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

[Lord Jim]

There are multiple versions of ExLS. There is the well know Quad cell that is designed to be inserted into a Mk41 Silo and another is the standalone Triple Stack that has three Quad Cells joined together, therefore holding a total of twelve missile. Because of the "Cold" launch it is possible to install this version in almost any free space on a vessel which is why it is ideal for both upgrading ships as well as being part of new builds. Having launch points plumbed on a ship and only having ExLS installed when deploying to medium and high threat zones means you could pool the launchers like the RN does with its Phalanx. Sea Ceptor on an RFA in the Gulf anyone, with a modular datalink cabin of course?

As for the Mk41, it is now available in other combinations rather then just the well know eight cell configuration, starting at a singleton to a pair, quad (4x1), Quad (2x2) and eight. Again this means you can distribute the VLS over a whole ship, though of course there are more substantial "plumbing issues involved.

Sorry may be this should go in the Future Escorts Thread.

[Aethulwulf]

If you look at the stern of the model it has a ledge similar to the one on QE. Is this the extra bit of length quoted in the specs.

That looks like a Transom Flap, a kind of underwater spoiler that reduces the wake and drag, and increases top speed.

I don't remember seeing it on models of UK or Aus versions of T26. Did Canada set a requirement for a higher top speed for their ships?

[bobp]

That looks like a Transom Flap,

I knew it had a name , but could i remember what, so thanks for that. And I too have not seen it on UK models so far.

[Aethulwulf]

My mistake; it appears to common across T26 designs.

It is shown and mentioned in this article...

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/poweri ... -in-focus/

[Roders96]

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ships.html

The above has the Canadian T26 at 24 MK41 and then 48 sea ceptor.

I understand they're having an asw and aaw variant, might the asw version be a much closer copy of the UK version?

[Roders96]

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/28267 ... 6jzprenx9I

The above has the order at 100sm2 for the fleet. Would be surprised if their AAW are sailing with 6.67 per ship (assuming missiles are taken out of storage for maintenance etc).

[RichardIC]

The above has the order at 100sm2 for the fleet. Would be surprised if their AAW are sailing with 6.67 per ship (assuming missiles are taken out of storage for maintenance etc).

The last Canadian vessel isn't going to be in-service until 2040 (IF they do buy 15), with the first due by sometime towards the end of this decade.

So the initial FMS authorisation is not an order. It means they can now place an order, if they choose to, to get an initial operating capability sometime in the late 2020s.

[NickC]

Stand out impression of the CSC as with Hunter it will be fully kitted out and with new gen radars, compared to T26 which at moment is FFBNW and an older gen radar.

"Solid State AESA Target Illuminator – MDA ", anyone know who or what is MDA
"Towed Low Frequency Active & Passive Sonar – Ultra Electronics" presume LFAS - LOW FREQUENCY ACTIVE SONAR as installed in 2016 on the Dutch M class and the new Damen Belgium/Dutch frigates
"Displacement: 7800 tonnes" one thousand tonnes heavier than RN quotes for the T26, CSC one thousand lighter than 8,800 tonnes RAN quote for Hunter, thou have seen Hunter quoted EOL as 9,800 tonnes.

Other item of interest to me is the comment by NavalNews on Sea Ceptor

"Contacted by Naval News, an MBDA source shed some light on how the Sea Ceptor was selected in addition to the ESSM. The two missiles were not competing against each other. Raytheon’s ESSM was selected to provide “point defense”. Instead, MBDA pitched its missile for the RCN’s close in weapons system (CIWS) requirement. The Sea Ceptor beat out systems usually used in that role such as the RAM, SeaRam or Phalanx. The final Sea Ceptor configuration aboard the CSC still needs finalized and confirmed but it will likely be 24x missiles launched from Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launching System (ExLS) located amidship. The RCN would become the launch customer for that new launcher alongside the Brazilian Navy (for its new corvette design based on the TKMS MEKO A-100) depending on who signs the contract first."

The RCN pdf, shown on NavalNews, unable to post

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/ass ... 11_web.pdf

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

[Glen]

MDA (formerly known as MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates) is a Canadian company that specialises in satellite, robotic, and surveillance systems.

https://mdacorporation.com/corporate/

https://www.bctechnology.com/news/2019/ ... rogram.cfm

Details from above link:

MDA's roles [in the CSC design] include:

Lead the Electronic Warfare system integration by procuring best-value subsystems for each functional element and providing an advanced Electronic Warfare solution for installation onto each CSC ship, leveraging MDA's deep Canadian expertise in project management, system engineering, electronics, antennas, signal processing and software.

Build an advanced radar system critical to the integrated CSC weapons system, which is well positioned to be exported to the global naval market.

Partner with L3 WESCAM to build a Laser Warning and Countermeasures System that is part of the overall Electronic Warfare system suite and will defend against emerging laser-guided threats that are particularly dangerous for the CSC and its crew in littoral environments.

Partner with Lockheed Martin Canada to develop an advanced Electronic Warfare jamming subsystem, based on proven components and electronics similar to those used by MDA for both its space and terrestrial communications and radar programs.

[bobp]

Came across this on the HMS Glasgow account, seems we may have a Bobby idling her time on the T26

[donald_of_tokyo]

"Contacted by Naval News, an MBDA source shed some light on how the Sea Ceptor was selected in addition to the ESSM. The two missiles were not competing against each other. Raytheon’s ESSM was selected to provide “point defense”. Instead, MBDA pitched its missile for the RCN’s close in weapons system (CIWS) requirement. The Sea Ceptor beat out systems usually used in that role such as the RAM, SeaRam or Phalanx. The final Sea Ceptor configuration aboard the CSC still needs finalized and confirmed but it will likely be 24x missiles launched from Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launching System (ExLS) located amidship. The RCN would become the launch customer for that new launcher alongside the Brazilian Navy (for its new corvette design based on the TKMS MEKO A-100) depending on who signs the contract first."

Thanks! Many good photos are there in Xavier-san's Naval News article.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

Among them, this one clearly shows, CAMM numbers of RN T26 can be easily doubled (96 = 48 (12x4) forward, 48 (12x4) amidship) at least, and possibly tripled (144 = 72 forward 72 amidship), if ExLS is adopted. Could be important if saturation (cheap) drones attack be common in future. Also noted that carrying 8 NSM on T26 is very easy in any sense. No need to use Mk.41. Buying NSM will NOT interfere with the land-attack missile FCASW as they will be a different class, like Harpoon and TLAM, or Aster-30 and CAMM.


P.S. Xavier-san. If it is more appropriate to refer to your photo as "5th image of "https://www.navalnews.com/...-csc-frigates/" and not the image itself, please let me know....

[Jake1992]

"Contacted by Naval News, an MBDA source shed some light on how the Sea Ceptor was selected in addition to the ESSM. The two missiles were not competing against each other. Raytheon’s ESSM was selected to provide “point defense”. Instead, MBDA pitched its missile for the RCN’s close in weapons system (CIWS) requirement. The Sea Ceptor beat out systems usually used in that role such as the RAM, SeaRam or Phalanx. The final Sea Ceptor configuration aboard the CSC still needs finalized and confirmed but it will likely be 24x missiles launched from Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launching System (ExLS) located amidship. The RCN would become the launch customer for that new launcher alongside the Brazilian Navy (for its new corvette design based on the TKMS MEKO A-100) depending on who signs the contract first."

Thanks! Many good photos are there in Xavier-san's Naval News article.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

Among them, this one clearly shows, CAMM numbers of RN T26 can be easily doubled (96 = 48 (12x4) forward, 48 (12x4) amidship) at least, and possibly tripled (144 = 72 forward 72 amidship), if ExLS is adopted. Could be important if saturation (cheap) drones attack be common in future. Also noted that carrying 8 NSM on T26 is very easy in any sense. No need to use Mk.41. Buying NSM will NOT interfere with the land-attack missile FCASW as they will be a different class, like Harpoon and TLAM, or Aster-30 and CAMM.

The case for keeping the mushrooms is really starting to become thin, I honestly see not advantage or see any point in sticking with them.
Looking at that image to me it looks like 15 ExLS cells could be fitted mid ship in 5 rows of 3, 60 CAMM would be more than enough for the role they’ll play freeing up the space up front.
Is the space below deck for extra Mk41s ? From the look of the Canadian and Aus designs it looks like up to 48 cells could be fitted in either 2 rows of 3x 8 cell or a row of 4 and 2 x 8 cells.

[Roders96]

The advantage, if there is one, is probably cost.

It is the right decision to make because the ships have plenty of space for the lower concentration of CAMM. If it takes more space, but we get more CAMM launchers onboard overall:

It is a no brainer.

[NickC]

MDA (formerly known as MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates) is a Canadian company that specialises in satellite, robotic, and surveillance systems.

https://mdacorporation.com/corporate/

https://www.bctechnology.com/news/2019/ ... rogram.cfm

Thx for your response, MDA new name to me in connection with radars.

[bobp]

Total dream

Not sure if this is the right thread for dreams or fantasies.

[seaspear]

The htree versions of the type 26 to be built although varying greatly in weight and with same power plant state identical speed of 28 plus I would have thought on that though a layman that the R.N version being the lightest would be the quickest .

[Jake1992]

The htree versions of the type 26 to be built although varying greatly in weight and with same power plant state identical speed of 28 plus I would have thought on that though a layman that the R.N version being the lightest would be the quickest .

I have a feeling the large difference in stated weight is more to do with which weight is being used ie
RN - 6900t light weight
RCN - 7800t full load weight
RAN - 8800t end of life weight

Yes there would be differences anyways due to things such as the RANs heavier radar or RCNs larger weapon payload but they wouldn’t explain a 2000t difference

[seaspear]

this article doesn't even suggest the end of life and would lead you to believe the start of life of its displacement ,if it achieves 27 knots does this raise the possibility that the lighter R.N version could be capable of 30 knots plus
https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boa ... future/ffg

[NickC]

this article doesn't even suggest the end of life and would lead you to believe the start of life of its displacement ,if it achieves 27 knots does this raise the possibility that the lighter R.N version could be capable of 30 knots plus
https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boa ... future/ffg

The RAN Hunter graphic shows Hunter full load displacement as 8,800 tonnes, if 10% built in for growth (used to be USN standard for surface combatants) over ships life EOL would be ~9,700t

FWIW Dec. 2018 USNI News quoted "The Hunter-class frigate has a displacement of about 9,700 tons full load and is 488-feet long, according to a Royal Australian Navy."

The Australian Financial Review in June 2020 claimed displacement has exceeded 10,000t following detailed design, ASC Shipbuilding dismissed the report.

T26 CODLOG, so at max speed only the GT supplying power, RR quotes MT30 power as 36 and 40 MW both at IMO standard 100F/38C, two variants?, if cooler power will be higher and if displacement less than FLD will be of interest what max trials speed will be achieved. MikeKiloPapa recently said max speed defined at FLD/90% MCR, gave figures for IH class, Peter Willemoes clocked at 31 knots during sea trials and with max speed of 28 knots.

[Timmymagic]

this article doesn't even suggest the end of life and would lead you to believe the start of life of its displacement ,if it achieves 27 knots does this raise the possibility that the lighter R.N version could be capable of 30 knots plus

Pay no attention to RN speed figures...they said for years that Type 21 could do 31+ knots...turned out it could do 37 knots...

On the Royal Navy website that have Type 23's down as 28 knot maximum speed....we know that they can go over 34 knots....

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipm ... duke-class

Type 26 will be able to move at the same speed as Type 45 and the QE Class...it has to be able to do that because it will work together with them. They're still saying the QE Class is 25+ knots....

[Pseudo]

this article doesn't even suggest the end of life and would lead you to believe the start of life of its displacement ,if it achieves 27 knots does this raise the possibility that the lighter R.N version could be capable of 30 knots plus

Pay no attention to RN speed figures...they said for years that Type 21 could do 31+ knots...turned out it could do 37 knots...

On the Royal Navy website that have Type 23's down as 28 knot maximum speed....we know that they can go over 34 knots....

Based on those figures alone then we can probably completely unscientifically guesstimate that the Type 26 should be able to do over 32 knots.

Though I'd imagine that it's probably a bit higher than that since it's got to be able to at least keep up with the carrier strike group going at full-pelt.

[NickC]

this article doesn't even suggest the end of life and would lead you to believe the start of life of its displacement ,if it achieves 27 knots does this raise the possibility that the lighter R.N version could be capable of 30 knots plus

Pay no attention to RN speed figures...they said for years that Type 21 could do 31+ knots...turned out it could do 37 knots...

On the Royal Navy website that have Type 23's down as 28 knot maximum speed....we know that they can go over 34 knots....

Based on those figures alone then we can probably completely unscientifically guesstimate that the Type 26 should be able to do over 32 knots.

Though I'd imagine that it's probably a bit higher than that since it's got to be able to at least keep up with the carrier strike group going at full-pelt.

The ~3,300t T21 had two Olympus GTs of ~ 37 MW each, 74 MW, whereas T26 has just a single MT30 GT of ~36 MW, the T26 would need four or five MT30's to give similar power per ton depending on T26 FLD, which is yet to be disclosed, CSC is 7,800t.

If we take IH as a benchmark as figures known thanks to MikeKiloPapa, 32.4 MW, FLD 6645t @90% MCR to give max speed of 28 knots, trials speed 31 knots presumably at lower displacement and 100% MCR and compare to the T26 which is 36 MW and at FLD 7,800t would expect roughly similar figures. Another comparison the USN Burke Flight 1 ~8,450t FLD with 78.3 MWW (105,000 shp) said to hit 31/32 knots.

So slightly lower than the over 32 knots you estimated, will depend on T26 actual FLD. A rule of thumb is that to increase speed by 4 knots you need to double the power.

[NickC]

this article doesn't even suggest the end of life and would lead you to believe the start of life of its displacement ,if it achieves 27 knots does this raise the possibility that the lighter R.N version could be capable of 30 knots plus

Pay no attention to RN speed figures...they said for years that Type 21 could do 31+ knots...turned out it could do 37 knots...

On the Royal Navy website that have Type 23's down as 28 knot maximum speed....we know that they can go over 34 knots....

Based on those figures alone then we can probably completely unscientifically guesstimate that the Type 26 should be able to do over 32 knots.

Though I'd imagine that it's probably a bit higher than that since it's got to be able to at least keep up with the carrier strike group going at full-pelt.

The ~3,300t T21 had two Olympus GTs of ~ 37 MW each, 74 MW, whereas T26 has just a single MT30 GT of ~36 MW, the T26 would need four or five MT30's to give similar power per ton depending on T26 FLD, which is yet to be disclosed, CSC is 7,800t.

If we take IH as a benchmark as figures known thanks to MikeKiloPapa, 32.4 MW, FLD 6645t @90% MCR to give max speed of 28 knots, trials speed 31 knots presumably at lower displacement and 100% MCR and compare to the T26 which is 36 MW and at FLD 7,800t would expect roughly similar figures. Another comparison the USN Burke Flight 1 ~8,450t FLD with 78.3 MWW (105,000 shp) said to hit 31/32 knots.

So slightly lower than the over 32 knots you estimated, will depend on T26 actual FLD. A rule of thumb is that to increase speed by 4 knots you need to double the power.

An addendum to above, T26 uses FPP which quieter at low speeds whereas both IH and Buke using CPP which will give advantage at max speeds.

[Ron5]

this article doesn't even suggest the end of life and would lead you to believe the start of life of its displacement ,if it achieves 27 knots does this raise the possibility that the lighter R.N version could be capable of 30 knots plus

Pay no attention to RN speed figures...they said for years that Type 21 could do 31+ knots...turned out it could do 37 knots...

On the Royal Navy website that have Type 23's down as 28 knot maximum speed....we know that they can go over 34 knots....

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipm ... duke-class

Type 26 will be able to move at the same speed as Type 45 and the QE Class...it has to be able to do that because it will work together with them. They're still saying the QE Class is 25+ knots....

That old tale of type 23's doing 34 knots on trials has been debunked ad infinitum. Just not correct. Type 23's have a practical max of 28 knots. Sure they can exceed that by a knot or so in some conditions but that's not how max speed is defined. Like saying the top speed of a car is 150 mph but naturally, down hill it can go faster.

As for Type 21's: when first entering service they could do 37 knots or thereabouts but their flimsy constriction required heavy reinforcing to be added later in their lives, that reduced their max to 32 ish knots.

QE's doing 30 knots or more is plain BS like US nuclear carriers doing 40 knots. In their normal fighting trim, 25-26 knots can be expected.

[The Armchair Soldier]

Deleted the last two pages due to it largely being off-topic. Take the speed discussion to the escorts thread. This is for news and related discussion, as you all know by now. As a penalty from now on, all off topic posts will be deleted and not moved for the discussion to continue elsewhere.