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

[ArmChairCivvy]

or is the O3DZ zone the one that will house the not-permanently-embarked teams?

[shark bait]

Yes, that was my assumption also.

If you looks at the accommodation on the new rivers there are 2 section, the first with triple bunks that looks a little like the image above, and the second with more spacious double bunks like on QE. Presumably that is for embarked crew and core crew respectively. I expect the T26 will be the same.

In the past we have been told it will follow QE's accommodation style, which looks nicer than some of the cheaper hotels I've stayed in.

[Ron5]

or is the O3DZ zone the one that will house the not-permanently-embarked teams?

Ah. For the marines then.

[Spinflight]

Because this bloody thing would have truly been a 8000 tons monster otherwise, i guess.

You think it isn't?

[Gabriele]

It should not be, and i believe BAE is continuing to suggest a 6800 - 7000 tons ship, not 8000.

[Caribbean]

Wasn't the 8000 tonnes figure including the estimated margin for growth?

[ArmChairCivvy]

8000 tonnes figure including the estimated margin for growth?

Interesting discussion. The US AB discussion was "waged- as in warfare, we can have an informed one here?" in terms of CoG and what I understand from the T23 upgrades "debate" is that the topside reserve (CoG) has been fully used up already, and the term introduced then was buoyancy reserve - I am sure everyone can get their argument to come out right, and on top, by simply switching between the terminologies.

Now: everyone surely knows that Ajax is NOT a 42 ton AFV. No? Well, that is the upper limit for the power and transmission as purchased... not much to do with how they will "looking like" when rolling out of the factory.

[hovematlot]

Navylookout highlighting article in the Times about the lack of Antiship/Land Attack missiles for the T26 Mk41 silos.

[shark bait]

I'm not convinced its much of an issue.

Payloads becoming disconnected from platforms is a positive thing, and there is plenty of time left to make a decision. It's 8 years-ish until we need something, so it's not unreasonable to sit back and watch developments, and make a decision later on.

Platforms take decades to develop, where as the systems can be iterated at a much faster pace, so disconnecting platform and payload is necessary, and buying into something like the Mk41 facilitates that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

It's 8 years-ish until we need something

Kriegsmarine has just gone NSM; we can wait to see how they like it, and then take the "cousin" as in JSM VLS, already integrated into Mk.41 by a Kongsberg/ LM JV.
- sorry about the alphabet soup

[hovematlot]

I agree. Having the MK41 launcher gives us lots of opinions in the future I don't see an issue at the moment. The T23 having Harpoon taken off is another matter...

[marktigger]

I agree. Having the MK41 launcher gives us lots of opinions in the future I don't see an issue at the moment. The T23 having Harpoon taken off is another matter...

when are the Americans looking to retire harpoon?

[Jdam]

I was originally thinking that the LRASM was the best suited for what we needed but as time goes by I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better going with the JSM. Given that Norway and Australia are going for the P-8 and JSM as well as its ability to fit in the Mk41 and its integration onto the F-35 I think its starting to look like a good option.

Currently LRASM isn't being integrated into anything we use and it doesn't have a ground attack option (yet), so I'm guessing the UK would need to pay the full costs on putting it on what ever we wanted to use it on and given our recent atrocious history of integrating weapons it will no doubt be one platform only. With JSM I think (I'm sure people will correct me if I'm wrong) we could share the costs of integrating the JSM with the P-8 and F-35 and all we need to front the cots for the would be the MK41.

So in the end we could replace storm shadow and Harpoon and have it integrated into the F-35 and P-8 as well as have it launch from the Type 26 and have it canister launched from the Type 45.

[ArmChairCivvy]

we could share the costs of integrating the JSM with the P-8 and F-35 and all we need to front the cots for the would be the MK41.

F-35 already in Block4 code line, integrated (though Oz & Norway have shared the cost for the internal fit, into the "A"s bigger bomb bay).
- and who would trust the word of LM that something "will be there" in the future, so...
- Norway only ordered the planes when Pentagon had put a symbolic $20m into that integration, moving it onto state-to-state agreement level

[90inFIRST]

[quote="Jdam"]I was originally thinking that the LRASM was the best suited for what we needed but as time goes by I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better going with the JSM. Given that Norway and Australia are going for the P-8 and JSM as well as its ability to fit in the Mk41 and its integration onto the F-35 I think its starting to look like a good option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

Thats what will go into the launchers in the dim and distant future, we wont be buying anything else.

[dmereifield]

I was originally thinking that the LRASM was the best suited for what we needed but as time goes by I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better going with the JSM. Given that Norway and Australia are going for the P-8 and JSM as well as its ability to fit in the Mk41 and its integration onto the F-35 I think its starting to look like a good option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

Thats what will go into the launchers in the dim and distant future, we wont be buying anything else.

And what will we have until this thing turns up, if it does, in the 2030s?

[90inFIRST]

Thats the way it would appear

[Defiance]

We're worrying how to fill a silo on a ship which hasn't even started production yet which has plenty of OTS options we could exercise if we choose. Surely the more pressing issue is what the T23/T45 will be doing until then?

[ArmChairCivvy]

the more pressing issue is what the T23/T45 will be doing until then

Yes, and on the side of "what"... well, what else do we have, so they will be doing everything that needs to be done... is their availability
- T23s historically good, and with updates in batches, as it would seem, rather than taking one away from the fleet on a rolling basis practically to the end of that fleet 's life, looking OK into the future , too
- T45 not so good, and going down for the duration of the repairs prgrm

[Defiance]

I was thinking more along the lines of ASM work, I'm leaving the planning cycles alone as that's a whole other cluster.

[Opinion3]

It is a shame our Parliamentary Select Committees don't hold our Government and the mechanisms they use to govern to account in a more robust way. I believe the US does this fairly well. We don't seem to be able to embarrass the decision makers into ensuring we don't have so many gaps in capability.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I believe the US does this fairly well. We don't seem to be able to embarrass the decision makers into

In the US the parlamentarians hold the purse strings, and the Committees (including the generalist Ways & Means Cttee) prepare stuff (with the Executive Branch) for that kind of overall prioritisation
- we have a Super-Treasury, instead

[Timmymagic]

Might be an idea to re-open Portsmouth dockyard....

[dmereifield]

How will Sturgeon's announcement today affect the T26 schedule? We were due to cut steel in the next few months, I guess that will be postponed....perhaps it might lead to the T31 programme being brought forward, though that would be politically difficult if too much of the work was awarded to rUK yards in the run up to a second indyref

[SKB]

Build them in Portsmouth and/or Tyneside.

Or get South Korea to build the hulls for us for a fraction of the cost and in a shorter time a la Tide class. Then ship them to the UK for fitting out. Maybe with the money saved, we could actually have 13 T26's instead of 8!