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

[tomuk]

Zooming Into the open Shed door reveals a very large part of Belfast. Are we sure she will be joined together in the new build Hall? I know what the press releases say, but she looks likely to be ready to be joined up before the build hall is finished.

Maybe they will reposition the big already assembled blocks by barge into the new sheds where they will be completed and finished. There will still be substantial work to be done even if the two blocks are done and put together, as can be seen on HMS Cardiff.

Lets hope the critical path analysis is correct and HMS Belfast isn't slowed down just so she's the first in the assembly hall.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The Initial Operating Capability for the Type 26 Class is forecast to be October 2028. All ships are expected to enter service between 2028 and 2035.

Not bad. This means, HMS Glasgow will be delivered to RN on late 2026, and move into first-of-class ship trail (which normally takes 2 years). Again, it is only 2 years from now to delivery to RN.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-con ... r-service/

[Scimitar54]

Donald-San
Not far short of 3 years, I assume you meant to say!

[serge750]

Definatly going to busy few years with the T31's coming along at the same time ! hopefully the newer ships can increase the at sea days for the RN

[Poiuytrewq]

The Initial Operating Capability for the Type 26 Class is forecast to be October 2028. All ships are expected to enter service between 2028 and 2035.

Not bad. This means, HMS Glasgow will be delivered to RN on late 2026, and move into first-of-class ship trail (which normally takes 2 years). Again, it is only 2 years from now to delivery to RN.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-con ... r-service/

Based on that the T83 needs to have the design finalised in 2028, contracts signed in 2030 and steel cut in 2031/2032.

Absolutely no chance of that timescale being accurate unless the T83 is a T26 with Sampson Mk2 plonked on it.

Looks like the OPVs will be built in Govan again.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Based on that the T83 needs to have the design finalised in 2028, contracts signed in 2030 and steel cut in 2031/2032.

Absolutely no chance of that timescale being accurate unless the T83 is a T26 with Sampson Mk2 plonked on it.

Looks like the OPVs will be built in Govan again.

To say the truth, what I feel is as follows:

In a man-power limited RN, the last T23 MUST be decommissioned when the last T26 needs her crew = 1.5-2 years before her IOC, or 0.5 years before her hand-over to RN. As the last T23ASW is to be decommissioned on 2035 (old plan, though), the last T26's shall be handed-over to RN on 2035, and her IOC could be ~2037.

This means her steal work will end around 2033 or 2034 at the latest.

So, T83 steal work must start around 2033. About 2 years later than your assessment (just my view). But yes, this means T83 concept must be fixed by 2030, to start several levels of designing process.

What if some delay? (highly probable). This time, before going into OPVs, I shall just hope an order of 9th T26 to save ~2 years. The 9th hull will be handed over to RN on early-2037. By then, T26-hull1 Glasgow would have been spent 11 years from her hand-over to RN in 2026. T31-hull1 Venturer would have spent 9 years from her hand-over to RN AFTER CIP, possibly on 2028.

Both classes will start seeing long overhaul, and addition of 1 or 2 more hulls will be needed even without any man-power increase. The 9th T26 will be there to just keep the number of active escorts = good rationale to build "one more".

[new guy]

Based on that the T83 needs to have the design finalised in 2028, contracts signed in 2030 and steel cut in 2031/2032.

Absolutely no chance of that timescale being accurate unless the T83 is a T26 with Sampson Mk2 plonked on it.

Looks like the OPVs will be built in Govan again.

To say the truth, what I feel is as follows:

In a man-power limited RN, the last T23 MUST be decommissioned when the last T26 needs her crew = 1.5-2 years before her IOC, or 0.5 years before her hand-over to RN. As the last T23ASW is to be decommissioned on 2035 (old plan, though), the last T26's shall be handed-over to RN on 2035, and her IOC could be ~2037.

This means her steal work will end around 2033 or 2034 at the latest.

So, T83 steal work must start around 2033. About 2 years later than your assessment (just my view). But yes, this means T83 concept must be fixed by 2030, to start several levels of designing process.

What if some delay? (highly probable). This time, before going into OPVs, I shall just hope an order of 9th T26 to save ~2 years. The 9th hull will be handed over to RN on early-2037. By then, T26-hull1 Glasgow would have been spent 11 years from her hand-over to RN in 2026. T31-hull1 Venturer would have spent 9 years from her hand-over to RN AFTER CIP, possibly on 2028.

Both classes will start seeing long overhaul, and addition of 1 or 2 more hulls will be needed even without any man-power increase. The 9th T26 will be there to just keep the number of active escorts = good rationale to build "one more".

That would be a nice thing to happen, and you gave viable logic for it. Realistically, I do not know.

[Poiuytrewq]

To say the truth, what I feel is….

IMO the U.K. must be absolutely sure that only 8x T26 is enough before shifting attention to the T83. Now that the price has stabilised around £900m it’s completely transparent as to what additional hulls would cost. Are more T26 genuinely required or should SSN, P8, XLUUVs or maritime MALE drones be procured in higher numbers?

Few would argue against RN adding mass but are extra T26s the correct mass to add?

Every T26 is roughly equivalent to 3x P8. Would 15x P8 and 8x T26 be more effective than 10x T26? What if the US starts to scale down the USNs P8 numbers covering the North Atlantic? What is the priority then?

If a RN SSN costs double what a T26 costs to procure and operate is an extra 2x SSN more effective than an extra 4x T26? What would a peer opponent fear most?

The costs of MALE drones and XLUUV’s are difficult to quantify but in general terms if the cost of a single T26 procured 9x Sea Guardians or 8x XLUUVs would an additional 2x T26 or 9x Sea Guardians and 8x XLUUV be more effective in securing the North Atlantic, the U.K. EEZ and the critical undersea infrastructure?

If a fully loaded T31 (£360m) is 40% of the cost a T26 (£900m) is another class of 5x fully loaded T31 more important than an additional 2x T26?

Realistically any funding increase will be modest if it happens at all but spending the best part of £2bn on two Frigates may not be most sensible way to proceed regardless of the drumbeat requirements at Govan.

[donald_of_tokyo]

To say the truth, what I feel is….

IMO the U.K. must be absolutely sure that only 8x T26 is enough before shifting attention to the T83. Now that the price has stabilised around £900m it’s completely transparent as to what additional hulls would cost. Are more T26 genuinely required or should SSN, P8, XLUUVs or maritime MALE drones be procured in higher numbers?

Few would argue against RN adding mass but are extra T26s the correct mass to add?

Every T26 is roughly equivalent to 3x P8. Would 15x P8 and 8x T26 be more effective than 10x T26? What if the US starts to scale down the USNs P8 numbers covering the North Atlantic? What is the priority then?

If a RN SSN costs double what a T26 costs to procure and operate is an extra 2x SSN more effective than an extra 4x T26? What would a peer opponent fear most?

The costs of MALE drones and XLUUV’s are difficult to quantify but in general terms if the cost of a single T26 procured 9x Sea Guardians or 8x XLUUVs would an additional 2x T26 or 9x Sea Guardians and 8x XLUUV be more effective in securing the North Atlantic, the U.K. EEZ and the critical undersea infrastructure?

If a fully loaded T31 (£360m) is 40% of the cost a T26 (£900m) is another class of 5x fully loaded T31 more important than an additional 2x T26?

Realistically any funding increase will be modest if it happens at all but spending the best part of £2bn on two Frigates may not be most sensible way to proceed regardless of the drumbeat requirements at Govan.

Sorry I am NOT proposing to build T26 to improve ASW capability. I am just proposing it to save the day for Govan. Yes, building 5 OPV will save 2 years and need £600M. Then, why not use £800M and build a single full-fat T26 in place, to compensate the "increase in maintenance load because of age".

This is my point. For ASW, your argument is valid, I agree. But just that is not my aim..

[Poiuytrewq]

Sorry I am NOT proposing to build T26 to improve ASW capability. I am just proposing it to save the day for Govan. Yes, building 5 OPV will save 2 years and need £600M. Then, why not use £800M and build a single full-fat T26 in place, to compensate the "increase in maintenance load because of age".

This is my point. For ASW, your argument is valid, I agree. But just that is not my aim..

Thanks.

I am not arguing the point one way or another, just pointing out the options. It’s easy to just ask for more and more of anything but it’s the outcome that is paramount.

It comes down to three main points:

1. If extra funding is provided to increase the U.K. ASW capabilities and safeguard critical national infrastructure on the seabed where should it be spent? This has to be decided before considering the second point.

2. How is it best to maintain the drumbeat at Govan between the T26 and T83 programs and when should this crossover begin?

3. Should the T83 be a T26 based design and should the T83 have a Tier1 ASW capability?

Much to consider.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks.

I am not arguing the point one way or another, just pointing out the options. It’s easy to just ask for more and more of anything but it’s the outcome that is paramount.

It comes down to three main points:

1. If extra funding is provided to increase the U.K. ASW capabilities and safeguard critical national infrastructure on the seabed where should it be spent? This has to be decided before considering the second point.

2. How is it best to maintain the drumbeat at Govan between the T26 and T83 programs and when should this crossover begin?

3. Should the T83 be a T26 based design and should the T83 have a Tier1 ASW capability?

Much to consider.

More of my concern is

4. Can MOD manage the schedule without delay? Hope it will, but likely fail. In this case, having a "plan-B" well thought from the beginning is very important.

We all remember how River B2 came out. It turned out to be "not bad" now, luckily. But if it were the so-called "River B3" = derivative of Al Khareef design with improved endurance/range and simpler armament, T31 program must not be there, and RN shall be with "4 River B1 OPVs, 3 OPV+ (UK Floreal) and 11 T26", in place of "3 River B1, 5 River B2, 5 T31 and 8 T26" as of now planned.

Either may work, but not preparing plan-B is a bad bad idea.

[Ron5]

Sorry I am NOT proposing to build T26 to improve ASW capability. I am just proposing it to save the day for Govan. Yes, building 5 OPV will save 2 years and need £600M. Then, why not use £800M and build a single full-fat T26 in place, to compensate the "increase in maintenance load because of age".

This is my point. For ASW, your argument is valid, I agree. But just that is not my aim..

Thanks.

I am not arguing the point one way or another, just pointing out the options. It’s easy to just ask for more and more of anything but it’s the outcome that is paramount.

It comes down to three main points:

1. If extra funding is provided to increase the U.K. ASW capabilities and safeguard critical national infrastructure on the seabed where should it be spent? This has to be decided before considering the second point.

2. How is it best to maintain the drumbeat at Govan between the T26 and T83 programs and when should this crossover begin?

3. Should the T83 be a T26 based design and should the T83 have a Tier1 ASW capability?

Much to consider.

Easy for me with no skin in the game

1. Type 26 because the carriers are so valuable. P-8's are nowhere near as valuable at ASW. SSN's are, but more are already in plan with work on the UK/Aussie boats continuing straight after the Dreadnoughts.

2. You mean workload, not drumbeat. Anyhoo, order a couple more T26 and bring the T83's forward to initially overlap T45's.

3. No. IMO, the RN has it correct, a warship designed for AA and ASW, will likely fail at being top end at both, will never be using the two capabilities at the same time and in the same place, and will cost megabucks. My vote goes toward the T83 being re-designated to Type 46 with all that implies.

[new guy]

Thanks.

I am not arguing the point one way or another, just pointing out the options. It’s easy to just ask for more and more of anything but it’s the outcome that is paramount.

It comes down to three main points:

1. If extra funding is provided to increase the U.K. ASW capabilities and safeguard critical national infrastructure on the seabed where should it be spent? This has to be decided before considering the second point.

2. How is it best to maintain the drumbeat at Govan between the T26 and T83 programs and when should this crossover begin?

3. Should the T83 be a T26 based design and should the T83 have a Tier1 ASW capability?

Much to consider.

More of my concern is

4. Can MOD manage the schedule without delay? Hope it will, but likely fail. In this case, having a "plan-B" well thought from the beginning is very important.

We all remember how River B2 came out. It turned out to be "not bad" now, luckily. But if it were the so-called "River B3" = derivative of Al Khareef design with improved endurance/range and simpler armament, T31 program must not be there, and RN shall be with "4 River B1 OPVs, 3 OPV+ (UK Floreal) and 11 T26", in place of "3 River B1, 5 River B2, 5 T31 and 8 T26" as of now planned.

Either may work, but not preparing plan-B is a bad bad idea.

4. Why would the MoD be able to create a good Plan B if it can't create a good Plan A?

5. The ordering of the Rivers B2 was such a rushed affair there was no time to do anything but slightly tweak the B1 plans. See #4 for why

[donald_of_tokyo]

4. Why would the MoD be able to create a good Plan B if it can't create a good Plan A?

It is easy. In many big programs, there is in many case a "fall-back plan" to save the day. It is even inherent in Systems Engineering. Just MOD omit that item from there program.

Including it is easy (but of course, not for free). Just a matter of policy.

[Ron5]

4. Why would the MoD be able to create a good Plan B if it can't create a good Plan A?

It is easy. In many big programs, there is in many case a "fall-back plan" to save the day. It is even inherent in Systems Engineering. Just MOD omit that item from there program.

Including it is easy (but of course, not for free). Just a matter of policy.

I understand that but if you're bad at planning, both your A and B plans will be bad

[donald_of_tokyo]

I understand that but if you're bad at planning, both your A and B plans will be bad

But it can be easily avoided. Just it.

There are two bads, by nature; "inherent/inevitable bad" and "just a matter of choice bad".

"A dog cannot fly by his own arm", inevitable bad. "Plan-B for ship building" is surely doable, and just a matter of choice.

[Ron5]

I understand that but if you're bad at planning, both your A and B plans will be bad

But it can be easily avoided. Just it.

There are two bads, by nature; "inherent/inevitable bad" and "just a matter of choice bad".

"A dog cannot fly by his own arm", inevitable bad. "Plan-B for ship building" is surely doable, and just a matter of choice.

You are an optimist

[Poiuytrewq]

1. Type 26 because the carriers are so valuable. P-8's are nowhere near as valuable at ASW. SSN's are, but more are already in plan with work on the UK/Aussie boats continuing straight after the Dreadnoughts.

Its not just about the carriers.

Safeguarding the critical undersea cables and inter-connectors may be even more important than operating a CSG now. A single MROSS was and is a token gesture.

My point was, how does the T26 fit into the UKs wider sub surface national security requirements and therefore how many are needed?

2. You mean workload, not drumbeat. Anyhoo, order a couple more T26 and bring the T83's forward to initially overlap T45's.

Ordering more is easy but should it be 2, 4, 6 or more?

Our new DS has suggested the U.K. is now in a pre-war phase. Even HMT cannot disregard an assessment like that.

Therefore if 8x T26 was the peacetime requirement was is the pre-war T26 requirement?

3. No. IMO, the RN has it correct, a warship designed for AA and ASW, will likely fail at being top end at both, will never be using the two capabilities at the same time and in the same place, and will cost megabucks. My vote goes toward the T83 being re-designated to Type 46 with all that implies.

IMO the T83 was pointing towards a super cruiser design which may or may not have been scaled back now. Perhaps FADS has made an impact on the design.

Regardless, if more T26 are required a Batch 3 optimised for CSG escort duties would be smart. No major alterations to ensure the build pace is not slowed down further and the cost does not rise exponentially. A reassessment of the number of CAMM and TLAM carried and a rethink on the Mk45, 30mm and Phalanx setup is justified. Maintaining the full use of the mission area remains a priority IMO.

Also RN really needs to come up with the next generation units to replace Artisan and Sampson. NS110 was acceptable for a Frigate optimised for export but what is next for the T26 B2/3 and T32?

[serge750]

Would a b3 T26 have a 57mm main gun, replace mk41 with a simpler VLS for CAMM could have the ER version aswell as the original 48, along with T45 for the CSG, leaving the other T26 for othe roles....i really do think the RN need a long range fast response all weather ASROC type armament though - which could mean keeping the mk41 ?

[Poiuytrewq]

Would a b3 T26 have a 57mm main gun, replace mk41 with a simpler VLS for CAMM could have the ER version aswell as the original 48, along with T45 for the CSG, leaving the other T26 for othe roles....i really do think the RN need a long range fast response all weather ASROC type armament though - which could mean keeping the mk41 ?

As far as the CSG is concerned it’s really down to what 2x T45 and 2x T26 contribute when acting together.

If the T45 is going to have the 16x Mk41 Strike cells fitted then it makes sense to remove the Mk8 and replace it with the 57mm at the same time. Adding 48x quad packed CAMM also seems possible and still leave deck space for 8x NSM. Replacing the 30mm and Phalanx for the 40mm would also seem pragmatic.

That would make the T45 one of the most deadly Destroyers afloat for another 20yrs if required.

• 57mm
• 4x 40mm
• 48x Aster30
• 48x CAMM (quad packed)
• 16x TLAM
• 8x NSM

So with two such fully loaded T45s protecting the CSG what would the two T26 need to contribute? The baseline T26 looks good so few adaptations are necessary apart from quad packing the CAMM and moving to the 40mm.

• Mk45 127mm
• 4x 40mm
• 48x CAMM (quad packed)
• 24x CAMM MR (double packed)
• 18x TLAM
• 8x NSM
• 6x ASROC

If they start commissioning the T26s like this RN should just keep building them until HMT says stop.

The final consideration is what can the T31 add to a CSG now? Originally it was nothing but that appears to be changing. If HMT swallows hard and allows 32x Mk41 cells (16x Strike, 16x Tactical) to be fitted to hulls 3,4 and 5 then the T31 will become one of the most capable GP Frigates afloat.

• 57mm
• 2x 40mm
• 32x CAMM (quad packed)
• 16x CAMM MR
• 16x TLAM
• 16x NSM

Considering where the T31 started from that would be amazing. Clearly for routine patrolling the load out would be much less but having the ability to rapidly scale up to a full wartime load out would a phenomenal force multiplier for the U.K.

However, the almost insurmountable problem remains; How the hell would the U.K. ever afford to fill all of these VLS cells?

The funding simply isn’t there and until it increases RN is going to be loading mostly fresh air.

[Tempest414]

Would a b3 T26 have a 57mm main gun, replace mk41 with a simpler VLS for CAMM could have the ER version aswell as the original 48, along with T45 for the CSG, leaving the other T26 for othe roles....i really do think the RN need a long range fast response all weather ASROC type armament though - which could mean keeping the mk41 ?

As far as the CSG is concerned it’s really down to what 2x T45 and 2x T26 contribute when acting together.

If the T45 is going to have the 16x Mk41 Strike cells fitted then it makes sense to remove the Mk8 and replace it with the 57mm at the same time. Adding 48x quad packed CAMM also seems possible and still leave deck space for 8x NSM. Replacing the 30mm and Phalanx for the 40mm would also seem pragmatic.

That would make the T45 one of the most deadly Destroyers afloat for another 20yrs if required.

• 57mm
• 4x 40mm
• 48x Aster30
• 48x CAMM (quad packed)
• 16x TLAM
• 8x NSM

So with two such fully loaded T45s protecting the CSG what would the two T26 need to contribute? The baseline T26 looks good so few adaptations are necessary apart from quad packing the CAMM and moving to the 40mm.

• Mk45 127mm
• 4x 40mm
• 48x CAMM (quad packed)
• 24x CAMM MR (double packed)
• 18x TLAM
• 8x NSM
• 6x ASROC

If they start commissioning the T26s like this RN should just keep building them until HMT says stop.

The final consideration is what can the T31 add to a CSG now? Originally it was nothing but that appears to be changing. If HMT swallows hard and allows 32x Mk41 cells (16x Strike, 16x Tactical) to be fitted to hulls 3,4 and 5 then the T31 will become one of the most capable GP Frigates afloat.

• 57mm
• 2x 40mm
• 32x CAMM (quad packed)
• 16x CAMM MR
• 16x TLAM
• 16x NSM

Considering where the T31 started from that would be amazing. Clearly for routine patrolling the load out would be much less but having the ability to rapidly scale up to a full wartime load out would a phenomenal force multiplier for the U.K.

However, the almost insurmountable problem remains; How the hell would the U.K. ever afford to fill all of these VLS cells?

The funding simply isn’t there and until it increases RN is going to be loading mostly fresh air.

For me as said Type 45 needs to be fitted with its Mk-41's and then buy and intergrate SM-6 for full BMD cover

A type 45 with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 32 CAMM , 48 x Aster 30 , 8 x SM-6 and 16 NSM is going to what the RN needs

Type 26 as is plus 16 NSM could carry 30 CAMM , 18 CAMM-MR , 24 TLAM & 16 NSM

Type 31 without MK-41 could carry 40 CAMM , 20 CAMM-MR , 16 NSM if we replace the forward 40mm with 20 CAMM and refit both 40mm's each side of where the rear 40mm is now

[Ron5]

A very thought provoking post. Thanks. Comments below:

Its not just about the carriers.

Correct. It's about CASD and the the carriers. Both need T26.

Safeguarding the critical undersea cables and inter-connectors may be even more important than operating a CSG now. A single MROSS was and is a token gesture.

Undersea protection can be performed by low level warships even STUFT.

My point was, how does the T26 fit into the UKs wider sub surface national security requirements and therefore how many are needed?

At least 10 to allow 4 guaranteed to be deployed/short notice at any one time.

Therefore if 8x T26 was the peacetime requirement was is the pre-war T26 requirement?

Peacetime T26 requirement is zero. Current requirement is minimum of 10 as I mentioned above.

IMO the T83 was pointing towards a super cruiser design which may or may not have been scaled back now. Perhaps FADS has made an impact on the design.

You may be correct but IMO it was more about sending a message to not constrain thinking about what these ships should be i.e. don't think about just a T45 with upgraded systems but think of what kind of ship supports whatever comes out of FADS.

Regardless, if more T26 are required a Batch 3 optimised for CSG escort duties would be smart. No major alterations to ensure the build pace is not slowed down further and the cost does not rise exponentially. A reassessment of the number of CAMM and TLAM carried and a rethink on the Mk45, 30mm and Phalanx setup is justified. Maintaining the full use of the mission area remains a priority IMO.

Limiting any warship to just one role isn't a great idea as the Falklands war illlustrated very well.

Also RN really needs to come up with the next generation units to replace Artisan and Sampson. NS110 was acceptable for a Frigate optimised for export but what is next for the T26 B2/3 and T32?

1000% agree. Give Bae money and marching orders to get on with the next generation of radars.

[new guy]

I'm a bit puzzled, how can a T45 be fitted with a Mk 41 when the space for that VLS has been used for CAMM?

[tomuk]

I'm a bit puzzled, how can a T45 be fitted with a Mk 41 when the space for that VLS has been used for CAMM?

You put the CAMM in Mk41 but of course that is imaginary.

[Poiuytrewq]

I'm a bit puzzled, how can a T45 be fitted with a Mk 41 when the space for that VLS has been used for CAMM?

Great question!

The space for the 16x Mk41 cells was actually designed to take 16x A70 cells as opposed to the A50 cells fitted for the Aster15/30. The Aster 70 cells have a footprint that is considerably larger than the Mk41 Strike cells.

Although the Mk8 was eventually fitted the original design allowed the possible incorporation of the 155mm TMF. If fitted the 155mm TMF would have also used the space reserved for the Mk41 cells but in the end the Mk8 ended up with a very generously sized gun room and of course the infamous gym.

It’s impossible to say for sure but if the Mk8 system was swapped for the 57mm system and the Mk41 cells are fitted instead of the A70 cells there should be enough space for a modest number of quad packed CAMM.

IMG_1494.jpeg