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

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 »

jonas wrote:
Simon82 wrote:
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 don’t think there would be sufficient depth to replace the amidships CAMM tubes with Mk-41. I’m not sure of the exact deck penetration of a CAMM launcher, although the ever reliable Wikipedia gives a canister length of 4.4 m. It is possible the shortest 209” (5.3m) version of the Mk-41 might fit, but I think that is limited to ESSM only anyway. This is presumably why the Australian Type 26 variant has no silos in this location. If the CAMM silos here were quad-packed, however, like a stand-alone ExLS system allows, all the CAMM silos could be removed from ahead of the bridge freeing up more space for Mk-41 silos, while allowing for no reduction in the number of SeaCeptors carried overall.

Anyway, this isn’t news. Merely idle speculation and dreaming.
In regards to the quad packing the extra Mk41 silos and replacing the CAMM silos for'd of the bridge, they were my thoughts exactly. This could provide many more options, including replacing the midships silos with extra anti ship missiles such as tube launched LRASM.
What I'd love to see to make are T26 pack a real punch would be to replaced the forward 24 CAMM silos with 2 more 8 cell mk41s and the mid ship CAMM silos replaced with 15 EsXL cells.
It'd offer a lot more flexibility and punch for the same space taken

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

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

Post by shark bait »

The T26 already packs a real punch, as designed it has the capacity to launch more cruise missiles than the RN has ever used in a single conflict.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

shark bait wrote:The T26 already packs a real punch, as designed it has the capacity to launch more cruise missiles than the RN has ever used in a single conflict.
I hate it when I hear that "more than the RNs ever had"
We shouldn't be comparing our vessels to what we had in the past ( offten accepted as under armed ) but to want potential foes have ( China, Russia ) and allies ( US, Japan, Austria ) I leave out European navy's as they can be quiet under armed compared to other global navy's like us.

Yes the T26 packs a punch as is but could back a larger punch ( more in line with global foes and allies ) and be more flexible with just a few little changes.

To me the T26 isn't meeting its full potential and that's a shame

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

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

Post by shark bait »

Not more than the RNs ever has, the capacity is greater than than the entire MOD ever used in a single conflict.

The T26 compares favorably to other frigates around the world. The latest Japanese 'frigates' have a similar capacity to our T26, which is similar to the Australian's T26, which is similar to many of the euro frigates. The American and Japanese destroyers are the extreme examples, and in general the T26 compares well among its peers.

Swapping the type of silos around on the T26 has no real effect, it doesn't increase flexibility because CAMM will alway need to be there.
@LandSharkUK

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

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

Post by Simon82 »

I do wish to make it clear that I am not belittling the Type 26’s offensive and defensive capabilities. Also there may be sound tactical reasoning behind splitting the CAMM silos between two separate batteries (bow and amidships) from the point of damage control.
One points I’d like to make though is that the 24 Mk-41 silos on the City class are not just Tomahawk launchers. If the artist’s impressions are to be believed, they also are replacing the Stingray torpedoes (2 tubes and up to 36 reloads) and Harpoons (x 8) of a current Type 23 frigate. The combination of the facts that VLS systems cannot easily be reloaded outside of a naval base and that the Royal Navy looks to be getting only 8 City class frigates suggests to me that the addition of extra Mk-41 cells at the expense of the single shot CAMM cells forward might be a useful addition that would enable a City class ship to stay on station in a war zone for longer without having to frequently withdraw to rearm, which could be especially problematic considering the low number of hulls available to switch places with.
A Type 26 with 32 Mk-41 VLS forward, as in the Hunter class frigates, and 4 3-cell stand alone ExLS silos amidships (48 Sea Ceptors) would, I feel, achieve the more capable vessel now required due to the limited numbers to be brought into Royal Navy service. There may be practical reasons why this has not been done of course, but it would be a terrible shame if it was just to save a little money.

Two further clarifications I’d like to make:
1. I would never advocate placing Sea Ceptor into a Mk-41 cell. It is a ludicrous waste of capability, money and top weight.
2. In my up armed vision of the Royal Navy Type 26 I am not proposing that Britain purchases enough missiles to fill every cell on every vessel all of the time. In peacetime it’d be a waste of money and the missile’s service life.
However by having commonality with the US Navy in Tomahawk, VL-ASM and VL-ASROC it can be ensured that there will be a large pool of weapons available should the brown stuff suddenly and unexpectedly hit the fan.

Anyway as I said earlier this isn’t really news.

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 »

shark bait wrote:Not more than the RNs ever has, the capacity is greater than than the entire MOD ever used in a single conflict.

The T26 compares favorably to other frigates around the world. The latest Japanese 'frigates' have a similar capacity to our T26, which is similar to the Australian's T26, which is similar to many of the euro frigates. The American and Japanese destroyers are the extreme examples, and in general the T26 compares well among its peers.

Swapping the type of silos around on the T26 has no real effect, it doesn't increase flexibility because CAMM will alway need to be there.
Either way that is still compare a vessel of today to past events which is not the way a vessels capabilties should be judged, they should be judged compared to other vessels of the same level in foe and allied navy's alike.

I didn't included other European navy's as like I said they are often under armed when compared to other global navy's.
The US and Japan fleets are made up by mainly there "big over kill" vessel, the new Japanese frigate along with the FFGX are their 2nd teir vessels what our T31 should be like so comparing a T26 to them really isn't right.

The Aus T26 packs more of a punch than ours will so out side of Europe most major navy's are arming their teir 1 vessel much better ( Russia, China, US, Japan, Aus and I bet India not too soon )
The problem we've have is we've looked at out European neighbours and said oh we match them that's good enough with out looking at the wider world.

I'm not saying the T26 won't be good just that it's not really meeting its full potential and that's a shame.

As for CAMM would still be needed that's why I said I'd have 15 ExLS or simarly Compsct system mid ship

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

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

Post by shark bait »

Jake1992 wrote:The Aus T26 packs more of a punch
No it doesn't.

UK has a capacity for 144 air to air missiles, or 48 air and 24 cruise.
Australia has a capacity for 128 air to air missiles, or 32 air 24 cruise.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The Aus T26 packs more of a punch
No it doesn't.

UK has a capacity for 144 air to air missiles, or 48 air and 24 cruise.
Australia has a capacity for 128 air to air missiles, or 32 air 24 cruise.
32 x mk41
8 x canister laurcher
2 x reloadable torpeod tubes

That's a bigger punch than
24 x mk41
48 x CAMM

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

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

Post by shark bait »

The difference is negligible, once both have an array of self defense missiles, the capacity for offensive payloads is the same.

The Australians have not found a way to magic up extra capacity from the exact same platform.

Japanese and American AEGIS destroyers have a bigger missile capacity than the RN's ASW Frigate, that is not the least bit concerning. It's a different story for the Type 45..
@LandSharkUK

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 »

News only topic, fellas. Let's focus. :)

Edit - Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in trying to be polite, with three deleted posts following the above line. This thread is for direct news and updates. Discussion of general escort chatter about fittings and comparisons are for the discussion topics.

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

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

Post by jonas »

It's just a shame that the old project director Geoff Searle left, as he at least posted as much info as he could on the build. Since Nadia Savage took over the job, posts on her twitter account are as rare as hens teeth.

I do realiise she has her hands full with her job, but a few minutes a month surely wouldn't be asking to much. As a major project for the RN it seems to be shrouded in secrecy, unlike the carriers where we were kept fully up to date throughout the build.

Doesn't she know that I am helping to pay for these ships. :thumbdown: :lol:

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

jonas wrote:I do realiise she has her hands full with her job, but a few minutes a month surely wouldn't be asking to much. As a major project for the RN it seems to be shrouded in secrecy, unlike the carriers where we were kept fully up to date throughout the build.

Some pictures of the build would be nice :crazy:

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

bobp wrote:
jonas wrote:I do realiise she has her hands full with her job, but a few minutes a month surely wouldn't be asking to much. As a major project for the RN it seems to be shrouded in secrecy, unlike the carriers where we were kept fully up to date throughout the build.
Some pictures of the build would be nice :crazy:
I think this is one area that RN and to a certain extent BAE could do a lot more from a Public Relations standpoint.

The UK is currently building the world's premier ASW Frigate, why not have a documentary team following the build process and show the taxpayers what the Defence budget is spent on.

Could it be that the build process has been so artificially slowed down that it would appear that little progress is actually being 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 »

In fairness, looking across the Clyde right now there's nothing really to see in there yet.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

As speculated since the annpuncement of the T23 ASW relocations to Devonport, the T26 class will be based at Devonport. Williamson has just announced:

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/p ... it-2082885

Hopefully, we end up with 8 of them down here. Presumably then thus would suggest that Plymouth is less likely to be used as a name for one of the class, and tgat the T31s will likely be based in Portsmouth?

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 »

A "people's person" might say that
- subs in one place
- ASW-focussed ships in one, regardless of which Class they derive from
- the amphibs having a home port cum training centre
has all to do with minimum disruptions to family life, as and when crew are reassigned between vessels?
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)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A "people's person" might say that
- subs in one place
- ASW-focussed ships in one, regardless of which Class they derive from
- the amphibs having a home port cum training centre
has all to do with minimum disruptions to family life, as and when crew are reassigned between vessels?
And, surely it reduces infrastructure amd personaell costs by reducing duplication

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

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

Post by SKB »


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 »

dmereifield wrote:reducing duplication
Yes, there is the counter argument of vulnerability from over-concentration . The RAF has gone furthest down that (dark) alley, I am not really that concerned about the army "super-garrisons"
... but just think of the implications of all of our subs taken out/ rendered inoperable, exc. for those at sea... and even they would have to sail as far as Virginia for their next turn-around (under that scenario)
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)

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

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

The most interesting point. Delivery starts at 2023?
スクリーンショット 2018-10-08 20.38.41.jpg
Another comment; CG is old.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by SDL »

is that the full in service date?

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Aethulwulf »

The formidable anti-submarine warship will include an embarked helicopter, powerful sonar detection systems, ship and helicopter-launched torpedoes and a design which makes the Type 26 extremely difficult for enemy submarines to detect.
"Ship and helicopter-launched torpedoes"...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defe ... 6-frigates

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 »

Fudging words. If it's an announcement on basing, it'll mean that the support to base them will start arriving in 2023, even if that's just a few guys with Microsoft Excel starting to work out rotation and schedules.
Aethulwulf wrote:"Ship and helicopter-launched torpedoes"...
I'd love to believe it meant them actually fitting Stingrays, but the ASROCs are often stated as "torpedoes" due to it being a more recognised public term for ASW, given they are based around torpedoes.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Aethulwulf »

RetroSicotte wrote:Fudging words. If it's an announcement on basing, it'll mean that the support to base them will start arriving in 2023, even if that's just a few guys with Microsoft Excel starting to work out rotation and schedules.
Aethulwulf wrote:"Ship and helicopter-launched torpedoes"...
I'd love to believe it meant them actually fitting Stingrays, but the ASROCs are often stated as "torpedoes" due to it being a more recognised public term for ASW, given they are based around torpedoes.
Conversely, I really hope it doesn't mean they are fitting Stingrays. Ship launched LWTs are a waste of money.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Aethulwulf wrote:"Ship and helicopter-launched torpedoes"
Is this in effect an ASROC confirmation?

Post Reply