Lots of new images and contract announcements
Contract awards from BAE, click here
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/September/11/130911-Type-26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s30JF4pYbTw
UPDATE
Type 26 at #DSEI
- Post author:Think Defence
- Post published:September 11, 2013
- Post category:News
- Post comments:235 Comments
Tags: Royal Navy
Please Share This Share this content
Think Defence
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
Can we please dump Artisan for Sampson…
The main VLS silos have been obsucured with a grey rectangle in the video and renders…
So are we seeing 48 CAMM here and space for 16 TLAM?
Interesting consideration for stealth/LO – especially the bit that protects the hub of the gun assembly.
Much happier about the CIWS position.
Much happier about the CAMM positions too.
Does look a little top-heavy though. I guess that makes the superstructure built from tin-foil ;-)
Question: seen them on lots of our ships but have no idea what they are… What is the circular array of little pyramids and panels usually seen just below the main radar?
Begin work in three years…..ho, ho, ho, I wonder why. No contract awards that are hull dependent either….
Simon – Outfit UAT, or more likely its replacement.
The CIWS arcs (bearing in mind the system is now presumably primarily anti small fast attack craft) seem limited. A slightly longer hull with greater VLS space would also give growth potential at relatively little additional expense (no, steel and air aren’t free). These vessels are going to be in service for a long time (or at least the ones we don’t flog off prematurely will be).
NaB,
Thanks. I was very surprised to see one on RFA Victoria in a pic posted by x.
@ Sampson
Why? Artisan is optimised for this class of vessel, it is a multi function AESA 3D search radar at the current cutting edge. It significantly outperforms what it is replacing and actually has some hope of exports. Once Type-23 and Type-26 have Artisan and Sea Ceptor they will have a better area air defence capability then Type-42 (except maximum range). Finally it is cheaper which is a rather important consideration with the Type-26.
As for hull contracts, nothing until after the Scottish independence referendum. Ironically if Scotland votes for independence it will be good news for BAE Systems Portsmouth, Appledore in Devon and Birkenhead based Cammell Laird. Don’t believe the tosh that only the Clyde has the skills! Skilled workers have had to be flown up from Portsmouth to support the QE class build.
“Begin work in three years…..ho, ho, ho, I wonder why. No contract awards that are hull dependent either….”
— Do we sense a reduction in numbers coming then?
Does look like they would be better off swapping the position of at least one of the CIWS with one 30mm.
Chris W,
CIWS is still very much an air defence weapon with a secondary ASuW role: it’s being pursued for T26 because it’s a second, independent layer of hardkill defence. (Different sensors, different kill mechanism).
Simon,
The Forts have Outfit UAT because they have, and need to properly cue, the DLH decoy system – remember the original concept for the Forts even included Sea Wolf, since they would have been doing up-threat support for the T23s in the face of the Soviet threat.
Interesting that the (only) CR weapons, other than the 30mm guns aft (with EOGS fore-and-aft) are a chunky-looking Minigun and a spidery .50″ Browning on each bridge wing, plus an LRAD on at least one shot. Keeps the upper deck clutter down, but I’d expect to see more small-calibre weapons in practice…
Interesting snippet from the RN website: “…anti-submarine warfare, air defence and general purpose duties…” – So there’s going to be an air defence version afterall; presumably for export only?
To my untrained eye it looks less stealthy.
No they mean SeaCeptor………
Looks like anti-ship is back on! Or are those torpedo launchers?
@ JL
There are two .50 cal’s on the flight deck, they have rendered them the same as the bridge wing guns so they are flat to the flight deck, and with the firing arcs of all 6 guns they have the entire ship covered, as long as the RN can shoot well they should be able to take out small boats etc.
JS123,
If you mean the four cylinders just in front of the superstructure, flanking the VLS silos, I’d think those are more likely to be DLF(3) decoys or successors thereto.
@WiseApe
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/bae-systems-new-global-combat-ship-draws-export-buyer-interest.html
Eight countries are considering the purchase of BAE Systems Plc Type 26 Global Combat Ships, including an air-defense variant the U.K. isn’t currently planning to acquire.
While export campaigns total more than 30 ships, not all are expected to result in sales, Commodore Steve Braham, who leads U.K. export efforts for the vessel, said today.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_11_2013_p0-615229.xml
Rolls-Royce will provide the gas turbine element of the Type 26’s Codeleg (combined diesel-electric and gas) propulsion system, in the form of a self-contained module housing a 36-40 MW MT30 engine. MTU (jointly owned by Rolls-Royce and Daimler-Benz) is contributing the diesel element, comprising four V-20 high-speed diesels and generators in an insulated module, providing a total of 12 megawatts for cruising power and ship systems. David Brown Gear Systems will use technology from the Astute-class submarine in the reduction gearbox that connects the two propeller shafts to the MT30.
The power system allows the gas turbine and gearbox to be clutched out and shut down at low speeds. The diesel-electric module has no mechanical connection to the ship and is heavily insulated and mounted on tuned isolators.
And going OT :
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_11_2013_p0-615007.xml
The U.K. Royal Navy is broadening the scope of how it might use its future fleet of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The first of the two ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is 80% complete internally…
A surge force of up to 24 JSFs could deploy on the ship along with what he described as a Maritime Force Protection package of nine Merlin Mk. 2 helicopters equipped for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, while a further four or five would be available to provide an airborne early warning capability. A littoral maneuver package also is envisaged, potentially using the Royal Air Force’s Chinooks, the upgraded Merlin Mk. 4, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter.
Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”
Significant work has gone into reducing the manpower levels of the ship. Current crew complement for the vessel alone is 679 sailors,…the U.K. is planning to send more than 300 personnel from officers to sailors to gain experience in carrier operations with the U.S. Navy on its CVNs and with the U.S. Marine Corps on its LHDs. And while more pilots will be involved in exchanges with Navy Hornet squadrons and Marine Harrier units, one officer will exchange on the French navy’s Dassault Super Etendard carrier-borne fighter bomber in a bid to gain experience flying operations from small deck carriers.
I wouldn’t read too much into where the various small arms are placed. It is all speculative.
Unlike the lack of a second hangar. :(
Rt, very kind offer
For me, anything to do with bridges, metal boxes, pallets, combat engineering and as the others have said, top down t26 images.
Owe you a bottle of something nice
Does anyone know if the T26 hull will be strengthened to operate in light ice? It would be handy to be able to send it to the Polar regions, or even the Baltic in Winter.
I do wonder if the T26 might be becoming a bit small. It might make it easier to export but flexibility and the use of modules/UAVs will be substantially compromised.
Jason said: “CIWS is still very much an air defence weapon with a secondary ASuW role: it’s being pursued for T26 because it’s a second, independent layer of hardkill defence. (Different sensors, different kill mechanism).”
Technically true I suppose, but the pathetic little 20mm Vulcan pop gun on Phalanx was proved to be pretty ineffective against U.S. own Harpoons during considerable amount of testing in the mid 80’s ! If your lucky the APDS rounds may rip enough of the missile apart so that the warhead impacts the sea, but in one infamous test, enough bits of a Harpoon carried on inbound under its considerable momentum and made a real mess of the test barge.
It is more effective as against FGA, helo and fast boats than it is against modern manouvering ASM – if we had the cash we should have taken the mounts and made them SeaRAM…… :-(
Hence the extended barrels of Phalanx Block 1, and the Enhanced Lethality Cartridge, introduced since then. Phalanx still has a lot of utility, and it’s something of a standard footprint for “replacement systems” be they gun, missile, laser damage weapons, or anything else: if you’ve got space, weight and power for Phalanx, you’re leaving options open for future upgrades.
Is it just me or has the mk41 launcher been removed? If you look at 42 seconds on the video at the top of the ship you can see identical VLS aft of the Radar and just behind the main gun. I am guessing these are the launchers for Sea Ceptor. The Mk41’s were suppose to go directly in front of the bridge and behind the forward sea ceptor VLS but the space now looks like its covered over in the video. Maybe I am reading too much into the video but I can almost here the phrase fitted for but not with echoing around.
One issue I can’t understand is how the First T26 will come into service in 2020 with the First T23 leaving in 2023. I thought the idea was to take the Artisan Radar’s off the T23 and then put them onto the T26. I think Artisan will be a good fit for T26 but one wonders how the fleet will cope if they have to pull in T23’s to strip of their radar before the T26’s can even get in the water.
@ El Sid
Its good news that the MOD is looking at different packages and its one of the major benefits of reverting back to F35B. Not only does it make operation of the Second carrier at least in extended readiness a possibility but it also gives us the ability to operate mixed packages. A QE armed with 24 JSF as We all as Merlin AWACS and ASW, Chinook and Apache able to offload a full Company in one go is quite a capability. The ability to potentially have two such vessels both with the same is awesome.
Hopefully we will get more than the bare bones 48 F35’s in order to make this a possibility.
This work pretty much guarantees that Ocean will be paid off without replacement though. Given that the QE Class uses the same size crew as the Invincibles and Ocean is a modified Invincible I wonder if we will be able to transfer over the two crews. So Lusty’s crew with leave her in 2014 and begin transferring over to the Queen Elizabeth with Oceans crew leaving her in 2018 and transferring over the the Prince of Wales (or Ark Royal 6).
Either way with the T45’s and Astute delivered and the QE’s on the way along with a future fleet of T26’s the RN of the 2020’s should have quite a significant capability to generate a substantial force albeit in a single area for a short period of time. Lets just hoped SDSR 2015 does not continue chopping the plan to bits.
@ Jed
“Technically true I suppose, but the pathetic little 20mm Vulcan pop gun on Phalanx”
I suppose these will be quite cheaply transferred across from the existing T23. If we went for something larger like Goalkeeper then it would have to be worked into the hull and would cost a hell of alot more. It Sea Ceptor works as advertised then its very unlikely that the CIWS will be required to deal with missiles and it will perform a very secondary role.
There is also a very good chance that by the time these ships are in service then will be using these Phalanx mounts for a solid sate laser instead of a 20mm gun. SeaRam would be nice to have but I think there are other things better to spend the money on.
Martin,
Re: the Mk41 launcher…
Probably “fitted for but not with” as it’s likely to be one of the main customer specific options: more CAMM, A50, A70, Mk41, nothing, etc.
Martin,
I think it’s just the quality of the CGI model – there’s no detail on the Sea Ceptor silos either but if you look at the photos of the model from DSEI you can see the strike silos are still very much there. Plus it was confirmed that the strike length silo was still an integral part of the ship by Geoff Searle, the Type 26 GCS Programme Manager.
Re. SeaRAM, the argument comes back to the Royal Navy’s decision that it offers no significant advantage over the current Phalanx. Best to wait for the solid state laser to be further developed ready for mounting.
@ Simon – If so it will really f**k up the T26 role as there is no harpoon style launcher showing which means no anti surface capability beyond the main gun and helicopter.
It might just be that the launchers at the front are the Mk41’s and the Launchers aft of the Radar mast our the Sea Ceptor VLS. Previous designs should them all grouped together at the front but if all these VLS are only for Sea Ceptor its quite a large number of VLS.
Martin,
I’m guessing that the VLS to the rear of the up/down take are CAMM, as are the ones to the extreme front. The ones just behind these look to be about 16 standard sized which could be for VLS Harpoon type things or TLAM?
Perhaps the “plate” can also have port/starboard Harpoon launchers instead and we lose the strike capability?
I feel we are narrowing down to the UK version, essentailly T23 type armament no strike length cells. T26 will get some sort of anti ship missile mounted on the plated over strike cell space. Hopefully a modern one, but in a worst case, they’ll just move the by then geriatric harpoons from T23 on a one for one basis!
I even feel the phalanx will be fitted for not with
‘GP version’ will be without TAS
It won’t be a bad ship though , CAMM, Artisan, 5″ gun, TAS in some, but it will be no surprise it is more T23 than Arleigh Burke. Future variants may be enhanced in AAW / Strike Cells etc but I think that is presently fantasy fleet stuff
Its not right in my view but we are where we are
mickp – one line summary then is a stronger modern Type 23 with 20 years+ service life ahead, built with inherent upgrade compartments pre-defined for future kit as required? What’s not to like? T23 is a bit old now; buying new systems for it and trying to wedge them in is a mug’s game. Much better to spend our few pound notes on a solid platform with good sea manners and buy the gucci upgrade packages to fit into it later. From what I’ve seen it doesn’t look like the T23 capability is degraded by transfer of legacy kit to T26 – or have I got that wrong?
@ Chris
“buy the gucci upgrade packages to fit into it later”
Thats all good and well but if the T45 is anything to go buy the Gucci kit will never be bought. One has to ask what the point is in having a fleet of large vessels such as T45 and T26 if our greatest offensive weapon is a 4.5 gun and a small anti ship missile launched off of a Lynx.
It would seem truly insane to me for T26 not to have Mk41 but then it’s insane that T45 does not have it either. One wonders if the issue with the RN is not like that of the RAF Tornado Mafia. If your Top brass spent their entire career driving round in ASW frigates then everything has to look like an ASW frigate.
A GP T26 with no mk41 will look extremely silly and would seem to have little if any capability for £350 million +. It will be little more than a large OPV.
@ Simon
” I’m guessing that the VLS to the rear of the up/down take are CAMM, as are the ones to the extreme front. The ones just behind these look to be about 16 standard sized which could be for VLS Harpoon type things or TLAM?”
I could not see any VLS behind the four identical looking banks at the front behind the main gun. The previous video’s from last year showed twin banks for Sea Ceptor right behind the gun with mk41 launchers directly behind them but this new video appears to just show four banks of VLS which look identical to the four banks behind the mast.
On the face of it the suggestion of the first T26 in the water in 2020 and the first T23 out 2023 is intriguing.
It implies that by overlapping the new and old fleets we might actually get more than 19 surface comabatants in commission at a time, building up to a follow-on order for T26-AAW some time in the 2030s.
A less charitable interpretation is that (a) with the proposed equipment pull through this is impossible anyway (b) all recent experience suggests that the T26 will be moved to the right with its ISD slipping past 2023 and (c) if by some miracle it is ready in 2020 then the T23s will just be swapped out 1:1 wheter they are due or not.
If you click on the high res photo TD has supplied at the top of the page and zoom in aft of the main gun you can quite clearly see that the forward VLS are for Sea Ceptor and a large metal plate is sitting on top of the space that is earmarked for the strike length VLS which is a pretty clear indication in my mind that T26 will not be fitted with strike length launcher’s in RN service.
F*8cking Brilliant job RN.
Yet again another warship unable to take advantage in the biggest revolution of naval arms in the past 50 years.
This one won’t even carry Harpoon either
“No they mean SeaCeptor……” – I am sticking to my glass half full view until soundly disappointed.
Anyway, the recent frenzied rate at which articles have been appearing has taken its toll and I’m off on holiday. The delights of budget airlines again. I trust it will at least be pouring down when I depart Manchester, always cheers me up that.
Wise, the company sent you by freight again? :)
I won’t be too bothered by the CG and models at the current point in time, until they start building, these things are very, very subject to change.
On a more personal note, I’m with the “junk CIWS” crowd, the CIWS is more a success of Top Trumps and marketing than actual performance (Oooo!! Look!! So many bullets!!). It probably was decent in the days of sub-sonic anti-ship missiles, but these days, a lot of the foreign stuff breaks the sound barrier and turns the engagement time too critical for Phalanx or Goalkeeper to be very effective. At the 500m “effective range”, you only have half a second to deflect the missile. Just try to time it with a stopwatch to see how fast “half a second” is.
Lasers? Ug… another high tech toy. I’ll believe it when the first operational version comes out instead of getting cut due to under-performing technical specifications besides the problem of a “one gun, one kill at a time” system vs an anti-missile missile system that can flush or chain fire its entire warload at an incoming wave in a single strike.
@Jed, that wasn’t a Harpoon or a target barge, it was the USS Antrim and the target was a sub-sonic drone, most likely a BQM -74 Chukar. It skipped off the water, slammed into the frigate and blew its fuel, killing a civilian contractor. Unless it was another case?
Obs – so what is the solution if current ideas are more for show than effect? Tarian nets strung 10m out from the ship structure?
@All
If you zoom in on any of the high res photos you will see all the VLS silos represented by plates. The forward ones are simply represented by 4 plates rather than one. This represents the layout of the sea ceptor mini silos and the separation between them. The larger single silo behind them is represented by a single plate.
The only place the individual cells have been shown is on the model which does clearly show 24 Sea Ceptor Cells forad of 16 larger cells and a further 24 sea ceptor cells aft of the funnel.
Why would we want to carry harpoon in the 2020s? The US will have switched to LRASM which will be MK41 capable.
Also not one single comment on the only confirmed piece of news. We are going CODLAG with a more powerful but still ultra quiet diesel electric pod which will offer eben more flexibility in her primary role. The deck level mission bay and side doors also still there but we spend our time commenting on holes or lack of holes on a CGI. Grumpy!
@chris
As I explained yesterday it is not a mugs game at all. The required baseline to simply train the ships company is a standard Frigate fit and the future of Gucci packages and mission specialisation is deployable systems not trying to bolt on some radar on gun you should have had in the first place.
Well the old CIWS argument rears its head again, thing is I don’t think people understand what Phalanx’s primary role is these days or for that matter when we first purchased the system.
In respect of anti ship missiles the primary way of defending against them is still soft kill using jammers and chaff, after that hard kill with some kind of missile system.
Whilst a rapid fire cannon like Phalanx is an inner layer system giving a last ditch “lets throw some tungsten” in that direction people forget the other primary reason it was purchased. To deal with low flying jets attacking with dumb bombs! Something the fleet in 1982 was almost entirely unable to deal with due to lack of rapid fire cannon. There are ships in the task force that more then likely would of survived the war Coventry in particular if Phalanx and the other 30mm rapid cannon systems common to the fleet now were fitted.
Phalanx is also a primary weapon system to deal with things like small boats with suicide bombers and most of the recent upgrades have been focused on that role.
I would argue those two roles in particular the latter is the reason why the RN is retaining/standardising on the Phalanx and even buying more mounts.
I’m certainly “on the fence” regarding the effectiveness of CIWS.
However, if we worked on the fact that they are fairly useless then why not put some CAMM silos on each side. If you pull them forward enough then you only really need 16 either side forward and another 16 to the rear, maybe even to each side of the hangar. This gives 360 degree CAMM coverage without the need to overfly any part of the ship.
@martin
You need to be a bit less hysterical about a video that is deliberately vague on detail. Compare this photo of the model at DSEi :
http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/west_europe/uk/exhibition/dsei_2013/pictures/IMG_3303.jpg
Lumpy and bumpy enough for you?
As for Harpoon, it makes no sense on T26. Aside from the fact that it’s already obsolescent, and our stocks are near the end of their lives, by 2020 there should be a Mk41-launched replacement under the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare programme (LRASM, maritime TacTom or similar). If we feel that submarines, fast jets and helicopters aren’t sufficient for the threats we see at the time, then that’s no doubt what we’ll buy.
Thats all good and well but if the T45 is anything to go buy the Gucci kit will never be bought. One has to ask what the point is in having a fleet of large vessels such as T45 and T26 if our greatest offensive weapon is a 4.5 gun and a small anti ship missile launched off of a Lynx.
It’s not about willy waving. If a 4.5″ gun and air-launched missiles are sufficient for a T45 within the context of a wider fleet plan for the threats we face then terrific – we save massive opportunity costs and the money can be deployed elsewhere to further UK interests. Just within the defence budget it means we have more money to spend on anti-IED kit or developing Sampson/Aster for BMD or whatever. In fact there’s a good argument to say that at the moment we shouldn’t be buying hardware, we should be throwing our money at R&D because a)high-tech stuff gives us the best hope of exports and b)it’s the only way we’ve got a chance of being competitive in the 2030s and beyond. A time of relative peace is the time to invest in R&D and relative short runs of demonstrators to prove that the tech works, so that you can ramp things up if things start to look scary but you’re not wasting your money on a Death Star that ends up chasing pirates. Bloggers in the 1820s would have excoriated the RN for not converting the whole fleet to steam immediately but there was no point, there was no real enemy to speak of and it would only have sparked a mini-arms race as happened in the 1850s. It was better to just do 3-4 ships with MkI and Mk II steam power, and put your energy into developing Mk III, rather than buying 100 ships with MkI and not having the option to deploy Mk III later on. You could look at something like the Zumwalt in this view too.
APATS – thanks I got the message yesterday about my really nifty modular ship (shame!) but what I meant just above is that because we are in a position of ever so slightly constrained budgets, it makes more sense to make sound (apols for marketeer-speak) best of breed platforms that have the capacity, real estate etc to support future systems than to spend money on new systems which can only be selotaped onto the worn out hulls we now have. I guess in terms of an analogy I’m suggesting we spend money on really strong foundations and put a modest building on top knowing more floors can be added safely when required/affordable, rather than trying to build a skyscraper on 3ft-deep footings.
The alternative as I see it to building a good number of upgradable hulls into which much T23 kit is transferred, is to build the all-singing all-dancing super-power dreadnaught frigates as so often featured in TD’s Fantasy Fleet threads, but in very small numbers (T45 springs to mind). Then you would I guess need to retain a selection of T23 just to have enough ships to cover current levels of deployment.
I really doubt the budget to create large numbers of fully equipped (to the desires of TD commenters) frigates is going to magically appear in MOD’s bank account. So a reasonable number of modern hulls with T23 kit aboard or half a dozen each of super T26 and worn-out T23. That to me seems to be the choice.
Chris, anti-air missile systems. Hit the target further out so that momentum and water skipping won’t be a problem, which is for things like ASTER 30 and SM, then an inner layer of ESSM or SeaCeptor (we use Israeli Baraks, but that is getting a bit long in the tooth too). Don’t let anything get within 2km if possible.
Tarian doesn’t work against anti-ship missiles nor most of the modern RPGs. I’m a big fan of it as a replacement for slat armour, but you have to understand that it is specifically an anti-RPG 7 defence due to the RPG’s interesting detonation system. Crushing the rocket’s nosecone causes a short circuit in the firing system, turning the weapon into a dud, or failing that, deforming the EFP. Anti-ship missiles don’t use the same firing circuit or care about EFP at all, most ships are not heavily armoured, they are just blast/frag.
@Fedaykin
I get the point on the anti-swarm weapons, but against aircraft, I have to disagree, missile tech is now much more reliable than in 1982, you can more easily swat the aircraft with an ASTER than a gun. If you are saying that it was the rational in 1982+, I’d agree, but post-2000, it has become too hard to get into bombing range of a well armed escort, and tactics have changed to standoff weapons. The CIWS could have been replaced with a 20-30mm mount for anti-swarm and you would still get similar capabilities, though I do agree that the possible “alternate use” of the CIWS in air defence, even as a totally last ditch weapon is probably nice to have as a backup. As I said, it’s personal preference. I would have gone for 20-30mm mounts or SeaRams. Air defence or anti-small boat.
@chris
That is basically what I am suggesting but my upgrades and mission focussed kit comes in form of missiles for pre installed silos or ‘modules, for the mission bay.
@Observer
I think the geography the Ships were forced to operate during the Falklands had quite a bit to do with the aircraft getting so close.
ref CIWS I would go for Seahawk Sigma mounts personally, accepting that its primary role is anti FIAC.
On the lack of Harpoon, as folks have mentioned, not really relevant for the T26.
Mk41 launchers opens up Tomahawk and LRASM; however, the MoD’s forays into ballistic missile defence indicate a desire to develop a longer ranged missile with the other Aster users. That route would presumably lead to Sylver70 being fitted on our destroyers, and I’m guessing that would make Scalp-Naval the more likely candidate for anti-ship and land attack for the Royal Navy – rather than using both European and American launchers, trying to plumb them into a single fire control system, and perhaps losing flexibility by having long silos that can’t easily accommodate all missile types used.
On Harpoon etc as per Brian above:
It’s all about budget. Stupid comment’s like “nice one RN… blah blah blah” are ridiculous. You really think Admirals dont want as many anti-ship / land attack missiles as they can cram in ? Its all about MOD versus Treasury !
We may indeed end up with a ship with the big space for the VLS plated over, because we simply cant afford any more anti-ship weaponry than SPEAR on Lynx or hopefully the Vulcano round from an OTO 127mm gun.
Cash, cash and cash, not doctrine, is the problem.
@ APATS
“That is basically what I am suggesting but my upgrades and mission focussed kit comes in form of missiles for pre installed silos or ‘modules, for the mission bay.”
Agreed, missiles cost allot of money but silo’s are cheap. Missiles can be bought relatively quickly and used if you have the Silo’s. So make sure at the very least the boat has the silo’s and we can worry about the other stuff later.
@ El Sid
“T45 within the context of a wider fleet plan for the threats we face then terrific – we save massive opportunity costs and the money can be deployed elsewhere to further UK interests.”
The issue with this is that T45 thus far is generally being used on its own away from the wider fleet. Secondly with such a small fleet we need versatility in each vessel. I am all for having bigger numbers and not gold plated solutions but having a VLS system on a modern warship seems about as essential as a helipad or deck gun to me.
@ El sid
Thanks for the model pic, Thats what I hoped it would be. I will hold judgement on my histericks until the RN actually launches a ship with a strike length VLS on it. Something it has not been able to do in 30 years since the things were invented.
@ Brian Black
“losing flexibility by having long silos that can’t easily accommodate all missile types used.”
Its seems likely that MBDA will soon start making its missiles all compatible with the Mk4. THey are currently in discussion with LM regarding this. So having Mk41 on T45 is likely to allow it to carry both the Aster 30 Block 2 or Aster 45 ABM as well as SM 3 and TLAM and LRASM and Scalp (n) as well as quad packed CAMMS.
Personally if MBDA do get everything into the Mk41 then I would rip out the A50 cells from the T45 and go all Mk41.
@martin
T45 thus far is generally being used on its own away from the wider fleet.
By “fleet plan” I meant not a taskforce but the whole caboodle – SSN’s, fast jets, cyber, whatever. People on t’internet get very hung up on what an individual platform can do in isolation rather than looking at them as a piece in a jigsaw.
In fact you’re wrong – something like this is more common : http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=125649
Of the two 45’s on deployment at the moment, Dragon is at the heart of the CVBG in the Gulf, and Daring is knocking around the Gulf going from one collaboration to the other, visiting such undefended outposts as Pearl Harbor and Kwajalein before doing a bit of 5 Powers training and visiting Oz.
But I’m not sure what your point is – that’s nothing to do with fitting the T26’s with obsolete Harpoon in the 2020s, and the T45’s are getting ex-T22 Harpoon today. So what if they’re being used on their own – what matters is the threat they face.
In particular things are a bit tight at the moment with the 45’s not quite fully worked up but all the 42’s defunct – and the RN seems to be particularly busy just at the moment, what with the RFTG out to play and even just small things like having two T23 at DSEi. But you can imagine that once things settle down you’d expect to see a T45 with RFTG and another in the Gulf battlegroup.
with such a small fleet we need versatility in each vessel.
Not at any price. We could install a replica of the Rovers Return in each warship, so that they could film Coronation Street there. That would add versatility – but it would be a complete waste of money, and it wouldn’t help us achieve our strategic objectives.
Ditto installing BMD on our minesweepers, or an ice hull on ships intended for the West Indies. You need to think more about what you expect each ship to realistically do in support of that wider strategy, rather than reducing things down to a Top Trumps checklist. Everything’s nice to have, but you can only spend each pound once.
A navy recognition interview with the bae program head of type 26 program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8RBnlrg6Ao&feature=c4-overview&list=UUUoebpU6TUWN-PKOONm9YzA
…missiles cost allot of money but silo’s are cheap…
As far as I was aware each Aster missile is/was about £1m and each Aster launch tube is/was about £1m.
So a silo full of missiles is only twice as much as an empty one.
On the one hand I’m pleased that the flight-deck has been enlarged by moving the superstructure forwards but on the other it’s not good that some strike length cells have been removed as a consequence.
Even after this redesign it looks and sounds like a good ship with a decent range of capabilities. I’m just worried that between now and 2015 we will see further watering down with the end result being a refined T23 (with Artisan, CAMM and Type 2087) as opposed to a ship with true offensive capabilities in the shape of Mk.41 and the missile variety and potency it offers.
@simon
You only pay for your silo once though. Also if Aster 30 is £1mil a pop then it is pretty cheap.
SM-3 BMD come in at over £ 8 million a pop. The new SM6 designed to replace the SM2-ER at £3 million. A typical Arleigh Burke load out mix of SM3/SM6/SM2-ER/ESSSM and TLAM can be about £300 million.
@Mark
Interesting waffle at the end. So we are putting a silo that supports “future” land attack or anti surface missile capabilities but we are not commiting to actually putting anything in it initially.
Apas
Yeah almost like either hedging bets or it will enter service withing nothing there guess you could take it either way. Do you think other navies maybe interested in this, can you see anything obvious of way a foreign navy would buy this over one of the many other ships out there or is it that its operated by the rn the unique selling point? I did also see that they have tested caam from a mk41 launcher
Mark,
If they sell it with CAMM and Artisan as part of the “base spec” then it’s a great idea to have the additional functionality provided by the copter and VLS missiles. Trouble is that 16 missiles hardly gives enough for anti-ship and land-attack…. so I’d guess this means anti-ship for the RN with no TLAM.
APATS,
Yup, you only pay for the silo once, but it’s not like we’ve fired many Aster yet ;-)
My figures are from memory with SAMPSON at £100m and about the same for the full VLS. I’ve seen many figures ranging from $1m per Aster15 (£666k) to $2.5m for Aster30 (£1666k).
So with 16 x Aster30 and 32 x Aster15 that equates to £48m, or £1m per missile average.
@ Martin – “A QE armed with 24 JSF as We all as Merlin AWACS and ASW, Chinook and Apache able to offload a full Company in one go is quite a capability. The ability to potentially have two such vessels both with the same is awesome.”
agreed.
Jedi
I didn’t read is as both at the same time. I thought it implied either 24 jsf and 14 merlin or chinook, apache and company of marines?
Simon unless the missile you choice can do either mission
I still wonder, what with the aft CAMM silos descending to rest against the forward bulkhead of the mission bay, that there exists an opportunity to reload them internally and replenish from the flight deck. Just a bit of ingenuity needed.
Surely not impossible?
Um. I think a ship that has expended all its SeaCeptor missiles and needing reloads would be a very lucky ship. The crew even more so……..
I read it as a 12 F35 + 12-14 Merlin as the base air group.
Plus a further 12 F35 “surge”
or
Plus a wad of Chinook, Merlin HC and Wildcat/Apache for the “littoral manoeuver package”
I’d imagine the latter will also involve “offdecking” the ASW Merlin onto escorts and supply ships.
Mark,
Very true. Nice idea. Are there any in the pipeline then?
@ Simon
But surely the escorts and the RFA’s would expend their AVCAT at a much greater rate if they had to maintain the screen…………? ;)
@x:
True, though it would be nice to feel you wouldn’t have to return to port for a top up, just in case, after a short sharp engagement (making your own luck).
Would you be more interested if one or two rechargeable silos could then be set aside for VL Fireshadow?
Or if similarly a TLAM cell could be loaded like a cartridge from below? They look about long enough.
@Mark
I think he mentioned that “the silo” would be there often enough to make me pretty sure it will. However I am also willing to be he has simply been told to make x room at the moment until we decide what sort we want. This will depend upon numerous factors including the progress of missiles currently under development. Integration of MBDA missiles on Mk41. economics can we afford a MK 41 launcher with integration of TLAM and LRASM or are we better with Sylver 70 and SCALP NAVAL doing both jobs? I think the decision will be delayed for as long as possible.
@Simon
You have 16 tubes of flexibility, if you are in the Gulf with a possible land attack role and any surface threat being asymmetric and unsuitable for engagement with a traditional anti ship missile you may carry 16 land Attack missiles.
If you are escorting a CBG with a serious threat from OPFOR surface units you may want to carry 16 anti ship missiles.
If you are designated as plane guard and “goal keeper” for the Carrier in an air threat environment you may choose to quad pack CAMM if possible.
For a standard solo deployment you may want to go 8 and 8.
Of course we could go for a missile capable of both roles, I hate compromises but better something than nothing.
Much happier to hear about the mission bay and yesterdays news ref CODLAG.
@ All
I definitely read it as 24 F35B plus ASW/AEW Merlin for an operational “Carrier” Deployment and the other configuration as an “LPH” style config.
I have known Russ harding for 15 years and it is not like him to be obtuse.
El Sid A light ice hardened hull would add very little in cost (1%?), but give a longer service life , plus be more capable of withstanding a hurricane, or suicide bomber.
@ Ant
Yep. I believe I understand your thinking.
The VLS is both magazine and launcher, reloading for a variety of reasons isn’t practicable or economic (either in terms of treasure or survivability or crew endurance) .
Recently here I decided that T45 is best classed as the RN’s heavy missile carrier. The T45 escorting CVF could trade some AAW missiles for strike missiles as there would be greater depth to the air defence zone. My preference of course would be for a new class carrying SeaViper to escort CVF but that won’t happen. A T45 at the centre of her own task group could tip the balance back towards AAW missiles.
Not sure there is any real value in T26 carrying TLAM or strike missiles. A better spend would be guided munitions in good amounts for a 5in gun.
x,
The airgroup I outlined above would be the airgroup for the whole CBG component of the RFTG.
So I suppose they don’t really offdeck 9 because I doubt 9 will be on CVF anyway (3 will likely be on escorts/tankers) so they only really offdeck 6 in surge situations (3 to additional escorts and 3 to the tankers and supply ships).
There is therefore no extra AVCAT utilisation on the escorts. Good try though ;-)
Thanks apas.
Simon Is that jsm missile from Norway fired from a vertical launch system? I think it has a anti ship, and land attack capability obviously not as long as tlam. I forget the name of that one mbda had concepts for
APATS,
What is the advantage of CODLAG over IEP?
Seems like extra expense, weight and maintenance for nothing!
Mark,
Cripes. Is the NSM VLS ready then?
Was the MBDA one Perseus?
@ Simon
Your argument actually trumps what you yourself said earlier on. So try and conversion……
x,
Not sure I’m with you?
@ Simon
If a ship has a flight of two helicopters (its air group) is only using fuel as fast as two helicopters can use fuel.
Mk.41 is the key. Artisan, Type 2087, Sea Ceptor and a new medium caliber gun are all safe. The bit the RN needs to fight for and what’s seriously needed if the T26 is going to avoid ending up as a refined T23 (as lovely as that would be!) are strike length cells. At least 16, but preferably more, just focus on getting the silo’s installed (shouldn’t cost too much) and then worry about what to put in them later.
It’s probably a dam sight easier to get funding for missiles to fill empty launchers than it is to get a whole new capability installed from scratch. They could probably get some vertical launch AShM into service for the first few years of T26 service and then explore land attack options further down the line.
@Simon
The space required to fit the diesels to bring the same amount of power as when the you use the GT and Diesels would be massively greater. Using GT in an IEP would be massively noisier.
So to get the 48MW available from the MT30 and the 4 Diesels you would need to fit 16 equivalent diesels. A GT is simply the lightest most space efficient means of producing power but it is noisy. That is why you go CODLAG, you have 12MW worth of Diesels responsible for propulsion and hotel services, so a bit like IEP, these can even be mounted above the waterline like on T23 and allow extremely quiet operations up to about 14-16kts plus on a T23, maybe more on T26. In other words across the ASW operational envelope.
When you want to sprint or go faster you spin up the big GT engage the clutch and gearbox and add 36MW worth of power to the equation. Obviously noisier but quicker and lighter method of generating the extra power.
Plus you are only maintaining 5 units in a far smaller space.
@Simon/Mark
I believe NSM still has to be fired in a horizontal plane. The Skjold class has a pop up launcher.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=55f_1350186239&comments=1
I had heard that MBDA were proposing a dual use MdCN
APATS.
I appreciate the value of the GT.
I thought the difference between CODLAG and IEP is that with IEP the GT would drive a generator which would in turn add to the power grid for the electric motors. In CODLAG the thing has to be mechanically switched in. That’s not a small clutch or gearbox!
So are you saying that “clutching in” the GT through a massive clutch and gearbox is quieter (or cheaper???) than simply driving a generator?
Even the Aegis-based Nansens have box launchers for the NSM :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE17MP8PyOk
But I’m sure if they won the OASuW competition, they’d at least have a go at putting them in Mk41. But I suspect that the only way they would win OASuW would be in conditions of extreme budget squeeze, where even the USN was just looking for a straight replacement of Harpoon.
@Simon
Remember that going IEP using GT for the boost phase would mean some seriously big electric motors! That adds expens and complexity, the motors on the LPD were huge and fragile. The acceptance is that when you want to sprint you are no longer tactical and you use a tried and proven system.
We have also had nightmare issues with the IEP systems on the LPDs.
The UK has developed a significant amount of experience with IEP, arguably more so then any other Western navy so far. Bay class, Albion class, Type-45 and QE class.
It allows easier packaging, the removal of gearboxes and quieter operation as the gas turbines/diesels can be decoupled from the hull.
Fedaykin
“The UK has developed a significant amount of experience with IEP, arguably more so then any other Western navy so far. Bay class, Albion class, Type-45 and QE class.
It allows easier packaging, the removal of gearboxes and quieter operation as the gas turbines/diesels can be decoupled from the hull”
Or in real life, breakdowns in the Gulf of Mexico, propulsion units attached to hulls, screwed up differing shaft lengths and single screw Suez transits (allegedly :) ) Not to mention a myriad of other mechanical breakdowns.
APATS,
Fair enough. Ultimate reliability is a perfectly acceptable reason.
I am now officially concerned about Type 45’s future.
@ El Sid
“But I’m not sure what your point is – that’s nothing to do with fitting the T26′s with obsolete Harpoon in the 2020s,”
I’m not advocating harpoon, far from it I would like to see us acquire an Anti Ship missile to be used in a mk41 launcher. My point was that if the ship’s don’t have mk41 and don’t even have harpoon they will be little better than large OPV’s.
“Ditto installing BMD on our minesweepers, or an ice hull on ships intended for the West Indies. You need to think more about what you expect each ship to realistically do in support of that wider strategy, rather than reducing things down to a Top Trumps checklist.”
I will say it again I do not believe having strike length launchers on our T45’s or T26 is any kind of gold platting rather a basic necessity along the lines of a helipad or main gun. They can be used to support the primary mission of the vessel i.e. ant ship missile for T26 or ABM for T45 as well as land attack missiles or simply an additional increase in defensive missiles such as Sea Ceptor.
At least we have got the 5 inch gun kind of confirmed.
I think the T26 looks like an excellent design and if they can deliver it for £350 million, then even better. But it really really needs to strike length launchers. Hopefully with the US developing anti ship missiles for VLS systems the RN can dupe the treasury into buying them.
Does anyone know how difficult it is to integrate land attack or anti ship missiles with the ships systems. Obviously AAW missiles need a very high degree of integration with the ships radar and defensive systems but I am guessing land attack and anti ship missiles don’t. I had heard that the control for Harpoon missiles was done essentially by a box in the CIC that was not really integrated with anything else of the ship.
I would hope that as the ship is being made for export its computer architecture should easily support integration of different weapons systems.
I’m guessing like T45 that they will be running everything through windows :-)
El Sid said “an ice hull on ships intended for the West Indies”
Um. One hopes that wasn’t a less than subtle jab at yours truly……….
NSM is also undergoing Mk 41 studies [1].
Note: NSM not JSM.
Currently NSM is launch-able from it’s own box launcher.
[1] Jane’s article on NSM for Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)
Searle also referenced the 5″ gun being capable of firing guided munitions during the video interview posted above. As discussed before, the Vulcano submunition fired by the Oto Melara is one option while the BAE option is called the the Multi-Service Standard Guided Projectile (MS-SGP) [2]:
[1] Wall, R. (2013). Rolls-Royce Sees Type 26 Win Spurring More Navy Engine Contracts. Bloomberg.
[2] Sweetnam, B. (2013). Long Shot. Aviation Week.
Can anyone advise whether the Mk57 is benefical over the Mk41?
I really am assuming that we are going the US route, it would seem so limiting otherwise. Whilst I realise a helicopter is a weapon deliverer what evidence is there out there that is can work and survive in a contested environment?
If the helicopter is taken out it appears the frigate days as a useful asset are probably over.
Any thoughts on layout plans of the engines being a COmbined Diesel ELectric Or GT. The only info I can find on David Brown gearbox mentioned in the press release to be used with the RR MT30 36-40MW GT, is that it is a derivative of that used on the Astute, by necessity “quiet”, I presume direct drive to the prop shaft via gearbox and clutch. I also presume the MTU 20V 4000M53 (4 x 3MW) diesel generator sets will power an electric motor (GE Power Conversion?), not mentioned in the press release which I find odd as the rest of the hardware announced, and how will the gearing / clutches work to take power in and out from the electric motor to prop shaft, similar to the Renk design that won the contract for the CODELOD MARS tankers?
@Opinion3
Raytheon touts the Mk 57 as [1]:
In addition [2]:
[1] Raytheon. (2012). Seapower. Retrieved from raytheon.com.
[2] Raytheon and BAE Systems. (2007). MK 57 Vertical Launching System. Retrieved from alternatewars.com.
@Nick
The aviation weekly press release said CODLAG although up to this CODLOG was the rumour. If it is CODLAG then a similar layout to the T23 though not sure if they are going to put 2DG on 1 deck for ultra quiet ops.
@opinion 3
All I have heard about MK 57 is that it is designed to cope with more exhaust gas release.
In the current design, you have a single MT30 driving a splitter GB to get to two shafts. There are then two EM on those shafts powered off the main electrical dist system by the MTUs. Can’t remember whether they’re LAG or LOG atm and it isn’t really important. All the prime movers are (currently) on the tank top last I saw.
The actual prime movers can be ordered because they aren’t going to be any different – irrespective of what may happen to the ship design itself.
@x
Huh, err? I don’t get the reference but if it came across that way my apologies, it wasn’t intentional.
@martin
See that’s my confusion – hitherto you’ve been referring to VLS tubes as “Gucci kit”, as in “will never be bought”. Look, if you read anything about the wider strategy for T26, land strike and a mission deck are seen as the two big things it brings over the T23, in a way that land strike was never a big part of the T45 mission (where it was more a nice to have). You’re just getting yourself in a big tizz over a badly-rendered bit of CGI.
if the ship’s don’t have mk41 and don’t even have harpoon they will be little better than large OPV’s.
Stuff like that just makes you look stupid. If they don’t have a VLS then they’re “just” a better T23 with a mission deck and bigger helideck. Given that a T23 with 2087 + HM2 (and associated meatware) is a bloody awesome ASW ship, that means eight of the T26’s will still be bloody awesome at their main job, with more flexibility for operations less than war; adding SeaCeptor makes it a pretty nice all-round escort. I know things like isolated diesels and experienced sonar operators aren’t as sexy as Blowing Stuff Up, but defence of your SLOCs in war is arguably more important than the sexy stuff.
You’re obsessed with Harpoon. An anti-ship missile is nice to have, but no more than that – just think about the times when you would use it. If there’s submarines or fast jets in the area – you’d use them first. So there’s no fast jets around, but you still need something to give you a target ID. Your ROE need to be sufficiently relaxed to allow you to shoot, and the waterway sufficiently free of civilian traffic that you don’t worry about hitting the wrong thing. You’re looking for a target that’s big enough to need a decent warhead, but with insufficient ECM/CIWS/SAMs to defend against eight subsonic missiles – you’re not going to be taking on a Kirov or Type 052C. It’s not impossible that these conditions will all be met, but it’s not terribly likely either – there’s a good reason why no Western ship has unequivocally sunk anything ever with Harpoon. It has its place for navies too small to have anything much more than FACs, or for non-state actors to “do a Hanit”, but it’s marginal for the kind of navy that can call on submarines and fast air, and whose strategy is primarily defensive. Sure, if you had more than 8 effectors, and they were supersonic, then that gets a bit more interesting. Personally I’d rather see the T26 get themselves an ASROC to support their main mission, but I know that’s pure fantasy right now.
@Opinion3
Mk57 is a couple of inches bigger, so it will eventually be able to take fatter missiles than Mk41 (at the expense of fewer tubes in the same space), and as has been mentioned the exhaust system is sized accordingly. It’s mainly intended for BMD missiles, but it also increases your multi-pack options. Still, for an austerity frigate you’d go for the “Model T” option of Mk41 if you were buying USian.
People get obsessed with the tubes when its integration at the software level that’s the complicated (hence expensive) bit. The argument for going with MBDA missiles is for exports, there’s lots of countries who want to buy kit that’s as free as possible from US political interference. That’s why we’re about to sell ££££’s of Typhoons to the Gulf for ground attack and why the Saudis are pressing for Storm Shadow integration thereon – the Jewish lobby in Washington won’t let the US sell long-range weapons like JASSM and Tomahawk to the Ay-rabs. So if that kind of consideration is enough to tip export customers choosing a T26 with a SCALP derivative over a ship design from Russia or wherever, then it could really help defray R&D costs that would otherwise fall on the RN budget. But that’s much less likely to happen if the RN has bought Tomahawk rather than SCALP-x.
@ El Sid
My bad I forget the :) at the end. A while back I was speculating about a build of 2 ships based on the new South African Antarctic research vessel to cover WIGS hurricane and humanitarian relief and Antarctic sovereignty and science support missions. Obviously the WIGS ship would have been ice strengthened too, but I saw the greater cost as a gain in utility as we would always have an additional ship for ice ops at both ends of the planet, we would save on design costs, and it would be a class not a one off oddity which is a plus. My bad as I said I forgot the emoticon. Sorry.
With all the talk of Mk41 and American missiles, I wonder how things would have panned out if years ago we had bought all the gubbins from the Burkes and stuffed them into a British hull instead of going down the PAAMS route for T45.
If we wanted the GP Type26 to be a do-it-all multipurpose platform, including trucking about dozens of land-attack missiles, wouldn’t the whopping Type45 hull have been preferable?
A pared down T45, with Artisan and SeaCeptor. The big hull able to carry a whole bunch of strike missiles, as well as being potentially better able to accommodate a large hangar/mission bay, troops/passengers, and various boats or USVs.
@ El Sid re ASROC & T26
Oh yes.
@BB
We don’t want the T26 to truck around dozens of land attack missiles but a precision land attack capability via a new gun and some strike length cells is nice. What we do want it to be is a quiet ASW platform and produced at a price that attracts potential exports. A T45 based option carrying dozens of strike length tubes would be neither.
@El Did/X
Always wondered about ASROC but I guess the thinking is that both detection ranges when active with LFAS and the range of submarine torpedoes have increased to the point where engagements are going to be outside ASROC range. Making it a nice to have but not worth the cost of developing our own version. This may change if we had the silo to put them in.
“If we wanted the GP Type26 to be a do-it-all multipurpose platform, including trucking about dozens of land-attack missiles, wouldn’t the whopping Type45 hull have been preferable?”
What on earth makes you think that the T26 is significantly smaller than T45 anyway? It’s a couple of metres smaller in length, a couple in depth and a metre smaller on the beam if that.
As for the rest, exactly what APATS said, with the addition that AEGIS/SM2 (or SM3) isn’t necessarily what it’s cracked up to be when compared to PAAMS…….
@NAB
“AEGIS/SM2 (or SM3) isn’t necessarily what it’s cracked up to be when compared to PAAMS…….”
I always get a bit of a kick out of this statement as it is so amazingly broad. I mean the relevant question is what version of AEGIS, what type of SM-2, what type of SM-3 and what task exactly are were talking about here? Neither have what amounts to an operational history in their use. One is older in origin than the other and each are looking to solve only somewhat similar problems differently to be sure but I find it funny when people make statements with such certainty about matters that only a handful of people on earth probably have the level of understanding to really offer a fully informed opinion on.
APATS, you might not want the T26 to carry about cruise missiles, but a number of folks mentioned it. We are due to see two variants in service -ASW and GP- I specifically mentioned ‘GP Type26’, not ASW.
NAB, a couple of metres in the beam could make a whole lot of difference to what types of boats could be launched. And there is a 2,600t difference in displacement, that doesn’t seem negligible to me.
Thanks for explanation
Not a Boffin September 13, 2013 at 11:23 am
In the current design, you have a single MT30 driving a splitter GB to get to two shafts. There are then two EM on those shafts powered off the main electrical dist system by the MTUs. Can’t remember whether they’re LAG or LOG atm and it isn’t really important. All the prime movers are (currently) on the tank top last I saw.
Confused by the terms LAG or LOG atm ?
Any thoughts on the advantages / disadvantages of ABB’s new marine electrical power system DC (direct current) as against AC distribution.
Jeremy MH – you’re quite correct to refer to the “task”. That is where comparing AEGIS/SM2 with PAAMS on a “Top Trumps” basis as so often happens here falls down. I was merely making the point that each system has particular strengths depending on threat and engagement envelope, such that wishing for a bunch of Arleigh Burke kit does not necessarily answer the RN question.
Brian – it depends whether you know what the “5400 te displacement” (from which I assume you derived your 2600te difference) refers to or not………..
@Nick
“COmbined Diesel eLectric And Gas” as opposed to “COmbined Diesel eLectric Or Gas”.
@NAB
I agree. The RN kit makes a lot of sense for the RN on a lot of levels. PAAMS is likely a better system for one ship standing alone into a dangerous air environment. The radar is higher up. You can conduct more terminal engagements (kind of…sort of…well it depends) at once. In the same way it makes a lot of sense for the Type 26 to have quieting technology that is not really used on USN surface ships. If/when operating alone that stuff is a big deal. For the USN spending the money to bring a Brukes noise signature down further would be useful but the fact is they are usually tied to a carrier or amphib that really can’t be made quiet. Different needs yield different kit.
I think the relevant question for the RN is really what do they want their ships to do? Are we making a couple of CVBG’s out of the QE and that is going to be the main role of the whole navy? Or are we going to do ASW work in the North Atlantic in small groups? Or stand alone patrols? That is where I think the RN has run into the most trouble. Things seem a bit muddled at the upper level on what exactly the most important thing the fleet will be asked to do really is.
@BB
I am sure NAB will know but I get the impression the only difference between a GP T26 and an ASW T26 will be the initial absence of a tail. not a noisier propulsion fit or lack of any other weapons or sensors. They will still be very useful units. Indeed one of the ASW exercises involves the use of an active 2087 “beater” and a silent passive weapon carrier.
@NAB
I think we have to be careful to separate the capabilities of the T45 radar and command system to gather and process information from the actual kinetic performance of the missiles they control.
@JMH
Ask the politicians. At the moment we are just about aiming to maintain capability over almost the full spectrum.
@x
No worries, just thought I’d missed something major, it makes sense now!
@APATS
Re: ASROC, I don’t think it’s the range so much as just this on its own :
Making it a nice to have but not worth the cost of developing our own version.
It’s a lousy business model – even the USN have been averaging 32/year, so we’d be buying single digits. Not even remotely worth doing unless you have a suitable big modular missile to adapt. Having said that, the time could be right to do it with an eye to selling it to the USN and others, they do seem to be waking up to ASW again. Particularly if they were to put a couple of Mk41’s on later LCS’s as has been mooted (if that batch are not cancelled altogether).
Just to be clear, I wasn’t thinking literally of RUM-139, which is after all a pretty ancient weapon now – it would be interesting to see how what sort of range you could get out of an A50-sized missile using modern technology, assuming a similar improvement as you’ve seen with SAMs since RUM-139 was developed thirty years ago. And I was thinking of a range more like the Russian ones, so realistically you’re looking at a turbojet-powered strike-length weapon. The obvious place to start is MBDA’s very own Milas – and in fact Milas box launchers would make a better fit on our 2087 frigates than Harpoon. Then you could have Otomat on your GP ones if you wanted. Obviously it would be preferable to have a Stingray version of Milas, changing torpedoes is claimed to be relatively easy to do.
In a fantasy world, Milas-Stingray would just be another depot-installable warhead option for a modular strike-length VL missile. In a slightly less fantasy world, I’d cut and shut Milas onto the arse end of a Tomahawk/SCALP-x. But it would still be a multi-££m programme for just a few missiles per T26, it just doesn’t work without export sales and even then it’s expensive.
@Jeremy M H
Bear in mind that some of that handful might be hanging around these parts….
Thank you all for your responses.
My general feeling for British kit and designs is that when we do something we do it well, very well in fact and often better than anyone else.
The Type 45 is clearly a brilliant ADD but there are gaps. Given the low numbers of T45s I would hope some of those gaps are going to be filled by the Type 26. The T45 isn’t a ASW asset, although there is a sonar and it does have the helicopter(s). Land attack is limited to the gun (although presumably CAMM could be configured to work with both static and moving targets). I also recollect there is work on developing the Brimstone dual mode to do exactly the above from ships. There are no torpedo or ship attack assets other than those provided by the helicopter(s).
The Type 26 is designed to be a brilliant ASWF and hopefully fills some of the gaps.
Do we need Land attack? I think so, has it been the weapon most used by the RN is recent operations?
Do we need to be able to operate as escorts independently? I think so and I have imagined this would be assigned to the T26s. If so can they defend themselves against subs, ships and aerial threats in a contested environment?
That’s the question I don’t know the answer to. My gut feeling is – as long as the helicopter is operating and in the right place doing the right task then yes. Otherwise it is game over. You might see the sub, the ship, the jet but the ship can only defend itself (or within range, the helicopter) from aerial threats and not torpedos. Of course I am overlooking the decoys but against I imagine you don’t risk one on one and eventually the waiting game will be won by the enemy.
Because I don’t have the full knowledge, the Mk57 would be my choice. BMD, ASROC, TLAM seem lacking IMHO.
One of the best things about Think Defence is when we get these discussions between people who know what they are talking about. They are a joy to follow but can sometimes leave the lay-man a tad mystified.
So I wonder if one of you grown-ups could explain what this gas turbine/diesel argument is about. I thought that the modern thing was to have the propellers driven by electric motors and the electricity could be delivered by gas turbine/diesel/nuclear or combination thereof as required. Is that not the case? Just a bit confused by CODLAG and CODLOG and the points made about clutches/gearboxes and propeller shafts.
@APATS
“Indeed one of the ASW exercises involves the use of an active 2087 “beater” and a silent passive weapon carrier.”
I am sure that there is such an exercise, doesn’t mean it is an optimal or even good tactic to use though. Beating on a shoot is fine, the birds don’t fire back. I would have thought that blasting out one’s location to an enemy submarine might invite a response (it will know where you are long before you get an echo), leading to the “silent weapon carrier” having to chose between picking up survivors (and thus coming out of silent mode) or prosecuting the enemy. Would not two ASW frigates, each with a tail, be a more efficient method of operation and leave any active stuff to their helicopters? Especially if one is escorting a convoy, or even a carrier group.
@Jeremy M H
“Things seem a bit muddled at the upper level on what exactly the most important thing the fleet will be asked to do really is.”
The RN has traditionally done everything from expeditionary warfare to protecting commerce to sea control and taking the fight to the enemy’s fleet, but since the 60s hasn’t been able to, though it does seem to have tried hard. The problem isn’t I think at the service level it is at the political one. If HMG can’t decide what its foreign and defence policy is for more than five minutes at a time then the Sea Lords can’t be blamed for not having a fleet tailored to deliver whatever it is the politicos want today, especially as their budget gets cut every second year by those same politicians.
MBDA & Lockheed Martin co-operation achieves first missile launch from a MK 41 launcher using ExLS
12/09/2013
LONDON, Sept. 12, 2013 – MBDA and Lockheed Martin demonstrated the first launch of a Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) from Lockheed Martin’s MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) launcher using the host variant of the Extensible Launching System (ExLS).
This is the first test by MBDA and Lockheed Martin since the May 2013 announcement of cooperation between the two companies to offer MBDA missile systems for use with the MK 41 and ExLS family of launchers. The test used MBDA’s soft vertical launch technology to eject the CAMM from its canister and position the missile for main motor ignition. The trial is the first in a series to demonstrate that the CAMM can be installed using ExLS in vessels that use the MK 41 launcher or on the 3-cell stand-alone ExLS CAMM launcher.
Announcing the result of the trial, Paul Mead, Business Development Director for MBDA said, “This first CAMM trial is an example of how MBDA and Lockheed Martin are offering the global MK 41 customer base a real choice in which missile they use. The missile offers a wide range of benefits, not least its active seeker, as well as low impact of installation on-board due to the soft vertical launch method. This is the start of what we hope will be a wider range of MBDA missile systems available to Lockheed Martin vertical launcher users.”
“The multi-missile MK 41 VLS has fundamentally changed the way world navies think about sea-launched weapons by providing the flexibility to respond to numerous threats,” said George Barton, vice president of business development of Ship & Aviation Systems for Lockheed Martin’s Mission System and Training business. “Our partnership with MBDA allows us to grow the MK 41 multi-missile capability and offer our customers an outstanding VLS launcher alternative.”
Lockheed Martin, in collaboration with MBDA, is developing a 3-cell stand-alone ExLS CAMM launcher for those navies whose ships cannot accommodate the larger MK 41 VLS but desire the superior missile packing density, survivability and reliability that the 8-cell MK 41 launcher has been offering for over 30 years to 13 navies worldwide.
The trial was carried out on the 10th of September near Bedford, England, using a MK 41 launcher outfitted with a host ExLS.
COGAG: Combined Gas and Gas
CODAG: Combined Diesel and Gas
CODLAG: Combined Diesel Electric and Gas
CODLOG: Combined Diesel Electric or Gas
IEP: Integrated Electric Propulsion
The CODLAG is a variation of the CODAG. We are going for an IEP CODLOG.
Gas = Excellent acceleration, compact
Diesel = Efficient for cruise (medium-high RPMs), simple intake/exhaust requirements
Electric = Silent, efficient at low RPMs
IEP = More damage resistant & more design freedom (can locate diesel/gas generators anywhere)
These days diesel-electric is almost mandatory for ASW combatants and OPVs. Moreover gas is required for ASW (for sprints). AAW and GP combatants, as well as amphibs/logistics ships, are the only ones that can get away with diesel-only propulsion
The “Or” propulsion variants – COGOG, CODOG, CODLOG may appear less flexible and less capital-efficient, but those disadvantages are often more than offset by the less complex reduction gear. Reduction gear is often a weakness of “And” propulsion arrangements.
Pic for CODLAG
In the pic the props are driven by either the electric motors alone (these are powered by electricity produced by diesel generators) or, if the Gas Turbine is “switched in”/”clutched in”, then both the GT and the electric motors contribute to the shaft power to the props.
CODLOG (OR instead of AND) allows the electric motors to be “switched out”/”clutched out” so therefore runs on the motors OR the Gas Turbine.
CODLAG is simpler and allows the electric motors to “brake” the props if necessary. In addition, due to some clever trickery with electrons in magnetic fields it can also be used to generate power from the Gas Turbine.
The thinking behind my earlier comments on the GP T26 is that it is simply a regular patrol frigate, the likes of which every middling navy goes and buys half a dozen of as soon as they have the cash. So does sailing a few around benefit Britain beyond providing a floating showroom for BAe?
A more versatile ship might be of more use to the UK than a handful of basicly fitted, albeit very fine, frigates that offer little more than a way to make up the numbers.
Considering that the first rung on the naval ladder for most countries is a bunch of OPV, equipped with a generous helping of anti-ship missiles, perhaps the money would be better spent on a couple more air-defence ships instead.
I think we’re missing a trick with T26.
More VLS silos and the option to mount SAMPSON high up.
That way we can realistically replace T45 with the same nice, quiet, hull…
…or, more realistically, not replace T45 at all and just stick with 12-13 T26, which should be enough to support the CBG we’re likely to have (our amphibious capability might drop by the wayside).
HurstLlama, subs are usually not that gung-ho, in a way, they operate almost similar to recon teams in that their main weapon is their stealthiness, so if a frigate is blasting the area with active sonar, the first inclination of the sub is not to kill the enemy but to get out of the way. This is why the beater-shooter tactic works.
You are right in saying that using helos to detect the sub is the safest way, but unfortunately a helo can’t be up 24/7, and even if you have 2 for a 1 on, 1 off system, the fuel usage would be horrifying. A ship on the other hand, floats 24/7 and fuel usage is minimal if he is just station keeping. More likely, a ship will be used as a floating sensor platform while the helo would be used to chase down suspected contacts and to persecute it without letting the sub too close to the frigate.
Sooooo, having spent millions on “concept definition” and “design phase” (or billions ?) can somebody please tell me what this vessel offers over a similarly configured FREMM other than a “Chinook capable flight deck” ?
Why the hell do we need a “Chinook capable” flight deck on a Frigate ?
And please dont come back with a load of tosh about exports . On a pure military capability cost benefit analysis what are we getting here that did not exist MOTS elsewhere ???
@Simon
“Do we need to be able to operate as escorts independently? I think so and I have imagined this would be assigned to the T26s. If so can they defend themselves against subs, ships and aerial threats in a contested environment?”
This was never the task of a second rate warship like a T26. Even the USN sends Burkes, not OHPs or LCSs into contested areas.
The obvious recipient for any strike-length VLS is a T45, as it is capable to detach from a task group, make a firing-raid, and GET AWAY with it.
I still guess, a 200-VLS-cells container-vessel-conversion may be a better solution. “RFA Kickass(ad) underway to Cyprus”, morning news not easily been stomached by third-world dictators next door.
I would also propose to not make the T26 too potent initially by adding VLS. Because adding more capability means more firepower to treasury budget-hawks. We need numbers, anything else comes later or in case of emergency.
To add to comments on ship propulsion, directly driving the shafts from the Gas Turbine via the complex gearbox gives you high sprint speeds when you need it.
Given the range of TLAM and SCALP-N, set against the range of F35b, and the number of these things we will launch as part of coalition I would say T45 is the best ship to carry the strike missiles. I would have the UK to have the capability to carry 100 or so TLAM into theatre but it won’t happen. To the MoD strike means dangling missiles under aircraft. If you look at the crisis we have been involved in with the US since the end of the Cold War, aircraft losses, missiles launched, and the cost of missiles it would be far cheaper to go with shipborne missile strikes. But culture eats strategy for breakfast.
Mssrs. Opinion3 and Simon,
Thanks for your explanations of CODLAG/CODLOG etc.. I am now much better informed, none the wiser, mind you, but definitely much better informed.
Jed asked “Why the hell do we need a “Chinook capable” flight deck on a Frigate ?”
I think Chinook capable flightdeck it the RN equivalent of the RAF’s C17 can carry tanks. It is just a metric. A demonstration of size and capability. But not wholly realistic. A USAF C17 can only land an M1Ax on a long runway. And then it would spend the next two weeks in the hangar while the maintainers look for microfractures in its airframe.
T45 is just huge. To be honest I think the flightdeck is just that big because they didn’t know what to do with all the volume. They tower over T23, the size difference is greater than between say a T23 and a Leander.
@Simon
That’s the trick that we’re missing so much, that it was explicitly mentioned as a possibility in this interview :
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/bae-systems-new-global-combat-ship-draws-export-buyer-interest.html ????
But I think you’re getting a wee bit ahead of yourself, looking to replace a class of ships that haven’t even all been commissioned yet!!!! And by the mid 2030’s Sampson will be long gone – I’d guess we’d end up with AESA plates like the Thales SF500 on the proposed FREMM-ER.
Separately, I’ve been thinking on how MBDA could increase the volume of MILAS sales. I’ve concluded they need to follow the example of car manufacturers and do a limited edition which is little more than a special paint-job, a new name and a marketing campaign.
It would be an Extended Yield variant especially for SYRia – the MIL(EY-SYR)AS. Do a Youtube video of a pop tart squirming naked on it and jobzagoodun.
Well the early Type 26 concepts were shown with a Chinook capable deck then later concepts were shrunk down and now it is back again. To get a Chinook capable deck the multi mission bay is cut down and the number of strike length cells reduced from 24 to 16.
Personally I am happy with those changes, I think having a larger helicopter deck will be more useful over the life of the ship. Personally I am sceptical about these multi mission reconfigurable container decks, those vessels that have employed the concept tend to end up sticking to one set of container modules rather then swapping around. 16 strike length cells (or the potential to fit) is still 100% more then what is fitted on any current Royal Navy vessel. If a cruise missile is procured I highly doubt that every single missile cell would be filled even with 16 let alone 24. Actually my guess is that many a Type 26 will sail with none or no more then 3 to 5 cruise missiles at any one time.
Pictures to follow when TD tells me what resolution they need to be at, but in advance, I apologise for the slightly poor quality of some of the photographs (a combination of weird indoor lighting, and a poxy little iphone camera). They’re good enough if you know what you are looking for. I’ll do the photos tomorrow and email them to TD so that he can post them wherever appropriate. And there’s a nice little surprise one in there just for you all.
Had a fascinating 15 minute conversation with the BAE Systems Senior Programme Director for T26. The model which he talked me through was, he confirmed, the very latest. It represents the T26 in the configuration in which it is going to be taken to Main Gate next year, so if Main Gate is signed off, the systems on board are going to be part of the specification. If not, if less money is approved, then things will start to be trimmed.
In no particular order:
Size: he said that the design had been criticised by some as being too large, but it was deliberately sized as it is in order to accommodate future systems (over 20-30 years), and because modern RN regulations for living space mean that even a T23 would have to be 1000 tonnes larger if it was built today.
The thing has 24 Sea Ceptor and 16 Strike Length launchers forward (pictures clearly show the layout), and the same number of Sea Ceptor aft of the superstructure. So total 48 Sea Ceptor and 16 strike length launchers.
He made an interesting point about the standard load out. Not even thinking about the cost of the missiles, the RN it seems have to obey various rules about “Net Explosive Quotient” (I think he said): basically a total amount of explosive that can be carried on board in any particular harbour. Makes sense to me: you don’t want the entire of Plymouth being flattened if a single ship in the harbour goes up. Anyway, T26 if fully loaded would have more NEQ than most harbours allow. Obviously, different in wartime, but something to bear in mind if a 1982 situation arises again and a whole squadron is told to turn left at Gib instead of right and going home.
The CIWS are highly likely to stay where they are. (I didn’t ask about the small armaments). The gun shown in the model is generic: it will be 5 inch, but either the American or Italian one, as the competition between the two is still running. I didn’t think to ask what the white tubes forward of the bridge were for, so can’t help anyone out there.
The hangar is sized for one Merlin or 2 Wildcat. CH47 cannot fit into it.
All sorts of UAV options possible for rotary and smaller ones like Scan Eagle, but no design decisions yet made on L&R methods. They will happen, and not seen as being difficult to integrate with ship operations because of the modular mission bay and large flight deck.
The multi mission bay is really good, and they are proud of it. Almost anything can be fitted into and operated from the space. It is separated from the back of the hangar by a clever door that can be reconfigured in different modes, and there is continuous mechanical handling from the flight deck right through to the mission bay to allow up to 10 ISOs to be moved about and stored in there. ISOs arrive either by dockyard cranes or there is a method for Chinook to undersling an ISO direct onto the flight deck.
He was much more guarded on export orders, but said that was currently mostly a Government to Government conversation. Currently, the plan is for the RAN to start having officers on postings, discussions about common requirements and so on. The decision as to whether to build any export version in the UK or abroad is very complex, only likely to be decided later.
Original resolution is fine RT, I will sort the scaling out
Cheers in advance
Thanks RT.
@Simon: I’m with you, but let’s just have 6 T26 and use it as a stepping stone from the T45, nothing fancy just an incremental upgrade, with Sampson, decent hull sonar and some more VLS / TLAM… please can someone tell me why we need to use a 6,000t “capital” ship to tow a sonar array and hunt subs…
@SIMON @Repulse
Gah! Why the obsession to fit SAMPSON?
Artisan is adequate for the vessel and cheaper! There is other stuff I would rather they spent money on for this class then putting a high end radar like SAMPSON especially when Artisan is actually pretty darn high end as well.
What worries me about T26 is peoples desire to play fantasy fleet and load all sorts of kit on it that is frankly overkill and drains money from more pressing needs.
The next person who refers to submarines as subs will be on defaulters…….
……….or have house points deducted or worse stars removed from their fridge chart.
You have been warned. ;)
x
Is it better if we refer to subs as ships?
Fedaykin: Why Sampson? Because it is the “best” and actually makes a difference when it rocks up somewhere. A bloated T23 in my view does not.
X: I will take myself to one side and give myself a strong talking too :) Okay, why hell do we need a large “capital” ship to hunt submarines? If thr original plan was to put TAS on a Castle sized ship backed by a RFA Fort with ASW helos lilly padding. Why can’t we do the same with the RFTG, plenty of space on the CVF… wouldn’t even need a hanger.
But why does T26 need SAMPSON? It might be “The Best” but T26 is a multi role frigate with where an eye has to be kept on cost, Artisan is a state of the art AESA multi function radar. Artisan is cheaper. Artisan is far more likely to be attractive to export nations. Artisan is good enough for what we want T26 to do and in the anti air warfare role superior to what T42 had and arguably what many nations field in that dedicated role.
Just saying Sampson is the best is not a reasonable justification to spend more money on it. For 95% of the time Artisan is more then what we need and for the remaining 5% it will be operating with the T45. SAMPSON is a high end radar allowing T45 a world beating area air defence capability. Why so you think T26 needs the same?
What do you mean a bloated T23? T23 has been arguably the most useful type in the fleet in recent years, T26 reflects that. Why does sticking a more expensive high end radar on T26 making it a less bloated type? Are you saying you want more T45 and we should ditch T23 and T26?
You need to make a compelling argument for SAMPSON on T26 beyond its the best. Artisan does the job and will fit the budget.
@ Mark
No submarines are boats as they only have one continuous deck above the waterline.
Anyway I can’t remember where we discussing Harrier and RAFG recently but 18 minutes into this fun rave from the grave there is a Harrier hiding in some woodland……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VflzHApZ28#t=13
@hurst lama
If you believe that a submarine can detect the position of a surface vessel via a LFAS in active before the ship gets a return then you offer a classic example of the first sentence of your post about experts etc. They simply hear the noise of the sonar. It is not the sort of persistent sound which even then would only give one line of bearing. Whilst the ship here solid returns. Initial 2087 trials were conducted against Dolfin a Dutch SSK which led to some very interesting data leading to the rewriting of lots of tactics to take advantage of these results.
@RT
Cheers for that.
@some
The reason type 26 is being designed the way it is, is because we do not have infinite money.
@MCZ
a full fat T26 is definitely not 2nd rate or to be compared with an LCS or OPV. I would rather be in a T26 than a T45 in your scenario. I am quieter, just as fast, Much better equipped to combat an ASW threat, I have land attack missiles to combat surface batteries, Anti Ship missiles vs surface threats and a couple of UAVs for situational awareness. I have an inferior AAW fit but unless they have gone nuclear missiles don’t kill me 40 miles away.
@X
When a missile can escort transport aircraft, ride off snoopers, conduct recon, do a show of force etc you may have a point.
Fedaykin: Yep, in my world the T45 should not just be a AAW destroyer, but more akin to a Arleigh Burke class with TLAM, ASuW missiles etc. The T26 (or rename it the T46) should be an evolutionary, second batch of another 6. This would allow the RN to have a go anywhere hardcore, which would make a real difference. Buy smaller and simplier vessels to tow the TAS and even give them Artisan, forget the bells and whistles. I also fear that by bending the design to fit export markets we’ll end up with a complete fudge.
Sir H, did a great article on how sending a T45 on a tour to the far East would have more influence effect than forward basing a fleet of cheap or mediocre ships.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/hms-dragon-sent-to-med-for-cyprus-task-1-5489519
Wouldn’t have the same impact if it was a T23…
Gents (I presume ;-)),
I was only really suggesting the “option” to put SAMPSON high up. In other words future proof the design so that it can ultimately take over the AAW role that T45 currently provides.
It’s a step towards an evolving design rather than these expensive shopping expeditions the MoD like to go on every 25-30 years.
What new hydrodynamic breakthrough is being applied to T26? None, I’d wager. It’s just a hull, similar to all the others that have been around for the last 50 years. No continuous wave detonation engines. No active boundary layer control. Is it still steel? Yes. Nothing new there then either. It’s not even using IEP! It’s the sensors and systems that are special and different. The hull just has to be the right size and shape to accommodate future unknowns (which, I admit is tricky). It just seems like such a lot of faff for a T23 with a mission bay, bigger bunks and a tiny VLS – just buy FREMM, or better still a score of Arleigh Burke.
@ APATS
Now it is my turn to be confused………….
What point was one trying to make and where, if you would be so kind?
@repulse
Neither would HMS Dragon sails to track Russian SSN, or HMS dragon sails to conduct MCM ops in the Gulf. The intelligence suggests any threat to Cyprus will be airborne, hence the fact we have had 6 Typhoons there for some time.
If the threat to Cyprus was a cruise missile launched from an SSK would you send Dragon?
Frankly the T45 fan club need to get real.
@X
Your post about missile ranges be F35B and cultures, would cut and paste but on my new Xperia Z tablet and my techno pygmy skills have not got that far yet.
@ APATS
Wow that is some jump. I have gone from 1SL to Duncan Sandys all in one week.
Not surprised you can’t cope with Android seeing as Windows 2000 literacy is the prime computer skill in >cough< today's RN…….. ;)
Isn't the Xperia Z the waterproof one? Good choice for somebody in your line of work, as those office water coolers can be a bit unreliable…….
Seriously you might find this video useful if you are drafted to a T45 and it all goes belly up. It will earn Brownie points with father
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUE-gJmcGKk
@X
It is though have not tried it under water yet :) Maybe I should read the instructions? Only you know what you meant by your post but I do not think my reading of it is unfair.
Think my possible 45 ops are behind me.
@Repulse
Well I hate to pour cold water on that but it is too late for more T45, there has now been a gap in production and long lead items would need to be ordered and new contracts signed. Under that circumstance it makes more sense to design and build an optimised frigate rather then more T45. If T45 was still in build as would of been if the original 12 had been procured then there would be a strong argument for T26 to be a derivative of that type. With the gap it makes little sense.
Also the simple vessel with a TAS and no high end stuff is not a new idea, that is what T23 was meant to be with the Fort Victoria class providing air defence. Luckily the Falklands put paid to that idea! A vessel which has a single role of towing an array around is exactly not what the navy wants. T23 ended up as a general purpose class with only few being fitted with a towed array. The navy wants another general purpose frigate, able to perform multiple tasking and capable of defending itself.
You keep on alluding to needing a vessel being able to go anywhere hardcore and needing a T45 variant to do that. Frankly that is a nonsensical argument. Have a look at what is being proposed for T26:
5″ Gun
48 Sea Ceptor
16 Strike length cells for assorted types of missiles including anti ship and cruise missiles
Two Phalanx
Two 30mm DS30
Torpedo magazine launcher
Large Hanger for ASW helicopter
Large Helicopter deck
Mission bay
Modern 3D AESA radar
Modern Sonar
State of the art towed array on some
Modular architecture allowing future growth potential
That is just scrapping the surface frankly but that is a significant set of capabilities to allow the vessel to go into harms way. Actually it is more punch then what a T45 has in many ways! T45 is meant to excel at AAW, T26 is meant to be an affordable jack of all trades.
It has taken many years to get to the point we are with T26 and the system and weapons fit is a reflection of a series of compromises to give the most bang for our buck whilst allowing enough to be procured.
I’m guessing that the white tubes in front are the inflatable lifeboat holders. Opinions?
@Observer
Wrong shape, they look like a DLF variant decoy. Now without getting myself into trouble, you can either use something like siren to electronically spoof a group 1 missile or use something like DLF to mechanically decoy it. The better option good and froes.
I am not sure Sampson is needed on the T26s. The most obvious solution is CEC. The sharing via CEC reduces the need for Sampson on the T26s.
F35s, T45s, CVF, T26s, the Amphibs and even the MARS FT should be able to share the targeting and threat information.
Give me BMD and CEC ahead of Sampson on the T26s. Where Sampson might be useful is the CVFs. The extra height could be handy, but then with helicopters, AEW Crowsnest, escorts and very possibly AWACS there might be no need at all.
Chaps
The mystery is revealed here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/08/the-type-26-global-combat-ship-2/
or here if you cant be arsed reading through that mammoth post
http://www.airborne-sys.com/files/pdf/decoy_spec_sheet_06092010.pdf
@TD
There is no mystery simply a huge lack of understanding of the concept of requirement vs cost vs tasking which drives capability.
@ x
I think Chinook capable flightdeck it the RN equivalent of the RAF’s C17 can carry tanks. It is just a metric. A demonstration of size and capability. But not wholly realistic. A USAF C17 can only land an M1Ax on a long runway. And then it would spend the next two weeks in the hangar while the maintainers look for microfractures in its airframe.
A little off topic but, the following article shows the RAAF airlifting a M1A1 from Darwin to one of the training areas at Shoalwater Bay (near Rockhampton Queensland). The airfield (Williamson Airfield) is 5900 feet/1800 m long. Small regional airport size. The photo shows it’s not a very wide airstrip either.
My point is simply that it can be done over operationally significant distances to fairly rudimentary (and quite common) airfields and in fact there were no problems at all with the aircraft afterwards. Just sayin’.
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/m1a1-abrams-tank-takes-ride-raaf-c-17a/
There’s a lot more photos and a few more details of the demonstration flight if you Google some of the specifics.
@TD/APATS
Darn, so close. Knew it had to be something inflatable. :) Thanks.
@Simon: ” better still a score of Arleigh Burke…” my position exactly. Also couldn’t agree more on the need for CEC.
The time for single role AAW or ASW ships are over – numbers are too low to guarantee that both could be made available for a threat situation. Additionally, the level of contribution needs to be “gold plated”, otherwise in any scenario the RN would be just making up the numbers (in a very small way). Even the US seems to value T45s with SAMPSON (as they are impressed with our “gold plated” SSNs and MCM capability).
My argument is not to reopen the T45 production line, but to make sure the T26 is just an evolution of the design – which is multi-purpose not just focused on AAW. Alongside this add the “missing bits” to the current T45s – Fedaykin, your list of T26 features is good, but compare it to the T45, plus:
– Upgraded gun (planned)
– Harpoon (planned) then hopefully ASuW replacement which if it doesn’t happen would leave the current T26 up shit creek also.
– Additional strike length VLS (already possible)
– Upgraded hull sonar (possible)
– Torpedo magazine launcher (available – if needed).
What I cannot see the use for, in a “capital” ship is a modular bay – why can’t UUVs, USVs, Rhibs etc not be launched from cheaper escorting vessels? Likewise, why do you need one of your most valuable vessels drag a TAS? Why not a smaller ship? Both these could be accommodated by an extended River class type ship. These ships sailing under a RFTG (or on a smaller scale in combination of a RN “Arleigh Burke”) protective umbrella with CEC and Artisan / Sea Ceptor (taken from the T23s) would be a first tier combination.
Add the CVF, Astutes, Amphibs and MCMs to this and you have a relevant top table RFTG contribution to make to any operation.
@APATS: “If the threat to Cyprus was a cruise missile launched from an SSK would you send Dragon?” – in it’s current form no of course not. A RN “Arleigh Burke” combined with one or two extended Rivers with TAS, plus ASW Merlins – or a SSN yes.
Question for you, would you want to sail a T23 (or T26) if the threat was “a cruise missile launched from an SSK”, plus long ranged land based anti-shipping missiles combined with jets armed with anti-ship missiles also?
Also, you are missing part of the point. The contribution of a T45 is seen as note worthy as it is seen as having significant world beating capability in the capability needed. Would sailing a T23 have the same news / political impact?
@Fedaykin: “Also the simple vessel with a TAS and no high end stuff is not a new idea, that is what T23 was meant to be with the Fort Victoria class providing air defence.” – I know, that’s why I mentioned it in my comment that you were replying to.
The Falklands demonstrated a complete lack of layered air defence in the RN. This ranged from AEW, air defence fighters and AAW missiles and CIWS. Ships were sunk because the could not protect themselves or be protected by the task force umbrella.
Adding CIWS and local air defence is much more readily affordable nowdays – so for a small price my cheap extended River “TAS tugs” would not be complete defenceless – especially if you move the already paid for Artisan to them along with a limited Sea Ceptor VLS (and add CEC).
Plus, these TAS Tugs would need to be escorted under a protective umbrella just like our MCMs, Amphibs, RFAs etc…
Repulse,
…not to reopen the T45 production line, but to make sure the T26 is just an evolution of the design – which is multi-purpose not just focused on AAW.
Agree.
But before anyone else butts in and says that T26 is multipurpose, I’d like to pose a small mental exercise.
If you are Johnny Foreigner and you’re looking at T26 as the answer to all your problems would you not think: “it’s no good for AAW because the Brits have a separate dedicated platform for that”. However, if we elected to replace T45 with the T26 design (over time) and boosted the number of standard sized VLS, Johnny might just see the thing as the perfect solution for his/her Navy.
Simon,
I’m no expert on boats, and a 15 minute chat with the programme director of T26 gives me no insight, but in the brutal world of engineering changing the T26 design to be a T45 follow on during the assessment phase with Main Gate next year seems impossible to me, if you want to meet the deadlines. T45 is 80/54ths heavier, and has a completely different engine system. The boats are also radically different in terms of cost, T45 being well over double the price.
At this stage – just pre Main Gate, the engineering is being done on spreadsheets and is about cost, time and affordability. Same for any major equipment programme, whether afloat or in the ether. Putting a new hull into the equation is not going to add anything but delay.
I am now officially a fan of the modular mission bay. Makes perfect sense, and adds credibility to the concept of a “Global Combat Ship”. Go anywhere with modular equipment to ensure that when “there” it’s delivering a relevant capability. Of related interest would be wondering about the Andrew’s ability to pre-deploy to various stations (Gib, Ascension, DG, somewhere in the WI) the modular bits so that the T26 doesn’t have to go home to swap out the UUV to replace with a Firescout or something different. Hopefully, the RAF can step in with a C17 mercy mission.
RT,
You’re probably right, but that’s not how it should have been. We’re compromising exports if we don’t elect to use the T26 platform for AAW. Well, I suppose, that’s not strictly true, but it is currently inadequate for AAW. Another 16 VLS would fix that. Working on the premise that CAMM replaces Aster15, leaving Aster30 in the VLS along with the other things needed for a milti-purpose warfighter like ASM or TLAM.
I think T26 should be IEP. I think it should be factory fitted with 2 x 20MW motors and an optional Gas Turbine (retro)fitted through the modular mission bay, which should surround the main up/down-takes.
As for size, that is certainly the sticking point. A good design might therefore offer an optional lenghtened mid-section?
I just don’t think we can afford 2-3 classes of escort/warship. We should have a single hull/platform and fit them out according to our requirements.
I have to say I thought hms dragon looked impressive with the big dragon painted on the bow definitely disappointed its gone!
Lots of talk about cec but did someone on here not once say that it was more important to have link 22 than cec?
Thanks for the write up rt interesting that you could fly an iOS container to type 26 and then I assume can be moved through the hanger to the mission bay. The mission bay sounds impressive and I wonder if that is were and how our mcm capability will eventually be deployed and operated from.
@ APATS
My point was simply that it is cheaper to expend F35-worth or two of cruise missile of whatever flavor against fixed targets like airbases, comms nodes, infrastructure etc. to ease the way for the manned projectiles which are, I won’t use the word expensive, but of high value which “we” will possess in tiny numbers than it is too risk losing them. In the FIW we lost 5 FJ and in GW1 we lost 6 FJ. If the RN really is concerned with tackling a peer or near peer enemy these of the scale losses we should expect. Looking at plans of the 5 Argentine air bases nearest the Falklands expending 2 FJ-worth-in-cost of cruise missile wouldn’t have held them at bay for long, but it would have seriously hampered operations meaning that “we” could have got more from our limited resources. It is like our limited force would have been multiplied in someway. That TLAM seriously out ranges the combination F35 and SS isn’t too good in my book. Nor does the eyes on argument hold much water from 250nm or so away.
As for your T45 days being behind you tell me which was worse old, old man, coal ship or being shackled to those great big oars? :)
Simon,
just a thought. Would a modular (and yet to be invented) Sideways Launch System poking out from the sides of the Modular Mission Bay satisfy you?
Take a VLS, rotate through 90 degrees, wire it up to the boat’s combat systems and point it out of the garage door…? Could even be SLS’ prepacked into an ISO….. I reckon you’d get 20 SLS into an ISO, one either side and you’ve got another 40 shots. And if it is ISO-able, you don’t need to go back to port to reload. Merely get another fresh ISO cross-decked via Chinook from an RFA.
;)
…and with that thought, I am assuming the concept is applicable to DROPS and other useful Land things, AAW MLRS equivalent. Even the Argies rush-engineered an Exocet into land-launch mode in less than a week. These ISOs being jolly useful.
RT,
Waahhhhhh. I want 32 VLS tubes. Wwwaahhhh :-)
I suppose optional 45 degree CAMM silos sticking (flush) out of the mission bay could mean the standard fit of CAMM could be reduced allowing everything to be pulled back a bit from the rear CAMM bank so that the standard VLS could be resized?
@X
Oars, definitely :).
@Various
Just wondering whether you would have a 1 in 4 or defence watch deployment routine for the 4 mixed unit IEP/CODLAG 8000 tonne,96 strike length cell, mission bay equipped, 2087 carrying, Sampson and PAAMS fitted, 2 Merlin hangar death stars we could afford to build?
“That TLAM seriously out ranges the combination F35 and SS isn’t too good in my book”. Then its lucky that it doesn’t. I also bet the aircrafts quicker to reload than any sub or ship.
APATS said “Just wondering whether you would have a 1 in 4 or defence watch deployment….”
See previous comment re shackles; I believe the term is sweating your assets. :)
APATS,
…mixed unit IEP/CODLAG 8000 tonne,96 strike length cell, mission bay equipped, 2087 carrying, Sampson and PAAMS fitted, 2 Merlin hangar death stars…
Nice to see you’ve eventually come round to our way of thinking – I’ll take 20 of ’em ;-)
@Simon: Agree. T26 is multi purpose, but not top draw in comparison to other classes already available. It’s not too late to can the T26. Start by building some TAS tugs which would be simpler to design. In the gap design the T46.
@RT: I have no problem with the mission bay in itself just that it should be on a supporting vessel, rather than unnecessarily impacting the design of a warship.
APATS,
So you’ve now designed two ships that most of us like. Why are you a PWO, you should do MoD procurement specifications?
PS, the other one was the OPV…
Base it on the BAE 90M OPV as the Thais built.
90M
2000 Tonnes plus
24kts
6000NM plus at 14kts
Flight deck and hangar for Wild Cat and small UAV (possibly Scan Eagle)
Basic Citadel Capability
Scanter radar as on Clyde
Bridge and nav radar set up from Rivers
Expanded Ops annex at rear of Bridge with Tacticos CMS as used by the Greek Roussen class.
Sufficient consoles to control 76MM, 3 x SIGMA SEAHAWK, 4 other consoles, 1 for air, 1 for Surface and 2 command consoles. Approximately 8.
1 76MM STRALES mount.
3 SEAHAWK SIGMA mounts
Positions on bridge wings and waist for GPMG/50 cal
Ability to carry 2 or 3 containers and supply power to them.
…one of only two posts I’ve ever copied and pasted into my own notes.
@ Repulse
Bin T26 after spending millions on the design. Build TAS tugs like the T23 was meant to be and then we found it was much better to make it a proper Frigate. The mission bay onboard a Ship is the future, not on some auxiliary you then have to protect.
APATS,
…mixed unit IEP/CODLAG 8000 tonne,96 strike length cell, mission bay equipped, 2087 carrying, Sampson and PAAMS fitted, 2 Merlin hangar death stars…
Scrub the CODLAG, 12 rather than 96 strike lengty cells, no mission bay or 2087 and only one Merlin… 12 please. Plus, 8 TAS Tugs…
Repulse,
I think we’re on two sides of the same coin.
I just think that T26 is sooooo close to being everything we need that I find it difficult to justify in my head why it shouldn’t also be the future AAW vessel for a whole host of potential nations and ultimately for the UK in the late 2030’s.
I just think 16 x VLS (excluding Sea Ceptor) is not enough.
@Repulse @SIMON
Right so now you want to put CIWS and a better radar on your TAS tugs, now the price is coming up yet it would still be a terribly compromised vessel. Again that is not what the RN wants! The whole TAS tug is a non starter and I really don’t understand why you think it is a good idea?!
RT made the point clear enough, a T45 variant would cost over twice as much as T26 probably more as it would involve stopping T26, signing new contracts, performing new design work and making new long lead orders. Arguing that T26 is an evolution of T45 appears to mean adding expensive systems the vessel doesn’t need for its primary role. The fact is T26 will have more all round capabilities then T45 and people really seem to be hung up on its AAW capability which is actually superb when compared to what we had before. How is it inadequate for AAW SIMON when what it offers is significantly superior to T23 (pre upgrade Seawolf) and T42. Most of the time T26 will never need to use its AAW capabilities, when it does the fit out being offered is excellent in comparison to other countries dedicated AAW destroyers. If it is a really big dust up then T26 will be working with T45, QE class, F-35 and the AEW helicopter. It is a layered solution for very good reason. Adding expensive SAMPSON and ASTER-30 to T26 is totally illogical.
The RN wants 13 multi role gp frigates not a whole load of TAS tugs and a small number of evolved T45.
@repulse
OK but you have just doubled the cost of the T26 project, possibly more once manning taken into account.
@APATS: binning 127mn is small fry compared to other things canned. Multi mission bay on a Blackswan / Venator / MHPC type vessel yes, on a first rate warship – why?
Fedaykin,
Err, I think I’ve suggested 32 VLS tubes (16 more) and PROVISION for SAMPSON (or another power-hungry radar)?
I appreciate the extra ship length that might possibly be required might cost a little bit more.
The point is that when T26 has completed its rollout the MoD will spend another wad of dosh keeping ship designers employed to create yet another hull that is the same as all the others. The 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th T26 should replace Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender and Duncan.
@APATs: sorry, I meant 6 new ones and 6 upgraded T45s. Manning & cost should be neutral.
@Repulse
why a mission bay, well let’s look at real life ops. When I am in the Gulf doing OPLATS protection and boardings I can have USVs for security or larger rhibs or an int container.
When I leave the Gulf and head to the GOA I may retain the large rhibs but embark an enhanced UAV fit for greater SA.
Off to the Caribbean, let’s look at disaster relief stores, possible enhanced medical facilities.
Beirut NEO, accommodation ISOs and medical facilities.
Plus flexibility in the future.
@Simon: re 12 VLS being too few. I understand a point, but its a bit like buying 96 guns and are only ableto afford 12 bullets. I would really like to gwt to the point that all SSNs are fully loaded first before adding new cells.
@APATs: if the T26 is the only work horse in town I understand your point about the mission bay. But if the RN had another Blackswan / Venator work horse I do not – this is where I think the RN should be heading.
Repulse,
I guess that depends on if you see T26 as UK only or if you’re trying to create a credible product for export.
I personally think the T26 export ideas are pipe dreams. Shared desogn maybe, but everyone wants to be able to build there own that would be able to afford them. Export market for a Blackswan / Venator seems much more likely to me – as long as BAE invests in an efficient production line that is…
If will be interesting to see this 10 TEU; though twin hangars would be more preference; I suppose uptakes and “stealthy” davits are the consideration if hull length isn’t to grow. I shall just have to be content with knowing I am right and the RN/BAE are wrong. ;) There are modules and there are modules. Accommodation, medical, even as additional stores etc. OK It should also be noted that 10 TEU may sound a lot but it ain’t compared to the Absalon’s capacious innards so lets not get too excited. I should imagine most of the time it will be Club’s sports hall; at least the RN will save on deck hockey quoits……..
@ SIMON
Why is 16 strike length VLS not enough? That is 100% more then what is currently fitted to any Royal Navy Surface ship! It is a huge capability enhancement, in peacetime a T26 will never sail with all of those cells full. If we are in a scenario like we recently were with Syria we would only be lobbing a token number of cruise missiles anyway. If it is a hot war then the T26 will be sailing as part of a task force. Lets say a task force sails with just over half of the T26 available and they decide to fill every single strike length cell with a missile that equates to 112 missiles! Now consider this the UK only purchased 64 Block IV Tomahawk for the Submarine fleet, to outfit all 16 strike length cells on every Type 26 would involve the procurement of 208 cruise missiles! Do you actually see that being funded let alone an even greater number if more cells were fitted? Putting 16 strike length cells onto T26 allows a Swiss army knife of options and growth potential for the RN. They can buy different stand off cruise missiles, they can buy various anti ship missiles, they can buy VLS launched drones, they can buy various ASW rockets and they can even put in more Sea Ceptor if an even larger AAW capability is needed. Actually for in shore operations the Medium Calibre gun offers an exciting set of new options now guided munitions have come into play, why lob off a cruise missile at a coastal radar site when four or five rounds from the 5″ would have the same effect for less money?
AS pointed out by All Politicians are the Same flexibility is the future but also the watchword here alongside cost! Adding more strike length cells or SAMPSON to T26 has to offer good operational and financial benefit. Frankly it offers neither and vague statements about the need to go to hardcore places and inadequate AAW capabilities are not rational arguments.
If people feel there is a greater need to improve RN area air defence capability I would argue it would make better sense putting the extra VLS silo on the T45 in the spare space allocated and integrating CEC into the fleet. Turning T26 into another T45 makes little sense for the tasking envisaged and what is being proposed is plenty potent already.
The multi mission bay is really good, and they are proud of it. Almost anything can be fitted into and operated from the space. It is separated from the back of the hangar by a clever door that can be reconfigured in different modes, and there is continuous mechanical handling from the flight deck right through to the mission bay to allow up to 10 ISOs to be moved about and stored in there. ISOs arrive either by dockyard cranes or there is a method for Chinook to undersling an ISO direct onto the flight deck.
woohoo! an old point of mine (mechanical handling all the way through) from ship-that-is-not-a-frigate era TD.
Fedaykin,
I’m obviously not doing a very good job at the art of communication am I?
I do not mention “strike length”, you do. I keep saying 16 additional VLS for AAW (i.e. Aster30).
I think a sensible/flexible fit would be:
32 CAMM
16 Aster30
16 TLAM or AShM
This would require 32 standard sized (non quad packed) VLS tubes.
Obviously they may as well all be specced to be “strike length” so as to provide for 32 TLAM and any other combination one might like.
I also mention that the ship should be designed to accommodate this. i.e. “fitted for but not with”. This does not cost us anything (other than yet another redesign, sorry).
So I’ll conclude with the same statement I keep making: 16 VLS is not enough to be considered a multi-functional export opportunity.
Simon, re export.
first find a country which might have a need for a boat with 16 VLS, let alone more. Apart from the USA, UK, probably France and maybe Russia, I’m slightly struggling.
Look back at recent history. Which countries have fought battles requiring each individual ship to fire 16 missiles each (whether against aircraft or TLAM-types). I’m not even sure that any individual ship in the Falklands fired 16 AD missiles total (I am ready to be corrected if wrong), and I’d be slightly surprised if any of the USN ships fired more than 16 TLAM in the various Iraq / AFG shenanigans over the last couple of decades.
16 VLS seems to me to be adequate, particularly if you have also got 48 Sea Ceptor (as per T26).
@Simon
What are you using as fire control for your Aster 30?
@SIMON
Well that is more reasonable but it doesn’t clarify why you think it needs SAMPSON.
@Simon: might as well go with the 48 VLS plus 12 Strike Length cells arleady in the T45 design in my opinion.
@APATS
“a full fat T26 is definitely not 2nd rate or to be compared with an LCS or OPV.”
In my book, a first rate is a vessel you can build a task group around. This is not the case for T26. So, LCS is second rate, Oliver Hazard Perry is second rate, and indeed T26 is second rate. Arleigh Burke is first rate, and a strike-enabled T45 would also be a first-rate. In fact, this division makes far more sense when comparing RN to USN vessels.
The obsession with TLAM is rather pointless, especially if proposed by the same people opposing a stronger language on Syria. As it looks, we are no longer willing to use those weapons. Any use in a FI-style campaign down south would break the Monroe-doctrine.
Any information on whether a helicopter (Wildcat or PZL SW-4?) can be stored in the Mission Bay?
Also, any more information out there on the latest Venator 110?
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsbmt-warship-and-submarine-dsei
There’s always MHPC…
In the end what I want from T26 is a modern day Leander class! Actually I really think that is the name the class should get, it sends all the right messages in my opinion.
For the RN I want a vessel that has modern up to date systems but nothing blue sky warship of the future. I want it to be capable enough of going into harms way but also affordable. I want real growth potential and flexibility in configuration (something T22, T23 and T42 struggled with). I want it to be able to take on a number of different tasking from humanitarian relief to full multi arms warfare.
In respect of exports I want the base design to have the same sort of flexibility that Leander did in the past and the German MEKO does now. That means a base hull that allows freedom of system outfit again something T22, T23 and T42 struggled with. If a customer wants their T26 to have:
SPY(F) radar
MK41VLS
ESSM
Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace Naval Strike Missile
OTO76 Super rapid
A different CMS
LM2500 Gas turbines
Caterpillar diesels
The only reply back from BAE Systems should be “No problem, what colour and how many?”
Most of all I want fiscal responsibility! NO loading the design with every dream system imaginable or sticking on systems that significantly beyond what is needed for the day to day operation of this vessel.
@McZ
I think the key point to your post is “in my book”. The way I see it is that a TG is built around the HVU or MEU. This will generally be an amphib or carrier. Full fat escorts are 1st rates. You need to think in all 3 environments. An ASW T26 offers a capability in the ASW world every bit as good as the T45 does in an AAW sense. In a multi threat environment they are equally important.
As for TLAM well looks like instead of using them and aiding some dodgy rebels we may actually come out with a best case scenario. Shocking. There is a time and a place for use of force.
The Monroe doctrine was written in 1823 and the chances of the US intervening against us in a FI scenario is as likely as a Martian intervention. Having said that I can envisage very few scenarios where we would use land attack missiles against mainland targets other than air bases.
We need to compile a Think Defence Glossary of Agreed Terms……………
An escort to me is an ocean going warship capable of speeds above 25 kts and having reasonable good acceleration, good maneuverability, and acceptable range. Manoeuvre being the fundamental weapon of naval warfare whether that is to take you into harm’s way or evade enemy fires.
A first rate capability is an area capability (which I suppose implies OTH). The ship is able to take action over considerable area of sea at targets that may not be actually closing on her just passing within range. SeaViper is an area air weapon. A ship equipped with TAS (eg. 2087) and means of delivering a torpedo (either helicopter or UAV or rocket) on to submarine at a distance is an area capability. Further any depth to or additional capability to support the first rate capability counts for me in rating a vessel as first rate. For example SeaViper is far more sophisticated than the systems fitted to the Horizons the latter with multiple 76mm weapons to back up its area missile capability so have a greater depth of capability. For ASW you may be able to direct a helicopter carrying a torpedo into the vicinity of a suspected submarine (as Leander used Wasp), but if the helicopter can identify its own targets once cued by mother so much the better (as T23 with Merlin). Again additional helicopters or the ability at least to operate helicopters increase depth not just in terms of coverage but more realistically airframe availability. A first rate ship isn’t a HVU which to me means a large specialised ship such as an amphib or aircraft carrier; the ships that need to be escorted.
A second rate capability is a local or point capability used to defend the ship or better still used to attack by closing with the enemy deliberately (which is what they are there to I suppose). T23 is a first rate ASW ship is fitted with a point or local air defence capability with Sea Wolf, so is a second rate AAW ship. T42 had the same search sonar as T22, a helicopter, and STWS. But it didn’t have an area ASW capability it wasn’t quite enough for a start. STWS may be of questionable utility but many modern ships can them such as the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën. T45 is somewhat lacking in this area, even though it was designed to be quieter than T42, but still by dint of SeaViper a first rate ship.
I would hope that all RN escorts would be general purpose by which I mean have some credible capability in all areas; air, subsurface, and fighter direction (CC). Basically the roles defined by the RN in the early post war frigate programme before all the roles were consolidated into T12 (and then T22) and in a way T42. (T42 being the first destroyer to have a frigate type class designation and not just a class name. Yes Daring is a frigate. :) ) And under here I would put such capabilities as a ASuW; immediately post WW2 ASuW was still work for destroyers and cruisers. The minimum here I suppose would be a medium gun (76mm and over) and some heavy AShM which though of arguable utility (to some) are only a fraction of the total cost of the vessel. Lastly I would say a flight deck at least and a hangar because helicopters do more than just drop stuff on submarines. T23 is general purpose escort even without 2087. De Zeven Provinciën is a general purpose escort. And T26 will most definitely be GP. T45 isn’t to me. Odd capabilities like land attack I see more as a manifestation of the ship’s utility which feeds back into all our talk on strike length cells and our overarching obsession with the module.
We should talk about that oddity of a class the T14 Blackwood’s. These were a product of the post war frigate programme. They were second rate ASW ships. They had no GP capability, though they did prove to be useful in FP. The idea was for every T12 first rate ASW produced there would be two T14’s. They were small ships. Had good speed (which proved useful in FP). But couldn’t do much else. Shades of T23 before the realisation that a proper ship was needed. These were the days before helicopters and where an area ASW capability came from numbers and high speeds in all sea states. Beyond the 2nd rate there was a programme for a third rate coastal ASuW frigate to protect shipping in the North Sea from WARSAW Pact FAC but not of these were built. A requirement that came from preparing for the next war by refighting the last. Though saying that they were designed to be built in austere yards during a limited nuclear conflict. I suppose this is where the fast corvettes so beloved of some here would come as second rate or single purpose ships. Not convinced these are needed if the is helicopters and FJ in numbers and the escorts have sufficient cannon and small arms.
RT,
IMO 16 x VLS is not enough to bother with TLAM, it’s for AShM or a SAM to extend the air defence capability really. And I’m not just talking about single ship top-trumps. I’m thinking about 6 of these in a CBG. I’d want to be taking 2 x T45 and 4 x T26 and would want way more than 96 AShM and TLAM in total.
APATS,
Fire control for my Aster30s: Well, that would be either Artisan or my (not the RN one) ASaC or something like SAMPSON or AN/SPY?
Fedaykin,
I don’t think it needs SAMPSON. However, when it becomes the 14th-19th escort produced for the UK it will need a SAMPSON equivalent so needs to consider mast height, weight, size and power drain of a 1MW radar. Perhaps just a modular mast?
Repulse,
Yes, if I wasn’t aiming for T26 to eventually (late 2030’s) replace T45 I’d do exactly what you suggest and just put 16 extra TLAM cells in T45 and concentrate on T26 being a T23 replacement (ASW). As it stands I’d probably put some AShM in there.
x,
I broadly agree with your 1st and 2nd rate definitions.
AAW 2nd Rate: Artisan and CAMM
AAW 1st Rate: SAMPSON and Aster30
ASW 2nd Rate: 2050 bow sonar and Wildcat
ASW 1st Rate: 2087 TAS and Merlin HM2
ASuW 2nd Rate: Wildcat with Stingray and Sea Skua replacement (FASGW-H)
ASuW 1st Rate: TLAM and (son of) Harpoon a’plenty (more than 16)
So what would be great is for a ship with all the 2nd rate bits and will the ability to be fitted with at least one set of the 1st rate bits.
@Simon & @Repulse
The T26 is pretty darn good as a design in IMHO. Lots of valid points on this thread but most are happy with the general design, capabilities and cost.
I’ve got to say I do understand the desire to increase the SL VLS numbers. I wondered whether the funnel silos could be SL too. However it is for the other options the numbers might be needed i.e. ASROC and not extra TLAM.
I don’t understand the feeling that the T26 replaces T45. Not at all in my eyes. The T45 is pretty up to date, of an altogether different class and is the cutting edge that allowed the T26 to be the evolutionary design that it is. Things will have moved on when the T46 is being talked about.
The RN is still one of the biggest Navies in the world. Pax Britannia is as much about show (warships, Pomp, Pagentry, and Royalty) as actual capability. ASW on a fishing boat doesn’t impress, threaten or cause a pause for thought.
My biggest wish is for CEC. And yes @Mark someone did say Link22 removed the need. Not sure how this bit works and stacks up. Perhaps someone can explain please. I did try looking it up but didn’t get the answer.
Interestingly the ship @Simon appears to wish the T26 to be capable of being is what I would call a CRUISER. Self sufficient, blue sea, multifunction warship (much like US Destroyers but not sure howself sufficient they are)
@Simon
The greater range Aster 30 has means that the more limited update rate from Artisan is not good enough so we are spending more money to put a more expensive radar on it.
If 16 Silos are not enough to bother with TLAM why do we bother with them on sub’s? We only bought 60 odd block IV TLAM in total yet for your CBG 96 land attack/anti ship missiles are not enough? That is before we even count the contribution from the F35.
@RT
Several US platforms have fired far more than 16.
APATS,
60 TLAM? Is that all?
What does that mean all the Astutes will be full of? 192 Spearfish? That’s enough to take the entire USN out with! Talk about getting priorities wrong. How many Spearfish have been fired in the last 25 years? None? How many TLAM? 1562.
I’d hope for about 24 TLAM and 12 Spearfish per Astute and 2 “on task” when the ballon goes up.
I’d hope for about 16 TLAM on each of 2 T45 and 4 T26.
I’d hope for AShM in addtion to these. At least another 100 missiles!
Otherwise we hardly have a credible strike force.
@APATS: watch out for x… you used the “subs” term :)
@Opinion3: “The RN is still one of the biggest Navies in the world. Pax Britannia is as much about show (warships, Pomp, Pagentry, and Royalty) as actual capability. ASW on a fishing boat doesn’t impress, threaten or cause a pause for thought.”
The RN’s relevance in the world is not going to be the number of warships it can bring, but the capability. The UK is not a global power, but a “multiple regional power”. We have influence in the Gulf, Mediterranean and South Atlantic, as well as the North Atlantic. To keep the RN relevant it does not need a bunch of mediocre vessels with capabilities that every other nation has – it needs to have things others do not have or match super power capabilities on a limited scale.
A TAS tug may not be glamorous, but add a few of them to an RFTG based around a CVF, 3-4 RN “Arleigh Burke”s and 1-2 Astutes and the world watches.
@simon
Might be 64 :) You do of course know that munitions have a shelf life? So why would we want to buy hundreds of something we can order in the run up to a conflict. Especially offensive weaponry like TLAM. Spearfish is different as production has ceased and we return the ones we hold.
112 TLAM? Balloons going up? Who on earth are we going to war with? Bullying small nations seems to be out of favour and any major conflict will build slowly and see us in a coalition, we can buy more TLAM.
Are you really telling me that a CBG with 24 F35B escorted by 4 T26 and 2 T45 with 2 Astute in associated support. Bringing 60 TLAM and 28 anti ship missiles before we fly a single sorry or count anything that may be on a 45 is not a “credible” strike force?
We are not going to take on China or Russia on our own:)
Sorry, just read up on Storm Shadow – at least the RAF know how to buy things in reasonable numbers.
Makes the £20b Typhoon program look positively fantastic value for money when compared to Astute and T45.
:-)
…and I know the smiley face won’t make a difference to the subsequent onslaught ;-)
@repulse
“The world watches”
Yes and wonders why we have stupid TAS tugs instead of world class ASW frigates and world class AAW destroyers.
Now Simon.
We were a development partner on Storm Shadow so always going to commit to buying more. We had some 60 platforms operational that can carry 2 each. Whilst we simply order TLAM from the manufacturer and rarely have more than 3 assets at sea that fire them. Each asset unlikely to carry more than 12 or ever fire more than 4 in a salvo. Recalling and reloading these platforms takes days rather than hours. Now look at the numbers ordered again :)
@Repulse
I agreed with what you were writing until I got to the tugs bit.
I don’t think tugs cut the mustard
Our influence and economic and maritime responsibilities are spread out and more than one or even two CBG could handle
I fail to understand what this Government intends to use as escorts. Presumably support (RFA), Capital Fleet ships, and even merchant vessels need escort protection. By that I mean to and from the CBG not just within it.
Like I said the T26 is pretty darn capable in my book. Maybe I should compare it against the competition.
@APATS / Opinion 3: The world beating bit is the 2087 Sonar, combined with the Merlin… By Tug, I obviously mean something that looks sleek and futuristic that even the Italians would be proud of :) just not the price tag.
It amuses me that we can talk about how the future will be unmanned systems and modular systems – based on cheap platforms such as SIMMS, yet we can do this today with some the systems we already have and people think it’s madness.
@repulse
Unless it can self deploy and look after itself then we are cutting numbers to carry out tasking even further. If it can then by the time we add a gun Sam, help, etc we have T26.
We are going in the right direction, T26 looks like a great bit of kit and at the right price. Cheaper and yet in almost every area more capable than FREMM. I say arguably because the Italian FREMM does come with a whole 16 Sylver 50 cells and the French with 16 Silver 43 and 16 Sylver 70. Would I swap this for 48 Sea Ceptor Cells and 16 strike length cells, doubtful.
No FREMM variant has a mission bay and only some Italian ones have a gun capable of firing extended range precision munitions.
@Repulse
Now you say …… you mean like this? ;-)
http://www.yacht-trend.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lamborghini-power-yacht-by-mauro-lecchi-3-600×337.jpg
Unmanned smaller vehicles, is that the solution Repulse is refers to. Certainly there is plenty of potential and general agreement that there is much to be achieved with a playstation joystick.
The real issue is similar to mine-hunting. How do you / how long does it take to deploy. Is this what the mission space is for? Could a plane or forward deploying achieve the same for less money.
I think the arguments of experience and practice will be used against, but it’s a thought – are we thinking outside the box?
@ APATS
Seeing as every “war” since 1990 has started with this……
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/110720_N_WX845_120.jpg
and we have built six of these (and were getting 12 of)………..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/HMS_Daring-1.jpg
which could have had two of these………
pload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/US_Navy_030303-N-3235P-503_A_topside_view_of_the_forward_MK-41_Vertical_Launching_System_(VLS)_aboard_the_guided_missile_cruiser_USS_San_Jacinto_(CG_56).jpg
then your argument is a bit thin. Either you are hoping to stay in the Andrew a bit longer until that opening at BAE comes up which means a desk at the MoD and being one of the team, or there is an RAF wing co’ in charge of the office biscuit barrel. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and will assume you are under intolerable pressure so put it down to the latter. :)
Storm Shadow is a clever missile. And we purchased in the numbers it should have been purchased in. But let us not pretend because there is some overlap in the two weapons’ profile that buying SS is sort of the optimum solution that bests TLAM and shipbourne launching in every possible way. Or that the economic benefits to Britain were that great. The benefits to directors and politician with their fantasy of Europa may be evident, but is there any real long term benefits? Let us remember who more often than not on whose side we fight and that they choose to start campaigns with mass TLAM launches . In a future conflict a T26 carrying 16 cruise missiles could have done the job of those Marnham Tonkas and then go on to blockade the coast, evacuate refugees, land SF, etc. etc. and so on. And as you keep saying who are we going to expend the best part of 1000 missiles upon?
@X
Not sure where you are going here. I was illustrating why we bought more Storm Shadow than TLAM, basically because we had to and we have the capability to use them quicker.
My operational points about TLAM and SSNs are completely correct, facts not criticism.
I was in no way saying we should not have a land attack capability on T26.
Any unnoticed typos are due to the skitso keyboard auto correct on my stupid tablet :)
If anyone’s having trouble with x’s last link it can be accessed here [1]:
[1] Mk 41 VLS aboard USS San Jacinto
Op3, you can park most USVs on a small boat slip at the rear of the parent ship, takes only as long as to open the gate and let it roll off. Practically though, I’m betting that you will not get such “hot scramble” situations often. SOP will probably be more like a carrier and its CAP, the USVs creating a screen far ahead of the frigate and creating a defence zone in depth to prevent any hostiles from closing with the frigate.
Bear in mind though that these USV motherships would be defence frigates for real, configured to be effective against small ship swarms. Against a ship designed for total war, it is going to be at a fair disadvantage. Can defend, but can’t quite bring the battle to the enemy. Stalemate?
@APATS: “Unless it can self deploy and look after itself then we are cutting numbers to carry out tasking even further. ” – Well actually, I am suggesting we do less – I believe this will actually means we will be able to afford the kit to keep the RN relevant. I would keep the Gulf squadron (to cover also the east Indian Ocean), add something similar in Gibraltar (to cover the Med and west coast of Africa) and have the home fleet – one first rater assigned to each with supporting ships.
The real “global” power and focus would be the RFTG and the SSN fleet.
Everything else outside of these with a Union Jack would be covered by a Venator / Blackswan.
I’ve come to realise that flag waving / forward presence on the cheap, just makes us look silly.
@Opinion 3: How about, http://pontianak.tribunnews.com/foto/bank/images/KRI-Klewang.jpg (okay ignore the fact it caught fire :))
@repulse
So having 4 world class MCMVs forward deployed to the Gulf, along with a permanent T23 presence. MCM and ASW, 2 areas where the US value and indeed ask us for presence.
Our continued role in former UK and current crown dependencies in the Caribbean as well as presence in the Falklands is “silly flag waving”?
We are heading in the right direction and look anything but silly.
@x- Not sure that the US will be too worried about what we bring to the party…they seem to be very good at assessing and identifying weapons systems, and using them to best advantage. I dare say that they have already worked out the T45 strengths, and how they would best fit in any combined ops scenario…their lack of comment on the T26, convinces me that they are studying hard what we’re doing, and i suspect are liking what they’re seeing.
For what its worth, making the T26 an as flexible as possible combat ship is the right way to go. Tradition is really good for people and units- but it’s an hold-back for weapon systems. The rn has had a history of innovation, logistics support for deployed units, submersibles (there are no such things as submarines yet), Dreadnought, aircraft on ships, the list is enormous…so lets innovate.
Still can’t see T26 replacing The tonka, or indeed any strike a/c capability. A/C have a quick reaction capability… over the target in 6hrs, sort of thing. Maritime assets have a long term threat/influence capability, but take time to get to a position of most effective influence.
The T26 should be looked at as a really impressive, flexible bit of kit, that enhances our countries defence capability.
@ david haine
The argument isn’t about specific weapons or states. The argument is about capabilities.
@Repulse
I am sure there are some Russian Oligarchs who need a Navy, shall we join up and submit a bid. :-)
@x- With respect, the argument does seem to be about specific weapons…there seems to be an argument between TLAM and storm shadow, and their relative merits, between aster in its various guises and the mk41 or mk57, seaceptor or camms, etc let alone the ‘discussion’ between Sampson and Artisan.
TBH i agreed with your 14/15:08 which as i understood argued for as flexible a platform as possible, although i like the multi-mission bay. Maybe as simon says we fit for capabilities, not necessarily with… And make the basic hull, machinery and architecture capable of taking up-grading over a longer life span. Have a continuous building/ improvement process maybe producing 1 or 2 vessels a year over twenty-thirty years. But thats moving off this specific subject of course.
I want T26 to be the most capable weapons system possible, it should be able to do ASW, Land-attack and maybe secondary AAW. Most definitely with mission configurable bays.
Also meant to to pass thanks for that video ‘Skywatch’…loved all the lovely old aeroplanes, including the harrier doing its thing and the lightning with its vertical climb…nice one.
Too many comments to get a word in edgeways! TD, you’re on for a new record.
For me there is plenty of promising news. Greater export interest is vital if we are to drive the cost down. The design is exactly what we need – an evolved Type 23 general purpose design with a clear improvement in capacity. The armament and sensor fit is far from basic – compared to many contemporary navies it is still hugely capable. There is growth potential and some genuine thought applied to the design. I am a huge fan of the mission bay idea – but I shudder to think what the crane/cargo handling system will be like as we have a dreadful reputation for these things (T23 air weapons handler, OCEAN LCVP davits and T45 seaboat launchers – they are utterly f###ing dangerous and an accident waiting to happen). Propulsion system is quietest and most proven option, plus almost all of the technology going into it is proven stuff – we can’t afford to waste time and money playing about with newfangled ideas. No flag briefing room, no detainee handling facility, no centralised data capture facility – these are billy basics we still haven’t gotten right and I wish we had these in the design. Weapon arcs aft are perfect for survivability, Phalanx is a nice-to-have but we don’t have enough mounts as it is. We need to start cutting steel and quickly, and we need to hold onto the export interest we’ve generated so far. I don’t believe it will get ASMs either – if we have to shoot at something I genuinely think we will do it via F35 and NSM/JSM although that’s just wishful thinking.
One of the first comments was about Artisan/RT997 vs. Sampson/RT1045. Artisan is significantly more advanced then Sampson. Different, yes, but a lot more advanced. If you were to replace the 1045 array faces with 997 tech then you would have a seriously capable radar system that is just better than anything out there by miles. And that’s from a Service where we still haven’t found the limits of Sampson, and who knows when the next Sampson upgrade will be? It is, after all, just plug and play! It is a seriously impressive bit of kit.
Sr, are those the pellegrini ones with the anti pendulum arm things, must admit I have never seen them on anything else. Why were they chosen over kit normally used, was it because they had to work behind the access doors? Onwards to 600 :-)
@SomewhatRemoved
Very intereting and informed post there, thanks.
Reality is the MOD is effectively spinning wheels at this point! They have made every serious decision they can without main-gating the vessel! They won’t main gate T26 until after the Scottish independence referendum. If Scotland votes to remain in the Union then T26 will be Clyde built like T45 with English yards providing major structures. If Scotland votes to leave the union then final assembly will be in an English yard probably BAE Systems Portsmouth (albeit I think Cammell Laird Birkenhead might be the better choice) with other English yards again providing structures.
@Somewhat
What do the US and Germans/French do in respect of your issues
1. Detainment
2. Briefing
3. Data capture.
interesting post
TD, no idea, all I know is they don’t provide sufficient stability when raising/lowering the boat because the flare on the ship’s side is so large. The new cradles on the T23 are bad enough. There are commercial systems out there that do a much better job of grabbing the boat right down at the connection point and stabilise it all the way up, but we’ve ended up with a design that is probably as much about the builder coming up with good ideas as it is about us failing to specify in the contract which system we want. The Henrikson Hook system was brilliant, we trialled it on STAL years ago but it never came in. Slightly off topic, I’ve believed for years that T23’s need a proper crane to be able to embark basics like stores and mail, let alone recover test weapons, extra boats and suspicious floaty things, but we still persist with 1800s-era davits, pulleys and booms.
I just want to make a quick point, that as much as people talk about gucci toys like missiles and long ranged guns, these are pointless if you don’t have a ship that can operate at sea safely. We have lost a lot of design experience in this country of late, and it would just be nice to see a design that addresses the fundamentals of ship safe operation, ease of use and maintenance, and learns some lessons from existing platforms. We expect so much from these things in their lifespan, yet skimp on so many levels in the design phase. Oh, and whoever said ‘projected 20-year lifespan’ in respect of the T26 is having a laugh – you can easily double that. Even the carriers are expected to have a 50-year lifespan.
Fed, I agree, it’s just frustrating as operators to wait whilst Alex Salmond does his willy waving bit on an utterly pointless waste of taxpayers money while he proves some weird convoluted political point. What a prat.
Opinion, no idea, never served on them. But having a common format for data capture on a ship is a product of recent (okay, last 10 years maybe) evolution of IT systems and I doubt anyone else has addressed it. Bearing in mind you have thirty year old systems operating alongside state of the art ones, we still have to record system data on things like DAT tapes (think oversized VHS tape) and 3.5″ floppies. Does it make a difference? Well, it’s not mission failure stuff but if you are analysing post-incident recordings and trying to work out what was actually read out on Guard when it’s recorded on a crappy tape cassette, then yes, it does matter. As for detention cells and briefing rooms, nothing here is even vaguely technically challenging but makes good common sense when you look at what we do today.
@SR: “One of the first comments was about Artisan/RT997 vs. Sampson/RT1045. Artisan is significantly more advanced then Sampson. Different, yes, but a lot more advanced. If you were to replace the 1045 array faces with 997 tech then you would have a seriously capable radar system that is just better than anything out there by miles.”… thanks, first time I’ve heard this… let’s do it for the T26 (or T4x) :)
@APATS “So having 4 world class MCMVs forward deployed to the Gulf, along with a permanent T23 presence. MCM and ASW, 2 areas where the US value and indeed ask us for presence.” We are not debating this, quite the opposite this is exactly the type of commitment the RN should be focusing on. What we are debating is the platform delivering the ASW capability. Also, I remember a scenario in the gulf not so long ago where the US were sailing a CBG through the straight as a show of strength and UK had to effectively had to beg to get the T23 included (as the US didn’t see it added vakue) – I’m sure it would have been a different story if it would have been a fully functional T45.
Re Caribbean & FI etc, I am not suggesting abandoning these, but using Venator / Blackswan type cheap patrol frigates instead and focusing our sea assets on the areas where they are needed at a capability that actually makes a difference.
Whilst we have been focusing on the 8 T26s with 2087 TAS, what about the other 5 GP variants? Must be second raters on X’s scale…
I’m not keen on there being two sub-classes of T26- you might as well operate two different herds. I can see the point of a common hull form, and a standard machinery and main architecture fit. but that’s where commonality should end. Mission architecture, sensor and weapons systems, should define the class.
Maybe what i’m arguing for is a T26 hull and machinery form, and, for example, a ‘Tribal’ class ASW combat ship, a ‘County’ class GP combat ship and a ‘City’ class AAW/escort, with superstructure, mission-specific spaces and architecture, sensor and weaponry, and layout optimised for the role, with a multi-mission bay to accomodate flexibility…which i can see completely contradicts my previous assertion for a flexible, multi-mission ship, but i thought about it and after reading some of the more knowledgeble posts on here.
@dave haine
It’s the weapons fit, sensors and propulsion that really effects the price-tag of a ship and defines it’s role.
I would be interested to see how much cheaper the basic T26 design would be if it came without Type 2087 TAS and strike length cells, a cheaper radar/cheaper propulsion and a very basic weapons fit of a main gun, some smaller calibre stuff and a basic point-defence missile system.
With a mission bay and sizable hangar/flight-deck even a ship as sparsely fitted as that would be fine for West Indies patrolling, counter-piracy ops and as a general second rate ship.
It would of course only be worth exploring if it the price was low enough to afford more hulls than are currently envisioned and sadly I think under current conditions 8 ASW and 5 GP ships is probably the best mix we can get. I’ll keep the forlorn hope as well that a couple of extra ships of the anti-air variant can be tagged onto the end of production and that the T26 can become an evolutionary platform which can eventually replace the T45 and leave the RN with 1 family of high-end combat ships.
@ challenger- Agreed, which is why i would argue for standardised machinery, that should reduce capital costs as well as maintenance costs over the life time of the equipment. If the hull is appropriately designed, fitting alternative machinery according to customer spec, should be a simple affair, or indeed up-grading machinery as required.
Having flexible fit designed architecture, means a very adaptable ship, i guess. Customers could specify their own fits, upgrades become relatively cheap. I’m sure that would help ameliorate some of the operational costs.
I am concerned that there are insufficient vessels for current tasking…there is, potentially, two CBGs and an ATG, (possibly merged with a CBG) let alone all the single ship tasks that exist, or pop up. It would be foolish that a BG would op with only 1 ‘Daring’. So T26 becomes enormously important to relieve the T45 (obtained in too few numbers). So i’m trying to think of ways of increasing hull numbers.
It makes me wonder how much it would have cost to order 2 more T45 compared to the costs of giving, what started out as a ASW/GP frigate, AAW capability.
@Dave Haine: “there is, potentially, two CBGs and an ATG, (possibly merged with a CBG)..” There will be one RFTG with possibly another ready after a month or so in very extreme circumstances.
Dave Haine,
Our ships are already open-architecture. The combat system stands alone from all the associated sensors and weapons. As an export customer you can specify any combination of weapons and sensors you like, so long as they physically fit onto the platform. If Brazil wanted a T26 hull with Mk41 VLS, it would not be challenging at all – merely different mounts, a software patch and cables. To achieve any further refinement would require all weapons manufacturers to operate on common design standards, voltages, data formats and so on, which is not yet commercially viable.
@Dave Haine
I’m concerned about the number of vessels for current tasking as well.
Id leave the South Atlantic with 2x modified River/HTMS Krabi style (but cheap as chips) patrol vessels and the West Indies with an auxiliary (MARS SSS will be perfect for the role when they eventually appear).
The RN is realistically only going to work with a single RFTG and I think 1x T45 and 2x T26 is a good level of peacetime capability. Beyond that I think 1 of each heading up the forces in the Gulf, 1 in the UK as a FRE and a spare for unexpected but enduring ops like counter-piracy is the realistic minimum they should be able to deploy.
So that’s the ability to have 7 ships either deployed or ready to go and using the ratio of 3.5 ships to every 1 operational the RN really needs 22-24 high-end surface ships in service. Of course you can probably work to a similar level of capability with fewer units, at the moment the RN sometimes gets 5-6 ships on operations out of just 18 in total, but that is only for a few months a year when the RFTG is deployed, doesn’t take into account refits or accidents and has no slack or give built into the system.
The figure of 19 destroyers and frigates was just plucked out of the air during the SDSR because the T22’s were scrapped and left that number in service. They are aiming for a 1 to 1 replacement for what’s left, not what the RN actually needs. Sadly with no additional ships on the horizon they are going to have to do less or accept much longer deployments and run the fleet into the ground, and even then their just aren’t enough units around to cover everything. Sooner or later their is going to be an accident or crises that shows just how bare the cupboard actually is.
@Opinion3
You really don’t want Mk57 – it’s the expensive Gucci option, the Primark Mk41 is plenty good enough for an austerity frigate. BMD needs a serious radar and is a mission in its own right, which should be left to the T45. As I’ve said above, the current US ASROC doesn’t really cut it, and Milas isn’t VL.
@Jed
Why the hell do we need a “Chinook capable” flight deck on a Frigate ?
Partly just for flexibility, partly because the future of war is likely to be not full-scale amphibious assaults but lots of small-scale insertions of ninjas, and their transport of choice is a Chinook with long-range tanks (once we’ve sorted out the software…). It allows a forward-deployed frigate to act as a mini-LPH, a lilypad which can receive a Chinook-load from Poole and decant them into small boats. It’s also handy for things like embassy evacuations.
@RT
You misheard Net Explosive Quantity (NEQ – variously known as NE content, weight or mass). That’s one reason why we’ve traditionally maintained a separate “weapons” base near major ports for ships to tool up before they deploy.
@Repulse
please can someone tell me why we need to use a 6,000t “capital” ship to tow a sonar array and hunt subs
Well, most submarines have decent-range torpedoes and AShM’s these days, so you need room for a helicopter and enough SAMs to cope with pop-up attacks. And that’s just one mission that the T26 will be expected to do.
If thr original plan was to put TAS on a Castle sized ship backed by a RFA Fort with ASW helos lilly padding. Why can’t we do the same with the RFTG, plenty of space on the CVF… wouldn’t even need a hanger….These ships sailing under a RFTG (or on a smaller scale in combination of a RN “Arleigh Burke”)
Because at best two out of 13 T26’s will be sailing in the company of CVF. And even then the original Fort+TAS tug plan was abandoned because it didn’t survive contact with the real world (and the march of technology which meant that the sonar tugs would be operating much further from the mothership than originally planned). And that was just for the narrow concept of blocking the GIUK gap, not the more flexible role that is now expected of RN ships. You’ll notice that the RN no longer talks about “escort” ships, but “surface combatants” – most of them are operating alone.
Would sailing a T23 have the same news / political impact?
Westminster in Gibraltar recently?
@SR
To achieve any further refinement would require all weapons manufacturers to operate on common design standards, voltages, data formats and so on, which is not yet commercially viable.
It’s the sort of thing that could be enforceable at a NATO level if someone chose to do it – it would take decades to percolate through, but it’s doable in principle along the lines of GVA/LOSA.
@dave haine
It makes me wonder how much it would have cost to order 2 more T45 compared to the costs of giving, what started out as a ASW/GP frigate, AAW capability.
The NAO’s 2009 report put the historical cost of T45 ex R&D at £649m each. So for the price of 13 T26 you’d get around 7 T45 or 4 Burkes. Whilst HMG has studiously avoided splitting out the cost of PAAMS you can get a rough idea from the fact that a Burke hull is about £500m and the GFE (sonar/radar/weapons etc) is around £700m for a total of £1200m.
@Simon
If you are Johnny Foreigner and you’re looking at T26 as the answer to all your problems would you not think: “it’s no good for AAW because the Brits have a separate dedicated platform for that”. However, if we elected to replace T45 with the T26 design (over time) and boosted the number of standard sized VLS, Johnny might just see the thing as the perfect solution for his/her Navy…
We’re compromising exports if we don’t elect to use the T26 platform for AAW….
No we’re not. No foreign navy in their right mind would want T45, it’s far too weird – which in turn leads to unnecessary expense. Take the requirement to steam at 15kts from Ascension to the Falklands and back without refueling – who else will actually need that? But that RN requirement leads you to install the ultra-Gucci WR-21 engines, which are technological marvels that need their own logistics chain (which is already looking a bit fragile). Any normal navy would be happy with LM2500 or MT30, which both (will) have sufficient installed user bases that spares are a)available and b)cost-effective. Same with the radar – EMPAR is cheaper and good enough for “proper” navies like France and Italy. The Aussies will put their own CEAFAR radar on whatever replaces the ANZACs.
I just think that T26 is sooooo close to being everything we need that I find it difficult to justify in my head why it shouldn’t also be the future AAW vessel for a whole host of potential nations and ultimately for the UK in the late 2030′s….
The point is that when T26 has completed its rollout the MoD will spend another wad of dosh keeping ship designers employed to create yet another hull that is the same as all the others. The 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th T26 should replace Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender and Duncan….
I was only really suggesting the “option” to put SAMPSON high up. In other words future proof the design so that it can ultimately take over the AAW role that T45 currently provides.
It’s a step towards an evolving design rather than these expensive shopping expeditions the MoD like to go on every 25-30 years.
You still haven’t read that Bloomberg piece, have you? I’ll try again :
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/bae-systems-new-global-combat-ship-draws-export-buyer-interest.html
Eight countries are considering the purchase of BAE Systems Plc Type 26 Global Combat Ships, including an air-defense variant the U.K. isn’t currently planning to acquire…
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.
Among other things that £127m contract has bought us a modular design that may not be as flexible as MEKO, but is more than capable of accommodating the kinds of changes to sensors and weapons that you keep talking about. And yes, it has occurred to the brass that the replacements for the T45 will be based on that modular system some time around 2040, but we’re not going to commit to that now and it won’t make any difference to exports if we did. Anyone in the market for an AAW warship will likely have a pretty good idea of what radar and missile system they want to install, it’s as much to do with politics as technological merits. The one system that will never appear in another ship is Sampson, it’s dead and buried – even if we wanted to build some more AAW ships, we’d be using EMPAR or APAR or SPY or (in a few years time) Thales’ SeaFire.
Just for future reference, T26 DSEi discussion continues over at :
DSEI 2013 Highlights – The Type 26 Global Combat Ship
Hello every person!I also do a great deal of sites, from design to code. (Photoshop -> XHTML CSS JS PHP).So I may help in those items as well, feel no cost to inquire about them.Many thanks