm gun mounts with hanger space for a helicopter, 2 twin or triple torpedo tube mounts and 1-2 quad pack of harpoons.

If they are going to use RUMs in the VLS, I think they’ll probably go all Mk 56, but if they don’t, the MU90 would probably be used for fleet commonality

The above is a fairly conservative fit for a frigate. Anyone think the RAN is going to pull a few surprises in the loadout?

Thought both the VLSs were about the same size. Interesting.

Your read is more or less similar to mine, only exception being the container. Don’t think the Aussies or anyone else are going that route anytime soon.

Personally though, and this is fantasy ship land, not RAN shipbuilding philosophy, I would have swapped the CIWS for another VLS 8 pack if possible, with quadpacked ESSM, it’s 32 missiles as compared to the 42 for the dual RAM setup, but a VLS is a lot more flexible in usage. No mission bay, but a pair of torpedo armed USVs on davits in side bays. This gives the ship 3 platforms to harass subs with, the helo and the two USV hounds, without needing to get close. I’d assume RHIBs would be a terrible torpedo target, with their shallow draft and all.

For my money they will refurbish and upgrade the landed Mk45 mounts from the decommissioning Anzacs and port them across, plus the ASMD masts and the tactical length Mk41 modules from the FFH’s and FFG’s and save themselves a tidy sum. T26 is being designed to accept a 5″ mount and the Mk45 must be considered representative. The CEA fitout wouldnt seem to present any great concerns in the sense of topweight given the 20m beam noted for the class.

A refurbished Mk41 tactical length module forward of the 26’s bank of Strike-length cells, which I expect they’ll keep – seeings LACM capability is clearly cited in SEA5000, and another (poss FFBNW at first) alongside the funnel group, where RN hulls will have the second bank of FLAADS cells, provides a significant embarked ESSM loadout and multiple launcher scheduling and redundancy benefits.

Aussie-isation of the design looks fairly straightforward….radar integration may be a bit of a challenge but that will largely depend on the CMS selection much farther down the track. Other than that maybe something like a higher spec HVAC fit than the UK variant might be called for but I dont see why there shouldnt be quite a lot of pull-through. If they re-use most of their weapons and sensors as we plan to do could even be a fairly controlled spend.

@martin

Well if the Aussie’s follow our example then they will want 12 SSK’s, say they can’t manage with less than 8 and end up with 6!

@APATS

Make and mends preferable to buying new?!.

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news127042.html

Mod 2’s are a little old in the tooth but the upgrade path is well established and can be done a couple at a time as mounts become available and required for new builds. US$7mn isnt a huge amount for one of the ships primary weapons systems brought up to latest-greatest spec!.

As to whats brought over…the MCG as noted…SSGW will port over plus any associated consoles if still separate and required…SAM/SHORADS launchers/missiles/fire control/TI all port over. Only really the below water combat systems that will see a need to reach for the catalogue in terms of the ships fighty systems. Clearly thats just one element of build costs…it is usually a large chunk of change though…and one you’d think worth eliminating.

@Jeremy

The Aussies ministry types have backed away from SSN citing a lack of nuclear berths and no budget to build them didnt they?.

I dont know APATS I think the mod4 is ONLY looking dated if you compare it to the OTO127!. I dont think there’s much doubt it will still be a very common and well-supported mount in the SEA5000 timeframe. On paper the OTO mount is indeed far superior in its capabilities, but, its still got some way to go to prove endurance and reliability.

The cost is indeed the issue though. 8 hulls outfitted with a proven MCG, that they have training/logistics streams already setup for, for the cost of 3 OTO mounts. $60mn plays $168mn (plus support costs) in todays rough figures – see earlier ‘chunk of change’ comment!. Super Gucci gun-system or, maybe, a set of towed arrays…or an extra couple of choppers…or an additional corvette maybe…not an easy call.

SEA5000’s earliest listed IOC is 2027, 14yrs from now, at which time ANZAC would be more than 30yrs in commission!. You can only perceive the naval threat environment as increasingly challenging in that region and the early IOC being the desirable one. You are sure that Harpoon BlkII will be out of service in 14yrs…I think I’d float a small wager that that may not be the case!.

Australia getting nuclear subs is similar to the UK going pro-France. Possible but seriously unlikely.

This is complicated by the fact that the Kiwis banned ALL nuclear ships in their territory, so it would mean access to a large chunk of western operating area cut off right there.

If anyone has read the Coles report on support of the Collins class, you would realise that the Aussies are struggling to support relatively simple boats.

The additional support infrastructure and expertise to go nuclear is almost certainly beyond the capacity of Australia to sustain. The UK is marginal and that’s with having run boats for 50 years.

Well, to be fair, I have argued that even if the Collins had sunk 2 minutes after launch, it would still have served its purpose, which was a starter sub for the Australian shipbuilding industry to learn submarine design.

@martin

Are our quoted costs for the T26 net of the T23 equipment fit such as Seawolf, the 2087 etc. Oz would presumably incur a gross cost.

Aussies strike oil, and big: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9822955/Trillions-of-dollars-worth-of-oil-found-in-Australian-outback.html

Some new pics of the type 26 and cvf

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1228

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/bae-systems-new-global-combat-ship-draws-export-buyer-interest.html

“In addition to the general-purpose and anti-ship warfare versions, at least one export buyer is considering an air-defense variant of the Type 26 that isn’t in the U.K. plan. In the long term, such a ship could serve as a replacement for Britain’s Type 45 destroyers, Braham said.”

Piddling about with the VLS or bay doors is the least of their problems. Rough seas ahead.

And here was me thinking we had a design that looked right from a non naval eye.

Nab sounds ominous budget issues or design issues or both?

Various changes

Strike length VLS have reduced in quantity from 24 to 16
Don’t understand the point of the flight deck “wells” (my word).
Extra doors in hangar.
Silos above hangar twisted 90 degrees (these look strike length but are probably only CAMM (maybe strike capable for export)).
Chemring? decoys moved from front to next to Phanlax.
Noticed the bridge windows are very different. 7,2,3 Now it is 5,2,2. Hopefully indicating bigger windows and not a smaller bridge.

@APATS
The original design was two story. The mission bay was beneath the hangar. The last redesign had a combined hangar mission bay that was both deeper and provided more height. The operation of the boats was changed at the same time. Seemed like a sensible move, although a larger hangar door would be sensible.

Can’t say much more. Let’s just say that the next 12 months will be “interesting”. Primarily design not budget issues. We will all just have to wait and see.

A couple of years ago I was talking to a colleague at one of the UK defence manufacturers about the opportunities that were worth investigating in through-deck tactical modules. Not quite TD’s favourite ISO boxes, but similar concept as in fixed footprint, common lockdown system, easy exchange. The sort of things we talked about were radar modules, CIWS modules, ASM modules, accommodation modules, medical unit modules, workshop modules etc. Much as we were discussing a week or so back on another thread, the hull would have sockets a bit like container carriers but far fewer in appropriate locations; much of the superstructure would be standard independent of the interchangeable modules – bridge, ops room, crew accommodation, machinery spaces etc all being needed no matter what. The result could be smaller vessels with focused roles but common design hulls with common support. Well I thought it was a snazzy idea anyway.

Then this week I opened my Jane’s IDR to read a report on modular warships, complete with photo of a through-deck module being craned into a Royal Danish Navy Flyvefisken vessel, and description of US LCS aims.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that the bits that are likely to be upgraded most regularly (weapon and sensor systems) ought to be capable of replacement without gutting the hull to make modifications. If in doing that the basic ship becomes quickly reconfigurable for different duties, all the better.

I went to an IMechE talk on T26, and was moderately disappointed the BAE team was firmly into designing a ship class with systems distributed throughout the hull like all the older designs had. Quite the opposite of the drive towards modularity in ground vehicles – a common defined data network (VGA) onto which self-contained systems can be clipped with high confidence they would be plug&play, with the intent that the basic mechanical vehicle can be upgraded and re-roled as easily as possible. Perhaps the general structure of the modular vessel might resemble HNLMS Groningen (at DSEi this week) with multiple deck levels to the front of the standard bridge/superstructure and a large deck area aft.

No doubt the response will be SIDS – that’s “Ships Is Different, See?” – and many will say its the wrong way to make a navy, but with ever smaller budgets it seems right to maximize the utility of the expensive hull/machinery/common sensors/bridge systems/ops room systems/comms systems/accommodation by being able to fit/exchange smaller gucci fightability modules as their technology and need develops.

APATS – that’ll be SIDS then…

And here was me thinking they had the T26 design nailed down (a good looking/sounding one at that!) and at least from a design, if not a budgetary perspective, it was plain sailing from here. How foolish of me!

Tom – defined in previous comment – SIDS = Ships Is Different, See

He means Ships Is Different (to aircraft, land vehicles etc), which unfortunately for Chris is true. Rather uniquely, ships (and submarines which are even more different!) are required to sustain their crews aboard them without support for up to several weeks, in an environment whose only positive contributions are the rather benevolent support offered by Mr Archimedes and the cooling possibilities offered by the sea. Somewhat offset by the propensity to move about in a rather rough and structurally challenging way on a regular basis, irrespective of whatever the oppo is doing.

Tom, ouch. Any infant death is a tragedy.

Chris, I’m not sure about the rest, but the radar is something you CANNOT plug and play. The problem isn’t with the plugging in, it’s with the location. If you placed any objects that emit near each other, there is a chance of interference patterns, which means that unless you pre-plan your radar’s location, there is a chance that your navigation/search radar or communications equipment might end up blinding yourself. Since the radar location is more or less fixed to prevent interference, you might as well hard install it. Can’t think of many situations where you would not want a radar anyway.

x, nothing is for free and a second helicopter increases the support space needed, what are you willing to trade for the second helo? :)

Less VLS? Slower speed? Operational range? The mission bay?

Personally, my gut feeling tells me to get rid of the missions bay, but if the future is USVs/RHIBs, that would be a wrong move, and I can’t really recommend reducing VLS cells any more. What about doing something very radical and removing the gun totally, move the VLS to the front, and use the opened rear space to accommodate the extra helicopter? No more NGS, but the medium calibers and torpedoes should suffice for close range anti-ship work.

So maybe that would be my answer, sacrifice the main gun for another helo.

What would you give up?

Obs – quite agree for standard fit nav & surveillance radars, but if you wanted a specific additional capability then like evil 909 or the US Aegis panels I’m sure you can build a picture with sector/conical scan components from locations outboard of sensitive equipment. At least that’s what my Tactical Radar for Dummies book tells me…

“All I wanted is a two Merlin capability”

Quite a modest requirement. However, if it hasn’t got a tail (and a 2087 or better at that) then why bother? A fisheries protection vessel or, as our US cousins call them, a littoral combat ship can be had for much less and everyone can pretend to be designing modular capabilities until the cows come home, well until someone wiith a few semi-modern subs decides to actually come out and play.

X

“All I wanted is a two Merlin capability”. So have we secretly bought some extra merlins then?

The Type 26 design is arguably meeting all of our requirements and desires. It’s easy to feel there are design features missing but if it is fitted with strike length Mk57/Mk41 pretty much all bases are covered.

Chinook capable and 24 strike length silos would be my only suggestion, I am not sure to what extent room has been saved by the silo reduction but I imagine as they are in a straight line it is a reduction in the ‘smaller’ spaces rather than the hangar. I did wonder if the rear silos are strike capable – they might be (for export reasons).

I would like to see CEC fitted, it isn’t at the moment, these should be BMD capable and would be with CEC.