UK Defence Forum

USN is also struggling to see the way forward with their mix of surface combatants (their carriers are, perhaps, relied on to do more than ours. All in relative terms), but one thing is clear: you can buy two frigates for the cost of one DDG and thereby distribute your fires.

Heading in that direction leaves a conundrum, though: a suitable air defense commander's capability currently (a carrier in presence aside) only resides in 'the' cruiser.

A USN prestudy of 2017 (for the force mix assessment that is now 'officially' at hand) sees the survivable surface action group that could sail ahead of the main force in the minimum as:
A “Long-Range Strike Surface Action Group” would consist of a Flight IIA DDG or a DDG-1000 with a smaller amphibious ship, with both ships carrying four to six UAVs for over the horizon targeting (OTH-T) and the amphibs carrying up to four unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) for long-range strike.
- this force would mainly engage opposing naval forces as opposed to projecting "From the Sea" ; which is what the main force is for

Increasing the number of units is the 'key word'... which is why I am posting this view from across the Atlantic here

Jake1992 wrote:Where do you see these 64 Mk41s fitted on the current design ? I can see the possibility of 48 up front but none anywhere else with out losing the mission bay.

I believe the suggestion was a limited stretch of the T-26 design so that whilst also using the space taken up by the 24 "Mushrooms" amidships there should be room for at least two "Standard" length Mk41s which could carry SM-6, Quad Sea Ceptor, LRASM and VL ASROC. You only really need the "Strike" length for TLAMS and SM-3. With the four "Strike" length up front, That being the total up to 48 cells but as mentioned that may not be enough. Reducing the size or sacrificing the Mission bay would allow for considerably more, possibly bringing the total to that in excess of 80 cells., but reduce some of the vessels flexibility. However with the T-26 hull quietening and the Sonar on board together with the ASW weapon on the ship and helicopter it would still be a useful ASW platform.

Of course instead of putting more MK41 on each ship we could purchase more, and end up developing a UK platform similar to what the USN has with its ABs though slightly smaller and less capable, and as a result end up with a single class that is kept in production and evolving over time as capabilities appear. Slightly stretched with a smaller Mission Bay, the basic fit could be;

1x 57mm Gun
4x8 "Strike" Mk41 VLS
4x8 "Standard" Mk41 VLS
2x Remote Bofors 40mm
2x Unspecified CIWS
Ix Merlin or other helicopter

I prefer a 57mm over a 5" as I believe NGFS is going to be too hazardous a mission for high value assets in future, Current long range rounds like the Volcano use Sub Calibre rounds that have a greatly reduced HE content and so are far less effective in this role. Possibly a Naval GMLRS or the Ground Launched SDB could be alternatives.

Violent agreement? I like to think of it more as "two pints deep loud pub volume" discussion.

Are we really saying that the MoD/RN can afford a T26 modified AAW specialist, if it keeps the T26 ASW optimizations (sans tail)? We can barely afford them as is, if you make them larger, add more MK41 and a larger mast and more expensive radar, how much will they cost? £1-1.5bn? How many could we afford?

I'd like to know how much cheaper the T26 could be made if its ASW optimisations were junked, so that we could then afford to adapt them to AAW fit out

Lord Jim wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:Where do you see these 64 Mk41s fitted on the current design ? I can see the possibility of 48 up front but none anywhere else with out losing the mission bay.

I believe the suggestion was a limited stretch of the T-26 design so that whilst also using the space taken up by the 24 "Mushrooms" amidships there should be room for at least two "Standard" length Mk41s which could carry SM-6, Quad Sea Ceptor, LRASM and VL ASROC. You only really need the "Strike" length for TLAMS and SM-3. With the four "Strike" length up front, That being the total up to 48 cells but as mentioned that may not be enough. Reducing the size or sacrificing the Mission bay would allow for considerably more, possibly bringing the total to that in excess of 80 cells., but reduce some of the vessels flexibility. However with the T-26 hull quietening and the Sonar on board together with the ASW weapon on the ship and helicopter it would still be a useful ASW platform.

Of course instead of putting more MK41 on each ship we could purchase more, and end up developing a UK platform similar to what the USN has with its ABs though slightly smaller and less capable, and as a result end up with a single class that is kept in production and evolving over time as capabilities appear. Slightly stretched with a smaller Mission Bay, the basic fit could be;

1x 57mm Gun
4x8 "Strike" Mk41 VLS
4x8 "Standard" Mk41 VLS
2x Remote Bofors 40mm
2x Unspecified CIWS
Ix Merlin or other helicopter

I prefer a 57mm over a 5" as I believe NGFS is going to be too hazardous a mission for high value assets in future, Current long range rounds like the Volcano use Sub Calibre rounds that have a greatly reduced HE content and so are far less effective in this role. Possibly a Naval GMLRS or the Ground Launched SDB could be alternatives.

I havnt seen anywhere that the mid ship sit can be used for anything other than cold launch systems so I’ll hold off on accept Mk41s can be placed there until I see otherwise.
As for the mission bay I personally think it’d be daft to get ride of it in any future design, with the way things are heading it could come in very useful down the road. We have to remember the T26 and T4X will be in service out to 2060 and then some.

I style don’t believe 64 Mk41s for and AAW specialised / multi role vessel is enough. A lengthened T26 hull with up to 96 Mk41s and some of the quieting measures such as rafting removed would give the RN a modern AB equivalent for a similar cost.

dmereifield wrote:Are we really saying that the MoD/RN can afford a T26 modified AAW specialist, if it keeps the T26 ASW optimizations (sans tail)? We can barely afford them as is, if you make them larger, add more MK41 and a larger mast and more expensive radar, how much will they cost? £1-1.5bn? How many could we afford?

I'd like to know how much cheaper the T26 could be made if its ASW optimisations were junked, so that we could then afford to adapt them to AAW fit out

For the lengthened AAW version I’d look to remove some of the ASW set up such as rafting and other quieting measures along with TASS, but they’re would be no point in change the hull form as the design work for it is already paid for.

If HMG MOD and treasury pull there finger out and look at valve for cost instead on year on year cost we could get the T26s for a average price of around £850m per hull and I’d bet a T4X based like about for around £1.2bn per hull.
It’s all about reusing as much of the T26 design as possible to allow a continues role of work with the learning curve.

Jake1992 wrote:A lengthened T26 hull with up to 96 Mk41s and some of the quieting measures such as rafting removed would give the RN a modern AB equivalent for a similar cost.

There is no way the RN is going to be able to afford Escorts costing £1.5Bn per copy after design and set up costs are paid off. If some lunatic in the MoD pushed for that we would be down to around 8-10 escorts at best. Instead of 12 Mk41s on a single platform the RN would do better with two each with 48 operating together. That would bring twice the deck mounted AShMs and twice as many helicopter not forgetting being able to cover a larger area whilst overlapping a large part of this.

Lord Jim wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:A lengthened T26 hull with up to 96 Mk41s and some of the quieting measures such as rafting removed would give the RN a modern AB equivalent for a similar cost.

There is no way the RN is going to be able to afford Escorts costing £1.5Bn per copy after design and set up costs are paid off. If some lunatic in the MoD pushed for that we would be down to around 8-10 escorts at best. Instead of 12 Mk41s on a single platform the RN would do better with two each with 48 operating together. That would bring twice the deck mounted AShMs and twice as many helicopter not forgetting being able to cover a larger area whilst overlapping a large part of this.

Well the T45s cost £1bn plus each, IMO at T4X based of a lengthened T26 hull with 96mk41s could be got for £1.2bn odd each.

The 48 on each ship is what we’ve got with the T45s and is seen as questionable at best.
A modern AAW escort in our shrinking fleet will need to carry not only a large number of long and short range AAW missile for saturation attacks but also ABM missiles along with AShM ( is starting to be accepted 8 is not enough ) land strike and a small number of ASW missile all in Mk41s as that’s the way it’s going.

The way I’d look at it out of the 96 at least 64 would be for AAW something like this -
10 ABM Missiles
40 aster 30 / replacement
28 CAMM-ER
28 CAMM

With the remaining 32 for everything else say what
20 AShM / land strike ( depending if its an all in one or two missile )
6 ASW Missiles
24 x spear 3 / spear EW

For a first rate escort that’s there to protect your CSG most nation would see that as reasonable.

1. Type 45s cost about 650 million to build on average. About a third of that was the PAAMS system.

2. First person on this forum that pounded the drum for a type 26 derivative replacing the t45s was ArmChairCivvy. Thought he was bonkers.

3. Clearly the t26 needs to be stretched by at least 30m for that role to match ..... da da ... the type 055

Bloody bean counters in the treasury !!! I think it would definitly would be better to have 2 x T45/replacements per carrier group as standard just incase of problems with one, wether this means 6 or 8 I don't really know, preferably with a good ASW fit aswell but it all comes down to the bean counters, but being based on a T26 hull with it's quietness does seem a good starting point? how much would ditching the ASW equipment save, compared to a new air defence RADAR etc something would have to give,

Would a smaller ASW focussed frigate ( but with point defence missile - a true T23 replacement ) be better for the RN after the GCS/T26/45 replacement run has finished ? leaving the T26 as a true global singleton

Perhaps the powers that be expected to much from the T23 replacements....

RetroSicotte wrote:Violent agreement? I like to think of it more as "two pints deep loud pub volume" discussion.

What I was trying to put across was arguing while not realising that you were in agreement.
- Jake's later comments proved that not to be the case, anyway, so that left only you and me in agreement... and perhaps LJ, as per below

Lord Jim wrote: There is no way the RN is going to be able to afford Escorts costing £1.5Bn per copy

A mere 1.5% of the cost of a railway line so you can get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker to satisfy all those tens of people that say they just have to get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker.

Or the price of maybe 3 Tempests and their unmanned sidekicks.

Or 1 Astute.

Or 10% of a Successor.

Seems cheap.

Ron5 wrote:A mere 1.5% of the cost of a railway line so you can get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker to satisfy all those tens of people that say they just have to get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker.

Or the price of maybe 3 Tempests and their unmanned sidekicks.

Or 1 Astute.

Or 10% of a Successor.

Seems cheap.

But we can't afford anything on that list that you use as a yard stick

Ron5 wrote:A mere 1.5% of the cost of a railway line so you can get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker to satisfy all those tens of people that say they just have to get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker.

You probably knew this already but, for the record, speed is not the main justification for HS2. The central problem is that the main UK railway artery from London to Birmingham, Manchester and many other major cities north and north-east is effectively 100% saturated with a mix of express services, stoppers, regional services & freight. So, many trains are overcrowded; resilience to any bad weather, train fault, engineering issue etc is zero; and there is pent-up demand for much more capacity that there is no way of providing at present. There are no viable piecemeal solutions and the only credible fix is a complete new railway line as in HS2 (and if you're going to build a modern line at all then it might as well be built to modern speed standards).

Remember also that total HS2 costs are projected over a 25-30 year period.

We would all like to see more defence spending but bitching about improving the UK's decades of underinvestment in national infrastructure is not a strong argument. The only option is a greater tax take.

Ron5 wrote:A mere 1.5% of the cost of a railway line so you can get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker to satisfy all those tens of people that say they just have to get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker.

Well - HS2 is about a bit more than that (and it's London to Manchester in 67 minutes vs. 127 minutes today - I do the trip quite a few times each year, visiting family) - it's far more to do with creating separate lines for express and non-express traffic, removing the bottleneck created by mixing high- and low-speed traffic on the same line, however the point is well made. We could probably build one T26 for every 2.5 miles of HS2 track at the currently predicted price of £330m per mile.

Jake1992 wrote:Where do you see these 64 Mk41s fitted on the current design ? I can see the possibility of 48 up front but none anywhere else with out losing the mission bay.

IMO 64 is not enough for a modern AAW / multi role vessel. When you take in to account the 48 on the T45 is questionable for AAW, add to this the need to carry ABM missiles along with every other missile from AShM to land strike to ASW missile are now all becoming VLS carried 64 just doesn’t cut to me.

As I said with reworking of the ship. I have been looking a top side shot of Type 26 and with some reworking of the front missile deck I feel you could get 64 cells there. We know we could get 48 cell as laid out but there still looks like room for 16 cell if this could be done then adding 24 amid-ships would allow for 88 cell

Tempest414 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:Where do you see these 64 Mk41s fitted on the current design ? I can see the possibility of 48 up front but none anywhere else with out losing the mission bay.

IMO 64 is not enough for a modern AAW / multi role vessel. When you take in to account the 48 on the T45 is questionable for AAW, add to this the need to carry ABM missiles along with every other missile from AShM to land strike to ASW missile are now all becoming VLS carried 64 just doesn’t cut to me.

As I said with reworking of the ship. I have been looking a top side shot of Type 26 and with some reworking of the front missile deck I feel you could get 64 cells there. We know we could get 48 cell as laid out but there still looks like room for 16 cell if this could be done then adding 24 amid-ships would allow for 88 cell

Could you show me how you see this on an imaged or something if possible as from memory I can only see space for 48 cells forward.

With out lengthening the current design where would the mid ship cell be placed ? Like I mentioned up thread Iv yet to find anything that says the mid ship mushroom space can accommodate anything by cold launch systems and I personal think getting rid of the mission bay would be daft.

albedo wrote:The only option is a greater tax take.

Bingo!

Now any old Chancellor will know that it is either the price (tax rates) or the volume (of the underlying... which can only increase through A. growth, or B. by widening the base, by catching all the tax evaders, AKA donors to the Conservative party)
- that one, I think , Boris will delegate to the Chancellor
- if that makes him go through a long list of them, then an added bonus is derived bonus: no Blair problem (with the incumbent next door)

Lord Jim wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:A lengthened T26 hull with up to 96 Mk41s and some of the quieting measures such as rafting removed would give the RN a modern AB equivalent for a similar cost.

There is no way the RN is going to be able to afford Escorts costing £1.5Bn per copy after design and set up costs are paid off. If some lunatic in the MoD pushed for that we would be down to around 8-10 escorts at best. Instead of 12 Mk41s on a single platform the RN would do better with two each with 48 operating together. That would bring twice the deck mounted AShMs and twice as many helicopter not forgetting being able to cover a larger area whilst overlapping a large part of this.

Well, we do have T26, don't we?

albedo wrote:

Ron5 wrote:A mere 1.5% of the cost of a railway line so you can get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker to satisfy all those tens of people that say they just have to get to Manchester 15 minutes quicker.

You probably knew this already but, for the record, speed is not the main justification for HS2. The central problem is that the main UK railway artery from London to Birmingham, Manchester and many other major cities north and north-east is effectively 100% saturated with a mix of express services, stoppers, regional services & freight. So, many trains are overcrowded; resilience to any bad weather, train fault, engineering issue etc is zero; and there is pent-up demand for much more capacity that there is no way of providing at present. There are no viable piecemeal solutions and the only credible fix is a complete new railway line as in HS2 (and if you're going to build a modern line at all then it might as well be built to modern speed standards).

Remember also that total HS2 costs are projected over a 25-30 year period.

We would all like to see more defence spending but bitching about improving the UK's decades of underinvestment in national infrastructure is not a strong argument. The only option is a greater tax take.

Actually I didn't so I genuinely appreciate the education. Just repeating tabloid guff.

Reading article on navylookout and saying that HMS Bristol might be scrapped ,can't do that as is nearly 14% of our cutting edge destroyer force isn't it ,that would only leave 6 ,too low numbers that surly? ,:-/

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

albedo wrote:The only option is a greater tax take.

Bingo!

Now any old Chancellor will know that it is either the price (tax rates) or the volume (of the underlying... which can only increase through A. growth, or B. by widening the base, by catching all the tax evaders, AKA donors to the Conservative party)
- that one, I think , Boris will delegate to the Chancellor
- if that makes him go through a long list of them, then an added bonus is derived bonus: no Blair problem (with the incumbent next door)

Nah, stop spending on dumb things like international aid. Money flushed down so many toilets. Not the only candidate but the biggest.

Jake1992 wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:Where do you see these 64 Mk41s fitted on the current design ? I can see the possibility of 48 up front but none anywhere else with out losing the mission bay.

IMO 64 is not enough for a modern AAW / multi role vessel. When you take in to account the 48 on the T45 is questionable for AAW, add to this the need to carry ABM missiles along with every other missile from AShM to land strike to ASW missile are now all becoming VLS carried 64 just doesn’t cut to me.

As I said with reworking of the ship. I have been looking a top side shot of Type 26 and with some reworking of the front missile deck I feel you could get 64 cells there. We know we could get 48 cell as laid out but there still looks like room for 16 cell if this could be done then adding 24 amid-ships would allow for 88 cell

Could you show me how you see this on an imaged or something if possible as from memory I can only see space for 48 cells forward.

With out lengthening the current design where would the mid ship cell be placed ? Like I mentioned up thread Iv yet to find anything that says the mid ship mushroom space can accommodate anything by cold launch systems and I personal think getting rid of the mission bay would be daft.

What's the reluctance to lengthen? Midships is constant cross section so adding another section is relatively simple. Beam & depth are ample and would allow it.

Ron5 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:Where do you see these 64 Mk41s fitted on the current design ? I can see the possibility of 48 up front but none anywhere else with out losing the mission bay.

IMO 64 is not enough for a modern AAW / multi role vessel. When you take in to account the 48 on the T45 is questionable for AAW, add to this the need to carry ABM missiles along with every other missile from AShM to land strike to ASW missile are now all becoming VLS carried 64 just doesn’t cut to me.

As I said with reworking of the ship. I have been looking a top side shot of Type 26 and with some reworking of the front missile deck I feel you could get 64 cells there. We know we could get 48 cell as laid out but there still looks like room for 16 cell if this could be done then adding 24 amid-ships would allow for 88 cell

Could you show me how you see this on an imaged or something if possible as from memory I can only see space for 48 cells forward.

With out lengthening the current design where would the mid ship cell be placed ? Like I mentioned up thread Iv yet to find anything that says the mid ship mushroom space can accommodate anything by cold launch systems and I personal think getting rid of the mission bay would be daft.

What's the reluctance to lengthen? Midships is constant cross section so adding another section is relatively simple. Beam & depth are ample and would allow it.

The reluctance is not mine, Iv often said a 15m odd mid ship plug would be the way to go to allow the space for the extra Mk41s needed in AAW with out losing the mission bay.
My response was to the remark that with a bit of rearranging of the superstructure the current T26 could fit enough Mk41s in, I can’t quite see this my self.

Totally puzzled why talk of a 15m mid body plug to make T26 suitable to fit 48 or so additional Mk41 VLS cells for a AA destroyer variant

Approx 60+m x 20m, 1,200 sq mtrs of the weapons deck taken up by the flight deck, hanger, mission bay, boat bay and aft DGs engine room intakes and exhaust. Would estimate need approx 330 sq mtrs for 48 Mk41 VLS cells, should think no problem down sizing the Chinook 30 m flight deck and reducing size of hanger for a Wildcat, delete the mission bay in entirety, smaller boat bay etc, reduce accommodation by the ~ 50 built in for amphib operations, this is just gold plating for an AA destroyer. Add an additional 8 cell module fwd as the CSC, would give total of 80 VLS cells.

Though saying that think the T31 would make a better basis of an AA destroyer, faster, longer range and cheaper than the very expensive T26 HM&E due to its quiet hull.

Final point don't think new AA destroyer possability likely in next ten years.

NickC wrote:Totally puzzled why talk of a 15m mid body plug to make T26 suitable to fit 48 or so additional Mk41 VLS cells for a AA destroyer variant

Approx 60+m x 20m, 1,200 sq mtrs of the weapons deck taken up by the flight deck, hanger, mission bay, boat bay and aft DGs engine room intakes and exhaust. Would estimate need approx 330 sq mtrs for 48 Mk41 VLS cells, should think no problem down sizing the Chinook 30 m flight deck and reducing size of hanger for a Wildcat, delete the mission bay in entirety, smaller boat bay etc, reduce accommodation by the ~ 50 built in for amphib operations, this is just gold plating for an AA destroyer. Add an additional 8 cell module fwd as the CSC, would give total of 80 VLS cells.

Though saying that think the T31 would make a better basis of an AA destroyer, faster, longer range and cheaper than the very expensive T26 HM&E due to its quiet hull.

Final point don't think new AA destroyer possability likely in next ten years.

It’s to make as little changes as possible to a existing in build / in service design to give commonality through the building of both classes and in service.
You start taking away the mission bay changing the hanger shrinking the flight deck along with the radar changes you might as well design a whole new vessel.

You say it’s all gold plating for an AAW vessel yet Italy seems to believe a vessel of 10,000t with large hanger and flight deck is needed for there next AAW vessel.
With the above in mind you think it’d be better to go with a smaller and old design in terms of the IH really.

Yes one won’t be in the water in the next 10 years but will need to be in service by 2036 to avoided the costly life extensions we’ve seen with the T23s. With that time frame in mind design work will need to by mid 20s at the latest.