UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

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
140
52%
Kongsberg NSM
61
23%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
42
16%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
19
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 270

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Jan 2019, 20:46

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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

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

Postby seaspear » 30 Jan 2019, 21:35

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

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Halidon » 31 Jan 2019, 05:41

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Jan 2019, 05:51

Halidon wrote: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
Certainly do not sound like corvettes :)
Halidon wrote:as an optional sub for VDS
there are a couple of acronyms after that; any of them relate to the new, one piece towable device that would do the job of the VDS "with less bother"?
Halidon wrote:The chart at the bottom is pretty eye-opening
Sure is, does not look like an LCS with a 10m plug inserted
- though there is everything, save for 1. mission bays for boat handling :shock: , and 2. being able to act as command/ flag ships

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Halidon » 31 Jan 2019, 06:00

inch wrote: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 ?

The design + build RFP was to be this summer though it now appears to be coming closer to the end of the year, with the winner chosen next year.
Little J wrote:I thought the Yanks wanted a design that was already in the water (and proven)? Why the change?

This is more tea-leaf reading than citing hard data, but it appears that the USN has grown more confident in the industry's ability to get them a "mature" design even if it's not exactly in service already. The LCS-based designs have deviated enough from their parents that they are arguably not a great deal more "proven" than the currently-in-construction T26, even without known how the other 3 bids look today it certainly seems like the Navy is willing to give enough leeway for BAE's baby to have a go of it.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Halidon wrote:as an optional sub for VDS
there are a couple of acronyms after that; any of them relate to the new, one piece towable device that would do the job of the VDS "with less bother"?

The latest TB-37 is supposed to be a do-all, which could be why it's a firm requirement and the VDS might be bumped for a hull array.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Jan 2019, 07:03

Halidon wrote:The latest TB-37 is supposed to be a do-all, which could be why it's a firm requirement and the VDS might be bumped for a hull array

Thx, I am starting to understand why products in consumer marketing are given names (and the more stupid they are... the easier to remember :D )

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Jan 2019, 12:23

I think I have the perfect solution to keep everyone happy :thumbup:


Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jan 2019, 16:51

Halidon wrote:
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.


Thanks for your reply.

The publicly revealed details about the contestants haven't indicated any growth in size.

It's true that more information about systems has been shown by the navy but I personally don't see any surprises in the list. All very logical given the mission concept. Nor do they provide any reason for an increase in ship size.

What they do show to me (maybe only me) is that none of the current list of contenders look very suitable. I still think the mostly likely outcome is a cancelling of the program.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jan 2019, 16:51

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think I have the perfect solution to keep everyone happy :thumbup:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk



Mmmmm. I think you may want to check that link :-)

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Jan 2019, 17:05

Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:I think I have the perfect solution to keep everyone happy :thumbup:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk



Mmmmm. I think you may want to check that link :-)
Apologies, this is the correct one.


matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby matt00773 » 31 Jan 2019, 18:08

Ron5 wrote:What they do show to me (maybe only me) is that none of the current list of contenders look very suitable. I still think the mostly likely outcome is a cancelling of the program.
That's quite a dramatic statement. I'm not sure the programme will be cancelled but agree some of the ships look ill fitted for the mission. There does seem to be a growing consensus that Huntington Ingalls are going to dump the National Security Cutter based design and replace it with a larger hull design. T26 has been mentioned by some as a possible replacement - as has T31e.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 01 Feb 2019, 17:35

matt00773 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:What they do show to me (maybe only me) is that none of the current list of contenders look very suitable. I still think the mostly likely outcome is a cancelling of the program.
That's quite a dramatic statement. I'm not sure the programme will be cancelled but agree some of the ships look ill fitted for the mission. There does seem to be a growing consensus that Huntington Ingalls are going to dump the National Security Cutter based design and replace it with a larger hull design. T26 has been mentioned by some as a possible replacement - as has T31e.


If it were my call, I'd ditch the program and use the money to design & build an AB successor. Fill the building gap with up-gunned LCS.

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby matt00773 » 02 Feb 2019, 09:25

Canada trade tribunal dismisses complaint by Alion on selection of Type 26 by Procurement Canada - Lockheed Martin being prime contractor. Still two more cases by Alion to be heard but you have to wonder how realistic these are in winning.

"The CITT, however, has now rejected that complaint. “The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has determined that Alion Science and Technology Canada Corporation and Alion Science and Technology Corporation do not have standing to file a complaint before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal,” it noted in a statement."

https://leaderpost.com/news/national/de ... e16c96d1fd

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/ ... nt-281048/

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby NickC » 03 Feb 2019, 16:53

LM announced at SNA2019 they will be fitting own radar on the Canadian T26, using T/R modules from their GaN S-band Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) program which uses dual polarisation for better discrimination, dual polarisation transmit and receive in both horizontal and vertical polarisations.

In July Japanese selected LRDR for their Aegis Ashore batteries, defeating the Raytheon SPY-6 GaN radar used in the new Burke Flight III destroyers.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Feb 2019, 17:05

NickC wrote:In July Japanese selected LRDR for their Aegis Ashore batteries, defeating the Raytheon SPY-6 GaN radar used in the new Burke Flight III destroyers.


Is batteries an accurate expression? Sensors onshore, but all shooters afloat? Or, may be I have missed some news...

Good post, though, as everyone tends to think of AEGIS as a set of radars, of varying capability, but from the same family

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Halidon » 03 Feb 2019, 21:18

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:In July Japanese selected LRDR for their Aegis Ashore batteries, defeating the Raytheon SPY-6 GaN radar used in the new Burke Flight III destroyers.


Is batteries an accurate expression? Sensors onshore, but all shooters afloat? Or, may be I have missed some news...

Good post, though, as everyone tends to think of AEGIS as a set of radars, of varying capability, but from the same family

Preferred language is "sites." 2 sites, each with LRDR and 3 VLS enclosures (8 cells per enclosure).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Feb 2019, 21:36

Halidon wrote:Preferred language is "sites."


The Polish got quite excited about this: Whaddau mean?? We let you put a radar here, and then there are no missiles on the "site"
- se we become a target (in pre-emption) for nothing??

Notably, Belorussia has used the same language. But the radar site has been there for yonks; they were just talking about a fwrd-base for AD fighters.

Getting back onto the topic: As for ABM missiles I thought Japan only had them on the T-26 equivalents (more like Burkes), but now they seem to have done a "France&Italy", and have the same missiles launched from land, too.

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby NickC » 04 Feb 2019, 12:41

My limited understanding is the Japanese are acquiring two Aegis Ashore "Systems". A system will consist of a Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), Aegis combat management system and the BMD SM-3 Block IIA missiles, a joint Japanese/US development.

The SM-3 IIA is an exo-atmospheric (space only) ballistic missile defense weapon in development with mention of deployment in 2020, compared to the SM-3 1B comes with a larger diameter rocket and a new Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV), giving the speed, range and altitude capabilities needed to intercept ICBMs,

SM-3 IIA can be fitted to the USN and Japanese Aegis destroyers only if they are fitted with the upgraded/newest Aegis combat management system, though at ~$40M per missile its expensive and at moment future planned procurement numbers low.

The big advantage of the SM-3 IIA verse SN-3 IB is range, last June USN CNO was stating he was fed up with ballistic missile defense patrols, saying he had six Aegis ships on BMD duty steaming in a tiny box to have a chance at intercepting incoming missile defending land target. Advocating Aegis Ashore installations which are run around the clock by three shifts of 11 personnel each.

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby matt00773 » 07 Feb 2019, 21:09

News that the contract for the Canadian Type 26 - Lockheed Martin/Irving/BAE - is set to be signed. Announcement by elected officials to be made at Irving shipyard in Halifax tomorrow morning.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... -by-friday

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Feb 2019, 08:31

NickC wrote:The SM-3 IIA is an exo-atmospheric (space only) ballistic missile defense weapon in development with mention of deployment in 2020

The added "benefit" that any radioactive fallout from an intercept will not fall on Japan/ the two Koreas (+Vladivostok) only, but will be evenly distributed across the northern hemisphere
NickC wrote:he had six Aegis ships on BMD duty steaming in a tiny box to have a chance at intercepting incoming missile defending land target

I wonder which six he counted? More of them near Japan than anywhere else (Hawaii?), but one of the four in Rota is presumably on rota to defend Israel from such an attack
- this (without numbers) was stated at the time of deciding to permanently forward position the ships-cum-families of the crews, a way of extending the "Europe" missile defence with the two radar warning stations (AEGIS-on-land) further South (a third stn in Turkey, plus a "shooter" steaming in the xtreme East of the Med).

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby NickC » 08 Feb 2019, 13:38

matt00773 wrote:News that the contract for the Canadian Type 26 - Lockheed Martin/Irving/BAE - is set to be signed. Announcement by elected officials to be made at Irving shipyard in Halifax tomorrow morning.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... -by-friday


Vancouver Sun reporting the same news, Ottawa locks down LM design for fifteen T26 frigates with C$60-billion budget, ~£2,300 million each with unknown number of years budgeted support costs included.

"Federal Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough will be in Halifax to announce that the government and Irving Shipbuilding are officially awarding U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin a contract to design the vessels.

Alion subsequently asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to quash the decision, saying Lockheed’s design did not meet the navy’s requirements and should have been disqualified.
The trade tribunal initially ordered the government not to award a contract to Lockheed until it could investigate Alion’s complaint, but it later rescinded that decision and then tossed the case entirely last week.
That paved the way for the government and Irving, which is technically subcontracting Lockheed to design the ships it will build, to move ahead and award the contract.
Alion has also challenged Lockheed’s selection at the Federal Court, though that case is expected to drag. Alion alleges that the Type 26 did not meet the navy’s requirements for speed and crew accommodations.
And while government officials acknowledged the threat of legal action, which has become a favourite tactic for companies that lose defence contracts, they expressed confidence that they would be able to defend against such attacks.

From <https://vancouversun.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/ottawa-locks-down-design-for-60-billion-warship-fleet/wcm/db639a65-d9f1-4d2c-9e44-5ee306497e6d>

SDL
Member
Posts: 616
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SDL » 08 Feb 2019, 13:41



thought this was decided ages ago?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3064
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Feb 2019, 14:31

Same news by Xav-san

Canadian AESA looks compact. May be able to be added to the T26's own mast?

https://www.navalnews.com/news/2019/02/ ... -contract/

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby matt00773 » 08 Feb 2019, 17:44

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Same news by Xav-san

Canadian AESA looks compact. May be able to be added to the T26's own mast?

https://www.navalnews.com/news/2019/02/ ... -contract/
According to a Lockheed Martin representative at SNA 2019 the radar is a solid state SPY AEGIS fire control radar. Not sure though on the specific model but I assume SPY-6 variant - GaN TR modules would explain smaller size of planar arrays. Not sure if this could be fitted to the UK T26 mast if that's what you're asking.

Presentation from 3:00 minute mark:

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sn ... t-sna-2019

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby matt00773 » 08 Feb 2019, 17:47

SDL wrote:https://twitter.com/BAESystemsCA/status/1093862035698446342

thought this was decided ages ago?
I think you're referring to the preferred bidder win that Type 26 got last year. This announcement is for signing the contract. So everything is agreed and full steam ahead for the build...


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], shark bait and 11 guests