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
141
52%
Kongsberg NSM
61
22%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
43
16%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
19
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 272

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Apr 2019, 12:39

Jake1992 wrote:...They should be looking at designing a family of 3 vessels based on the design that would filling the roles from light frigate to AAW destroyer.
At least, the short version is not practical. Hull is not an empty box. It is filled with power-train, tanks, shafts, accommodations, compactly arranged to have good water-tight block and fire-wall blocks. Re-arrangement of them will be practically similar to designing completely new hull. It will be an "enhanced T31e" program itself.

Other two versions will be easy, and I think they will actually happen.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 27 Apr 2019, 12:53

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:...They should be looking at designing a family of 3 vessels based on the design that would filling the roles from light frigate to AAW destroyer.
At least, the short version is not practical. Hull is not an empty box. It is filled with power-train, tanks, shafts, accommodations, compactly arranged to have good water-tight block and fire-wall blocks. Re-arrangement of them will be practically similar to designing completely new hull. It will be an "enhanced T31e" program itself.

Other two versions will be easy, and I think they will actually happen.


I did say everything rear of the superstructure would need to be redesigned for the shorter version but a family of 3 that covers all areas from light frigate to destroyer based of a parent design could be a big boots for British export design

Iv started to a trend that anything above w covert is becoming design export only as most nation interested want home build.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Apr 2019, 13:03

Jake1992 wrote:I did say everything rear of the superstructure would need to be redesigned for the shorter version but a family of 3 that covers all areas from light frigate to destroyer based of a parent design could be a big boots for British export design.
Why you need to re-use the forward section? It may dis-balancing the weight/float balance, and could be "too wide" as a smaller ship, which will require "larger engine" to achieve the same speed than that of the longer version.

With the same width, longer hull is faster with the same power, as we see in T42 batch-3.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 27 Apr 2019, 14:11

Some actual news re: T26

Security concerns expressed about GE moving the T26 engine production to France

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-tech-would-be-compromised-if-work-moved-to-france/
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 27 Apr 2019, 14:11

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I did say everything rear of the superstructure would need to be redesigned for the shorter version but a family of 3 that covers all areas from light frigate to destroyer based of a parent design could be a big boots for British export design.
Why you need to re-use the forward section? It may dis-balancing the weight/float balance, and could be "too wide" as a smaller ship, which will require "larger engine" to achieve the same speed than that of the longer version.

With the same width, longer hull is faster with the same power, as we see in T42 batch-3.


For me the lay out of the front it quiet flexible allowing space for up to 48 mk41s or other VLS or canister systems. I’d also like to keep the bridge and superstructure lay out pretty much the same on all to reduce redesign and help it commonality for the crews.

With regards to the width I’d keep it the same to once again reduce redesign and keep growth margins for weapons and other system. Yes this would reduce speed but I’d be confident in getting 25/26 knots top speed out of such a design ( I know T26 is stated at 26 knot but as we’ve seen with the QEs 25 knots yet they hit 29 already so I could see the T26 hitting around 30knots )
If you start changing the width then it’s a whole sale new design really.

I just think a class of 3 as describe above would be a good opportunity for MOD and BAE to make the most of T26 success

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2019, 15:08

Careful now. This is for News only not discussing what may or may not happen to the T-26 in future.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 27 Apr 2019, 15:25

Lord Jim wrote:Careful now. This is for News only not discussing what may or may not happen to the T-26 in future.


I was starting to think we should move it lol

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 02 May 2019, 16:15

Not sure if this is the correct thread, but Dragonfire has been discussed here before, as a potential future system fro the T26:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-tests-warship-power-systems-for-dragonfire-laser-weapon/

“The Flywheel Energy Storage System (FESS) uses innovative high-speed & lightweight flywheels to provide high-power electrical pulses that these future systems require, reducing the impact of these systems to the rest of the ship, while avoiding the widely reported safety concern around battery-based systems."
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Halidon » 02 May 2019, 17:11

Along with D-E applications, the USN has been looking at FESS for Railgun's energy storage needs.

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby NickC » 09 May 2019, 23:16

Hint, might be totally unrealistic, that LM will drop the LSC Freedom hull as the basis of their bid for the USN FFG(X) and use the T26 H,M & E as with their winning bid for the Canadian CSC contract.

Problems that LM have with their LCS Freedom hull is that with its max 3,500t displacement its a semi-planning with waterjets designed for 40 to 50 knots and consequently very high resistance at most normal speeds (FFG(X) spec 26 knots threshold/28 knots objective), the complications of transforming into a standard displacement hull of 6,000t+ with new propulsion system to meet FFG specs maybe proving expensive/insurmountable/require new untried hull that lacks credibility?

The Fincantieri FREMM variant for FFG(X) has been extended in length slightly to 496'/152m and was quoted at 7,000t, now mention of 7,400t, not sure believable, same displacement quoted for GD BIW/Navantia F100 variant with their bid for FFG

Comment 7:30


Online
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 10 May 2019, 09:30

Hold up, at 7:57, is that 6-8 additional silos on the Canadian model where the T26s second row of CAMM normally is?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 10 May 2019, 09:51

Good spot. Certainly not seen anything other than CAMM there before, I didn't think there was room for a hot launched missile.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1527
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 10 May 2019, 09:52

They don't look like Mk41's. What else could they be?

It must be a fairly recent addition as this is the model Lockheed Martin were displaying only a few months ago.
image.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 May 2019, 10:31

RetroSicotte wrote:Hold up, at 7:57, is that 6-8 additional silos on the Canadian model where the T26s second row of CAMM normally is?


Yh the Canadian version has 32 mk41 cells set out up front with 3 x 8 cell ( same place we have ours ) and a single 8 cell directly in front on the mild set.

shark bait wrote:Good spot. Certainly not seen anything other than CAMM there before, I didn't think there was room for a hot launched missile.


I think the Canadian set up has shown that the T26 could very well hold up to 48 mk41s in 2 rows of 3 x 8 cells. If this is the case to me it shows how much we’ve wasted space on our own version, with the mid ship mushrooms taking up a similar space to 12-15 Excl cells and the potential for up to 48 mk41s at the front.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 May 2019, 13:14

It is 6 cell unit, so surely not Mk.41.

It could be ExLS, (but for what?)
- some decoy launcher, such as Nulca
- some land attack missile ?
RCN_T26_VLS.jpg
RCN_T26_VLS3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 May 2019, 13:28

donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is 6 cell unit, so surely not Mk.41.

It could be ExLS, (but for what?)
- some decoy launcher, such as Nulca
- some land attack missile ?
RCN_T26_VLS.jpg
RCN_T26_VLS3.jpg


That’s strange as I Known the original proposal was for 32 mk41s, I wonder why the cut ? Or could it be just a mistake on the modal ?

My mistake if you zoom in it is an 8 cell

Online
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 10 May 2019, 13:38

Did some digging, it's a Mk56 launcher. The Iver Huitfeldt has sets of them as well.

Used to launch dual-packed ESSM. Halidax class has it too, I believe. Iver's wiki page implies it's 12 missiles per rack of 6 anyway.

In other words, the Canadian version has 32x Mk41 type silos, and then 12x ESSM silos, AND an 8x canister launch.

Royal Navy version is starting to look markedly less capable than the export ones by the year...all depends on the missiles bought of course, but still. Canadian version could hold everything the RN version has missile wise, and still have 6x Mk41 silos and the canisters left over.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 May 2019, 14:04

RetroSicotte wrote:Did some digging, it's a Mk56 launcher. The Iver Huitfeldt has sets of them as well.

Used to launch dual-packed ESSM. Halidax class has it too, I believe. Iver's wiki page implies it's 12 missiles per rack of 6 anyway.

In other words, the Canadian version has 32x Mk41 type silos, and then 12x ESSM silos, AND an 8x canister launch.

Royal Navy version is starting to look markedly less capable than the export ones by the year...all depends on the missiles bought of course, but still. Canadian version could hold everything the RN version has missile wise, and still have 6x Mk41 silos and the canisters left over.


This is what gets me as the design allows room for up to 48 mk41s forward and as we’re using CAMM ExCL is around for a much denser packing.

We could fit all our intended CAMM missiles and then some in the mid ship mushroom space if ExCL was used and then fit up to an extra 24 mk41s forward but no we go for outdated and space consuming mushrooms.

What the Canadians version gives is the equivalent of 40 mk41s and 12 ExCL by the looks of it

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 May 2019, 14:08

If it is filled with armaments, it is blamed for "not enough margin".

If it has a lot of margin, it is blamed for too less armaments.

RN T26 with 48 mushroom CAMM launcher has a big "growth margin" for future replacing it with high-density packing, such as ExLS. It will enable her to carry 196 missiles, maybe a combination of 132 CAMM and 64 SPEAR3? Actually, if we abandon "19 escort" propaganda, and use a fraction of the T31e budget (1.5B GBP in total) on "up arming" T26, this will easily realized.

"19 escort" saga is doing lots of harm than benefit now, I'm afraid.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 May 2019, 14:16

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If it is filled with armaments, it is blamed for "not enough margin".

If it has a lot of margin, it is blamed for too less armaments.


This is why for me I’d have the T26 fitted with 12 ExCL mid Ship for CAMM, by the looks of it should still leave space for an extra 3 cell.
Then 32 mk41 forward for now ( leaving room for 16 extra cells ) fitted with ain’t sub missiles, spear 3 and the future ain’t ship / Land strike, all while still leaving growth margins

My problem with leaving too larger growth margins today is the 1: it leaves the vessel under armed compared to potential enemies ( not compared to past RN vessels ) and 2: these growth margin never appear to get used now days with the T45s being the glaring example ( room for ExCL and 16 mk41s ) half way through life no sign of getting them.

Online
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 10 May 2019, 14:25

I would hesitate to call the RN version "underarmed". That was not my intent.

It's simply an indicator of the crippling lack of government support to actually do what is possible with the things this country can create. Everything is always half assed at every turn and never taken to its logical, leading capacity. Be it destroyers without their Mk41s and Harpoons (for a time), frigates with less silos than their exports, tanks ignoring upgrades for years, F-35s losing Brimstone/Storm Shadow, Wildcats losing datalinks, IFVs without ATGMs, carriers without SAMs, Typhoons without AMK/VT/Conformal, artillery without L52 so on so on so on.

The amount of "It could have..." outcomes in the UK is horrendous.

T26 looks to be great, yes. But I simply am making an observation that once again the lack of ambition to make the utmost of the platforms the UK created/acquires bites in a visible, quantifiable way by comparison to others.

I have often maintained that evading the poor spending choices (Not getting into Boxer when we had the chance for example which cost billions upon billions in emergency MRAP acquirement, or the ship indecision after cutting too hard then needing it back) would have permitted at least a bunch of the above.

T26 at least is thankfully more than capable as is. It's a fine ship design on paper, even if "reduced" a little from allies. It is at least good to know it has the capacity, even if the chances of said capacity being upgraded are basically nil. (See T45)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 May 2019, 14:27

Jake1992 wrote:My problem with leaving too larger growth margins today is the 1: it leaves the vessel under armed compared to potential enemies ( not compared to past RN vessels ) and 2: these growth margin never appear to get used now days with the T45s being the glaring example ( room for ExCL and 16 mk41s ) half way through life no sign of getting them.
Yes.

Is it clever to spend 1.5B GBP on 5 T31e light-light frigates, or using a half of them to add "one more T26", and another half to up-arm both 6 T45 and 9 T26?

Man power is limited, and money is limited. With future SSBN program proceeding, more money will be lacking. There won't be "a future with less constrained budget", but only a future with much constrained one?

Up-arming T45 and T26, and building 5 T31e with further up-arming then in future, is what many here talks about.

..... No hope, sorry to say. Better to face the reality and invest more on T26, by cutting T31e. If it is cost neutral, Treasury will surely say "yes, as you like".

#Sorry, a bit too cynical, I'm afraid. ....

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 May 2019, 14:30

RetroSicotte wrote:I would hesitate to call the RN version "underarmed". That was not my intent.

It's simply an indicator of the crippling lack of government support to actually do what is possible with the things this country can create. Everything is always half assed at every turn and never taken to its logical, leading capacity. Be it destroyers without their Mk41s and Harpoons (for a time), frigates with less silos than their exports, tanks ignoring upgrades for years, F-35s losing Brimstone/Storm Shadow, Wildcats losing datalinks, IFVs without ATGMs, carriers without SAMs, Typhoons without AMK/VT/Conformal, artillery without L52 so on so on so on.

The amount of "It could have..." outcomes in the UK is horrendous.

T26 looks to be great, yes. But I simply am making an observation that once again the lack of ambition to make the utmost of the platforms the UK created/acquires bites in a visible, quantifiable way by comparison to others.
Exactly. Good reason to abandon "19 escort saga" and invest in T45 and T26, etc. Again, Treasury will just say yes, if is just re-locating already allocated money.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 May 2019, 14:49

RetroSicotte wrote:I would hesitate to call the RN version "underarmed". That was not my intent.


No the T26s are not under armed compared to past RN standards but the difference is that in the past the RN left anti ship and land strike predominantly to the carriers and subs yet we have seen a dramatic drop in sub numbers to the point they can’t be used in that way and the carriers are going to be far weaker than planed so the surface vessels need to pick up the slack.

What they are under armed compared to is our allies ( see other T26s, US and Japan ) and our potential enemies ( see China and Russia )

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:My problem with leaving too larger growth margins today is the 1: it leaves the vessel under armed compared to potential enemies ( not compared to past RN vessels ) and 2: these growth margin never appear to get used now days with the T45s being the glaring example ( room for ExCL and 16 mk41s ) half way through life no sign of getting them.
Yes.

Is it clever to spend 1.5B GBP on 5 T31e light-light frigates, or using a half of them to add "one more T26", and another half to up-arm both 6 T45 and 9 T26?

Man power is limited, and money is limited. With future SSBN program proceeding, more money will be lacking. There won't be "a future with less constrained budget", but only a future with much constrained one?

Up-arming T45 and T26, and building 5 T31e with further up-arming then in future, is what many here talks about.

..... No hope, sorry to say. Better to face the reality and invest more on T26, by cutting T31e. If it is cost neutral, Treasury will surely say "yes, as you like".

#Sorry, a bit too cynical, I'm afraid. ....


I could stomach this only if a large number of multi mission sloops ( like the black swan, Venari 95 ) were purchased to fill the gaps, say around 20+ to do mcm, survey, costal ASW and low threat security ( ain’t piracy, wave the flag )

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 May 2019, 14:55

Jake1992 wrote: I could stomach this only if a large number of multi mission sloops ( like the black swan, Venari 95 ) were purchased to fill the gaps, say around 20+ to do mcm, survey, costal ASW and low threat security ( ain’t piracy, wave the flag )
But "more money" is NOT likely to come. AND, if no more money is coming, I'm afraid it is a choice between
- leaving T45/T26 and many other assets under-armed, under-equipped, and in place get 5 T31e
or
- ban T31e and up-arm those assets,

Hoping for both is OK, but I'm afraid "both" is very very very difficult to happen, which means it is equivalent to accepting leaving T45, T26 Wildcat etc as it is = under equipped, for ever.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: albedo, Varus and 12 guests