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

[seaspear]

Perhaps we should all be careful with information that cant be proved or sourced ,I dont have any reason to believe that Italian and Royal naval vessels are not built to specific reputable standards

[WhitestElephant]

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.

Gabriele, it is obvious your recent posts have gotten people a little on the defensive here, and perhaps my statement that Italy is indeed on course for the largest destroyer/frigate fleet in Europe didn't help either. But the words you are speaking, while unquestionably true and correct, come as a blindside to our British psyche. So while I am confident you haven't, I must still urge you not to take anything personal. This is all nothing more than a lingering superiority complex.

However I do believe, that while Royal Navy escorts are not inherently greater than everybody else's, simply by virtue of being British - there is one thing that sets them apart from the rest of the worlds; the British sailor. And that has been tried and tested through the centuries.

[Gabriele]

However I do believe, that while Royal Navy escorts are not inherently greater than everybody else's, simply by virtue of being British - there is one thing that sets them apart from the rest of the worlds; the British sailor. And that has been tried and tested through the centuries.

I do not question that (although i think at times the sentiment is exasperated beyond what is actually tangible); but what i'd like to do is contribute to open eyes on the equipment front and on certain policies and lines of thought that, for all i can see, are only causing damage to the Royal Navy.

[seaspear]

Italy is developing a very capable naval presence in an area that is under pressure from sources not friendly to Europe or Nato certainly the Royal Navy has to budget its expenditure to include sophisticated nuclear weaponry that affects funds for ship numbers ,it is well to remember the combined Nato naval forces superiority to unfriendly powers , the T26 can be expected on current plans to be as effective as any asw ship in its role ,

[cockneyjock1974]

It's funny I don't remember any other European nation fielding 2 supercarriers with Gen 5 jets, 11 Nuc boats, one of only 3 nations on Earth that can project sea power abroad and an ability to piss way above its weight.

[Digger22]

I agree that we fight above our weight, the frustration with that though is why do we have to?. Wrong procurement decisions in the past have put so much extra pressure on people and equipment for the given budget. I hope after they go and have a good look at this 'Light' proposal they decide to go with the full batch of the T26. I remember some presentation from BAe about their hopes for T26 export potential, so it seems ironic that part of the justification for the "Lights' is export orders!. If a hull form works, and is still relevant in itself, why not repeat it until it becomes irrelevant and therefore has to be changed. Costs can be controlled by the capability of the individual version of the common ship, or is that too logical?. It was also argued with the carrier, that a smaller ship would have cost more per ton, the same can be said for this concept.

[Ron5]

Hey SeaSpear, I'm not crazy about your comments implying I make up stuff - cut it out.

Any student of USN post war ship design knows that there was a groundswell of opinion both within the navy and in Congress, asking why did US ships cost so much more than European. In particular there was an Italian navy fan club. So in response the Navy commissioned a study which reported back as I indicated, the European & Italian ships were not built to standards of strength, survivability, battle damage control, etc etc and that if that had been applied, the ships wouldn't have been any cheaper.

Norman Friedman's excellent technical history of US destroyers and frigates describes the study as does other sources that you can probably google. Navy officer concerns were articulated in Proceedings.

[Ron5]

I read Gabrieles comments with much amusement: "the only ships more survivable (than Italian warships) are the Arleigh Burkes and then only because of their larger crews".

I suspect Seaspear to be along any minute with a challenge to prove that assertion

[Ron5]

Before I forget, there was also a more recent study into the Danish Absalon. A very influential design that proved significant input to the LCS design. I believe the UK also studied the design. I'm sure they must have as they developed the mission bay in the T26's.

Anyhow, Absalon was also very cheap. How so? Well in turns out, lots of kit wasn't fitted, the Danish navy helped out with build, and the shipyard went broke afterwards. Not a very attractive financial model.

There really isn't a silver bullet anywhere that can be fired that will cut the cost of designing and building warships built to USN/RN standards however much fantasy fleet guys would like. Yes I'm looking at you ..... aargh!!! (me being throttled by moderators).

[Think Defence]

The very notion that we think we know enough about ship classification rules, construction standards and survivability to pass judgement on one ship or another against another ship or nation is, frankly, risible.

It is an extremely complex subject that defies simplistic comparisons between military and civilian norms, standards and classification rules.

[jimthelad]

Having been on QE twice with several other members of the thread I can safely say if anything they are over engineered for safety. Multiple caisons, isolated cbrn citadels, CO2 and halon circuits, and full armour over weapons deck and fuel transfer.

[malcrf]

I ask this because I don't know, but is the concept of survivability a bit flawed?

After all Exocets and unguided bombs seemed perfectly capable of sinking our T42s and T21s. They didn't limp home for repairs. They weren't capable of continuing the fight. They sank.

The T21 may have been a flawed design, but the T42? Aren't you better off ensuring the enemy anti-ship missile doesn't hit you? More ships with anti-ship/anti-missile systems might be a better answer than more survivable ships. 18 Iver Huidveldts rather than 6 T45s.

[SKB]

After all Exocets and unguided bombs seemed perfectly capable of sinking our T42s and T21s. They didn't limp home for repairs. They weren't capable of continuing the fight. They sank.

HMS Sheffield (D80) sank because of a slow leak while she was being towed to South Georgia by HMS Yarmouth (F101). The exocet did not sink her.

[seaspear]

RON 5
I ask that you simply provide the information so that we can peruse for ourselves ,I dont seek confrontation on this thread and I would give any credible information serious thought ,lets just consider that we have been discussing other various candidates for a light frigate design it would be of use in this discussion to know if the U.S.N has a report on the survivability of European N.A.T.O ships critical because of poor design or shortcuts in protection

[RichardIC]

RON 5
I ask that you simply provide the information so that we can peruse for ourselves ,I dont seek confrontation on this thread and I would give any credible information serious thought

In fairness Ron has cited where the info can be found

Norman Friedman's excellent technical history of US destroyers and frigates describes the study

[malcrf]

HMS Sheffield (D80) sank because of a slow leak while she was being towed to South Georgia by HMS Yarmouth (F101). The exocet did not sink her.

A quick Google yields "On May 4, Sheffield was detected by Argentine Super Etendard which launched its Exocet missile, hitting the ship above the waterline and causing a fierce fire that killed 20 crewmen. Others were evacuated, while the ship was then towed out to the sea and scuttled to become a war grave." and "HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May." Doesn't sound like she was in a good state to fight. So the question remains whether "survivability" per se is a very valid concept when considering the merits of the Absalon and Iver Huidveldt classes against anything we or the Americans build which are 3 or 4 times more expensive.

[SKB]

"Orders were issued to shore up the hole in Sheffield's starboard side and tow the ship to South Georgia. However, before these orders were effected the burnt-out hulk had already been taken in tow by the Rothesay-class frigate Yarmouth. The high seas that the ship was towed through caused slow flooding through the hole in the ship's side. This was the cause which eventually took her to the bottom." - Wikipedia

The exocet did not sink HMS Sheffield. She was hit on 4th May 1982 and remained afloat until 10th May 1982 (6 days), when under tow from HMS Yarmouth on a course heading to South Georgia, she flooded in high seas and sank. As a consequence of her sinking, HMS Sheffield became a war grave and is designated as a 'Protected Place' under the 'Protection of Military Remains Act 1986'.

[seaspear]

Richard IC
Sorry but Im not able to locate this perhaps it could be provided for everyone to view .

[Gabriele]

Sheffield did not sink right away, but she was completely useless anyway. The fire put her out of the fight for good and even assuming it could make it into any port, it probably was a write-off anyway.

And it is worth remembering that the Exocet's warhead did not explode.


Regarding Norman Friedman's books, i found a couple that might be what Ron5 has in mind, but they date back to the 80s, so any mention of italian warships can only go as far as the Maestrale and the earlier Lupo classes, designs which pre-date the Falklands (and the Type 23 redesign) and might indeed lack features which became standard after that.

With how badly contemporary british designs fared down south, however (every single ship type changed after the war, from Type 42 to 22, since the first lesson of the Falklands was that everything had been badly compromised in a way or another, from too short hulls for the 42 to lack of gun for the 22 and so on and on), i still feel confident that the comparison would often actually go in favor of the Maestrale. For sure, the Maestrale was better armed. Although packing so much in a relatively small hull does have consequences.

No, i want to hear a more relevant comparison. I want to hear what kind of amazing survivability feature Type 26 supposedly would have over and above what the FREMM have, while being only a few meters larger, but with far more space taken up by weapons, Chinook-flight deck and mission bay, stores for 60 days and while having a smaller core crew to respond to emergencies with.

[Ron5]

RON 5
I ask that you simply provide the information so that we can peruse for ourselves ,I dont seek confrontation on this thread and I would give any credible information serious thought ,lets just consider that we have been discussing other various candidates for a light frigate design it would be of use in this discussion to know if the U.S.N has a report on the survivability of European N.A.T.O ships critical because of poor design or shortcuts in protection

Fair enough maestro. All good

Good starting point: U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History, Revised Edition (Illustrated Design Histories) ISBN-13: 978-1557504425

[Ron5]

The very notion that we think we know enough about ship classification rules, construction standards and survivability to pass judgement on one ship or another against another ship or nation is, frankly, risible.

It is an extremely complex subject that defies simplistic comparisons between military and civilian norms, standards and classification rules.

I didn't (pass judgement). I merely pointed to a study by qualified folks that did (pass judgement).

And no, simplistic comparisons could be made if (big if) we we able to read the standards used to design & build the T26 vs the standards used by the Italians in building their PPA. A lot of it isn't rocket science. But it is held close to the vest for extremely obvious reasons.

If I have an agenda, it is to stick up for industry versus government departments. In the UK and on these boards, Bae is blamed for everything. It's an attitude that's encouraged by a crappy UK press that prints every leak & gossip from the the halls of Westminster as gospel.

I've worked in industry and I've worked with government types and I know that in 90% of cases, it ain't industry that is a screw up. In this case, the T26 is big and pricey not because Bae is indulging in some secret plot to defraud the UK taxpayer. It's because its being built to MoD requirements and MoD specifications.

And as for the view "the right price for a frigate is 300 million or 400 million, anything more is gold plated price padding". Says who exactly?

F-35's are about 100 million, so would a Typhoon tranche 4. P-8's are 150 million.

So folks expect a war capable frigate to cost as much as two modified Boeing 737's?? That's freaking unrealistic.

How much exactly were the last T-45's to come off the slipway? According to Penny Mardant, the most expensive ships in the history of warfare. Probably 500 million or less.

SMH.

[Ron5]

I ask this because I don't know, but is the concept of survivability a bit flawed?

After all Exocets and unguided bombs seemed perfectly capable of sinking our T42s and T21s. They didn't limp home for repairs. They weren't capable of continuing the fight. They sank.

The T21 may have been a flawed design, but the T42? Aren't you better off ensuring the enemy anti-ship missile doesn't hit you? More ships with anti-ship/anti-missile systems might be a better answer than more survivable ships. 18 Iver Huidveldts rather than 6 T45s.

Good questions. there was a time during the cold war that was the thinking i.e. ships wouldn't survive so pointless in spending a lot on survivabiity & armor etc. That view changed and ships (in the US & UK anyhow) are now expected to fight in extended campaigns, taking hits and fighting through. Lot to do with the views on nukes. Tactical nukes used to be expected fairly early in any cold war fight. Not so much anymore.

[Ron5]

No, i want to hear a more relevant comparison. I want to hear what kind of amazing survivability feature Type 26 supposedly would have over and above what the FREMM have, while being only a few meters larger, but with far more space taken up by weapons, Chinook-flight deck and mission bay, stores for 60 days and while having a smaller core crew to respond to emergencies with.

Please keep up. The discussion was about light frigates, in particular the Italian PPA and its suitability or otherwise for a T26 substitute.

But if you insist on talking about FREMM, why don't you start by listing all the standards that they have been built to?? Starting with strength, survivability, stability, damage control, fire resistance, fire fighting, & accessibility. Of course, we'll need English translations.

Thanks in advance.

By the way, the book I referenced was a revised edition published in 2003.

[abc123]

No, i want to hear a more relevant comparison. I want to hear what kind of amazing survivability feature Type 26 supposedly would have over and above what the FREMM have, while being only a few meters larger, but with far more space taken up by weapons, Chinook-flight deck and mission bay, stores for 60 days and while having a smaller core crew to respond to emergencies with.

Yeah gabrielle, nobody else know's how to build modern warships, nobody but Britain... FREMM sucks because it isn't built in Britain and by BAE- if it was it would probably be the best frigate ever...

[seaspear]

RON 5 I went to the site you mentioned but it only provided me the ability to buy the book itself ,I would ask if you could please cite in detail the areas of concern the author raises as the book itself is 2003, I would also ask that if you could show the relevancy to present naval vessels in the quotes .