Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Some actual news re: T26
Security concerns expressed about GE moving the T26 engine production to France
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26 ... to-france/
Security concerns expressed about GE moving the T26 engine production to France
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26 ... to-france/
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
For me the lay out of the front it quiet flexible allowing space for up to 48 mk41s or other VLS or canister systems. I’d also like to keep the bridge and superstructure lay out pretty much the same on all to reduce redesign and help it commonality for the crews.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Why you need to re-use the forward section? It may dis-balancing the weight/float balance, and could be "too wide" as a smaller ship, which will require "larger engine" to achieve the same speed than that of the longer version.Jake1992 wrote:I did say everything rear of the superstructure would need to be redesigned for the shorter version but a family of 3 that covers all areas from light frigate to destroyer based of a parent design could be a big boots for British export design.
With the same width, longer hull is faster with the same power, as we see in T42 batch-3.
With regards to the width I’d keep it the same to once again reduce redesign and keep growth margins for weapons and other system. Yes this would reduce speed but I’d be confident in getting 25/26 knots top speed out of such a design ( I know T26 is stated at 26 knot but as we’ve seen with the QEs 25 knots yet they hit 29 already so I could see the T26 hitting around 30knots )
If you start changing the width then it’s a whole sale new design really.
I just think a class of 3 as describe above would be a good opportunity for MOD and BAE to make the most of T26 success
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Careful now. This is for News only not discussing what may or may not happen to the T-26 in future.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
I was starting to think we should move it lolLord Jim wrote:Careful now. This is for News only not discussing what may or may not happen to the T-26 in future.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Not sure if this is the correct thread, but Dragonfire has been discussed here before, as a potential future system fro the T26:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-test ... er-weapon/
“The Flywheel Energy Storage System (FESS) uses innovative high-speed & lightweight flywheels to provide high-power electrical pulses that these future systems require, reducing the impact of these systems to the rest of the ship, while avoiding the widely reported safety concern around battery-based systems."
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-test ... er-weapon/
“The Flywheel Energy Storage System (FESS) uses innovative high-speed & lightweight flywheels to provide high-power electrical pulses that these future systems require, reducing the impact of these systems to the rest of the ship, while avoiding the widely reported safety concern around battery-based systems."
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Along with D-E applications, the USN has been looking at FESS for Railgun's energy storage needs.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Hint, might be totally unrealistic, that LM will drop the LSC Freedom hull as the basis of their bid for the USN FFG(X) and use the T26 H,M & E as with their winning bid for the Canadian CSC contract.
Problems that LM have with their LCS Freedom hull is that with its max 3,500t displacement its a semi-planning with waterjets designed for 40 to 50 knots and consequently very high resistance at most normal speeds (FFG(X) spec 26 knots threshold/28 knots objective), the complications of transforming into a standard displacement hull of 6,000t+ with new propulsion system to meet FFG specs maybe proving expensive/insurmountable/require new untried hull that lacks credibility?
The Fincantieri FREMM variant for FFG(X) has been extended in length slightly to 496'/152m and was quoted at 7,000t, now mention of 7,400t, not sure believable, same displacement quoted for GD BIW/Navantia F100 variant with their bid for FFG
Comment 7:30
Problems that LM have with their LCS Freedom hull is that with its max 3,500t displacement its a semi-planning with waterjets designed for 40 to 50 knots and consequently very high resistance at most normal speeds (FFG(X) spec 26 knots threshold/28 knots objective), the complications of transforming into a standard displacement hull of 6,000t+ with new propulsion system to meet FFG specs maybe proving expensive/insurmountable/require new untried hull that lacks credibility?
The Fincantieri FREMM variant for FFG(X) has been extended in length slightly to 496'/152m and was quoted at 7,000t, now mention of 7,400t, not sure believable, same displacement quoted for GD BIW/Navantia F100 variant with their bid for FFG
Comment 7:30
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Hold up, at 7:57, is that 6-8 additional silos on the Canadian model where the T26s second row of CAMM normally is?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Good spot. Certainly not seen anything other than CAMM there before, I didn't think there was room for a hot launched missile.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4087
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
They don't look like Mk41's. What else could they be?
It must be a fairly recent addition as this is the model Lockheed Martin were displaying only a few months ago.
It must be a fairly recent addition as this is the model Lockheed Martin were displaying only a few months ago.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yh the Canadian version has 32 mk41 cells set out up front with 3 x 8 cell ( same place we have ours ) and a single 8 cell directly in front on the mild set.RetroSicotte wrote:Hold up, at 7:57, is that 6-8 additional silos on the Canadian model where the T26s second row of CAMM normally is?
I think the Canadian set up has shown that the T26 could very well hold up to 48 mk41s in 2 rows of 3 x 8 cells. If this is the case to me it shows how much we’ve wasted space on our own version, with the mid ship mushrooms taking up a similar space to 12-15 Excl cells and the potential for up to 48 mk41s at the front.shark bait wrote:Good spot. Certainly not seen anything other than CAMM there before, I didn't think there was room for a hot launched missile.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5583
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
It is 6 cell unit, so surely not Mk.41.
It could be ExLS, (but for what?)
- some decoy launcher, such as Nulca
- some land attack missile ?
It could be ExLS, (but for what?)
- some decoy launcher, such as Nulca
- some land attack missile ?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
That’s strange as I Known the original proposal was for 32 mk41s, I wonder why the cut ? Or could it be just a mistake on the modal ?donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is 6 cell unit, so surely not Mk.41.
It could be ExLS, (but for what?)
- some decoy launcher, such as Nulca
- some land attack missile ?
My mistake if you zoom in it is an 8 cell
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Did some digging, it's a Mk56 launcher. The Iver Huitfeldt has sets of them as well.
Used to launch dual-packed ESSM. Halidax class has it too, I believe. Iver's wiki page implies it's 12 missiles per rack of 6 anyway.
In other words, the Canadian version has 32x Mk41 type silos, and then 12x ESSM silos, AND an 8x canister launch.
Royal Navy version is starting to look markedly less capable than the export ones by the year...all depends on the missiles bought of course, but still. Canadian version could hold everything the RN version has missile wise, and still have 6x Mk41 silos and the canisters left over.
Used to launch dual-packed ESSM. Halidax class has it too, I believe. Iver's wiki page implies it's 12 missiles per rack of 6 anyway.
In other words, the Canadian version has 32x Mk41 type silos, and then 12x ESSM silos, AND an 8x canister launch.
Royal Navy version is starting to look markedly less capable than the export ones by the year...all depends on the missiles bought of course, but still. Canadian version could hold everything the RN version has missile wise, and still have 6x Mk41 silos and the canisters left over.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
This is what gets me as the design allows room for up to 48 mk41s forward and as we’re using CAMM ExCL is around for a much denser packing.RetroSicotte wrote:Did some digging, it's a Mk56 launcher. The Iver Huitfeldt has sets of them as well.
Used to launch dual-packed ESSM. Halidax class has it too, I believe. Iver's wiki page implies it's 12 missiles per rack of 6 anyway.
In other words, the Canadian version has 32x Mk41 type silos, and then 12x ESSM silos, AND an 8x canister launch.
Royal Navy version is starting to look markedly less capable than the export ones by the year...all depends on the missiles bought of course, but still. Canadian version could hold everything the RN version has missile wise, and still have 6x Mk41 silos and the canisters left over.
We could fit all our intended CAMM missiles and then some in the mid ship mushroom space if ExCL was used and then fit up to an extra 24 mk41s forward but no we go for outdated and space consuming mushrooms.
What the Canadians version gives is the equivalent of 40 mk41s and 12 ExCL by the looks of it
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5583
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
If it is filled with armaments, it is blamed for "not enough margin".
If it has a lot of margin, it is blamed for too less armaments.
RN T26 with 48 mushroom CAMM launcher has a big "growth margin" for future replacing it with high-density packing, such as ExLS. It will enable her to carry 196 missiles, maybe a combination of 132 CAMM and 64 SPEAR3? Actually, if we abandon "19 escort" propaganda, and use a fraction of the T31e budget (1.5B GBP in total) on "up arming" T26, this will easily realized.
"19 escort" saga is doing lots of harm than benefit now, I'm afraid.
If it has a lot of margin, it is blamed for too less armaments.
RN T26 with 48 mushroom CAMM launcher has a big "growth margin" for future replacing it with high-density packing, such as ExLS. It will enable her to carry 196 missiles, maybe a combination of 132 CAMM and 64 SPEAR3? Actually, if we abandon "19 escort" propaganda, and use a fraction of the T31e budget (1.5B GBP in total) on "up arming" T26, this will easily realized.
"19 escort" saga is doing lots of harm than benefit now, I'm afraid.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
This is why for me I’d have the T26 fitted with 12 ExCL mid Ship for CAMM, by the looks of it should still leave space for an extra 3 cell.donald_of_tokyo wrote:If it is filled with armaments, it is blamed for "not enough margin".
If it has a lot of margin, it is blamed for too less armaments.
Then 32 mk41 forward for now ( leaving room for 16 extra cells ) fitted with ain’t sub missiles, spear 3 and the future ain’t ship / Land strike, all while still leaving growth margins
My problem with leaving too larger growth margins today is the 1: it leaves the vessel under armed compared to potential enemies ( not compared to past RN vessels ) and 2: these growth margin never appear to get used now days with the T45s being the glaring example ( room for ExCL and 16 mk41s ) half way through life no sign of getting them.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
I would hesitate to call the RN version "underarmed". That was not my intent.
It's simply an indicator of the crippling lack of government support to actually do what is possible with the things this country can create. Everything is always half assed at every turn and never taken to its logical, leading capacity. Be it destroyers without their Mk41s and Harpoons (for a time), frigates with less silos than their exports, tanks ignoring upgrades for years, F-35s losing Brimstone/Storm Shadow, Wildcats losing datalinks, IFVs without ATGMs, carriers without SAMs, Typhoons without AMK/VT/Conformal, artillery without L52 so on so on so on.
The amount of "It could have..." outcomes in the UK is horrendous.
T26 looks to be great, yes. But I simply am making an observation that once again the lack of ambition to make the utmost of the platforms the UK created/acquires bites in a visible, quantifiable way by comparison to others.
I have often maintained that evading the poor spending choices (Not getting into Boxer when we had the chance for example which cost billions upon billions in emergency MRAP acquirement, or the ship indecision after cutting too hard then needing it back) would have permitted at least a bunch of the above.
T26 at least is thankfully more than capable as is. It's a fine ship design on paper, even if "reduced" a little from allies. It is at least good to know it has the capacity, even if the chances of said capacity being upgraded are basically nil. (See T45)
It's simply an indicator of the crippling lack of government support to actually do what is possible with the things this country can create. Everything is always half assed at every turn and never taken to its logical, leading capacity. Be it destroyers without their Mk41s and Harpoons (for a time), frigates with less silos than their exports, tanks ignoring upgrades for years, F-35s losing Brimstone/Storm Shadow, Wildcats losing datalinks, IFVs without ATGMs, carriers without SAMs, Typhoons without AMK/VT/Conformal, artillery without L52 so on so on so on.
The amount of "It could have..." outcomes in the UK is horrendous.
T26 looks to be great, yes. But I simply am making an observation that once again the lack of ambition to make the utmost of the platforms the UK created/acquires bites in a visible, quantifiable way by comparison to others.
I have often maintained that evading the poor spending choices (Not getting into Boxer when we had the chance for example which cost billions upon billions in emergency MRAP acquirement, or the ship indecision after cutting too hard then needing it back) would have permitted at least a bunch of the above.
T26 at least is thankfully more than capable as is. It's a fine ship design on paper, even if "reduced" a little from allies. It is at least good to know it has the capacity, even if the chances of said capacity being upgraded are basically nil. (See T45)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5583
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yes.Jake1992 wrote:My problem with leaving too larger growth margins today is the 1: it leaves the vessel under armed compared to potential enemies ( not compared to past RN vessels ) and 2: these growth margin never appear to get used now days with the T45s being the glaring example ( room for ExCL and 16 mk41s ) half way through life no sign of getting them.
Is it clever to spend 1.5B GBP on 5 T31e light-light frigates, or using a half of them to add "one more T26", and another half to up-arm both 6 T45 and 9 T26?
Man power is limited, and money is limited. With future SSBN program proceeding, more money will be lacking. There won't be "a future with less constrained budget", but only a future with much constrained one?
Up-arming T45 and T26, and building 5 T31e with further up-arming then in future, is what many here talks about.
..... No hope, sorry to say. Better to face the reality and invest more on T26, by cutting T31e. If it is cost neutral, Treasury will surely say "yes, as you like".
#Sorry, a bit too cynical, I'm afraid. ....
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5583
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Exactly. Good reason to abandon "19 escort saga" and invest in T45 and T26, etc. Again, Treasury will just say yes, if is just re-locating already allocated money.RetroSicotte wrote:I would hesitate to call the RN version "underarmed". That was not my intent.
It's simply an indicator of the crippling lack of government support to actually do what is possible with the things this country can create. Everything is always half assed at every turn and never taken to its logical, leading capacity. Be it destroyers without their Mk41s and Harpoons (for a time), frigates with less silos than their exports, tanks ignoring upgrades for years, F-35s losing Brimstone/Storm Shadow, Wildcats losing datalinks, IFVs without ATGMs, carriers without SAMs, Typhoons without AMK/VT/Conformal, artillery without L52 so on so on so on.
The amount of "It could have..." outcomes in the UK is horrendous.
T26 looks to be great, yes. But I simply am making an observation that once again the lack of ambition to make the utmost of the platforms the UK created/acquires bites in a visible, quantifiable way by comparison to others.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
No the T26s are not under armed compared to past RN standards but the difference is that in the past the RN left anti ship and land strike predominantly to the carriers and subs yet we have seen a dramatic drop in sub numbers to the point they can’t be used in that way and the carriers are going to be far weaker than planed so the surface vessels need to pick up the slack.RetroSicotte wrote:I would hesitate to call the RN version "underarmed". That was not my intent.
What they are under armed compared to is our allies ( see other T26s, US and Japan ) and our potential enemies ( see China and Russia )
I could stomach this only if a large number of multi mission sloops ( like the black swan, Venari 95 ) were purchased to fill the gaps, say around 20+ to do mcm, survey, costal ASW and low threat security ( ain’t piracy, wave the flag )donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yes.Jake1992 wrote:My problem with leaving too larger growth margins today is the 1: it leaves the vessel under armed compared to potential enemies ( not compared to past RN vessels ) and 2: these growth margin never appear to get used now days with the T45s being the glaring example ( room for ExCL and 16 mk41s ) half way through life no sign of getting them.
Is it clever to spend 1.5B GBP on 5 T31e light-light frigates, or using a half of them to add "one more T26", and another half to up-arm both 6 T45 and 9 T26?
Man power is limited, and money is limited. With future SSBN program proceeding, more money will be lacking. There won't be "a future with less constrained budget", but only a future with much constrained one?
Up-arming T45 and T26, and building 5 T31e with further up-arming then in future, is what many here talks about.
..... No hope, sorry to say. Better to face the reality and invest more on T26, by cutting T31e. If it is cost neutral, Treasury will surely say "yes, as you like".
#Sorry, a bit too cynical, I'm afraid. ....
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5583
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
But "more money" is NOT likely to come. AND, if no more money is coming, I'm afraid it is a choice betweenJake1992 wrote: I could stomach this only if a large number of multi mission sloops ( like the black swan, Venari 95 ) were purchased to fill the gaps, say around 20+ to do mcm, survey, costal ASW and low threat security ( ain’t piracy, wave the flag )
- leaving T45/T26 and many other assets under-armed, under-equipped, and in place get 5 T31e
or
- ban T31e and up-arm those assets,
Hoping for both is OK, but I'm afraid "both" is very very very difficult to happen, which means it is equivalent to accepting leaving T45, T26 Wildcat etc as it is = under equipped, for ever.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Strange that Canadian T26 has no CIWS whatsoever?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
I’m not asking for both T31 and the other T class upgrades but rather an increase in planed multi mission sloops, IMO a black swan or Venari 95 as discussed on here could be brought for at most £150m per unit. This my require a slight bit extra money but not massive amounts.donald_of_tokyo wrote:But "more money" is NOT likely to come. AND, if no more money is coming, I'm afraid it is a choice betweenJake1992 wrote: I could stomach this only if a large number of multi mission sloops ( like the black swan, Venari 95 ) were purchased to fill the gaps, say around 20+ to do mcm, survey, costal ASW and low threat security ( ain’t piracy, wave the flag )
- leaving T45/T26 and many other assets under-armed, under-equipped, and in place get 5 T31e
or
- ban T31e and up-arm those assets,
Hoping for both is OK, but I'm afraid "both" is very very very difficult to happen, which means it is equivalent to accepting leaving T45, T26 Wildcat etc as it is = under equipped, for ever.
To me as the T31 stands it’s flawed for the roles that are intended, a 4,000t under armed pretend frigate is not needed when a 3,000t far cheaper sloop could do the roles.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Edging toward theory fleets. Lets all keep it to the news in this one.