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
164
52%
Kongsberg NSM
78
25%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
44
14%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
21
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 315

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Phil R »

seaspear wrote:Is there an advantage of launching against a target with the ability of defence against missiles different types of missiles at the same time
Probably, but would you want to split investment into 2 or more 2nd rate missile systems for the same target set and hope that the mix of systems is successful, or invest more into a single 1st class system that when used properly has a high probability of sucess?

Phil R

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Gabriele »

This was the last article (for the moment) i've written about Type 26: it was a bit of a scoop at the time as i found online the letter of the secretary of state detailing the major systems and features confirmed in the design. It also contains some technical comparisons with other modern frigates, and some data on costing. I think it could be interesting to have on here:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -some.html
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by seaspear »

Both the lrasm and jsm look promising and not second rate ,would also the type 26 because of its smaller radar in comparison to the Daring class have more potency in its use of its missiles in the use of cec using a Daring class radar to guide its missiles.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "Cooperative Engagement Capability has not been cut; it was never in the committed core equipment
programme.

"The MoD's comprehensive assessment of CEC informed the decision made during PR12 that it was not necessary to commit to purchasing the capability at this stage. As the Defence Secretary made clear last month, the MoD budget has headroom of £8bn over the next 10 years for potential new programmes. The Armed Forces Committee will prioritise which projects to commit to when necessary, and not before.

"The T45 Destroyer provides a world leading, state-of-the-art anti-air warfare platform with a range of capabilities for defeating complex threats."

So the answer is probably yes,the question is, will we ever get it. This quote was from an old post in 2012, but nothing seems to have changed.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

the numbers of conventional submarines has increased round the world. Plus the growing numbers of operations the Royal navy need to cover. Hopefully we will move away from the RFA's being used as auxillary frigates and the rob from one deployment to cover an op.
Given the problems of warship availability in recent years I would put forward a number of 16 type 26.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by seaspear »

The type 26 envisioned as a frigate seems to be coming to a size in most navies considered as a destroyer and perhaps it could be interesting to compare it to similar sized vessels in abilities .

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by SKB »

We have a strange navy. Frigates the size of destroyers, and destroyers the size of cruisers. ;)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by SKB »

I would like to nominate these thirteen previously used 'F' names for the future Type 26 'Double-Entendre Class'. :mrgreen:

F260 HMS Fairy
F261 HMS Fancy
F262 HMS Fanny
F263 HMS Ferret
F264 HMS Fidget
F265 HMS Fifi
F266 HMS Firm
F267 HMS Flash
F268 HMS Flirt
F269 HMS Fly
F270 HMS Foam
F271 HMS Force
F272 HMS Fountain

Seriously, all those name have been used on previous RN ships!

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by RetroSicotte »

Hahaha!

I'm quite partial to the idea of an F-Class too. There's some cracking shipnames under that letter.

Firefly, Formidable, Falkland, Fearless, Firebrand, Forte, Falcon, Forester, Fisgard, Firedrake...

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by seaspear »

Sounds like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

I'd like

Plymouth
Scarborough
Tenby
Rhyl
Rothesay
Berwick
Yarmouth
Brighton
Falmouth
Blackpool
Whitby
Eastbourne
Torquay
Lowestoft
Hastings
Cantebury

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by SKB »

Two ships named Brighton may cause both confusement and surprise to an enemy. Clever!

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Don't know exactly how many UK can afford, but my suggestion is to have as many "S2087" ships as possible.

For example, 10 T26s with ALL S2087 equipped. (May be you can purchase only 1 additional sonar, in total 9 S2087s, and share them within the fleet of 10 hulls, because 1 hull will be in long maintenance any moment).

All the GP issues, which do not use S2087, can be done with other assets, such as,

- keep 3 new River Batch2s to compensate 13 --> 10 frigate number loss. Even without helicopter hanger (of course better be with it), you can do good job in Caribbean (some USCG cutters, Canadian Kingston MCDVs are doing well without helis, of course with allied air support. But there IS an air support in the theater, isn't it?), as well as Falkland islands (you do have air cover from RAF and SAR helicopters)

- your great new QE2 and PoW will have overwhelming fighting-power for anything above water and on ground.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Gabriele »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Don't know exactly how many UK can afford, but my suggestion is to have as many "S2087" ships as possible.

For example, 10 T26s with ALL S2087 equipped. (May be you can purchase only 1 additional sonar, in total 9 S2087s, and share them within the fleet of 10 hulls, because 1 hull will be in long maintenance any moment).

All the GP issues, which do not use S2087, can be done with other assets, such as,

- keep 3 new River Batch2s to compensate 13 --> 10 frigate number loss. Even without helicopter hanger (of course better be with it), you can do good job in Caribbean (some USCG cutters, Canadian Kingston MCDVs are doing well without helis, of course with allied air support. But there IS an air support in the theater, isn't it?), as well as Falkland islands (you do have air cover from RAF and SAR helicopters)

- your great new QE2 and PoW will have overwhelming fighting-power for anything above water and on ground.

That is my suggestion as well. I have no sympathy for so-called "General Purpose" frigates which abdicate their key ASW role for playing the part of super patrol vessels. Not cost effective.
I prefer 10 Type 26, but all fully kitted out, over an 8 + 5 arrangement. It is true that, in theory, the General Purpose could be fitted with a sonar in emergency, but that would take months, and it might well be too late. It is also very questionable if there would be available trained personnel to use the new sonars, besides.

10 frigates and a MHPC ship type with some more emphasis on the "Patrol" bit would make for a better deal, in my opinion.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by WhitestElephant »

Surely the cost of S2087 cannot be so expensive as to prohibit a further 5 sets to equip all 13 T23s and hopefully 13 T26s?

If not, then surely an extra 2?

MHPC should be revisited IMO, replacing the Hunts and Sandowns with a large (3,000t?) OPV with hangar, Chinook flight capable deck, mission bay, open quarter deck and a 30 mm gun. 8 or so vessels would do, with a further 6 to replace the Echos and Rivers at the tail end of production sometime in the 2030s.

Keep them basic (not war fighters), but capable of conducting the whole range of constabulary tasks (even if that means purchasing a pool of 4 Phalanx sets to fit to MHPCs operating off the Horn or in the Gulf). Thus leaving the high end DDGs and FFs with more freedom to exercise, escort RFTG etc Similar to how the French work, we could even consider forward basing too.

In the mean time it would be nice to see Batch 2 rivers kept in addition to the Batch 1s.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Gabriele-san

# "XXX-san" is Mr or Ms XXX in Japanese ...

I am sorry I did not mentioned it in my post, but my opinion here is "affected" by your own blog. So that is ME who agreed to YOUR idea.

On the usage of River B2s, it is my own opinion, looking at MANY such OPVs without helicopter hanger working very hard all around Japan water, of course with air cover from land-based aircrafts. (I'm sorry this comment shall be in River B1.5/2 thread...)

regards..

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

At the risk of repeating myself, this is where the 'Black Swan' future sloop of war project should be brought forward, and looked at seriously, it does seem to fit a lot of the requirements.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _SwanU.pdf

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

A MHPC type ship is a general purpose frigate.
Since we're spending billions building new class it makes perfect sense to build more in a general purpose roll, rather than start a whole new class to do the same job. At least that way the RN isn't running for port if it detects hostilities.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Gabriele »

shark bait wrote:A MHPC type ship is a general purpose frigate.
Since we're spending billions building new class it makes perfect sense to build more in a general purpose roll, rather than start a whole new class to do the same job. At least that way the RN isn't running for port if it detects hostilities.
The point of using MHPC to take up some patrol duties is that you are going to build MHPC regardless of how many Type 26 you build. The whole new class is going to be needed to replace Hunt, Sandown, Echo classes, and possibly, to a degree, later on, River.

Unless you want to do even Survey and Mine Countermeasures with Type 26s...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
wirralpete
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:16
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by wirralpete »

@thread...
Can't disagree enough with above comments over reducing number of T26 frigates and replacing them with basically OPV that are neither fish nor fowl.
I think the question of more 2087 sonar sets to ten is a valid one, with increased ASW threats and the need to protect the QEC carriers but where do you get the extra MERLINS to accompany them ?
A GP T26 is basically the same as an ASW T26 but the focus on littoral with 2 Lynx embarked and perhaps an MCM payload or Scaneagle payload embarked rather than ASW, dont forget GP t23 still have a towed sonar just less capable T2031z i believe?
All T26 will have the same NGS, AD, and land attack fit out and reducing hull numbers will reduce options in this area.
My biggest reason for disgreeing is the need for a consistent drumbeat of build to maintain skills, reduce costs per hull built, if you look at build costs of the T23 frigates costs came down significantly as the build progressed and the then Yarrow shipyard gained economies of scale.
Nail suppliers of the major subsystems of guns missiles and propulsion systems on cost with a guaranteed drumbeat of supply over 15 years and through life support over 15 years with options for potential increases based on exports, wherever they may be built either at Scotstoun or overseas.
My preference would be for an annual drumbeat of 1 T26 per year to give 15 in total gaining in economies of scale with each batch of 3 ordered replacing 2 ASW AND 1 GP at a time.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

I can feel this is going to be a long post trying to explain my previous bold statement.

I used to love the MHPC concept, and particularly liked the black swan document mentioned by jonas, I had it in my fantasy fleet and everything. However the more I analyzed the concept the more I noticed its flaws.

The problem is your building a ship that is neither survivable or multipurpose. I don't believe you can have a ship that is small and multipurpose. Space is the limiting factor when measuring the the flexibility of such a vessel. With little space available any additional role you want to add to your 'multipurpose' vessel will be constrained by space for the equipment, space for the operators and available space in power and communication systems. To be truly flexible and multipurpose a ship need a big empty space and lots of free capacity from all the ships systems. So you start off with a patrol boat, add the space, and you have a frigate that can easily adopt extra roles and still be useful at the fighty stuff.

I also think the black swan concept has created a role to fit the ship. A kind of war fighty ship, that cant go anywhere near real danger. Imagine you have your small 'multipurpose' patrol boat deployed somewhere, only to find if hostilities are encountered, it cannot do anything about it and must run for port because it has zero survivability. The larger GP frigate can actually be useful in this situation, it has the stores and the weapons (and space) to hold its own against an adversery, at least until backup arrives.

In no situation is a small MHCP boat a proper alternative to a general purpose frigate. Even in anti-piracy and anti-smuggling ops a GP frigate will excel where the air assets become valuable and the more space you have, the better the system will be and the bigger your area of protection. A small boat can provide some useful assistance however as shown recently by HMS Somerset and the Border Force cutter Valiant.

Another of my worry's with such a class is the spreadsheet wielding powers that be will remove 6 T26, and replace them with 8 Black swan and be happy with how they've increased the royal navy on their spreadsheet. In reality there would just be more boats that arent great at anything.

There is a valid point that there will be a need replace Hunt, Sandown, Echo classes, and it would be brilliant to do this with a common hull. However this shouldn't be flighty in any way. There has been some interesting developments in the MHC program recently, I think its now reasonably clear what form the system will take, unmanned and modular, deployed from a cheap mother ship. There is no need for this ship to be anything special, a cheap practical commercial support vessel will be perfect for launching recovering and commanding unmanned vehicles. I would suggest we already have a great example of such a ship at our disposal already. The SD Victoria will fit the role perfectly. A fleet of these deployed and supported by an auxilart mother ship would be a great capability that doesn't try and fit a war fighter inside a small package.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Gabriele »

MHPC does not need to be like Black Swan. Black Swan is an extremisation of the concept, an exercise in lateral thinking: it envisages a ship fitted with almost nothing on its own, and completely dependent on UAVs and embarked modular payload to do anything. But that is not how it needs to be. A less extreme concept will work perfectly. MHPC should have a decent sensors fit in an integrated mast; possibly a medium calibre gun and space reservation or, better, an installed CAMM battery. The stern should be all space for the embarked capability modules; initially MCM and survey, and probably, over time, also more fighty stuff. I'm pretty sure ASW will be the next area where we will see developments, so one day it might have a use in ASW, even.
You are going to have to build ships for the MCM and survey role, no matter what. On the other hand, there is the very real risk that the Type 26 number will be cut again (we all know the risk is very much there, let's not lie). I understand the reasoning on how nice frigates are, and how nice it would be to build one per year to give the yard certainty and stability... but however good the reasoning is, we are not going to get that. The TOBA agreement was supposed to ensure a steady drumbeat: it hasn't worked. It has been torn apart.

The RN will better try and pre-empt the events. Otherwise, instead of having 10 Type 26 and a number of somewhat capable MHPCs, it'll have 10 Type 26 and a number of SD Victorias with no combat capability at all, because one programme gets cut and the other doesn't change to make up for it.
It wouldn't be the first time it happens.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by WhitestElephant »

MHPC would largely operate where the current Hunts and Sandowns do today. But rather than simply being MCM vessels with little utility elsewhere, MHPC would have the ability to conduct low intensity constabulary tasks too. I don't see anything wrong with that tbh.

With MHPC, we would get a ship capable of performing MCM, OPV work and even anti-piracy and counter narcotics etc - the latter two being duties currently being performed by ever fewer numbers of high-end DDG/FFs.

Considering we have to replace the MCM fleet anyway, why not do it properly, and do it in a way that adds flexibility to the fleet. For example, a frigate in the West Indies cannot screen RFTG, but a MHPC in the West Indies would free up that escort slot allowing it to perform other tasks.

The pertinent point is that MHPC is not a substitute for a destroyer or frigate, thus there is no question of tasking them in such a way. So I really do not envision a scenario where MHPC will come face to face with a hostile bigger than a few pirates in a dhow. After all, we have RFAs and amphibs running about the worlds oceans armed only with Phalanx or Goal keeper - and I cannot think of a single instance where any had to run to port due to danger of being sunk.

A cheap civilian mother ship with no utility outside of MCM and survey would be the wrong decision IMO.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

Gabriele wrote:. MHPC should have a decent sensors fit in an integrated mast; possibly a medium calibre gun and space reservation or, better, an installed CAMM battery. The stern should be all space for the embarked capability modules; initially MCM and survey, and probably, over time, also more fighty stuff. I'm pretty sure ASW will be the next area where we will see developments, so one day it might have a use in ASW
what you have described there is a GP type 26.
WhitestElephant wrote:MHPC would have the ability to conduct low intensity constabulary tasks too
Every vessel in the Royal navy and royal fleet auxiliary has the ability to conduct low intensity constabulary tasks. I dont think the navy is short on patrol boats, we're building 3 extra that we dont need. If you want a boost in surface constabulary a MPA and some cheap cutters.

Every extra penny we have needs to be spent on getting a proper amount of frigates. The Royal Navy has not faded and is still very strong, and this needs to be maintained. When we turn up to war games and joint operations we will look much better in a frigate than a patrol boat.
Coalitions look to be the future of conflict, clearly the Americans are going to have the most influence on decisions, but what is important is our ability to influence these decisions. This influence comes by being able to offer the most credible force to the coalition. Consider the following scenarios:
------- We could offer a frigate and 7 patrol boats to support an american task group.
------- We could offer 5 frigates and build our own task group with support from the patrol boats of smaller navies
Now which one would get us the talking stick most in the planning room?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Gabriele »

shark bait wrote:
Gabriele wrote:. MHPC should have a decent sensors fit in an integrated mast; possibly a medium calibre gun and space reservation or, better, an installed CAMM battery. The stern should be all space for the embarked capability modules; initially MCM and survey, and probably, over time, also more fighty stuff. I'm pretty sure ASW will be the next area where we will see developments, so one day it might have a use in ASW
what you have described there is a GP type 26.
WhitestElephant wrote:MHPC would have the ability to conduct low intensity constabulary tasks too
Every vessel in the Royal navy and royal fleet auxiliary has the ability to conduct low intensity constabulary tasks. I dont think the navy is short on patrol boats, we're building 3 extra that we dont need. If you want a boost in surface constabulary a MPA and some cheap cutters.

Every extra penny we have needs to be spent on getting a proper amount of frigates. The Royal Navy has not faded and is still very strong, and this needs to be maintained. When we turn up to war games and joint operations we will look much better in a frigate than a patrol boat.
Coalitions look to be the future of conflict, clearly the Americans are going to have the most influence on decisions, but what is important is our ability to influence these decisions. This influence comes by being able to offer the most credible force to the coalition. Consider the following scenarios:
------- We could offer a frigate and 7 patrol boats to support an american task group.
------- We could offer 5 frigates and build our own task group with support from the patrol boats of smaller navies
Now which one would get us the talking stick most in the planning room?

No, it is most definitely not a Type 26 with a cost of hundreds of millions due in no small part to the optimisation of hull and machinery for silent running in ASW, and the whole other range of sensors and communications fit. There are middle grounds, you know?

And no. The Royal Navy is short on presence / patrol hulls. Tankers should work as tankers, not as patrol ships. Frigates and destroyers should work as frigates and destroyers, and go to exercises and into Standing NATO groups, from which the RN has been absent since 2012, and should be relieved of the more mundane tasks. Since you can't have enough frigates to cover all standing tasks and still participate to exercises and escort capital ships (the lack of escorts in Cougar 14 was rock bottom), you need a cheaper second line to do the simple jobs.
Tankers are there to support task groups. Frigates are there to escort the capital ships in task groups.
And to escort properly, you need the ASW kit. A GP frigate is a ship which has lost sight of at least half of its reason of existence.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Post Reply