UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

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

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

Which Anti-Ship Missile Should be Selected for the Type 26?

Lockheed Martin LRASM
138
51%
Kongsberg NSM
61
23%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
42
16%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
19
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 268

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby benny14 » 30 Sep 2018, 18:50

jonas wrote:Does anyone know if the T26 will have to suffer those bloody horrible looking 'mushrooms' fitted for sea-ceptor.

The Type 26 has mushrooms.
arfah wrote:Not sure how Birmingham fits?

Edinburgh and London will be the next two. The last two will be English cities.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1817
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby dmereifield » 30 Sep 2018, 20:08

SKB wrote:https://twitter.com/AdmPhilipJones/status/1046422237283274752

1. HMS Glasgow
2. HMS Cardiff
3. HMS Belfast
4. HMS Birmingham
5. HMS ?
6. HMS ?
7. HMS ?
8. HMS ?

One each from the four home nations so far. Same for ships 5-8 too?


I'd bet on one more Scottish City, and three more English (or maybe 2 more English and one Welsh)

Simon82
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

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

Postby Simon82 » 30 Sep 2018, 20:17

benny14 wrote:
The Type 26 has mushrooms.

Ron5 wrote:
There's an article by Richard Scott in the current edition of Warship World which sheds a bit of light on this. It's a good read giving a potted history of Sea Ceptor.

Anyhow, yes to save money, the Sea Ceptor launch tube was inserted at a slight angle into existing Sea Wolf silos. Ceptor is a tad longer missile so the "top hat" or "mushroom stem" had to be added.


So if there’s no Sea Wolf why are there ‘mushrooms’? It seems improbable that BAE have fabricated new Sea Wolf VLS silos just to hold the Sea Ceptor silos upright, especially when there are much better ways of exploiting the tight packaging that cold-launch allows.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby benny14 » 30 Sep 2018, 20:46

Simon82 wrote:So if there’s no Sea Wolf why are there ‘mushrooms’? It seems improbable that BAE have fabricated new Sea Wolf VLS silos just to hold the Sea Ceptor silos upright, especially when there are much better ways of exploiting the tight packaging that cold-launch allows.

Whatever the CAMM missiles are in, they will have the mushroom on top.

Online
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 30 Sep 2018, 21:01

dmereifield wrote:I'd bet on one more Scottish City, and three more English (or maybe 2 more English and one Welsh)


My bet is one Scottish, HMS Edinburgh, then HMS Plymouth, HMS Liverpool and HMS Newcastle.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

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

Postby arfah » 30 Sep 2018, 21:41

Exeter, Liverpool and Plymouth.

100/1 shot. Londonderry.
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

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

Postby Gabriele » 30 Sep 2018, 23:28

Manchester will be there for sure. Liverpool has to be in as well. Edinburgh is still a good bet, even though the simple fact that the SNP has a habit of claiming ownership of anything named for a Scotland something makes me want not to use it...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2979
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 01 Oct 2018, 00:44

Simon82 wrote:
benny14 wrote:
The Type 26 has mushrooms.

Ron5 wrote:
There's an article by Richard Scott in the current edition of Warship World which sheds a bit of light on this. It's a good read giving a potted history of Sea Ceptor.

Anyhow, yes to save money, the Sea Ceptor launch tube was inserted at a slight angle into existing Sea Wolf silos. Ceptor is a tad longer missile so the "top hat" or "mushroom stem" had to be added.


So if there’s no Sea Wolf why are there ‘mushrooms’? It seems improbable that BAE have fabricated new Sea Wolf VLS silos just to hold the Sea Ceptor silos upright, especially when there are much better ways of exploiting the tight packaging that cold-launch allows.
In T23, "a CAMM tube with mushroom on top" is installed in SeaWolf tube. I guess T26 is carrying this CAMM tube, un-related to SeaWolf tube.
arlylle_CAMM.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

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

Postby Simon82 » 01 Oct 2018, 01:18

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In T23, "a CAMM tube with mushroom on top" is installed in SeaWolf tube. I guess T26 is carrying this CAMM tube, un-related to SeaWolf tube.

Presumably the Sea Ceptor ‘mushrooms’ will be much closer together on the Type 26 in that case, as the large vacant space between each silo on the refitted Type 23s is due to the no longer required plenum for containing and venting the hot-launch exhaust from Sea Wolf.
Even so, the individual Sea Ceptor ‘mushrooms’ seem a rather inefficient use of the space available compared to the closely packed Land Ceptor or stand alone ExLS systems.

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Phil R » 01 Oct 2018, 08:33

Simon82 wrote:Presumably the Sea Ceptor ‘mushrooms’ will be much closer together on the Type 26 in that case, as the large vacant space between each silo on the refitted Type 23s is due to the no longer required plenum for containing and venting the hot-launch exhaust from Sea Wolf.

The Sea Wolf exhaust vents are integral to each launch tube.
https://youtu.be/EBF-0OxpW6Q

Phil R

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Oct 2018, 08:38

Would it be a reasonable assumption that the uneven spacing (ie. not hugely compact) between the rows (1+2+1) was simply with a view to providing access, so that each tube is approachable without the need to step on top of another?

jonas
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

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

Postby jonas » 01 Oct 2018, 08:43

benny14 wrote:
Simon82 wrote:So if there’s no Sea Wolf why are there ‘mushrooms’? It seems improbable that BAE have fabricated new Sea Wolf VLS silos just to hold the Sea Ceptor silos upright, especially when there are much better ways of exploiting the tight packaging that cold-launch allows.

Whatever the CAMM missiles are in, they will have the mushroom on top.


:benny14:
Whilst I appreciate your reply I still don't understand why they need mushrooms, their is certainly enough depth on the T26 to fit them without these abominations. You seem very certain about this, can you give a link to any article supporting your claim.

Thanks,jonas.

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Phil R » 01 Oct 2018, 09:21

Mushrooms are cheap, weather durable with few maintenance requirements.
Any dedicated launcher (Mk 41, Slyver, ExLS) is going to be more expensive, over engineered for CAMM and bring additional maintenance (cost) burdens.

Phil R

jonas
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

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

Postby jonas » 01 Oct 2018, 14:01

Phil R wrote:Mushrooms are cheap, weather durable with few maintenance requirements.
Any dedicated launcher (Mk 41, Slyver, ExLS) is going to be more expensive, over engineered for CAMM and bring additional maintenance (cost) burdens.

Phil R


Also unable to accept any other missile other than CAMM. Though my question was, has there been any formal announcement in regards to the fit and if so do we have a link.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Digger22 » 01 Oct 2018, 19:33

I was hoping for names that were also associated with the Falklands (T42's), and while the earlier Exeter and Sheffield were both involved in the Atlantic Convey campaign, Coventry's involvement is less documented, if at all. Shame, so I would like to see, Exeter, Sheffield and Plymouth.

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Phil R » 02 Oct 2018, 18:42

jonas wrote:has there been any formal announcement in regards to the fit and if so do we have a link.

I have had a good search online and have been unable to find anything official about City class Sea Ceptor silos besides the published imagery.

Phil R

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 03 Oct 2018, 08:09

Phil R wrote:Mushrooms are cheap, weather durable with few maintenance requirements.
Any dedicated launcher (Mk 41, Slyver, ExLS) is going to be more expensive, over engineered for CAMM and bring additional maintenance (cost) burdens.

Phil R


There was a picture the other day on twitter that showed one of the most recent Sea Ceptor installations without the Mushroom....it wasn't prior to installation either. I'll see if I can find it, but the general view was it had been discarded in the newest iteration.

jonas
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

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

Postby jonas » 03 Oct 2018, 09:26

Phil R wrote:
jonas wrote:has there been any formal announcement in regards to the fit and if so do we have a link.

I have had a good search online and have been unable to find anything official about City class Sea Ceptor silos besides the published imagery.

Phil R


Thanks for that, yes that is all I have ever seen on old CGI's hopefully due to lack of info on anything else.

jonas
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

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

Postby jonas » 03 Oct 2018, 09:33

Timmymagic wrote:
Phil R wrote:Mushrooms are cheap, weather durable with few maintenance requirements.
Any dedicated launcher (Mk 41, Slyver, ExLS) is going to be more expensive, over engineered for CAMM and bring additional maintenance (cost) burdens.

Phil R


There was a picture the other day on twitter that showed one of the most recent Sea Ceptor installations without the Mushroom....it wasn't prior to installation either. I'll see if I can find it, but the general view was it had been discarded in the newest iteration.


Hoping they have seen the light, fitting launchers restricted to a single missile type seems to me very short sighted. Would be appreciated if you could find the twitter picture. Thanks.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 03 Oct 2018, 09:49

It's unlikely the navy would ever choose to go without its air defense missile, so a bunch of small cheap bespoke launchers as well as the Mk41 is a totally reasonable decision.
@LandSharkUK

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Scimitar54 » 03 Oct 2018, 09:50

Does anyone know how long it would take to replace the cheap CAMM only launch tubes with Mk41, assuming the Mk41's were available for immediate insertion? I accept that there is the possibility that this might be the same as "how long is a piece of string". If it cannot be done fairly quickly, then the more versatile (eg Mk41) launch tubes need to be fitted from the start.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2327
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 03 Oct 2018, 10:18

Scimitar54 wrote:Does anyone know how long it would take to replace the cheap CAMM only launch tubes with Mk41, assuming the Mk41's were available for immediate insertion? I accept that there is the possibility that this might be the same as "how long is a piece of string". If it cannot be done fairly quickly, then the more versatile (eg Mk41) launch tubes need to be fitted from the start.

Given the Hunter class has just that, presumably not very long. But it's not a "hotswap" mid-war or anything.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 03 Oct 2018, 10:30

More Mk41 doesn't need to be fitted from the start. For the next 20+ years the T26 will always need CAMM, there is nothing to gain putting that inside a more expensive box.
@LandSharkUK

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 03 Oct 2018, 13:50

jonas wrote:Hoping they have seen the light, fitting launchers restricted to a single missile type seems to me very short sighted. Would be appreciated if you could find the twitter picture. Thanks.


It wasn't a new launcher, I think the consensus was the same launcher minus the mushroom caps. Whether that was a permanent fit was a good question..

jonas
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

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

Postby jonas » 03 Oct 2018, 14:44

Scimitar54 wrote:Does anyone know how long it would take to replace the cheap CAMM only launch tubes with Mk41, assuming the Mk41's were available for immediate insertion? I accept that there is the possibility that this might be the same as "how long is a piece of string". If it cannot be done fairly quickly, then the more versatile (eg Mk41) launch tubes need to be fitted from the start.


Completely agree, apart from the cost it appears a logical decision. Quad pack CAMM into fewer tubes leaving tubes for various options. Might not need them all in normal conditions, but easier to aquire more missiles than having to do major dockyard work fitting Mk41's when time is of the essence.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Repulse and 16 guests