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

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

Which Anti-Ship Missile Should be Selected for the Type 26?

Lockheed Martin LRASM
164
52%
Kongsberg NSM
78
25%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
44
14%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
21
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 315

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

the noise from the platform is one of the major factors in warships. Machinery, propellor noise, and the noise flowing over the hull. It takes much reasearch on each hull and design is different. probably easier now with computer modelling to sort out.

User avatar
hovematlot
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by hovematlot »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
marktigger wrote:the other issue with ships and passive sonars is issues with flow noise over the hull and that might cause issues with the performance of the TASS
hovematlot wrote: Arleigh Burkes aren't great Towed Array platforms. The noise generated by their gas turbines puts them at a distinct disadvantage at long range passive sonar compared to a T26/T23.
Anti Air assets are normally close to the HVU, whereas the ASW TA unit would be many miles ahead of the task group. The RN hasn't got the luxury of numbers to have a T45 being employed in the long range ASW role head of the CV.
Interesting point.

I assume T26 shall be located ahead (or back) of the HVU a few tens of km, and T45 will be located at 2-10 km. The point is, this means there is NO ASW sensors other than hull sonars right around the HVU. A CAPTAS-2 on T45 (AAW asset) or GPFF (also as a goal keeper local- area air defense asset, I guess) can fill this gap, may be.

We know USN was operating SH60F with dipping sonar for inner layer ASW. I think this means, inner layer ASW is needed. Merlin can do this, but I think Merlin with long endurance and hi-level of sonar could better be deployed with T26 or even ahead of T26. Inner layer ASW already has many "flow noise" and "propulsion noise" within several km. So, if you build your T45 and GPFF "so so quiet hull", it may work?
Using a Towed Array close in amongst a task group would be a waste of time. The broadband noise from the CVF, DDG, AOR etc would drastically reduce the effectiveness of a Towed Array. Carrier groups continually alter course whether to take up flying stations or for torpedo countermeasures. The last thing a ship with a towed array kilometers long needs is to alter course more than is necessary.

617
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 20:39
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by 617 »

Is there a date for when the ships of the class will be named? Is this something that will come out of the national shipbuilding strategy?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by seaspear »

Would though a T45 not operating with the carrier benefit from an added asw suite hull and towed sonar ,so the ship can respond to a situation that requires that equipment after all the T26 may not be nearby

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

seaspear wrote:Would though a T45 not operating with the carrier benefit from an added asw suite hull and towed sonar ,so the ship can respond to a situation that requires that equipment after all the T26 may not be nearby

has the T45 got the acoustic suppression necessary to operate a TASS effectively?

rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by rec »

I would rather go for 10 Type 26s, + 8 SSKs, and 4 Holland class, indtead of 8 Type 26s, and 8 Type 31s

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

rec wrote:I would rather go for 10 Type 26s, + 8 SSKs, and 4 Holland class, indtead of 8 Type 26s, and 8 Type 31s
I'm sorry but I think it is too optimisitic in resource. If you say, "8 T26 + 6 SSK + 4 Holland", I think it could be possible. But, of course, the SSK is "coastal", with displacement of 2000t dived or so, and only be useful in UK water.

If the submarine threat near the Britain Island is very high, this idea makes sense, I agree. But it shall be coupled with abandoning both Kipion and APT-S. No resource left, I'm afraid.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

hovematlot wrote:Using a Towed Array close in amongst a task group would be a waste of time. The broadband noise from the CVF, DDG, AOR etc would drastically reduce the effectiveness of a Towed Array. Carrier groups continually alter course whether to take up flying stations or for torpedo countermeasures. The last thing a ship with a towed array kilometers long needs is to alter course more than is necessary.
But, isn't it the trend? USN Tichos has TASS. Array Burgs are getting it. So it is surely not "waste of time", just "a little in-efficient" I guess.

My point is that, IF you need inner layer ASW (=I think you need, SSK is real threat), a few CAPTAS-2 on T45 and/or GPFF shall be better (in cost and efficiency) than several Merlins. Merlin shall be powerful in outer-layer ASW. Another point is that, CAPTAS-2 will not be km long. Only 100-200m or so, I guess. Time when the TASS is properly deployed will not be so short, although I admit I am not a professional here. I am only looking at the trends...

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

what would be better would be Type 45 having been built to carry 2 merlins and additional merlins being bought

rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by rec »

Some responses

1) SSKs are not just coastal, the Japanese have ocean going SSKs which are capable of realativelycoastal operations. I think a good quality SSK would be a better ASW asset around UK waters and the \North Atlantic than a FLF which didn't have a quality ASW provison. (ie quiet, good sonar, asw weapons, and a helicopter). They would fre upe the few SSNs we have for coveri boith CVF and SSBN.

2) I think Venator could be a good bet, but only if it has a good sensor fit. The French seem to manage a TAS on their light frigates,so why not us? What is the FLF for? If it's as an escourt then it will need to be able to have a capable war fighting capability. We might be better of going for a 9th T26. The GP T23s are really just an asw frigate minus TAS and really not a GP friagte at all.

A GP frigate would be modern Type 81, if we need more asw then go for a smaller T26, in effect a modern Type 12.

3) IF it is about showing the flag, and deployments etc. Then a Venator might be fine, but can a Venator hack it as an escourt?

4) The Independence class might well prove a better flag waving option, as it would have mission dock and other capabilities, but it couldn't perform an ewscourts role.?

5) On Hollands, they are a good OPVs, better than the Rivers, but no one couldpretend they were a frigate,but they could act as a mother ship for MCMs in a conflict.

There are so many unknowns with this. ie Manpower available, budget etc. But the RN is facing big challenges: Too few resources in terms of manpower, aircraft carriers with limited self protection, and no dedicated air wings, too few SSNs , and too few surface escourts. Coupled with that the few new surface escourts (T45s) are unrealiable and lack modern anti surface and anti submarine capability Any Type 31 must be a capable platform, if the Venator can do that, then all the good, if not then we need to look at other options.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

Rec

Agree'd but last I heard one of the areas of the fleet with MAJOR manning issues was the submarine fleet one of the reasons the decision was being looked at was to put women on them. And they appear to be loosing more and more to the Australians. And again in terms of defence diplomacy you can't really have a reception aboard an SSK, they aren't that much use in anti piracy except for gathering information etc.

Showing the flag....The use of the Rivers is definetly sending out a message in the Carribbean IE UK is out of the game a holland might be slightly better but a proper frigate would be a better option.

I would suggest the Type 21 is the most modern example of a GP light Frigate.

I agree about the Hollands/venator/Kahreef they would be better placed as an OPV not a light frigate and would be a dam sight more useful. I would stick to mother shipping the MCMV's with the Survey ships as they provide other capability useful to that role.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by GibMariner »

marktigger wrote:I would suggest the Type 21 is the most modern example of a GP light Frigate.
The Type 21 is also a good example of what this hypothetical future 'GPFF' should not be based on, at least not without addressing and resolving its major issues, or else being doomed to the same fate.

The Type 21 came about as a design for export to 3rd world navies as the RN withdrew, keep up numbers of RN escorts in service and to maintain the desired build rate of 3+ frigates and destroyers while the T42 and T22 designs were not ready (sound familiar?).

They ended up being expensive compared to the more capable Leander-class (with 'T31' at serious risk of being the same vs T26).

They did have a lower manpower requirement than the Leander - due to more modern design, increased automation, gas turbines - but also because not all systems and weapons were to be manned simultaneously. They couldn't carry a RM detachment compared to the T22 and had a reduced capacity for self-maintenance, poor access to machinery, again rectified with the T22.

Their weapons systems were also lacking, they were fitted for but not with torpedo tubes, which were added in build to later ships and retrofitted on the rest. They lacked the long range radar most of the fleet had been fitted with. The only deep magazine was for the 4.5-in gun and they couldn't carry nuclear depth charges or many torpedoes for the embarked helicopter. The main gun did prove useful in 1982, however.

Sea Cat quickly became obsolete and because the Type 21 didn't have a sufficient growth margin, they were not able to be modernised with Sea Wolf and this, plus the fact that they couldn't be fitted with a towed array sonar like 2031 was the final nail in the coffin (something that definitely should be taken into account when designing the GPFF).

If a design like the Venator "frigate" (being the same length and with a wider beam than the T21) - which at this stage seems to be little more than a concept rather than an actual design - can avoid repeating all these issues, the RN gets more than 5, and be exported, great. But is it likely?

I'd say that the baseline in terms of both dimensions and capability for the future general purpose frigate is an evolution of the Type 23 design. Honestly don't understand this obsession with glorified OPVs and corvettes that will not solve any of the RN's problems and potentially create more of them.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

GibMariner I agree with the faults of the Type 21 however it was more of a GP frigate than an ASW one. It had a gun unlike a Type 22. They were also initallly built for but not with exocet and at least 1 didn't get exocet. Yes the margins were tight but then so was the budget as it also was on the type 42 who were left with many flaws. The leander was an excellent design but at the pinnacle of its development having been in development since 1959 and it was time to move on as the design limitations prevented further growth as was shown by the Exocet conversions and Ikara conversions . The type 81 was a dead end and used recycled equipment and tried a novel idea never repeated. And a great idea in COSAG leading to COGAG in the type 21 The size of the Type 22 is more like the Type 26 and TBH the Type 26 could be a better replacement of the Type 22 especially the batch 3 and should be the GP platform. I'm alarmed that the Type 31 is to be built with "savings" from the Type 26. I do hope that what we see going to build now is the Type 26 batch I.
Type 21 dragged Royal Navy frigate fleet forward but was again to keep scottish shipbuilding jobs. The Type 26 needs to have the potential to be exported which the new type 22 failed to do. And type 31 needs to be the same in order to help stabilise the build capability in the UK.
I totally agree with you about the Low expectation of the Type 31 being a glorified OPV's and think given the "expanded" role of the OPV they should be the OPV's should have been upgraded to corvettes. The danger with the Type 31 is that BaE will want more to build more Karheef's.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

Agree the new OPV's are underwhelming given their 'expanded' role, but that is no reason to drag the T31 down to fill the void left by patrol vessels with no hanger. It is an opportunity we have missed, we need to move on and consider that job done, even if to an underwhelming standard.

Instead focus on the T31 being an enabler that allow the T26 to exercise is long ranged, multi domain capabilities.

On the topic of historical classes, the T14 was bulit to complement the expensiveT12, it sounds like we're repeating the scenario again the T31 being built with the T26 being to costly.
@LandSharkUK

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:what would be better would be Type 45 having been built to carry 2 merlins and additional merlins being bought
Merlin's cost was 57% of T23 itself. This means, if you have a T45s with 2 Merlin, you can have a T45 with Wildcat, and a single T23 added. (Or 3 T45 with 6 Merlin can be 3 T45 and 3 Wildcats, and 2 T23 and 2 Merlin)
rec wrote:1) SSKs are not just coastal, the Japanese have ocean going SSKs which are capable of realativelycoastal operations. I think a good quality SSK would be a better ASW asset around UK waters and the \North Atlantic than a FLF which didn't have a quality ASW provison. (ie quiet, good sonar, asw weapons, and a helicopter). They would fre upe the few SSNs we have for coveri boith CVF and SSBN.
JMSDF Soryu costs 430M GBP, with "1 per year drumbeat" in "Japan". If you build the same ocean-going SSK, "only 8", and "in UK", I am not surprise if you need 600M GBP per boat. i.e. equivalent to T26. It is only if you stick to coastal SSK, there might be "8 T26, 6 SSK, 4 Holland" possible.
5) On Hollands, they are a good OPVs, better than the Rivers, but no one couldpretend they were a frigate,but they could act as a mother ship for MCMs in a conflict.
I guess River B.2/3 with a little modification can be easiliy Holland equivalent. Add a hangar to it. With Wildcat, LMM, SeaVenom, even without I-mast nor 3in gun, is actually better in many respect (if not all) than Holland. (I am proposing to equip 2 of the 5 with a hangar. No need for hangar in British water EEZ patrol).

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Engaging Strategy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:JMSDF Soryu costs 430M GBP, with "1 per year drumbeat" in "Japan". If you build the same ocean-going SSK, "only 8", and "in UK", I am not surprise if you need 600M GBP per boat. i.e. equivalent to T26. It is only if you stick to coastal SSK, there might be "8 T26, 6 SSK, 4 Holland" possible.
If you're projecting a UK SSK costing £600mn, you might as well just build Astutes for £750mn.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

GibMariner wrote:The Type 21 is also a good example of what this hypothetical future 'GPFF' should not be based on, at least not without addressing and resolving its major issues, or else being doomed to the same fate.
Good summary of T21 I think. I think T21 suggests:

1: shall not opt for speed. It is expensive, and requires to cut "margins" to lose weight.
2: Need diesel. Either CODAD, CODLAD or CODLAG. Cruising diesel is good for range as well as lower Center of Gravity (CoG).
3: shall have proper margin. This is why I stick to have a mission bay, even half the size of those on T26. Mission bay is inherently a margin.
4: CAMM. A "GPFF with CAMM" in 2030 is at least equivalent to, and actually better than, a dreamed "T21 with SeaWolf" in 1985.
5: Better to have a CAPTAS-2 (4 is better but "2" also looks "good"). CAPTAS-2 is half in weight of CAPTAS-4, and shall be also significantly cheaper.
I'd say that the baseline in terms of both dimensions and capability for the future general purpose frigate is an evolution of the Type 23 design. Honestly don't understand this obsession with glorified OPVs and corvettes that will not solve any of the RN's problems and potentially create more of them.
I think there is no common understanding of "what is glorified OPVs and corvettes" and what is "credible escort".

For me, ANZAC-NZ-mod (5in, CAMM, hull-sonar, heli, with 7000nm range) is a credible frigate if they have additional 400-500t of space and a CAPTAS-2. I think VENETAR 110 light frigate can do this, with small modification. For Khareef (2700t FL) mod, I actually think it needs significant improvement to be as large as 4000-4200t FL to be a credible light frigate. But, this is similar to the difference between original River B.1 (1800t) to Khareef (2700t), i.e. doable.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

Donald the Type 45 and Type 23 are already in existance.

Putting a 2 merlin sized hanger on ships doesn't mean you have to put 2 merlins.....However it gives you that capability and you can offload merlins from the carrier. It also gives you space you can put other things in.....you know like a mission bay!

TBH I'm getting sick of the attitude that it will be OK to send our guys and girls to a conflict zone in a PImped OPV why shouldn't our sailors not expect to have decent kit not some shitty OPV BaE hope to promote internationally to boost its profits. I crossed into the Iraq war in a Toyota pick up dressed to fight a war in NW Europe with borrowed US army body armour and with a 9mm pistol with 10 rounds of ammunition(I'll not list the rest of the Kit we were promised but never received) so i well understand what going to war under prepared is like. The Type 31 for their sake needs to be a proper warship. I wonder How HMS Leeds Castle or HMS Dumbarton castle would have fared in San carlos water. The Type 21's did badly enough but were able to contribute more than just being targets for the Argentine airforce. Their 4.5's provided essential fire support to the infantry attacks at goose green and in the battles for the mountains. They also contributed to the sinking of an argentine auxillary. As a light frigate they were deeply flawed however I wonder if their designers (Or the treasury)had in mind they would be in a conflict like the Falklands! But they certainly expected our service men to fight in them and die in them!

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Engaging Strategy wrote: If you're projecting a UK SSK costing £600mn, you might as well just build Astutes for £750mn.
Agreed.
It is because of long continuous investment that Japan have Soryu at 430M GBP in Japan. It is because JMSDF is inherently defensive, but with huge EEZ, long island-lines, that we need large SSKs which is the best asset for defensive operation, but not for offensive.

# Note: A Soryu-class ordered in 2014 was 333M GBP/boat. Newest Soryu with Li-ion battery replacing Stirling AIP is 430M GBP/boat.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

Engaging Strategy wrote:
If you're projecting a UK SSK costing £600mn, you might as well just build Astutes for £750mn.
totally agree but could you crew anymore Astutes? is the submarine service retaining personnel better than the surface fleet?

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:Putting a 2 merlin sized hanger on ships doesn't mean you have to put 2 merlins.....However it gives you that capability and you can offload merlins from the carrier. It also gives you space you can put other things in.....you know like a mission bay!
No objection here. But the CVF has the huge hangar so a single-Merlin-hangar in T45 itself is also not critical, I guess.
TBH I'm getting sick of the attitude that it will be OK to send our guys and girls to a conflict zone in a PImped OPV why shouldn't our sailors not expect to have decent kit not some shitty OPV BaE hope to promote internationally to boost its profits. .... The Type 31 for their sake needs to be a proper warship. I wonder How HMS Leeds Castle or HMS Dumbarton castle would have fared in San carlos water. The Type 21's did badly enough but were able to contribute more than just being targets for the Argentine airforce. Their 4.5's provided essential fire support to the infantry attacks at goose green and in the battles for the mountains. They also contributed to the sinking of an argentine auxillary. As a light frigate they were deeply flawed however I wonder if their designers (Or the treasury)had in mind they would be in a conflict like the Falklands! But they certainly expected our service men to fight in them and die in them!
Good point.

I'm afraid I missed your point, but, are there anybody asking an OPV to fight the war? (I did proposed to use OPV in APT-S, but it is simply because Argentina military is currently collapsed. If their air force are re-activated, more Typhoons will be needed there, though I am not sure about the need for an escort). If you are saying Khareef is just an glorified OPV, I also agree. If you are saying VENATAR110 light frigate is also an OPV, my answer is "it depends on how you arm it". Also, I think, "the 12m longer Khareef" (the same length of VENATAR110 light frigate) is looking for a light frigate, not glorified OPV.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

Donald read a little bit about life on HMS Hermes during the falklands she was so crowded that visiting helicopters were struck into the hanger and stuck on her for days to keep the deck open before the could get a deck slot to get off. I think i heard there was talk of sea dumping BN because she was occupying so much deck space so she was sent ashore. (Scram is a very good book to read)
In a conflict the carriers will be very busy places and if some of the pressure can be taken of for the essential routine stuff like the ASW screen all the better.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
I'm afraid I missed your point, but, are there anybody asking an OPV to fight the war? (I did proposed to use OPV in APT-S, but it is simply because Argentina military is currently collapsed. If their air force are re-activated, more Typhoons will be needed there, though I am not sure about the need for an escort). If you are saying Khareef is just an glorified OPV, I also agree. If you are saying VENATAR110 light frigate is also an OPV, my answer is "it depends on how you arm it". Also, I think, "the 12m longer Khareef" (the same length of VENATAR110 light frigate) is looking for a light frigate, not glorified OPV.
read this thread, type 31 and River threads together and there is a faction who believe that an OPV should be standing in for real warships. OPV's should be used within the EEZ for patroling those.

I've seen type 21 doing NGS in Belize on exercise and it was reassuring to know it would be supporting us if things went hot and we had been in a confrontation. A 30mm gun would have been useless. As you say the Argentine navy and Airforce is a bit of a busted flush however an MEKO 360 or a MEKO 140 are a little more powerfull than clyde. yes typhoon can support but not in a sustained manner like a frigate or destroyer if the Argentine navy choose to probe falklands waters.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by GibMariner »

marktigger wrote:GibMariner I agree with the faults of the Type 21 however it was more of a GP frigate than an ASW one.
The point myself and others have tried to raise is what constitutes a "GP" escort? One would presume it would have to have both ASW and AAW capabilities in order to qualify - even if they're not the top of the range, specialists like Type 45 or Type 26. The Type 21 ended being useless at AAW with obsolete Sea Cat and inability to be fitted with Sea Wolf, and relying on just a helicopter with modest magazine space aboard for its weapons for ASW - within just a few years of commissioning. Yes, the gun proved excellent in 1982, but the lack of AAW & ASW capability is what made them obsolete.
Yes the margins were tight but then so was the budget as it also was on the type 42 who were left with many flaws.
Type 22 was an evolution of the Leander hull so it did continue, in a way. Type 21 couldn't be modernised, whereas Type 42 was improved upon.
The leander was an excellent design but at the pinnacle of its development having been in development since 1959 and it was time to move on as the design limitations prevented further growth as was shown by the Exocet conversions and Ikara conversions.
Yes, the Leander was an ageing design and naturally there needed to be evolution, the point still stands that the Leander-class was able to be be modified well into the 80s, 20 years after they were designed, whereas it was decided it wouldn't be possible to upgrade the Type 21 just 5 years after HMS Amazon was commissioned.
The size of the Type 22 is more like the Type 26 and TBH the Type 26 could be a better replacement of the Type 22 especially the batch 3 and should be the GP platform.
There could be some merit in having a true Type 26 independent "cruiser" with an evolved-T23-type escort for the carriers, but I think the ship has sailed on that one.
I do hope that what we see going to build now is the Type 26 batch I.
It does seem a bit short-sighted for the government to announce even before build that only 8 will be ordered and end of story. Procurement of the T22 went quite slowly due to its cost versus the T42, and while also cut down from the original plans for ~24 T22, follow on batches and improvements continued.
The Type 26 needs to have the potential to be exported which the new type 22 failed to do. And type 31 needs to be the same in order to help stabilise the build capability in the UK.
There doesn't seem to be much hope of exporting Type 26, as stated by the government - but Australia is still a possibility so who knows? GPFF would also have its work cut out for it in the export market. In any case, the chances of either design being built in UK shipyards for foreign navies are very slim.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by GibMariner »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
I think there is no common understanding of "what is glorified OPVs and corvettes" and what is "credible escort".

For me, ANZAC-NZ-mod (5in, CAMM, hull-sonar, heli, with 7000nm range) is a credible frigate if they have additional 400-500t of space and a CAPTAS-2. I think VENETAR 110 light frigate can do this, with small modification. For Khareef (2700t FL) mod, I actually think it needs significant improvement to be as large as 4000-4200t FL to be a credible light frigate. But, this is similar to the difference between original River B.1 (1800t) to Khareef (2700t), i.e. doable.
I think it's pretty clear. No corvettes designed for coastal operations for a 3rd world navy, which will not match RN standards without a complete redesign at great cost, without margin for growth, resulting in a further loss of capabilities when the T23 retires (AKA Khareef); no up-gunned OPV designed for EEZ protection, with a serious degradation of capabilities compared to a T23 (AKA River); no glorified corvette which will end up repeating mistakes of the past (AKA Venator).

Post Reply