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

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 »

In recent written answer, it is still confirmed that the T26 build plan is "one hull every 18 months". Not too slow, I think.

see https://questions-statements.parliament ... -18/138885

Also, first-of-class ship generally requires AT LEAST 30% more man-hours to build. This is normal. With fixed (and hopefully sustainable) work force volume, the first ship needs more time. This is reasonable.

However, HMS Glasgow see its first steel cut in summer 2017, to be launched late 2021, to start steaming around 2023, and after contractor's sea trials, to be delivered to RN on 2025 (and then to RN's own trials); I agree it is slow.

But, HMS Cardiff build time must be shorter. Starting 24 months late, shall be able to be launched in early 2023 (although rumored as late 2023). I guess she will be handed over to RN on 2026, and not surprised to see her commission at the same time as Glasgow (following what happened to T45 hull-1 and 2).

Overall, not bad. Bob is doing his job. :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

But if the ships were built faster, enough money would be saved to pay for another one. That's in addition to the construction of a modern, under cover build facility (aka the FF) which would add further efficiencies.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:But if the ships were built faster, enough money would be saved to pay for another one. That's in addition to the construction of a modern, under cover build facility (aka the FF) which would add further efficiencies.
Hmm, I doubt "faster, ..pay for another one". If it is true, RN shall just build another T26 "for free", and just dispose it (Either export it, or use it for cannibalization). But, it did not happen.

When BAES proposed 9 for the cost of 8, the plan is to "pay" for it by "HMG taking risk" = ordering all 9 at once. If HMG did so, BAES can invest large (for the "frigate factory") and build-up their work force (labors/engineers) in long term view = more efficiently. As HMG did not took that risk, BAE cannot do them, which resulted in higher cost per hull. There is a clear reason here.

Building fast will NOT pay for "another hull". Taking risk will do.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

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

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:But if the ships were built faster, enough money would be saved to pay for another one. That's in addition to the construction of a modern, under cover build facility (aka the FF) which would add further efficiencies.
Sadly that's not how government finances work. The government is more concerned with the annual cost than the overall cost. That's because it allocates its budget on an annual basis. It would rather spend £500 a year for ten years than £1000 for four years if it means that other priorities can be met and/or it doesn't have to borrow money to supplement its annual income.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Pseudo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:But if the ships were built faster, enough money would be saved to pay for another one. That's in addition to the construction of a modern, under cover build facility (aka the FF) which would add further efficiencies.
Sadly that's not how government finances work. The government is more concerned with the annual cost than the overall cost. That's because it allocates its budget on an annual basis. It would rather spend £500 a year for ten years than £1000 for four years if it means that other priorities can be met and/or it doesn't have to borrow money to supplement its annual income.
I am very well aware of that. Donald-san appears to have forgotten.

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 »

Ordering 9 at once does not mean paying all money for 9 at once. For example, HMG has not yet payed all the 3.7B GBP for the first 3 T26 yet.

What is important for the industry is, there is a foreseeable income in coming years = lower risk. This will enable long term view based investments resulting in efficiency, even if the annual money payed is the same. Big difference.

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 »

This is going at a snails pace...


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

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

Post by andrew98 »

I'd laugh my tits off if it just sits there waiting a year for a bob to put a final bolt in just to meet the governments stupid, slow and inefficient timetable.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Five years from float-out to commissioning?! Is this QEC #3? No. :roll:

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 »

HMS Daring, hull-1 of Type-45 took 4.5 years to be "in service", after hitting water.

Launched = 1 February 2006
Commissioned = 23 July 2009
Declared officially "in service" = 31 July 2010.

If Type-26 hull-1 hits water in late 2022, adding 4.5 years will give us 2027. No difference. So, T26 is taking exactly the same time as T45, as I understand?

Also, T45-hull2 started construction 1 year and 4 months after hull-1, and was "in service" 4 months after hull-1 (16 November 2010). As T26 hull2 started its construction 2 year later, she will be "in service" 6 month later than T26-hull-1, if the schedule is "similar". It could be late 2027 or early 2028.

Yes the build speed of T26 is slow, but from "hitting water" to "in service" is normal, I think.

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:lso, T45-hull2 started construction 1 year and 4 months after hull-1, and was "in service" 4 months after hull-1 (16 November 2010). As T26 hull2 started its construction 2 year later, she will be "in service" 6 month later than T26-hull-1, if the schedule is "similar". It could be late 2027 or early 2028.
Construction of HMS Cardiff is well under way, we are just not getting many visual updates from the manufacturers.

Anthony58
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 14 Feb 2021, 19:23
United Kingdom

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

Post by Anthony58 »

Cardiff is two years behind

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Difficult to compare with T45 build.
T45 was built in blocks.
Daring was launched at Scotsoun made up from blocks from Portsmouth, Govan and Scotsoun.
The rest were launched at Govan but still with blocks from 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 »

tomuk wrote:Difficult to compare with T45 build.
T45 was built in blocks.
Quite! Parallelism in build will be reintroduced with the T31 (be it in one yard, or with blocks or other structures from others).
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)

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 »

No Bobs in sight.......


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Weird perspective.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
tomuk wrote:Difficult to compare with T45 build.
T45 was built in blocks.
Quite! Parallelism in build will be reintroduced with the T31 (be it in one yard, or with blocks or other structures from others).
Huh? They're building 2 T26's at a time. In parallel. Come time for fitting out, it will be 3.

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 »

Ron5 wrote: Huh? They're building 2 T26's at a time. In parallel. Come time for fitting out, it will be 3.
Huh.. does that translate to 'I'm of course joking, but testing if if someone is stoo-pid, or something'?

Most commentators here know the time line for the T-26s, but you were responding to my comparison of it to the T-45s... enter the all-mighty Wiki:
"modular construction arrangement was agreed in February 2002.

By the end of 2010, all six Type 45 destroyers had been launched, with the first two in commission and the remainder fitting out. By 2012, all destroyers were structurally complete and the production lines had been closed.

Duncan, the last of the Type 45 destroyers, was commissioned at Portsmouth Naval Base on 26 September 2013, and entered service in 2014 after trials and training

I might be wrong, silly me, but 2002 to 2012 suggests a rather different time line from the T-26 time line;
You are free to speak and say - huh... I meant (actually) 8-) what exactly?
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

An excellent article on CAMM-ER with details and photos of the T26 & T31 VLS. Also shows some aerodynamic changes I've not see before.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/albatros-ng- ... m-detailed

I do hope the T26's & T31's get that missile. As GFX, it shouldn't upset the T31 fixed price contract.

Link originally posted by AlexS on UKDJ.

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 »

Comparison of T26's (and Italian CAMM-ER's) "6-cell mushroom launcher" and those onboard T23.

Image
Image
Although a rough estimate, I think the VLS silo space of T23 can accommodate 8 modules of "6-cell mushroom launcher" (simply imagine a 2nd and 5th column added between the 4 columns).

Not high-density as quad-packed ExLS or Mk.41. But, the article states "a basic but cost effective solution" and not only RN adopting it will mean, it is non-negligibly cheaper.

Not bad, I think. :D

Note; Carefully looking, the CAMM tubes of the "6-cell mushroom launcher" are clearly inclined.

We already know, T23's CAMM silo (8x4 = 32 cells), and RNZN ANZAC frigates (4x5 = 20 cells), and this "6-cell mushroom launcher". In addition, ExLS is shown in Canadian T26 model. Interesting comparison, anyway.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

By my estimation looking at the photo, the 6 cell VLS is approx 2m long excluding the flange. Comparing that to the 3 cell ExLS launcher, I get the following densities: 0.54 sq meters per missile for the 6 Cell and 0.18 for the ExLs.

So if my crude math is close to be correct, the ExLs is 3 times as deck area efficient.

But the article says the 6 cell VLS allows individual launcher canisters to be inspected. The ExLs does not. Mind you, MBDA says the launcher/carrier canister is maintenance free!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

From an article in Military Technology magazine on the Italian Navy's future plans, it seems that for its new PPA Light Frigates the full variant will be equipped with Aster 15/30 whilst the Light Plus and Light Variants will get CAMM-ER quad packed in the Sylver VLS.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:Light Variants will get CAMM-ER quad packed in the Sylver VLS.
Well ones they get CAMM -ER quad packed into Sylver then the RN should jump on it to quad pack CAMM onto Type 45 starting with 16 cell to give a load out of 16 of both Aster 15/30 = 32 and 64 CAMM for a total of 96 missiles

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Forward and aft superblocks of HMS Glasgow nearing structural completion (13 April):

Image
Image
Credit to Paul Sweeney

Online
Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

Also some talk that part of the ship is being moved out of the shed next week.

Post Reply