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

[Ron5]

On Phalanx, I take it the ships will be fitted for but not with them as I did not think we have enough to give every type 26 two of them

We won't need to give Type 26 two of them for a very long time. Of much greater concern is the lack of mention of the VLS or anything which may occupy them.

Look again.

[RichardIC]

Look again.

Ron. It's in the 2019 infographic. It's not in yesterday's press release.

Each Type 26 will be equipped with a range of world-class capabilities including the Sea Ceptor missile defence system, a 5-inch medium calibre gun, flexible mission bay, Artisan 997 Medium Range Radar and towed array sonar. The flight deck will be able to accommodate helicopters up to the size of a Chinook, while the mission bay can quickly adapt to house containers and deploy manned or unmanned vessels and vehicles.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/h ... royal-navy

[JohnM]

That's probably because the types of missiles haven't been chosen yet, since the first ship won't become operational for another 5 years. I'd fully expect those silos to be filled with FC/ASW in both it's anti-ship and land attack versions and VLA, i.e., VL-ASROC. I would also not be surprised to see a batch of Maritime and Land Attack Tomahawks be bought for the first three ships, both to bridge the gap until FC/ASW enters service and as insurance against that program going south...

[RichardIC]

That's probably because the types of missiles haven't been chosen yet

So why the change? It used to get mentioned but not now.

[tomuk]

Gearbox Issues?
There was much speculation on here as to what the black patches on the side of HMS Glasgow were when it was wheeled out, with thoughts they were acoustic tiles or a flank array.
After watching yesterdays defence committee hearing they might just be covers over the holes necessary to fit the gearbox(es).
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/6 ... t=16:00:26

[JohnM]

That's probably because the types of missiles haven't been chosen yet

No reason not to mention the VLS.

You're reading too much into it, need to calm down, lol... Every other single graphic, movie and press release mentions the VLS; these ships WILL HAVE 24 Mk-41 cells...

[RichardIC]

Every other single graphic, movie and press release mentions the VLS; these ships WILL HAVE 24 Mk-41 cells...

I'm calm mate. Here's a link to this year's Defence Command Paper. Maybe you can find the mention. Seriously, I'd love there to be one.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... d_Plan.pdf

The Mk41 have been ordered but they're no longer being mentioned. Read the room.

[JohnM]

What room? The 9 sets have been ordered… where are they going to go but the T-26s? I know there’s a long story of disappointment, but let’s all chill…

[SKB]

So the T26 has a 5" main gun, while the T45 has a 4.5" ?!

[tomuk]

So the T26 has a 5" main gun, while the T45 has a 4.5" ?!

Yes. The T45 has the old 4.5" Mk8 Mod 1.
The T26 will have the American 5" Mk45 Mod 4 with a large automated magazine. The combination being known as MIFS IGS (Maritime Indirect Fires System Integrated Gunnery System)
But this isn't news to anybody the order was placed five years ago.

[imperialman]

Gearbox Issues?
There was much speculation on here as to what the black patches on the side of HMS Glasgow were when it was wheeled out, with thoughts they were acoustic tiles or a flank array.
After watching yesterdays defence committee hearing they might just be covers over the holes necessary to fit the gearbox(es).
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/6 ... t=16:00:26

I was told at the yard they're acoustic tiles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

.... 157 core crew complement..

Adding the flight team of Merlin, it will reach 170 or more. Not much different from T23's 180-190 including flight.

Although it is as expected (I never believed it will be 120 or something), when has it grown?

... This MoD Infographic is dated June 2017 which also shows core crew as 157 so far from new.

Thanks. I did not knew it was "core" crew = not including the flight team. As ~190 crew of T23/T45 frequently reported in news includes flight crew (as I understand), T26's "crew" will be ~175 or so, which is only ~15 less than T23. So, there is almost no crew freed up from replacing T23 with T26.

Also think T31's "around 100" crew might increase, to, say, "~120 core crew + (Wildcat) Flight = ~135 ?" in near future. In this case, T23 replaced with T31 will free up ~60 sailers each (I guess).

Thanks.

[Ron5]

Look again.

Ron. It's in the 2019 infographic. It's not in yesterday's press release.

Each Type 26 will be equipped with a range of world-class capabilities including the Sea Ceptor missile defence system, a 5-inch medium calibre gun, flexible mission bay, Artisan 997 Medium Range Radar and towed array sonar. The flight deck will be able to accommodate helicopters up to the size of a Chinook, while the mission bay can quickly adapt to house containers and deploy manned or unmanned vessels and vehicles.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/h ... royal-navy

We were all discussing the picture displayed by @abc123. Didn't realize you had floated off someplace with your tin foil hat.

[Ron5]

Gearbox Issues?
There was much speculation on here as to what the black patches on the side of HMS Glasgow were when it was wheeled out, with thoughts they were acoustic tiles or a flank array.
After watching yesterdays defence committee hearing they might just be covers over the holes necessary to fit the gearbox(es).
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/6 ... t=16:00:26

I was told at the yard they're acoustic tiles.

They are. No debate, no question.

[Ron5]

.... 157 core crew complement..

Adding the flight team of Merlin, it will reach 170 or more. Not much different from T23's 180-190 including flight.

Although it is as expected (I never believed it will be 120 or something), when has it grown?

... This MoD Infographic is dated June 2017 which also shows core crew as 157 so far from new.

Thanks. I did not knew it was "core" crew = not including the flight team. As ~190 crew of T23/T45 frequently reported in news includes flight crew (as I understand), T26's "crew" will be ~175 or so, which is only ~15 less than T23. So, there is almost no crew freed up from replacing T23 with T26.

Also think T31's "around 100" crew might increase, to, say, "~120 core crew + (Wildcat) Flight = ~135 ?" in near future. In this case, T23 replaced with T31 will free up ~60 sailers each (I guess).

Thanks.

There's quite a few recent examples of ships entering service with a significantly larger crew than originally declared: French FREMM, LCS, Iver Huitfelds. I assume the small estimates were used to bolster their business cases.

I always remember that the biggest boon to the filing cabinet industry were computers i.e. systems claimed to reduce paperwork.

[Lord Jim]

Watching the whole session, the Chair had one of his weakest performances to date. The Committee kept asking he panel from Industry why wasn't this or that included in the ship design, yet surely this aspect rests with the MoD and RN in particular?

It was interesting how the BAe representative avoided mentioning the time to build each of the eight T-26 being stretched to fill the same timescale it would have taken to build thirteen, to maintain skills and workforce numbers, as mentioned by the Union General Secretary earlier. In fact he was was very careful not to put any of the blame on any particular party especially the Government, for the programme

The Thales (UK) Representative was put in a fairly awkward position as well regarding the delays to Crowsnest, being asked to reply in writing within two working days as what were the causes of the delays not just form Thales perspective by also Lockheed Martin an Leonardo!

And whilst I agree the UK spec for the T-31 is woefully under equipped, the Committee failed to understand that any export T-31e based ships will no doubt be more capable with the Customer deciding to add capabilities so that they are able to operate in higher threat level environments.

I still think the T-26 should be speed up with Government investment being made to build the vaunted "Frigate Factory", so that at least two ships can be at various stages of construction at any one time. Each ship once the first is in the water and accepted for service should follow at between twelve and eighteen months. It is bad enough the Navy is having to wait at least another six years to get HMS Glasgow accepted into service, but we are looking at the the possibility of the last T-26 not being accepted until 2040 if the programme encounters any problems at all, be they funding, engineering or political.

Regarding the MK41 VLS the Navy does need to start the ball rolling on what it intends to install, at least on the first three ships of the class as they will have to be available for the sea trial of HMS Glasgow, and we all know have convoluted the MoD's procurement process can be unless we are simply going to go to the US and buy whatever they use to roughly meet the capabilities we seek, VL-ASROC, Tomahawk Block 5, LRASM.

How does the FCASW timeframe match up to the T-26? Will it ready for ship number four?. Maybe we should look at getting the Aster 30 integrated into the Mk41 to allow the T-26 to act as extra magazines for the T-45, and offer greater choice down the line when the design for the T-83 is being decided.

I know I am skirting the topic of the thread but the MCM issues was one for concern. It is great news that autonomous Mine Warfare platform could be entering service next year, but the way I see it the only option for operating them is from the Bays with a ISO Container Operating Centre on their rear deck. Hopefully they actually fit in the T-26's Mission Bay, and a bespoke Mothership needs out be designed and built to enter service before the end of the decade, and not the T-32, which need to be a proper, capable light Frigate if the Navy's escort force is to actually grow and enable the service to start covering all the new missions it has been tasked with, having vessels forward deployed all over the world that are in many cases fully combat capable against similar ships.

So like the Army, the Navy has some grand aspirations, but it is pretty woolly how they are going to get their within a reasonable timeframe. We now just need to hear about the RAF's aspirations and programmes from an industrial perspective via the Select Committee, if I haven't missed that already.

[RichardIC]

We were all discussing the picture displayed by @abc123.

That picture dates from 2019. We were discussing an event that happened this week. Keep up.

[Ron5]

We were all discussing the picture displayed by @abc123.

That picture dates from 2019. We were discussing an event that happened this week. Keep up.

Not hardly, we were discussing the picture, you were off the the weeds having a hissy fit.

[RichardIC]

Not hardly, we were discussing the picture

Now we're on the same page Ronald, what's your explanation for the omission of VLS from this week's press release (this is the News Only thread), while CAMM and the gun were mentioned? And while we're at it why wasn't there any reference in the Defence Command Paper.

I'm not imagining it. And we all know the VLS have been ordered. So why omit to mention them?

[tomuk]

Not hardly, we were discussing the picture

Now we're on the same page Ronald, what's your explanation for the omission of VLS from this week's press release (this is the News Only thread), while CAMM and the gun were mentioned? And while we're at it why wasn't there any reference in the Defence Command Paper.

I'm not imagining it. And we all know the VLS have been ordered. So why omit to mention them?

Because there is currently no plan/cash to put missiles/asroc in them. Therefore a bit embarrassing to tout the world class empty VLS.

[tomuk]

Gearbox Issues?
There was much speculation on here as to what the black patches on the side of HMS Glasgow were when it was wheeled out, with thoughts they were acoustic tiles or a flank array.
After watching yesterdays defence committee hearing they might just be covers over the holes necessary to fit the gearbox(es).
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/6 ... t=16:00:26

I was told at the yard they're acoustic tiles.

They are. No debate, no question.

I don't remember if I agreed at the time but they defiantly looked like acoustic tiles. The bigger concern is the gearbox issue. Lets hop they do plenty of trials on the 'fixed' design before fitting them to Glasgow. Lack of trials was one of the T45 WR21 issues, most of the running hours were with the known faulty intercooler design. The redesigned intercooler was only briefly tested.

[Scimitar54]

RichardIC Wrote:

I'm not imagining it. And we all know the VLS have been ordered. So why omit to mention them?

.

Because the “Missiles” (Weapons), whatever they may turn out to be have not been specified. In other words as far as missiles are concerned they are FFBNW. To mention the VLS would be akin to stating that such and such an aircraft is armed with “X” number of Hardpoints on its wings/fuselage (Very interesting, but it does not tell you what the aircraft will be armed with! The important word in the statement was “INCLUDING”. It did not say “COMPRISING”.

[Ron5]

Not hardly, we were discussing the picture

Now we're on the same page Ronald, what's your explanation for the omission of VLS from this week's press release (this is the News Only thread), while CAMM and the gun were mentioned? And while we're at it why wasn't there any reference in the Defence Command Paper.

I'm not imagining it. And we all know the VLS have been ordered. So why omit to mention them?

There's a very long laundry list of type 26 capabilities and equipment missing from Bae's press release. It's paranoid to conclude that if something was not mentioned in the PR, it will not be present on the ship. I fear that your obsession with the Royal yacht has affected your judgement.

[Ron5]

Gearbox Issues?
There was much speculation on here as to what the black patches on the side of HMS Glasgow were when it was wheeled out, with thoughts they were acoustic tiles or a flank array.
After watching yesterdays defence committee hearing they might just be covers over the holes necessary to fit the gearbox(es).
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/6 ... t=16:00:26

I was told at the yard they're acoustic tiles.

They are. No debate, no question.

I don't remember if I agreed at the time but they defiantly looked like acoustic tiles. The bigger concern is the gearbox issue. Lets hop they do plenty of trials on the 'fixed' design before fitting them to Glasgow. Lack of trials was one of the T45 WR21 issues, most of the running hours were with the known faulty intercooler design. The redesigned intercooler was only briefly tested.

Labour idiot #91, Hoon, cancelled most of the T45 onshore trials to save money. A mistake not being repeated with the type 26. Hence the hefty cost of the contract because Bae insisted on a full onshore test facility and set of trials*

*once gain demonstrating that dividing the contract in 3 to determine the cost of each ship lacks any credibility. Not that stops the usual suspects from doing so at every occasion.

[SD67]

That explains the 859 million demonstration phase which was the risk reduction and response to the T45 fiasco. Doesn't impact the 3.6 billion build contract for 3. 1.2 billion per unit, out of which about 300 million is an electoral bribe there's no other way of putting it.