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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:The question is could Type 26 be built for 800 million dollars in US ship yards. But it is interesting that T26 has been named as a possible late contender
That was my initial reaction but the breakdown of the budget is interesting,

"The cost of each hull breaks down to about two-thirds going toward the hull and one-third going toward government-furnished equipment, including the sensors and war-fighting systems such as the radars, missile launchers, an anti-submarine warfare suite and electronic warfare equipment."
So that makes the hull and propulsion budget around $530m or around £400m. I don't think a T26 can be built for that but can any of the contenders?

It seems optimistic to say the least. Especially considering that building ships in the US is not cheap.
serge750 wrote:Highly likely since they would be building so many, but would the Americans go for a foreign design over there own?
It depends if they want the best ASW frigate in the world. With the FREMM and F100 designs comprehensively defeated in the Australian and Canadian competitions, would the USN really want to introduce a Frigate design deemed second best and discarded by other Allied nations?

If the USN really the T26 their pockets are definitely deep enough to make it happen.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

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

Post by andrew98 »

Or could the $800m mean the Hull, and government furnished equipment like radars and weapons systems be an additional $400m per ship?
Because I think a Type 26 should be easily mass produced for $1.2b USD each.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

andrew98 wrote: Because I think a Type 26 should be easily mass produced for $1.2b USD each.
You can't mass produce anything that costs 1,2b USD (unless you are USA or maybe China).
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

Considering that the USN in the past rarely bought gold plated top notch one trick ponies, but rather bought good enough Jack of all trades, master of none, but in numbers- I don't think that they will go for T26... But we shall see.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Don't think they go for t26 either tbh ,bit confused how or why when excluded from list of possibles it could now or potentially be a contender , thought it was well out of the game ?

matt00773
Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
United Kingdom

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

Post by matt00773 »

abc123 wrote:Considering that the USN in the past rarely bought gold plated top notch one trick ponies, but rather bought good enough Jack of all trades, master of none, but in numbers- I don't think that they will go for T26... But we shall see.
They certainly got their fingers burned with the Zumwalt class ship before reverting to what they know best. The T26 supports a completely different mission to what they're asking for in any case - and then there's the budget...

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

abc123 wrote:Considering that the USN in the past rarely bought gold plated top notch one trick ponies, but rather bought good enough Jack of all trades, master of none, but in numbers-
Not sure I quite agree, Burke were for a long time the world leader in AAW, and are still the world leader for land attack via TLAM. It's more that they just deprioritised ASW a hefty amount, relying on air and sub to handle that.

With air assets from the carriers losing much of their ASW capabilities (No Viking equivalent, etc), and a resurgence in subs, it will be interesting to see if the T26 forms a nice easy solution to that for them in the fleet. Unlikely in the extremes, but it would be monumental if so.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote: Burke were for a long time the world leader in AAW, and are still the world leader for land attack via TLAM
Not to forget the upgrading (of some, plus also Japanese look-alikes) to be ABM capable.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

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

Post by Halidon »

inch wrote:Don't think they go for t26 either tbh ,bit confused how or why when excluded from list of possibles it could now or potentially be a contender , thought it was well out of the game ?
First, the FFG(X) program launched with a requirement bids had to include a "parent" hull which was already in-service to demonstrate that their design was mature enough that there would be minimal "hidden costs" associated with translating said design into a physical construct. Recent developments in the program, specifically the extensive changes in the concepts shown by the bidding shipyards compared to their parent designs, seem to indicate that the USN is becoming more accepting of the bidders demonstrating a high level of maturity "on the drawing board" or perhaps "in the construction yard" as T26 currently sits.

Secondly, the USN is making statements to the effect that they expect, or at least hope for, additional shipyards with mature designs to bid for the final contract.

Thirdly, the program's made a definitive turn toward a more capable product than originally envisioned. While still seeking to constrain costs, the Navy has expanded their threshold requirements in a direction that suggest a preference for a larger and more capable hull.

Taken alongside a long-standing desire by some in the industry, service, and legislature to give T26 a thorough look, these are leading to speculation that a T26-based contender could emerge later this year when the detailed design and construction Request For Proposals is made.

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Definitely seems like Australia and Canada's conclusions caught their eye to not deny it entirely, that much is certain.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Halidon wrote:Thirdly, the program's made a definitive turn toward a more capable product than originally envisioned. While still seeking to constrain costs, the Navy has expanded their threshold requirements in a direction that suggest a preference for a larger and more capable hull.
And the fact that some LCSs are still coming off "the production line" affords such a luxury, even when (in theory) we are talking about an accelerated prgrm
-when was the last time when (in reality) there was an accelerated prgrm to put a whole new class out to sea? AEGIS was required urgently and it was put onto an existing hull (making for a new class, because the functionality was different and new... I am sure we will not call out next AAW vessels T-26s, either)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Cheers halidon for explaining ,aye a long shot for t26 but to be honest I said I didn't think Australia would go for it and see how wrong I was on that front lol

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Halidon wrote:Thirdly, the program's made a definitive turn toward a more capable product than originally envisioned. While still seeking to constrain costs, the Navy has expanded their threshold requirements in a direction that suggest a preference for a larger and more capable hull.
I'm not sure I agree. Can you expand your thoughts on this?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
abc123 wrote:Considering that the USN in the past rarely bought gold plated top notch one trick ponies, but rather bought good enough Jack of all trades, master of none, but in numbers-
Not sure I quite agree, Burke were for a long time the world leader in AAW, and are still the world leader for land attack via TLAM. It's more that they just deprioritised ASW a hefty amount, relying on air and sub to handle that.

With air assets from the carriers losing much of their ASW capabilities (No Viking equivalent, etc), and a resurgence in subs, it will be interesting to see if the T26 forms a nice easy solution to that for them in the fleet. Unlikely in the extremes, but it would be monumental if so.
Well, you can look at that from direction too, but considering that Burkes are ( as oftenly stated here ) so-so for ASW ( but not so bad either ), IMHO that points in direction of multi-purpose ships made in many copies. Yes, expensive, but truly multi role and capable, so not too much bucks for the bang. After all, cruisers are ( or should be ) even more AAW specialised, but they didn't build 60 Ticonderogas... Will they do so in the future ( single class destroyer/cruiser replacement ) we shall see.
About TLAM capability, that has more with the fact that they were the only country in the world that has that capability...


I agree that T26 in the USN would be great thing for the UK. But say 12-13 T26 in the RN would be even greater...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

T26 for the USN would be a great thing for the USN aswell abc123 lol ,but yep 12-13 for rn would be great also
dreams are free on both counts I quess

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Forgot to ask when is the USN wanting the new vessels or should I say when was/is the announcement on the chosen design supposed to be made ?

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

I thought the Yanks wanted a design that was already in the water (and proven)? Why the change?

Not that I wouldn't want t26 to win this...

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Little J wrote:I thought the Yanks wanted a design that was already in the water (and proven)? Why the change?

Not that I wouldn't want t26 to win this...
For the phase before, yes. For the detailed plan phase they're more open.

But it's clear it's gotten their attention between then and now. It's had two exports since.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Who knows if the T26 is going to win or even be in the running but I keep coming back to a central point.

Why would USN want to choose a European design deemed inferior by most of its closest Allies? Why not choose the best ASW platform in the world like the UK, Australia and Canada?

Will the USN really be happy with second best?

I still think the Legend Class derivative is most likley to win but if the parameters of the programme are shifting anythings possible.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Who knows if the T26 is going to win or even be in the running but I keep coming back to a central point.

Why would USN want to choose a European design deemed inferior by most of its closest Allies? Why not choose the best ASW platform in the world like the UK, Australia and Canada?

Will the USN really be happy with second best?

I still think the Legend Class derivative is most likley to win but if the parameters of the programme are shifting anythings possible.
40 years ago, OHP class wasn't the best ASW platform in the world. Nor best AAW platform. But it was good enough in all roles and cheap enough to be built in sufficient numbers (50sh). USN wasn't too happy, bit they bought her. Type 22 on the other hand was probably the best ASW platform in the world, but the USN didn't bought her.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

abc123 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Who knows if the T26 is going to win or even be in the running but I keep coming back to a central point.

Why would USN want to choose a European design deemed inferior by most of its closest Allies? Why not choose the best ASW platform in the world like the UK, Australia and Canada?

Will the USN really be happy with second best?

I still think the Legend Class derivative is most likley to win but if the parameters of the programme are shifting anythings possible.
40 years ago, OHP class wasn't the best ASW platform in the world. Nor best AAW platform. But it was good enough in all roles and cheap enough to be built in sufficient numbers (50sh). USN wasn't too happy, bit they bought her. Type 22 on the other hand was probably the best ASW platform in the world, but the USN didn't bought her.
It's a very tough one but if any forgien design is in the running it'll be the T26, yes the T22 was the best ASW of it's day just like the T26 today but the one thing it has this time that the T22 didn't is the fact that 2 other very close allies have also chose it.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

abc123 wrote:40 years ago, OHP class wasn't the best ASW platform in the world. Nor best AAW platform. But it was good enough in all roles and cheap enough to be built in sufficient numbers (50sh). USN wasn't too happy, bit they bought her. Type 22 on the other hand was probably the best ASW platform in the world, but the USN didn't bought her.
True but it all boils down to whether or not the USN is now going to adapt their ASW doctrine.

If it is business as usual then probably a T26 platform isn't required but if there is a move to less reliance on SSN's/MPA's and more reliance on Frigates and TAS/VDS then maybe a T26 type platform could be justified.

Clarification of USN's future ASW direction is crucial and at present I don't think have we have enough information to form a considered view.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Clarification of USN's future ASW direction is crucial and at present I don't think have we have enough information to form a considered view.
Agreed. One notable trend is that because their SSBNs need replacing, the effort will squeeze the SSN replacement rate to below the numbers to be retired
... so there is a need for some other form of ASW capability (to compensate)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

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

Post by seaspear »

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... as-cheaper
this article provides some more perspective

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

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

Post by Halidon »

Ron5 wrote:
Halidon wrote:Thirdly, the program's made a definitive turn toward a more capable product than originally envisioned. While still seeking to constrain costs, the Navy has expanded their threshold requirements in a direction that suggest a preference for a larger and more capable hull.
I'm not sure I agree. Can you expand your thoughts on this?
Sure. The initial RFI left open a fairly broad range of possibilities, which analysts such as CSBA's Bryan Clark criticized as being too broad because it meant the low end of the range was too low and might result in responses offering "Frigates" which were little more capable than LCS. Recent talk from the Navy, however, emphasized a desire to be at the top of that initial RFI's range or beyond it.

For instance along with stating a desire for an ever larger total VLS load, in the AW realm they have made both EESM block 2 and SM-2 Block IIIC threshold requirements, rather than being "and/or," and have specified MK-41 rather than leaving the door open for going with an ESSM-only lightweight VLS like Mk-56. Add in the 21-cell RAM CML and the threshold FFG(X) can potentially carry greater AW payload than some fairly recent Destroyer designs presently go to sea with.

ASW capability has grown as well, though not as flashily. The sonar requirements aren't greatly changed, although it's notable that a Low Band Hull Array has entered the mix as an optional sub for VDS. But there's now a requirement to integrate VLA in the future (another reason for MK-41). Plus SVTT has appeared and is accompanied by other "serious ASW work" gear like USW-DSS and acoustic decoys.

The most recent news from the bidders supports the idea that they're going bigger as well. Austal and Lockheed have been showing and talking about their Frigate work lately, and they certainly seem to be thinking "bigger."

Lastly, while my point is mainly about the growth in threshold requirements, there is this graphic the Navy released. The chart at the bottom is pretty eye-opening in regards to the Navy's thinking beyond their minimum requirements. Notably, the USN charts FFG(X) growth potential into Area ASW, Area AW(!), extended OTH SUW, and offensive EW/IO missions.

Post Reply