Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

[shark bait]

This whole situation is such a balls up, a demonstration of incompetence.

We shouldn’t be designing frigates for specific roles; we've already proven this is a bad idea. Frigates move, they can go anywhere and encounter anything so they need to be adaptable to meet threats that will be constantly changing. The type 26 should have been our go anywhere, do anything ship. For me the design is close to perfect, and capable of preforming many roles with the ability to adapt to meet new challenges.

Part of what makes it a great design is its low risk attitude to development, there is no new technology that may form road block to deployment. It should be as straight forward at it can be, whilst still being great. Its a modern hull, for proven systems.

Which makes me wonder, why is it such a fuck up?

Not only will it cost so much we can only afford half what we need, but it will take years longer before we can start building the things, meaning we have to piss around with some extra rivers. It’s a total cluster fuck! It looks as though BAE has failed to control costs and schedule on a project that has been designed to be the lowest risk category A procurement in decade’s. All this despite taking over a billion pounds of our money. To me its clear BAE are incompetent at ship building, as they have demonstrated many times. BAE should be fired. Totally un-tory but the yards should be nationalised, hell the Scottish government could own the yards, keep them happy! Fact is, this is a failure and BAE always get off scott free, which needs to end.

I hope as the details trickle through I can be proven wrong, but the evidence that presented its self yesterday does not make me optimistic.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

So the eight T26's are going to be purely ASW, with the five 'Light Frigates' used for general purpose ?

A better question might be: WTF is a general purpose?

The italian navy has just ordered 7 PPA vessels for some 3,6 billion euro. They come with ample mission space, well over 30 knots speed, 127mm gun, 76mm gun-CIWS, hangar large enough for a couple of NH90 and, in the "Full" configuration, anti-ship missiles and 16 Sylver cells for Aster missiles. 4-faces fixed AESA radar mast, decoys and 2x 25mm guns. The mission space below the flight deck allows addition of a towed sonar, if ever required.



It is not impossible to procure capable ships at acceptable price.

This might also become an opportunity to think about what "frigates" really do these days, and perhaps come up with a new kind of vessel, particularly if, in the next years, the unmanned vehicles make all the progress that can be expected.

That was the first thing my mind jumped to when it came to doing 'light right'. We could probably learn a lot from our European friends going in to this, especially the Italians. Would one be willing to bet this early on that any likely UK design will need to feature a similar modular approach like that taken with the PPA proposal, or perhaps even the Danish Stanflex designs?? We have got to at least provide it with the potential for high end operations, surely?

[Ron5]

So the eight T26's are going to be purely ASW, with the five 'Light Frigates' used for general purpose ?

A better question might be: WTF is a general purpose?

Up to this day it was going to be a Type 26 without towed sonar. One would assume it could be a less armed ship, with less demanding silent running requirements, with CAMM and a medium calibre gun and confirmed long endurance (both in legs and logistical endurance out at sea).

Before the Type 26 came and unified the ASW and GP requirements in the same class, the Navy had already been working on a two-tier idea, with C1 delivering up to 10 high-end ASW frigates and C2 delivering some 8 cheaper vessels for the vast range of tasks which are not suited to OPVs (the kind of unarmed, hangar-less the Navy is forced to procure, at least) but do not require a fully optimized vessel.

Today, the 5 GP are Type 23s which have lost their original towed sonar when only 8 Type 2087 sonar sets were procured. 8 + 5 is today's situation, would have been tomorrow's with the Type 26 and is now the future with the light frigate. With a hope of procuring a few more than just 5, if possible.

The italian navy has just ordered 7 PPA vessels for some 3,6 billion euro. They come with ample mission space, well over 30 knots speed, 127mm gun, 76mm gun-CIWS, hangar large enough for a couple of NH90 and, in the "Full" configuration, anti-ship missiles and 16 Sylver cells for Aster missiles. 4-faces fixed AESA radar mast, decoys and 2x 25mm guns. The mission space below the flight deck allows addition of a towed sonar, if ever required.



It is not impossible to procure capable ships at acceptable price.

This might also become an opportunity to think about what "frigates" really do these days, and perhaps come up with a new kind of vessel, particularly if, in the next years, the unmanned vehicles make all the progress that can be expected.

I asked what was a "general purpose" and you answered by describing a ship.

Cart before horse.

First decide what you want your ship to do, then design it. Not the other way round.

In my book and in the book that lists the T23 as having general purpose capabilities (capabilities, by the way, that were added to the design after the lessons of the Falklands war), a key "general purpose" was to have a role in high end warfare, in particular escorting and protecting other ships including major warships.

Every fantasy ship mentioned as a candidate for the light frigate on this board, is not capable of that. Even the pretty new Italian job would be FA use in escorting QE. It's name kinda gives a clue on that. I'm not criticizing its design, after all the USN is building lots of LCS, a ship also incapable of escorting a carrier or any other ship.

So I ask again, what is "general purpose". If it doesn't include high end fighting, the RN will not have enough escorts to keep its new carrier, RFA & amphibs safe. If it does include that, a T26 is already probably the minimum. Despite tons of animal excrement on here and other places, it is far from gold plated. A bare bones design that does its job.

[arfah]

...................

[shark bait]

I asked what was a "general purpose" and you answered by describing a ship.

A general escort, able to defend against other surface threats, but not specialising in area air defence, or anti submarine.

Land atack through a gun and VLS are an added bonus for the general purpose variant.

[WhitestElephant]

I asked what was a "general purpose" and you answered by describing a ship.

Cart before horse.

First decide what you want your ship to do, then design it. Not the other way round.

In my book and in the book that lists the T23 as having general purpose capabilities (capabilities, by the way, that were added to the design after the lessons of the Falklands war), a key "general purpose" was to have a role in high end warfare, in particular escorting and protecting other ships including major warships.

Every fantasy ship mentioned as a candidate for the light frigate on this board, is not capable of that. Even the pretty new Italian job would be FA use in escorting QE. It's name kinda gives a clue on that. I'm not criticizing its design, after all the USN is building lots of LCS, a ship also incapable of escorting a carrier or any other ship.

So I ask again, what is "general purpose". If it doesn't include high end fighting, the RN will not have enough escorts to keep its new carrier, RFA & amphibs safe. If it does include that, a T26 is already probably the minimum. Despite tons of animal excrement on here and other places, it is far from gold plated. A bare bones design that does its job.

I don't know about that. T26 is as about top end as you can get as a 1st tier ASW escort, just as T45 is in regards to its AAW capability.

I believe when Cameron and the SDSR are referring to the new class of frigate as "general purpose", they are merely trying distinguish it from the T45s and T26s that will be our high-end task force escorts. GP in this context now means a smaller more modest frigate, perfectly suited to the many standing constabulary commitments of the Royal Navy. Although, it surely will be capable of war-fighting, and not only restricted to operating in permissive environments as the OPVs are. Just as in the Falklands, this new class should be capable of providing mass to any task force, providing NGFS and other duties in wartime.

I presume the new class of frigate (like the T26) will inherit the systems off the decommissioned T23s. That means CAMM and Artisan, probably an anti-ship missile too.

[WhiteWhale]

I don't know about that. T26 is as about top end as you can get as a 1st tier ASW escort, just as T45 is in regards to its AAW capability.
.

It is going to be outfitted almost entirely with hand-me-down equipment from the previous class and in the hunt for economy is slower and has shorter range.

The T26 is about as top end as your average Fiat Panda.

[R686]

My take on the Frigate light is something along the lines of the Anzac class ships, the classic case of fitted for but not with syndrome.

[seaspear]

So what is top end for a frigate sized vessel? the T26 has room for growth would a light frigate be designed for but not with or room for later development

[Digger22]

I agree with SB, and I'm concerned that just with T26 any future 'Lights' will end up in the same situation as we have now. Projected number that slowly gets reduced due to cost. Although after T45 we should have known.

Answer, long term procurement strategy, NOT long term lets let um down gently spin!

Might as well start your 'How many Lights will we get' poll now SKB. I'm going for none.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Bless the UKDJ - God love's a trier. They still have their article up which is maintaining yesterday's announcement on numbers is simply a confirmation of the expected first batch we had anticipated back in 2013 and that the remaining 5 GP variants of the T26 are to follow in due course - the confusion about cuts simply being the result of a lack of clarity in the SDSR. It's a nice thought, but i think it's pretty much a non-starter otherwise i would imagine Whitehall would have at least attempted to clarify by now given how much the story is being carried.

[WhitestElephant]

I don't know about that. T26 is as about top end as you can get as a 1st tier ASW escort, just as T45 is in regards to its AAW capability.
.

It is going to be outfitted almost entirely with hand-me-down equipment from the previous class and in the hunt for economy is slower and has shorter range.

The T26 is about as top end as your average Fiat Panda.

S2087 may be a hand-me-down, but that doesn't detract from it being an amazing towed array. Coupled with T26s hull design (low acoustic signature), it absolutely certainly makes for a high-end anti submarine escort. Also, I think you may find your statement that T26 is slower and has shorter range that a T23 is incorrect.

[Gabriele]

Even the pretty new Italian job would be FA use in escorting QE. It's name kinda gives a clue on that.

Escorting against which threat? Against air threats, it would be better than Type 26: Aster missiles still outperform CAMM and despite the supposed awesomeness of Artisan, if everyone tends to go for large, fixed AESA arrays there are reasons.

Granted, against submarines, even with towed sonar installed, it would not do as well due to not being as exasperated in seeking silent running. But since the last 5 Type 26s were not going to have towed sonar anyway, they would not have been significantly better.

Perhaps the Royal Navy should urgently consider dropping the questionable "mystique" of its ships supposedly having "more" in their structures, if it always brings to extremely expensive yet "bare bone" escorts, and in insufficient numbers to boot.

[WhitestElephant]

Isn't PPA getting CAMM-ER too? It is quite amazing to see the Italians on course to have the largest destroyer/frigate fleet in Europe. Something that has traditionally been an exclusive British boast. What is more impressive, is that the Italians spend less than 50% of what we do on defence (according to the Wikipedia page that sources IISS figures anyway).

I suspect there must be a Gabriele clone working in the Italian MoD. The only logical explanation I can think of!

[Gabriele]

Isn't PPA getting CAMM-ER too? It is quite amazing to see the Italians on course to have the largest destroyer/frigate fleet in Europe. Something that has traditionally been an exclusive British boast. What is more impressive, is that the Italians spend less than 50% of what we do on defence (according to the Wikipedia page that sources IISS figures anyway).

I suspect there must be a Gabriele clone working in the Italian MoD. The only logical explanation I can think of!

Probably it won't use CAMM ER, at least that seem to be the latest direction of travel. CAMM ER will still be developed, but for replacing SPADA and Skyshield SAM batteries of the air force and army.

[Ron5]

Isn't PPA getting CAMM-ER too? It is quite amazing to see the Italians on course to have the largest destroyer/frigate fleet in Europe. Something that has traditionally been an exclusive British boast. What is more impressive, is that the Italians spend less than 50% of what we do on defence (according to the Wikipedia page that sources IISS figures anyway).

I suspect there must be a Gabriele clone working in the Italian MoD. The only logical explanation I can think of!

Italian ships are cheaper because they are not built to the same standards of survivability as the UK & US. Not me saying that. The USN says that. With all due respect to Gabby, the Italian Navy hasn't won a battle or campaign since Lepanto. Both the US and UK have recent experience with battle damage and their ships are built accordingly.

In other words, a frigate is not a frigate is not a frigate.

[Gabriele]

Italian ships are cheaper because they are not built to the same standards of survivability as the UK & US.

Whoever says that is telling bullshit stories. The only ship more survivable than italian ones (which, with the exception of the old "Santi" class LPDs are all built according to recognized military standards) are the Burkes, and that is inevitable due to their sheer size and large crew first of all.
A FREMM has nothing less than a Type 26 in terms of survivability. An Horizon isn't less survivable than a Type 45.

Don't force me to remind you that the "highly survivable" Type 45 managed to fail showing up at the At Sea Demonstration 2015 in home waters (and soon or later we'll learn why), while the Andrea Doria arrived from Italy, took part, fired Aster 30.

I'll tell you even more: between the italian and the royal navy, one of the two has aircraft carriers built largely according to commercial standards. One of the two is building an LHD to military standards; one will soon retire an LPH built to civvy standards.

Guess which one.

[seaspear]

If Ron5 would like to cite the source of his claim we would all be interested

[Andy-M]

Italian ships are cheaper because they are not built to the same standards of survivability as the UK & US.

Whoever says that is telling bullshit stories. The only ship more survivable than italian ones (which, with the exception of the old "Santi" class LPDs are all built according to recognized military standards) are the Burkes, and that is inevitable due to their sheer size and large crew first of all.
A FREMM has nothing less than a Type 26 in terms of survivability. An Horizon isn't less survivable than a Type 45.

Don't force me to remind you that the "highly survivable" Type 45 managed to fail showing up at the At Sea Demonstration 2015 in home waters (and soon or later we'll learn why), while the Andrea Doria arrived from Italy, took part, fired Aster 30.

I'll tell you even more: between the italian and the royal navy, one of the two has aircraft carriers built largely according to commercial standards. One of the two is building an LHD to military standards; one will soon retire an LPH built to civvy standards.

Guess which one.

while I don't agree with what Ron5 has written, thie bold bits are a total strawman argument, what has not turning up got to do with surviveability, and what has HMS Ocean got to do with all the other aircraft carriers that Britain has built , or is building right now? Have the latest ones been built to 'civvy standards'? You do mention 'aircraft carriers' so obviously it's more than one in your view.

[Gabriele]

Have the latest ones been built to 'civvy standards'?

The QE class has much civilian inside of her.

[Andy-M]

Have the latest ones been built to 'civvy standards'?

The QE class has much civilian inside of her.

So you think they'll have just a 20 year life span like HMS Ocean? It's just been announced it's being scrapped by the way, don't know if you've heard.

http://forces.tv/64892168

[Gabriele]

It has been confirmed that Ocean will go out of service in 2018. It has been known for years. The MOD gets the media outrage as a fair reward for its communication strategy, devoid of details and full of half-truths and hidden implications.

And no, i very much hope that the carriers will live the promised 50+ years. But there is much commercial standard within them. I don't necessarily see any evil in that... but since i costantly am told the ships of the Royal Navy cost a lot because they include gods-know-what survivability feature that no one else has, some real facts are in order.

Even if it was true that the escorts have some kind of amazing and unique level of duplication, protection, divine blessing, whatever the crap it is supposed to be that is not reflected in internationally recognized Military Standards, i feel at some point the question has to be asked: you are accepting compromises on your capital ships (ALL of them, from the carriers to the Bay LSDs, the most "civilian" of all together with Ocean) but you really can't stand to compromise on escorts even if it means you get fewer and fewer of them, and those you get are full of "fitted for but not with" and underarmed...? It is an approach to the problem that makes absolutely no frigging sense.
It is useless to bang your head against the wall and ask for more ships. The result is a shafting at each SDSR.
You are not going to get the enormous amount of money needed to accommodate certain requests, especially while paying the much higher cost that keeping alive british shipyards, with the MOD as the sole customer, impose. You break your head before the wall cracks.

You don't like being told the painful truth? I'll tell you anyway.

[seaspear]

Gabriele some time ago the Queen elizabeth class carriers were mentioned in this thread as being built to Lyoyds naval standards ,was this incorrect ?

[Gabriele]

Gabriele some time ago the Queen elizabeth class carriers were mentioned in this thread as being built to Lyoyds naval standards ,was this incorrect ?

It is true, but ulltimately means little on its own. You see, there are "adjusted" Lloyds Naval Standards that account for commercial standards and military features packed in the same ship. It does not mean that there aren't ample commercial standard features in the ship.

The case of Albion and Bulwark:

On successful completion of the
transfer to naval class, the LPDs
will be technically eligible for the
following Lloyd's Register naval
class notations, which are broadly
equivalent to the current merchant
notations: @100A1 NS1 Landing
Platform Dock SA1 AIR Ice
Class 1C @LMC.
The increased scope of naval
classification means that military
design features such as vehicle and
aircraft fuelling systems, chilled
water, high pressure sea water,
internal watertight integrity,
equipment seating, bollards, fairleads
and towing arrangements, can now
be included in the survey regime.

The transfer of class process has
taken place in two stages: a design
review of the additional military
features to determine compliance
with the naval Rules, followed by
survey of these additional items on
both vessels. The design review stage
has involved specialists from Lloyd’s
Register’s London office from both
hull and machinery departments
working closely with BAE Systems to
understand and verify the design.
For the assignment of the AIR
notation (mandatory notation for
ships that operate aircraft), a flight
deck assessment is being undertaken.

http://www.lr.org/Images/navalbulletina ... 175203.pdf

[arfah]

.................